You must log in or register to comment.
Hate is too strong of a word. AI art is sometimes freaky to look at, sometimes it’s pretty. It is usually devoid of a certain intangible thing that you can get from human art, even shitty human art. But it’s occasionally a fun toy too? I can’t conjure up any strong feelings for AI images unto themselves.
I do have intense loathing for the capitalists who want to use that AI art to replace human work. And for the AI “Artists” who are enabling them by acting like this is the next evolution of art and anyone with concerns is just holding back “DA FUTER”.
I also have concerns about the environmental/energy costs of AI – Just in general. Not just AI Images or Chatbots or whatever. AI can be a good thing, a tool to help us. And even when it’s useless, it’s kinda fun to mess about with. But the energy and environmental costs of all that computing, especially the amount of it that is wasted because even if AI ultimately becomes a part of our lives, it is DEFINITELY a wasteful investment bubble right now – THAT sucks. And THAT seems to have no obvious solution.
I don’t even consider AI generated images to be art since there is no expression of skill, imagination, or feeling in them.
I tend to agree with that. I also hate that of all the great uses for generative AI, this is the direction they took the tech. It’s not a replacement for whole jobs, and I knew that at the onset, but so many dumb business types thought it could replace entire departments, customer service, etc.
to be honest, i’m not only referring to images. any kind of what so called “art” since it’s possible now to make “music” with AI. thanks for the response anyway.
Even if the image was regenerated with tweaked prompts until the generated image expressed what the prompter wanted to convey?
I don’t think we’re at the level AI prompting can be used to reflect the subtlety needed to make art. It’s like chainsaw art, cool and mebbe art but it’s not art like the old masters art.
Also everyone thinking that shitting out a Rembrandt liking image is fantastic does not understand what art really is.
Then it’s still just a commissioned work
But would that then imply that all commissioned works aren’t art?
Or does the difference of who (or more specifically what) you commission to produce something decide whether it’s art?
An artist has done the art in question. That makes all the difference.
If the person using the paintbrush is the artist - not the brush itself - then why doesn’t the same logic apply to AI? It’s just a tool, after all. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own. Sure, you could ask it to spit out a picture with no effort, but you can do the same with a camera. However, if you have a clear vision of how you want the final result to look, it’s a different story. Getting AI to output an image is easy. Getting it to output your image - that’s hard.
It’s not hard. What are you, a „prompt engineer“?
If you asked a human to draw an image of what you describe, it would be easier and you still would not be considered an artist. So why should a “prompt engineer” be considered an artist?
Well, firstly, “art” and “artist” are human-invented concepts - they don’t exist in the real world, only in our minds - so in the end, we’re essentially debating semantics. That said, if you hire an artist, then yes, they’re the artist, not you. But I don’t think that same logic applies to AI, because it’s not making any decisions on its own. It’s a tool, just like a paintbrush, camera, or drums.
If an elephant paints a picture, is that art? And is the elephant the artist? If a child bangs on drums and is just making noise, is that art? Are they the artist? If I grab a camera, point it somewhere, and press a button, is that art? Am I the artist? Personally, I’d say each of those is easier to do than writing a prompt that actually produces the image you had in mind, yet I doubt you’d come telling me that my photography isn’t art only becuse I didn’t put enough effort into it.
I’m not hugely experienced with AI image generators, but I have played around with one, trying to get it to create a specific kind of picture I had in mind - and I’ve ended up with something like 70 variations, none of which quite hit the mark. I’ve already spent over four hours on this project, and if I somehow manage to figure out the right prompt and finally get the image I’m after, then yes - I’d say that’s art and I’m the artist.
Yes even then. Writing a prompt is no more an artistic skill than describing your idea to an artist you’re commissioning. You didn’t create a damn thing. You will not be called an artist for commissioning a work.
The person inputting prompt modifications may have controlled the larger assets as a whole, but they did not curate the Gestalt of the image. If the input is text that a computer is to output as a literal estimation, then it is data, not art; if the input is data curated by a person who means for a computer to output it as plotted data, such as with a complex lineplot or 3D model or even text as ASCII images, then that can be art.
Exactly this.
AI generation is a gradient from clean up to controlling every pixel.
If an artist draws the line art, does basic coloring, but has a network do the sharing, that’s art. How far does that carry?
Surely, anything that had heart and soul poured into it is art, right? Text prompt, or otherwise. You don’t have to resonate with it. You can be scared of it.
But you said imagination, feeling, skill make up art. It is bold, or naive, to think those who create AI works doesn’t have these traits, like to say the hobbies, programmers, and the curious, aren’t artists.
I agree.To me art is an expression of the soul; it’s an expression of one’s perception of the world. It has spiritual qualities (in an atheist sense). There is an inner world that puts out together a piece of art that LLMs do not possess and that’s why they need to train on existing material that comes from human expression.
I highly doubt an LLM suffers, loves, hopes, hates and cries like us. Art is an expression of who we are individualy and collectively. LLMs only hallucinate with art made by humans. While we humans can find inspiration from other artists, it is not a necessity to train on vast databases of art pieces to put something together. They say that while it’s hard to define what art is, you know it when you see it. To me when I get that feeling from something made by AI, all I really see is a piece of an other artist’s soul trapped in some sort of simulacrum put together by an algorithm.
Cut the training material and AI “art” will stagnate. We, on the other hand, won’t.
That’s why I think AI art will never really be art… unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
deleted by creator
In general - yes. There is a flood of shitty and lazy “art” that has infected search results and creative spaces. I’m also deeply uncomfortable with it being trained on artists work without their consent - for all the talk about it being equivalent to human inspiration I’m pretty sure there have been examples where it’s started generating attempts at signatures.
