But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
I’ll say it again because I always do. I’ve never seen AI art that I couldn’t tell was AI generated . It’s always wrong. The light source is always wrong, like the lighting is painted on subjects instead of cast onto them. And it lacks imperfections caused by human hand. Maybe it’s the photographer in me, but I’ve never seen believable lighting in AI art
You haven’t taken the time to train your own stable diffusion model on an artist’s work who is good at lighting. Shadow length and skew drawn by a suggested light source is pretty easy for SD models to start getting right, especially if they’re working from a gallery of one art style/type of composition. The article is stating what should be obvious to everyone at this point: this existed before the AI boom and you didn’t recognize it until the layman had access to the technology and didn’t refine the model or prompts to get these things right.
Oh I don’t work with the stuff, it’s just from what I’ve seen. I don’t really find any AI art I’ve seen to be this big impressive thing. I’m more interested in it from a data standpoint. I feel like not actually making your own art feels kind of depressing. Like what’s the point? Unless it’s for commercial use? Like if I feel creative, I’m going to make something.
Like I used to write, and I feel like if I wanted to write, I’d write. I don’t see the point in “writing” a prompt that pulls from other people’s work. Like what would I get out of it?
Yeah, commercial applications for it are great. It Makes life easier, lowers the barrier to entry, and hopefully will result in less work.
But for purely creative and cultural reasons, I just don’t see the point. Like I know nothing is original and we all pull from somewhere, but part of the enjoyment —to me— is the process of learning, of researching, reading other’s work to hone my craft.
And art without that is soulless and not an act of expression that comes from the deep reaches of ourselves.
It’s as empty as somebody buying a race car and a team to manage it, versus someone building their own and knowing every inch of it.
I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
All hail the eternal machine!
This whole discussion on wherever AI can create art or not is a bit dull IMO.
To me it is clear, only humans can create art, because art is part of a human expression of an novel (to them) inner process and thought. Not everything humans do is art, much of it is repetitive. Humans can use any tools to create stuff, art or no art, including AI. Humans can suck at the actual creation process, but still produce art.
So if someone enters 3 words into a AI generation model, and chooses an image, or something, they are not producing art, they are shopping. If they spend time tweaking and adapting models and prompts to help them realize what they want to express, then they are doing art.
deleted by creator
You mean when you strip away people’s knee-jerk negative bias to AI art, people really just like art that looks good? Shocking. It’s almost as if the push against AI art is futile as, despite people’s complaints, it can pretty consistently produce good outputs.
Is it futile because of how easy to use and usually used by creatively bankrupt annoying tech bro, or is it futile because they have multibillion company backing them?
Idk, i can’t tell.
People had the same complaints about photography many years ago. Times change.
People putting boundaries on what is and isn’t art has probably existed for as long as art has.
Photography takes skill. Punching a sentence into a computer takes no skill. AI does not create art. It creates pictures.
Humans create art.
And now humans create art by punching a sentence into a computer. Are the images nice? Can they provoke thoughts and feelings? Then they’re art. Don’t like it? Too bad, AI art is here to stay because of how easy it is. Learn to cope.
Sorry my opinion upset you. But I’m keeping it.
That’s fine, you are perfectly free to believe that an apple is a cucumber. And the rest of the world is perfectly free to disagree and dismiss you.
You’re wrong.
See how that works?
Photography is just pointing a camera and pressing a button. It takes no skill.
See, it’s easy to be reductive.
How do you define art? Is it dependent on the amount of “skill” required to create it? What even is artistic skill? Is one allowed to use auto-focus for a photograph to be considered art? Do you have to develop your own film?
These are all irrelevant thresholds on the inputs for something to be considered art. What determines whether or not something is art is the output of a creative process.
Ahhh, the whole photography bit.
Well, let’s see. I’d agree with you if:
-
it didn’t take a human to find a subject or location worthy of shooting, know what angle to shoot from, what time of day to shoot….
-
it didn’t take a human to know how to adjust the lighting and color vibrancy to bring life to the picture.
-
it didn’t take a human to know what camera to use, what zoom level, what aperture….
There are TONS of legendary photographs taken that a computer would never have been able to do.
Stop with the photography argument. It’s bad.
Everything you just listed can be human inputs to AI generated art. Humans still drive/manipulate the inputs, it’s just in a different way. A human can still come up with an artistic vision or idea and manipulate the tools (prompt) to that end.
Obviously you can use minimal creativity to get unremarkable AI art, but you can do the same in photography with a point and shoot camera. It’s about the creativity and artistic vision, not the tool.
I agree, there are tons of photographs a computer can’t generate. Because it’s a different artform. Just as there are tons of paintings a photographer could never create.
If programming a robot to throw a football doesn’t make the programmer an athlete, then AI “art” isn’t art.
Period.
-
people really just like art that looks good?
This is simply false, and completely misses the point of art.
