- This topic has 39 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The AI is just a collection of data and makes a "collage" of a cultural baggage about "what the programmer considers beauty".
Art is a reflection of human culture. It is not the result of chance, but of banal customs, philosophical thoughts and/or events that alter human behavior.
@hodor : Conceptual artists will have the best future. A program cannot generate ideas such as surrealism, for example: It is not just a painting, but a way of life. And to that, to do "nonsense" we are the masters of the Universe, the absolute champions. We are not "neither angels nor demons", which are human ideas. We are much better: Poorly finished beings in continuous evolution with our mistakes, our misery of ideals due to the concept of "homeland" that generates wars, but the counterweight of writing a sentence capable of giving goosebumps on a note left on the our beloved couple's pillow... (And then there's DAZ to screw up!LOL)I do AI for a living. Agree with a ton of points made here, but a few missing.
1. This stuff started being able to make small 32x32 images five years ago. Imagine how good we'll be five years from now (the latest models are beginning to make small videos now). Then when it's completely photorealistic and commoditized it'll be everywhere.
2. Copyright is dead. There's no way to prove what's what in terms of training images or weights of a neural network. And much like policemen didn't go to people's houses to check they weren't using Napster, they won't be checking you don't train on some large corporation's cartoons either.
3. I think in the long run consistency will creep in those AI tools (it's hard to say create the same character twice, or tell them to do another camera view of a given scene now). This will come via developments in neural rendering. When that happens and you can easily do a series of images, comic-style, it might give even medium-level 3d tools a run for their money, so I doubt Daz will have much to offer then.
Bonus observation: if I can stick 10 new portraits on DeviantArt with Stable Diffusion and Lightroom in a (busy) evening... does this mean soon there will be much more creation than actual eyeballs to appreciate the art ?
It's like paying someone a commission to make a piece of art then telling everyone you did it.
I liked the results I got when I tried it but felt the product was empty and I held no true connection to it.
“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
I think it will be the end of the digital artist as we know it , so much for true artistic talent.
If you wanna do Ai art you need a complete guide on how to make it give you better results oh and I suggest you look up how to run one off your computer off of git for free instead of trying to get in or pay for one. you can use commas to emphasize results or say oil painting or a artists name to get more of what your looking for but you need to find the right words. I've messing around with it but it's very difficult to get something you want.
IMO a non-sentient (un-self-aware) entity cannot produce art because it has no understand of the world, nor its relationship with the world, nor possess its own artistic means of expression. Without worldly or personal experiences it's at best elaborate plagiarism. And this isn't human-centric as other living creatures possess sentience.
".... an ape in the Jardin des Plantes, who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature's cage."- Nabokov. Even this is beyond what AI can produce with no self-awareness, neither experiencing joy or sadness or emotions or any life of its own..... pretty pictures with no soul behind them isn't art.
"The girl I like", "Boy and for the girl hooray", "Here is a jump for joy"... this is real art given to me 10+ years ago and no AI algorithm can produce that any more than a plastic spirograph can make art.
A drawing that has personal or emotional value does not automatically become art or of any value to anyone other than to that person who it has meaning to.
Some people, IMO, are still very naive about this new phenomenon that is AI. Art created by AI already can be indistinguishable from art that you(anybody) considers "real" or authentic.
Before there were planes, some well educated men claimed that machines heavier than air will never fly...
Some experts claimed that computer games will never gain popularity and be soon forgotten...So people who claim still that AI will never do what "real" artist can do, i put in the same category as the examples above.
I see one big issue with AI art tho, because ai can spit out hundreds of images in one hour running on a home PC, nearly all of those images are worth sh*te and i am already getting tired of it.
@Hodor I agree. I've been playing extensively with Stable Diffusion for over a week now and maybe 1 out of 200 are anywhere near the quality of DAZ studio/Poser looks. It's better at cartoon looking humans and things like landscapes and buildings.
@Oldenwolf Not sure if you know, but you can train an AI to be good at generating specific images. there is NovelAI for instance, which is excellent at making anime images.
and this AI is truly mind boggling https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ it generates photo-realistic human faces. (refresh page for new face)
@hodor I used to use a similar ai to thispersondoesnotexist to create faces for FaceGen for Daz. Allowed you to get some pretty interesting faces based on selectable parameters and they were generally better than trying to find real people pictures since rarely do people just face straight towards the camera 😛
This guy has an amazing PS site but here's something else.
Good luck completing with an algorithm that can reference billions of pictures and thousands of artists.
Art is more simple than taking a nap.
While I cant complain about stealing content. Kinda what we do here. I will complain about calling another's content your own. I've no objection to letting anyone know I've not created a daz character or that I dialed it in off a few Mousso characters. Or the background is probably Stonemason. Did I pay for it? Nope but, I sure as hell didn't design it.
I wanted to post reply, but I keep getting "A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site" so either the AI overlords deemed it too risque, or this subject is cursed
To me making art gives me a sense of accomplishment. Figuring out which things to put where, lighting, color combinations, etc.
And yes, with Daz assets are made by other artists, but I don't feel I need to re-invent the wheel to make art, so for me it's about making things with the tools I have, in the best way possible, as well as putting my creativity into it.
So, if you feel accomplished by doing art with AI, more power to you. For me, at least for now, it feels a bit too "cheaty" and doesn't require me to develop the artistic skills that I am interested in, nor does it give me the degree of control and precision I am looking for.
@Littlepleasures I understand you my man. I share your views and anger.
When the movie 'Tron' came out it was not considered as a contender for a special effects Oscar as it was thought that they had 'cheated' by using computers.
AI art is here to stay and it is only going to get better and more powerful.
I used to consider post work was cheating (I know right?) but I came to realize that it was just another tool for me to use.
All this being said i do think that AI generated art should be identified by the creator and not something they did all on their lonesome.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
