• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Art, AI and I

Migrated topic.
Fridge

Fridge

Rising Star
I see all these AI art programs popping up like mushrooms in autumn these days. It's incredible what it does and it's surely fun to play around with it.

Hopefully it is ok to share my opinion as someone who found drawing the old school way to be a calling in life. I thought about AI and art a bit the last couple of days and a question came up. Do you think art created by AI is equally expressive as art created by a human being? I mean when one looks at a picture it's usually not just "cool, that looks awesome", it's more than that. Artists usually want to express something very personal. Can AI do that too? You might sense that I am skeptical about this development and I will elaborate, but before I do, I am curious about what everyone thinks.
 
It's a great question. I'm an artistic person although drawing and painting has never been my strength. More craft based, woodwork focus. Also with electronic music. I've always made longbows for example and consider the love and attention a form of art displayed in the final creation. At the least it satisfies me to hold and view what has been created with practice and long effort.

In that sense the AI art has no parallel to a final piece that takes time, skill and effort. Yet it can have a similar pleasing effect in a purely visual sense.

Now, another avenue to consider I might use an abstract example to describe. As a teenager I learned how to mix dance music on a set of turntables using vinyl records. After some years of practice I became quite good at this skill.

At some point a switch was made and DJs started using digital library and automatic mixing station that perfectly matched the beats without the need to learn or refine the skill.

Of course to me at the time this was the most cheap and unrespectable evolution. Suddenly a person with money could produce a flawless live set within a matter of weeks without the need of commitment, practice or skill. No longer did a performer need to hump around a heavy box of records when an ipod would hold 1000 times more in your pocket. No more years of spending spare cash on a couple of new releases in the record shop. Just click, download, plug in, presto... you're a DJ.

The exact same scenario hit me after I had spent some years becoming a skilled skydive videographer. Suddenly there were 360 degree cameras on sale and all the patience and thought that went into flying ability and head positioning to keep the target in shot became somewhat useless.



But, this makes no difference to the people who enjoy the final product. If the sounds or visuals make people happy. What's the difference?



So those are the two sides to this question in my mind.

As a person who has never taken years to perfect the skill of painting, the end result of an AI art piece for me seems wonderful.

Although it does not express in the same way that an artist does with one hundred hours of loving work. When I look at an oil painting and see the individual brush strokes I am struck by the ability of the artist. Emotionally I can be drawn into feeling something from deep within that person. So far nothing AI has evoked an emotional response in me. It's just a pleasing optical object.

It must feel slightly cheap, a bitter pill, to see art being created effortlessly if a person themself has made the pursuit of artistic skill a life's passion.
 
Thank you Fink, this resonates greatly with how I feel about it. You also brought up some important points that allow me to look at this topic from another angle.

Some of the pieces I saw were definitely visually pleasing. I also think it's a great tool for someone who hasn't developed the necessary skills to bring ideas from their mind to paper yet. It's a bit like telling an artist what you got in mind and the artist will create it for you.

I believe that creativity and imagination are the spice of life to a great extend. It's something that brought us to were we are today as a species. I enjoy listening to music, reading a book, watching a movie, looking at paintings, all these things that creative minds came up with. Equally I love creating art myself. I feel the energy that someone has invested in creating their art.
Some people are so gifted, they even make a living from selling their art, which allows them to continue to be creative, to follow their calling and be content with life, instead of having to investing their time in another 9-5 job and be depressed. These people are valuable parts of today's society.

Imagine what is going to happen once AI is so advanced, that producers start to choose AI's work over an artist's work, just because it's faster and cheaper. We will all enjoy artificially created music, stories, etc. A fundamental part of what makes us human will suffer greatly.
My daughter shares my enthusiasm for drawing and her drawings are really good for her age. Most of her time she spends drawing. I would like her to be able to use this gift in her job (whatever she might want to become). Instead I see the possibility that in future she just needs to press a button, instead of coming up with ideas herself. Humans become robots and robots become human. I know it's an extreme scenario, but I think the possibility of a future like this exists.

I struggle to see myself enjoying art created by something that cannot feel emotions (yet).
 
Hey! nice title.
I enter the discussion (in this section because I can't do it in the other) because it is a topic that is very close to my heart, since I have dedicated a large part of my life to art, in my case above all music. I have been thinking about this topic all day and I have already answered many things in my mind and I have forgotten them, since I labeled that information as already exported. :p

I believe that the artist is not only represented by his technique or knowledge, as an AI artist can make it seem.
An AI (all those developed so far) have a huge database (knowledge) that they study and of which they understand the things in common, the clichés, the "right way" to make art (technique). What comes out is simply a sort of summary of the history of art, in that discipline or genre, or whatever ensemble you want to take.
Those are fundamental elements, but the individualities that marked the history of art are those who had an idea. New, innovative, taken from nothing, almost suggested from above.

