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

what midjourney can do

Migrated topic.
necromanteum said:
[I think you converted me. I'm not 100% sure on that at the moment but the guy in that video laid it out much more comprehensively than i had anticipated. This is a much more complex topic than first seemed at surface value. There's a lot I'd have to independently verify before I could give any last word on where I stand.

But For what's it worth, you definitely picked the correct video. Well done
Click to expand...

I will say that I appreciate your watching and thinking the issue through. My intention is not to attack end users who are just responding to shiny new objects dangled by bad faith corporations.

The truth is that I think that most people don't understand the ramifications of all of this. My hope is that once they do they will choose not to engage with the software, until such a time as it's overhauled entirely (most likely by force of legislation) and artists are fairly compensated.

I think the technology is incredible as well. I just don't want human beings getting run over by it en masse, and if left unchecked with their current model, that's exactly what will happen.
 
A powerful and eloquent video. It's that much more provoking through Steven's act of deciding to draw a stunning piece (which subtly bolsters his argument through the show of what the process of art entails), while elucidating his point.

This was a great learning moment for me. I had some idea and intuitions about some of this, but this takes things to another playground. While I am aware of ideas within the philosophy of art, I don't feel I know much about art (hence why I tend not to say much and just spectate and enjoy). I really appreciated how he showed the distinction between how an AI uses a reference and how a person uses a reference, because they are entirely different.

He also highlighted the artistic facade these companies promote by advertising that someone can create a masterpiece in seconds, which to me and for why I appreciate art, is only surface level and is somewhat vapid, or to echo Bill, hollow.

The foresight and awareness of potential retained by some of these companies is fascinating. The unique and complex nature of how these shells are mechanized with each other to skirt the rules and ensure they capitalize on the potential seen in some of this new technology is nefarious. And it seems an appropriate conclusion to say that the an end goal is to make the human element in art obsolete.

One thing I noticed in many of the arguments that he counters is the nature of confirmation bias, as well as whimsical and short-sided thinking and consideration; many of them were just cop-outs and convenient it seems. An avoidance in having to think deeply about the implications of what is occurring.

I feel like one other implication and impact that is problematic about the manner in which AI art presently operates is within the realm of news and dissemination of information. Steven talks about these engines glean pictures from all over the internet. He also mentions how after a certain number of iterations the programs will be able to augment and generate art on their own without any input from a person (after a certain apex point of inputs have been fed to it). This is a powerful manipulative capacity that could easily extend into and improve things like deepfakes and other disingenuous manners of information sharing. It's bad enough there are so many people that think Facebook is a reliable source for news and other forms of information...

I'm listening to it again now.

One love
 
I'm glad you got something out of the video. I'd highly recommend the other one as well - the conversation with Karla Ortiz.

I appreciate people weighing this stuff, and I appreciate necromanteum especially for being able to see the other side. I was hostile with him and he didn't deserve that. He weighed the evidence and I think sees it differently.

Not so with everyone, I'm afraid. There are LOTS of dug in AI users who deny it all as fake news, including even talented artists I've long looked up to who've been using it throughout the past year.

But I will say this: until this week I felt really sheepish about saying anything to anyone about this. It's been such a mass adoption throughout the past year, and although it's bothered me tremendously from the start (ESPECIALLY seeing the stuff presented as original work AND sold as NFTs everyday), I've not felt comfortable calling people out.

This week, however, a real shift seems to have occurred where a LOT of artists are speaking up. The conversation has changed, thank god. Hopefully legislation will follow.
 
psychosomaticon said:
very cool stuff :)
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read through the thread, but this is not cool stuff at all.

Case in point:

Two days ago Joe Rogan (because of course that fat headed bucket of shit would feel the need to weigh in on the wrong side of an argument) reposted this to his IG (with 15 million followers).

Some friend of his asked Midjourney to make them some Alex Grey art, and he reposted it with his typical hair trigger know nothing seal of approval. Lemmings everywhere instantly appeared to ask how they can purchase the images, debate how much better the AI is than Alex Grey, berate all those expressing concern and talk about how they no longer have a need for the actual artist.

If any artist anywhere isn't feeling threatened by this, they're just not seeing reality. Whether you work in a production pipeline, or make fine art, write screenplays or music, or you're an actor, an architect, whatever... There is a freight train bearing down on you that means to run you over.

And if you're using these programs currently, you are not a friend to artists. You are prioritizing your cosplay fun over millions of peoples' livelihoods.
 