It’s terrible in knitting and crochet spaces (I imagine woodworking and sculpture and architecture too) because there are lots of things generated which are physical impossible and just wrong to anyone who enjoys the crafts. It gives false understandings of what those art forms look like.
I think the entire point of art is the human intentionality aspect. Art is humans using materials to do things that don’t serve an immediate practical purpose. There has to be some element of “desire” on the part of the artist.
So it’s not that it is impossible to use AI tools to generate art (there’s stochastic computer generated pieces from the 70s that are lovely iirc) To me though, the way these tools are used is what is important - if you’re using an AI you’re training and adjusting yourself, if you’re spending hours tweaking prompts and perhaps sifting through hundreds of pictures to combine and really participate in “making” something.
The current trend is really just a bunch of content sludge. I don’t see the appeal in either the process of creation or in what can be appreciated from it. The best stuff is mostly memey topical political jokes, where it rests more on the symbols rather than the art itself.
Like, when I make art - my process is adding layers over weeks and weeks. It’s noticing that I don’t like the way this section looks, so I go back over it, come back to it later… it’s a process - I engage with and shape the work. I’m just a guy who glues trash to things and paints them, my art doesn’t really have external value - but it still feels like art in a way that getting Midjourney to make pictures of Gandolf with big honking naturals isn’t.
Nice try. I’m not helping you improve your art algorithms for free. You need to pay some art teachers for feedback like that.
haha, i don’t developing an algorithm related to AI. i was just asking because now, my people in my country are using AI to convert their pictures to Ghibli Studio’s art style. just asking here people on Fedi about that.
I was playing. Thanks for your sincere response, though.
As an artist I’m conflicted. I like new technology and methods and mediums, but it’s entirely unethical to make models on unconsenting artists with no compensation or recognition.
i feel you
As an art appreciator it just looks bad
Hate it? Yes. Respect people who use it? No.
Depends on what it’s used for. Looks tacky when used by big businesses, but looks fine if used by small independent people. Like dbzer0.com just uses them for blog thumbnails. But coca cola AI adverts? Ai bots spouting stuff on Facebook? Entirely AI generated websites (although that’s moreso text)? Awful.
No it looks bad on dbzer0 as well. Have they heard of… stock images?
What if there’s some thing very specific you need that stock imgs can’t easily provide ?
Not 100% specific images > ugly images
Stock images are a whole category of awful of their own.
That cost an exorbitant amount of money?
Free stock images and royalty free images exist
Does anyone else feel ill when seeing some AI images? It’s like an out of tune piano for me
Huh. AI pics don’t bother me but I get that exact feeling looking at most optical illusions.
Yeah but only if it’s professionally used. In a meme or something it’s fine but it’s gross when used in ads, logos, games, etc. It’s so weird in profile pictures and wallpapers as well.
some times i do :)
Not a fan. It admittedly can be an amusing toy - type something in and wow look what it did! But the costs are high, and our society isn’t a utopia where people don’t need to labor for survival.
Maybe if we were post scarcity it wouldn’t matter that much. But we’re not, and this AI stuff is going to hurt labor, benefit the ownership class, and probably be mildly bad for end users too.
Yes. It’s flooding places, and suddenly people decided that “smooth looking” was the absolute end goal of any drawing/music/creation/etc. It’s not. Some of the most famous art piece are completely wrong, some aren’t. That’s not the endgoal. Nobody’s gonna care that you can take that very simplified drawing and “generate” an extremely high-detail, fully shaded image that looks like it, as it was never the purpose.
Creative direction, intent, consistency (or absolute lack of consistency), execution, style, and a lot more goes into any creation, art or not. That’s what make a piece feel interesting. There’s a reason even now, with generated content being plausible as far as glaring mistakes go, we can still point out which image “feels” AI across a lot of different styles. At best, to remove that feeling of it being wrong, you’d have to spent a lot of time on the output of a model to touch it up everywhere and change details, which requires time and proficiency, which a lot of people jumping on that trend definitely lacks. Some of the worst results I’ve seen have been from people trying to make other “pay” for their output.
There’s also the issue of how these works. For decades, creative people (among other) have been sued by big companies, some very harshly, to protect IP from such overexploitation as “using a three second excerpt in a video” or “using the vague likeness of a character”. And now, these same targets are getting fleeced of their work by more big companies under the cheer of the people. That’s a gut feeling of disgust right there. Combined with the utter lack of creativity in these, we’re really watching the potential death of an activity (artistic creation), and that’s not a good place to be. If one wants to argue that “generated art” is also a form of creation, keep in mind that these models can’t be trained on generated pieces without extreme prejudice. Killing the very source they need to operate does not seem like a good long-term plan. But who cares about long-term when you can make a quick buck, right?
I’d also like to point out that all this rambling is about generated content that goes from “output of a model” to “final piece” with little to no afterthought. The “common” piece, where people will be happy to see twenty broken pieces because “well, there’s a lot of them, so it’s good”. AI and LLM models, as a tool, may or may not be useful in the long term, but I can see smaller applications, even for art. A lot of menial tasks can be improved, general posing, references, simple background that are marginally considered part of the product, guides, etc. Taking something you’ve drawn/created, and locally use an AI “filter” to remove an extra line cleanly or touch up a mistake you want out? Great. The tool carries the intent of the artist, the same way a pen do.
But AI generated content? Make a prompt, a stick-figure sketch, and call it a day? These, IMO, will always look and taste like garbage, no matter how pretty they look. Because it was never “pretty” we were looking for.
i’m utterly bored by it and annoyed that it mucks up all the places I’d usually steal images for my TTRPG games.
Environmental impacts 🤷
deleted by creator