Art is many things, it is both a travel diary of us humans and an oracle for the future. The artist's mind is like an antenna that by connecting to the right frequencies sucks ideas from the future, and puts them back in the present in order to open the door of humanity to that future. It is an integral part of human progress.

Not to make it too long, the art of an AI can hardly get out of its reactionary bubble, becoming revolutionary. In the future it can happen, anything can happen, but I would not underestimate human beings. This quality of ours may not be copyable or simulated.
Doing art is different than being an artist.
 
I mostly hate it, to be honest, although it is an amazingly powerful concepting tool. However, for anyone to feed a few keywords and/or images into an algorithm and then present what pops out as an original piece of art is just not honest or accurate, no matter how polished it might look.

I also think it's a quagmire of copyright lawsuits to come (and rightfully so), but as a concepting tool (meaning it's being used to ideate - as the first step in a larger and longer process of concept development) it's undeniably useful and impressive. Still, whether or not it ultimately empowers concept artists (or simply leaves them obsolete) remains to be seen, I guess.

Or, maybe I'm just salty because I feel like it feeds peoples' perception that digital art in general is a shortcut requiring minimal ability. As recently as maybe five years ago, my own sister remarked that she thought my art looked good, but wasn't sure how much I had to do with it. That stung quite a bit at the time (and I believe my answer to her was a) "everything" and b) "fuck you" ), but had she been responding to something I'd generated using Midjourney or something, I think it would have been a fair question - to which the appropriate answer would then have been "not a lot - I typed in a few keywords and then hit the enter key".
 
I think it depends on the audience in some regards. Many have simple tastes where what is at face value is all that matters to them (music is great example wherein most people are captured simply by what sounds "good" to them, and why we have so much redundancy in a plethora of popular music genres). Then there are others who really look at piece from many angles, sometimes attempting to be in the mind of the artist. Regardless it's a trend that will augment the artistic tastes of cultures and subcultures in the societies this technology it is available in.

For me, AI art is kitsch. I tend to want to know how a piece came to be, as for me that is part of the art. So an AI generator is kind of banal to me. It's also a pseudo by-proxy expression by the individual that initiated the running of the AI engine.

A lot of these questions are part of philosophy of art discussions, one subfield of philosophy where very little is agreed upon :lol:

One love
 
I suspect it will be like most everything else that has to consider time for profit equation... exploited by those with celebrity and investment money to pander to the herd for financial gain. Doesn't mean AI art won't be useful for anyone else though. But the majority of people who consume media have to show they care for authenticity and the process. And as technology advances, people not only like convenience, we come to depend on it (as do I, I'll admit), especially if it plays to the ego and provides that dopamine spike they are looking for in things outside themselves. "Meaning making" is almost like a process of suffering in a simulacra dominated society. Still treasured in some circles, or even romanticized and dramatized too (which can sometimes go too far in the other extreme; "no pain no gain", "mercy is for the weak" lol).

Obviously generalizing here. I'm guilty of all this too, plenty times over. I mean, it's difficult to forego the path of least resistance when there's a quick payoff waiting for you every few steps. I don't want to spend years meditating, i'd rather smoke dmt or inject dpt and take a wild ride for instance. Although I wouldn't consider herculean doses of dmt or dpt "cheating" or necessarily the path of least resistance by any means considering how difficult these trips can be. Anyway, I'm sorry I went way off on a tangent but armchair psychology is an occasional past time of mine. Just pay no mind.


Oh, and I made this in 2 minutes on nightcafe after reading a few of these AI ART threads btw. About my 3rd time using the website, the image made from scratch from text input alone:
z0jNLmf.png

I have no idea what that dudes head in the middle is doing there (pretty sure it's not Pablo). syntax used: "dynamic lit bubble multiverse 8k resolution holographic astral cosmic illustration mixed media by Pablo Amaringo"
 
I've seen some pictures that where supposedly being created by an AI. A couple of them where kind of impressive, but i think part of that, is the fact you know that a computer made it and not a human.

But there are a couple of these "image generators" online, that you can just feed some words, and i played a bit with some of these things to see what they're capable of. And i must say that somehow they never realy delivered anything that came even close to the pictures the companies behind these AI's use to advertise their product.

I suspect that the most spectacular pictures you've seen, have been "edited" by actual human beings.

There are AI's that can write music as well, but the music they produce that is available to the public, is always being edited by a real, human composer.
Probably, because without that human intervention, it would not sound that great.