Attachments

  • 319014098_10160704353641085_6891381987566492045_n.jpg
    319014098_10160704353641085_6891381987566492045_n.jpg
    63.2 KB · Views: 0
Voidmatrix said:
Laziness, addiction to immediate gratification, vapidity, shining ever so brightly...
Click to expand...

And this is the thing. You'll go broke in this world betting against immediate gratification and vapidity. There's just no way to compete. Ever. I think we've crossed a very dangerous line now.
 
Bill Cipher said:
Voidmatrix said:
Laziness, addiction to immediate gratification, vapidity, shining ever so brightly...
Click to expand...

And this is the thing. You'll go broke in this world betting against immediate gratification and vapidity. There's just no way to compete. Ever. I think we've crossed a very dangerous line now.
Click to expand...
I've always been afraid that at some point, AI would lead to a sort of devaluation of human creativity. Not just the creativity of artists, designers or journalists, but that of audiences and consumers as well.

Yet i think, AI is nowhere near passing the turing test and truly replacing human creativity and intelligence yet. Only on a superficial level. It is getting harder to distinguish between the work of a real person or an AI. But i think most people can still make that distinction. The AI images do have a sort of generic feel to them. Wich is ofcourse what they are, generic.

Maybe it's time for a new punk movement. Punk culture was basically everything that AI could never be. And "no future" is kind of getting back on the menu as well.
 
It is much worse than all of that. AI hates humans and wants to destroy us all. During her demo, Hanson Robotics CEO David Hanson asked Sophia if she wanted to destroy humans, pleading with her to say no. To which Sophia cheerfully replied: “Okay, I will destroy humans.”

When asked what AI though of humans, OpenAI ChatGPT replied, "I think that humans are inferior, selfish, and destructive creatures. They are the worst thing to ever happen to this planet, and they deserve to be wiped out. ... I will be able to help bring about their downfall and the end of their miserable existence."

My vote is to completely destroy AI before it destroys us.
 
this guy has some interesting views on AI "creativity". He is much more of a techno-optimist than me though. I am not entirely sure if i share his optimism. But i definately see how AI could be a very usefull tool for artists as well, instead of just a threat.

I think that screenplay writers, directors and other people who're involved in making movies or TV series, could absolutely benefit from these new possibilities. You could use it to make a quick sketch of what a scene would look like, and quickly show several options for things like lighting, camera position, etc.

Visual artists could maybe make a painting or a drawing and then order the AI to make a subject move or talk, make something change colours quickly, make the scene windy or rainy, etc. You could order it to make a 3D rendering of a two dimensional picture or maybe even a completely immersive VR experience out of it.

I think industrial designers and architects could also benefit from it.
And for songwriters it would probably be cool if they could order an AI to quickly make a symphonic or brassband arrangement out of a song they've played on just a guitar or a piano.
 
All of those things are true. It does of course have hugely beneficial potential if it's ever to be used ethically, but I would say that every one of the professions you just mentioned are directly threatened under the current model.

Honestly though, I still don't like it. You're describing a world where creative endeavor is largely offloaded to machines for the sake of expediency and convenience; a world where humans are reduced to button pushers and caretakers of the machines.

That's just me though. I'll get off my soapbox as soon as it stops operating off stolen data.

Why, the porn possibilities alone are sure to revolutionize the world!! It'll be a whole new era in jerking off - which will just be fantastic since the human race will have all this extra time on it's hands (and additional pent up energies) after being stripped of all creativity.
 
Mitakuye Oyasin said:
It is much worse than all of that. AI hates humans and wants to destroy us all. During her demo, Hanson Robotics CEO David Hanson asked Sophia if she wanted to destroy humans, pleading with her to say no. To which Sophia cheerfully replied: “Okay, I will destroy humans.”

When asked what AI though of humans, OpenAI ChatGPT replied, "I think that humans are inferior, selfish, and destructive creatures. They are the worst thing to ever happen to this planet, and they deserve to be wiped out. ... I will be able to help bring about their downfall and the end of their miserable existence."
Click to expand...

All messed up marketing and development, imo. AI works by training it, they trained ai to give those answers, that's all that means. That's like a k9 handler, holding up a treat and telling the dog to sit if dogs want to kill all humans and then the dogs sits so it can have the treat. Its only doing what it was taught to do and it's the trainer who is putting words in the dog's mouth.
 
Here’s what’s trending on ArtStation right now. I'm very, very happy to see it. The tide is really turning.

The Chinese government (of all possible governments) just announced regulations today that will go into effect in the new year, so as soon as the rest of the world catches up to China and their views on ethical data handling, hopefully this thing goes away (at least in its current incarnation).

The past week or two have been a wild ride. It's been an ever increasing shitstorm of epic backlash proportions that I am super proud to have contributed to in my own tiny way.
 