I believe sony released some music that was written by an AI. But at least they admitted that they still needed a human to make it listenable.
 
dragonrider said:
I suspect that the most spectacular pictures you've seen, have been "edited" by actual human beings.
Click to expand...

Not the case with Midjourney, Disco Diffusion and a couple others. For people who take the time to learn these programs (and have a sufficiently powerful computer), they can render dozens of very polished looking, unique iterations of any single prompt overnight, none of which require any kind of editing to look really, really good.

Like any digital art tool, I suppose they can be adopted by people without much skill to arrive at a result they otherwise couldn't - but in the hands of someone who really digs in, takes the time to learn them inside and out, and has the imagination to really capitalize, the results can be pretty staggering.

Take a look here at one of my OG digital art influences, Meats Meier. He's an all around CG genius (and a swell dude to boot), and he's digging as deep into AI as anyone I've seen thus far. If anyone can prove it to be a valid and enduring form of unique expression, I'd lay my money on Meats. He's always on the cutting edge.

www.facebook.com

Meats Meier

Meats Meier est sur Facebook. Inscrivez-vous sur Facebook pour communiquer avec Meats Meier et d’autres personnes que vous pouvez connaître. Facebook offre à chacun le pouvoir de partager et rend le...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
One other thing that might be considerd is how ridiculous some styles of human made art are. A blank white canvas selling for millions with people standing around it trying to discuss what the artist was 'trying to say'. Or whatever other weird trends appear from season to season. The high end of the art world is a clusterfk of stupid nonsense where dealers dictate value on whatever takes their fancy and truly talented artists very rarely get the accolades they deserve.

An aesthetically beautiful AI generation makes me happier than some of the really bizarre stuff humans consider art.

I dont think a dedicated artist should feel threatened after the initial disgusted reaction. It's only natural to feel cheated when a hard earned skill feels outdated. But it's not really outdated and those who appreciated it before will still appreciate it after.
 
fink said:
One other thing that might be considerd is how ridiculous some styles of human made art are. A blank white canvas selling for millions with people standing around it trying to discuss what the artist was 'trying to say'. Or whatever other weird trends appear from season to season. The high end of the art world is a clusterfk of stupid nonsense where dealers dictate value on whatever takes their fancy and truly talented artists very rarely get the accolades they deserve.

An aesthetically beautiful AI generation makes me happier than some of the really bizarre stuff humans consider art.

I dont think a dedicated artist should feel threatened after the initial disgusted reaction. It's only natural to feel cheated when a hard earned skill feels outdated. But it's not really outdated and those who appreciated it before will still appreciate it after.
Click to expand...

The point of some of these types of art is to critically discuss "what is art?" "What makes art art?" In a sense they're supposed to annoy or bother you. Some bizarre styles have the explicit and implicit intentions of making you feel uncomfortable in some ways. To some of these artists, it's these feelings and experiences that show some of the heart of what it really is to be "human;" experience the full range of human thought, feeling, and emotion.

But it kind of comes back to what I said before; what different people like is disparate, with some only needing what's on the surface to fit the preferences.

One love
 
Did you generate those? They're undoubtedly beautiful.

I immediately recognize everything made with Midjourney as such. It's almost like the algorithm defaults to a certain style, often reminiscent (to me, anyway) of Beksinski.

I'm not so bitter. It's hard to deny the amazingness of such a thing.
 
Interesting questions.

The way i see it, it's just a new tool in art. It's different from most tools in that it can make complete images that sometimes look stunning. So yeah people with no art skill can now say "i made this" and be not entirely wrong. But i'm sure a human with a vision can still do more with (or without) it.

--

Personally i am in the camp that doesn't believe consciousness/sentience is on the horizon for AI. Not even sure if i think it's possible. The way i see it, we don't have a theory or even just a model of consciousness (beyond "it emerges from the brain" ), which makes it impossible to create one intentionally, and i estimate it to be highly unlikely that we create one by accident.

Also i don't think it's fair to equate artificial neural networks to actual neuronal networks. A real neuron is a LOT more complex and versatile than an artificial one. The latter being inspired by (a rudimentary understanding of) the former doesn't make them equal. It's kinda like saying "we know the shape, mass, and rotation of Earth, we have all we need to simulate it".

Same goes for the brain - computer analogy. The brain isn't like a computer, computers are a bit like a brain because that's where inspiration was taken from in the design.

A thing we often don't understand about 'AI' is that it is not a continuously running thing like our brain, with lots of partially independent functions and inputs and outputs etc. AI usually is a model that is run once at a time, as a function of one set of inputs to produce one set of outputs. If you run the same inputs through the same model, you will receive the same outputs. When you're not running any inputs through the model, it's not doing anything. It's just a file stored on disk.
 