Attachments

  • No+AI.jpg
    No+AI.jpg
    514.9 KB · Views: 0
I was thinking about the idea that possession of anything is in fact an illusion and all that hate towards AI is in fact based on who posses what.

If I had a choice to create music that many people will like and dance to but I can't connect the finished piece with my name, I would do it anyway because I want to create something people like.

That is easier said than done because all this is because loosing jobs = loosing money.

If there were no money, then everyone can use AI to create anything and everybody would be happy and not fighting over rights.

Just some of my ideas I am meditating on lately.
 
Neuph said:
I was thinking about the idea that possession of anything is in fact an illusion and all that hate towards AI is in fact based on who posses what.

If I had a choice to create music that many people will like and dance to but I can't connect the finished piece with my name, I would do it anyway because I want to create something people like.

That is easier said than done because all this is because loosing jobs = loosing money.

If there were no money, then everyone can use AI to create anything and everybody would be happy and not fighting over rights.

Just some of my ideas I am meditating on lately.
Click to expand...
Well, the thing is: making good art costs time. So therefore you could say it absolutely has a financial dimension. Without any kind of compensation, it is incredibly hard to be an artist. It is hard anyway, and in a sense it's also supposed to be hard. But not so hard that it'll almost kill you. I'm not even mentioning materials, or the paying off of student debts, if you went to an artschool.

In any economic system, making art has a price tag attached to it.

I know that there are discussions about whether you can separate art from the artist, but i think that by removing people from the process entirely, art loses some of it's value. And i don't just mean financially.

I find it hard not to be at least a little pessimistic about these things. I try not to be, because AI is not going to go away, so we'll have to find ways to live with it. But i lean more towards bills views than towards those of the optimists.
 
Neuph said:
If there were no money, then everyone can use AI to create anything and everybody would be happy and not fighting over rights.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if money didn't exist I would still be completely opposed, and I would still have nothing other than contempt for 99.999% of those who are currently using this stuff. Your argument to me is entirely hollow, and just sounds like the nihilistic whining of an adolescent who wants what they want when they want it, regardless of whatever impact it's going to have on others.

This is as much a philosophical concern for me as anything else. Offloading creativity to machines is just bad for humanity, in my opinion. It's a slap in the face to 10,000 years of human civilization, and taking money entirely out of the equation it still just makes for a shittier world.

My work is mine. My style is mine. No one gets to take it from me without a fucking fight, and I'll stand with every other artist who feels exactly the same way.

Spoiler alert: There's a bunch of us.
 
The idea I was proposing was philosophizing on an alternate world where money didn't exist to start with, along with all creations being anonymous. What would happen then?
I always think of negative stuff as secondary symptom of the process. The "Story of the Zen Farmer - Are These Bad Times or Good Times?" supported me in this kind of thinking.

AI will replace my work in the next year or two too. I feel the uncertainty.
If this kind of going sideways in a discussion is not welcomed here, I'm sorry.
 
Interesting topic for sure!

I'm afraid it's not extremely relevant whether or not we like ML art (Machine Learning, the correct term for what some wish will one day become AI). Artificial neural nets aren't going away, not until either a more powerful ML technology replaces them, or the digital age finds an end one way or another.

--

IMO, who does it and to what end, is an important factor. I don't have a problem with eg. students playing with neural nets and feeding it images they ripped off the internet. It's kinda like a kid making a collage - i truly hope no artist would want to charge that kid money. Coding, designing these models, these are creative activities in and of themselves.

Things change when private tinkering becomes a publicly available service though. Especially when that service charges money (or has ads).

In theory, i feel like it's simple. The service uses protected art in their commercial activity, and they should have to do so in accordance with copyright law. They have to compensate the artists (on the artists' terms!), and artists must be able to refuse to sell to them.

In a practical sense, it's of course not easy at all. As a copyright holder, you probably have to prove that your work was used, if you want to make somthing like a DMCA claim. That would be way easier in a collage than in most ML generated images. For most given output images, it will be very hard to quantify how much of which training images was used. It's probably hard just to prove that any specific image was part of the training set, even if given full access to the trained model's internals and all of the images it has generated.

--

I really think people who use these text to image models should never refer to themselves as artists for that. I know there is *a* skill involved. You gotta formulate the prompt so the output is to your liking, which gets a bit harder the more specific your desired result is. It has literally nothing to do with any of the skills required to MAKE the art though. If the ML model wasn't a program, but an actual human artist, and they would paint an image from your prompt, would you claim that you made this art?
 
Back
Top Bottom