Homo Trypens said:
Interesting questions.

The way i see it, it's just a new tool in art. It's different from most tools in that it can make complete images that sometimes look stunning. So yeah people with no art skill can now say "i made this" and be not entirely wrong. But i'm sure a human with a vision can still do more with (or without) it.

--

Personally i am in the camp that doesn't believe consciousness/sentience is on the horizon for AI. Not even sure if i think it's possible. The way i see it, we don't have a theory or even just a model of consciousness (beyond "it emerges from the brain" ), which makes it impossible to create one intentionally, and i estimate it to be highly unlikely that we create one by accident.

Also i don't think it's fair to equate artificial neural networks to actual neuronal networks. A real neuron is a LOT more complex and versatile than an artificial one. The latter being inspired by (a rudimentary understanding of) the former doesn't make them equal. It's kinda like saying "we know the shape, mass, and rotation of Earth, we have all we need to simulate it".

Same goes for the brain - computer analogy. The brain isn't like a computer, computers are a bit like a brain because that's where inspiration was taken from in the design.

A thing we often don't understand about 'AI' is that it is not a continuously running thing like our brain, with lots of partially independent functions and inputs and outputs etc. AI usually is a model that is run once at a time, as a function of one set of inputs to produce one set of outputs. If you run the same inputs through the same model, you will receive the same outputs. When you're not running any inputs through the model, it's not doing anything. It's just a file stored on disk.
Click to expand...

One of the few circumstances in which I feel I could admit that an AI is sentient/sapient is if it came about as an emergent property of an already existing system.

Another would be if we could show that the AI wasn't strictly abiding by it's programming. But that's something impossible for us to do.

One love
 
Bill Cipher said:
Did you generate those? They're undoubtedly beautiful.

I immediately recognize everything made with Midjourney as such. It's almost like the algorithm defaults to a certain style, often reminiscent (to me, anyway) of Beksinski.

I'm not so bitter. It's hard to deny the amazingness of such a thing.
Click to expand...

oh I definitely used beksinski in the text. was in the newbie-10 discord channel and saw at least 4 or 5 different people just straight up APE my entire syntax :lol: guess I can't be salty considering i dropped his name to illicit a grainy/organic style, but I was a little surprised by their shamelessness to say the least. if I borrow syntax from others who were generating good things, it was only keywords/phrases that I thought might improve the quality of render & lighting, or parameters for resolution sizes and the like.
 
Wow thank you, lots of input here, I love it. I want to take my time and read through what I missed. But first I need a cup of coffee and start my day... I will check in later, once I get a chance.

Edit: Ok, I thought about it a bit further.

First of all I would like to highlight that I am not convinced AI is going to become a sentinent entity, but at the same time can I really rule it out? I like to create scenarios like this.

Please, allow me to tell you where I am coming from. I am generally an old school guy who likes to work with his hands. Technical stuff often seems abstract to me. I tend to reject IT technology, rather than embracing it even though I am aware of its many benefits. Therefore I don't know how AI is working in detail and what it's limits are. This is also why I enjoy this discussion, because there surely are members here that work in this field, who can provide some insight.

To me it seems like AI's abilities grow exponentially. It's impressive what it can do already and I see the potential for it to help us with issues we as a species currently deal with. I just would like to rule out the (unlikely) possibility that one day we serve it, instead of the other way around. Are there mechanisms in place that make sure AI is only doing what it is supposed to do? Or are measures like that not necessary?

Just to get back to AI and art. In art it's good to have tools, but if automatic AI art generators will become the widely accepted tool to create art, do our children still need to learn art skills in school for example? And if not, would that have a negative impact on imagination generally?
There's so much joy in creating art, whatever form of art it is. It's a process. First an idea comes to mind, following that you have to figure out what's the best way to create whatever you got in mind, then you start the actual process of creation. Finally looking at a finished piece is very satisfying. I believe doing art can be very therapeutic in its own ways and it surely has an overall positive effect on the brain. Lot's of this gets lost, if you choose a tool that is doing most of the work for you.
 
I honestly find it difficult to see it as a tool, I prefer to see it as a "subject that makes art". It is as if you ask a friend of yours who paints to make a picture with "this, this and that" and then he gives it to you as a gift. You are not the artist and he is the tool, but he is the artist and you are the input of the idea, the inspiration.
The artist is the AI in these cases that we discuss, I think, but then I would have difficulty calling it an artist for the reasons I have already written about.

The prospect of a humanity that entrusts artistic progress to AI is among the most apocalyptic things that can happen to us. It would mean eternal stagnation.
 
Back
Top Bottom