No.568382[View All]
>The generated images are looking scarily good, considering how little VRAM it uses.https://www.pcgamer.com/ai-image-generator-stability-ai-stable-diffusion/
>Stable Diffusion draws controversy on Twitter from artists who say the AI infringes on copyrightshttps://www.artificialconversation.com/p/stable-diffusion-draws-controversy
>And that's completely ignoring ethical issues. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Stable Diffusion in particular will allow creation of NSFW images of all imaginable kinds (yes, even the highly deplorable kinds).>The tools are amazing and, essentially, impossible to stop. But at the same time, imagine being a renowned artist for 20 years and suddenly people can make an infinite amount of images "in the style of [your name here]" that look just like your images. Not exactly a fair thing to happen to you.>it's relatively simple: image-making, as a profession, is dead. people will keep doing it as a hobby, and for a while or so, there will be people able to judge art, but after that, it will be like clothing today: cheap, and no one cares about the quick and dirty sewing, because it's easier to buy new stuff than to educate yourself and seek out good quality.https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/woej9g/stable_diffusion_draws_controversy_on_twitter/
>A new AI image generator appears to be capable of making art that looks 100% human made. As an artist I am extremely concerned.https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623545374023680
>What makes this AI different is that it's explicitly trained on current working artists. You can see below that the AI generated image(left) even tried to recreate the artist's logo of the artist it ripped off.https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623546879778816
>Last night one of the AI developers behind that project that was ripping off living artists’ styles sent me a bunch of DMs(mostly omitted for length). He blocked me immediately after I responded and called me a moralist because I care about artists rightshttps://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1559274160831881216 554 posts and 175 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.568937
itt is the same spirit as shitting on cars in 1901.
Stable diffusion will kill digital art, like the car made everyday horseriding obsolete.
Art will become mostly physical, in future or survive on sentiment only, like mined diamonds hold the edge over synthetic.
No.568938
>>568936>create prompt to image generator>the criticism: it bad because prompt to imageStable diffusion can do image to image too.
Language is used to ease the human input.
No.568939
AI art sucks and ruins the whole point of art. Craft should be respected and revered.
No.568940
>>568937Really? This whole Machine Learning thing is simply nothing but the latest techbro venture capitalist scam. Remember Amazon Alexa? Turns out people aren't actually buying them.
Even after 52 years, chatbots still suck:
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/chatbots-still-dumb-after-all-these-years/ https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/yes-chatgpt-is-sentient-because-its-really-humans-in-the-loop/ No.568941
>>568940>Turns out people aren't actually buying them. That's not an argument against AI generated art, as all digital art is just plagiarized or kept alive by watermarks or scams like NFTs
No.568942
>>568938I knew someone would miss the point.
The point is whether you're operating in the realm of symbols, or the things that we assign symbols to.
Like, the point of art is that you're yanking shit out of the chaos of nature, and confining it into symbols and materials so that you can show it to others.
It's a sublime to concrete conversion process.
AI generation is a concrete to concrete conversion process.
does anyone know what the fuck I'm talking about
No.568943
>>568933The AI LITERALLY can't create anything new. Can an AI create Guernica? No, it can't, because an AI can't be haunted by war and human misery, it can only lazily mash things together.
No.568944
>>568943>No, it can't, because an AI can't be haunted by warSomeone's gonna make an AI trained on war footage/strategic data to brainstorm more horrific war crimes that don't have laws against them yet.
No.568945
>>568943>>568942Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.
It's the same sentimental issue why people shun synthetic diamonds.
No.568946
Writers and code monkeys especially are going to be blindsided when AI ends up replacing them first, years before it replacing actual professional artists. AI has a much easier time replicating their work accurately, there's very little impetus for "creativity" (assuming that we're talking about nonfiction writing like journalism) that can be used to detract from AI work, and it's much more feasible to just maintain a skeleton crew to verify and fix AI output unlike AI art, which is much harder to fix.
No.568947
>>568943Did you read my post? 😩
>>568678>>568945Pre-bunked sweetie. See my linked post above.
No.568948
>>568945>Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.No, neither of them said anything remotely like that. Their criticism lies in the content itself, not in some artifact to spot.
If they were talking about spotting it, one could just look up the artist name and see if they share their creative process at all.
No.568949
>>568947Haha I didn't but I have seen people shill Guernica on this board before, it's the first 'art with a social meaning' that came to mind.
No.568950
>>568946Insane anti-commumist cope.
Workers have always been the ones who replace workers with automation. You want anyone who is having a less worse time under capitalism to you to suffer because you believe they don't "deserve" the relative privilege of being paid livable wages.
Miserable anon.
No.568951
>>568945Non synthetic diamonds aren't a creative product whereas art is supposed to be.
No.568952
>>568945>Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.uh, no?
like, you could probably generate "real art" using AI.
That's not the point.
The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.
The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.
You know, the finger pointing at the moon vs the moon?
The reflection of the moon in the pond vs the moon itself?
Does anyone know what the fuck I'm talking about?
No.568953
>>568952Yes, I get what you're saying.
No.568954
>>568952>The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.>The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.Ever looked at a painting from a literally who?
Most artists are nobodies that sell their art without a book on it's backstory.
The bulk of consumed art has conveys no backstory beyond what's depicted.
Most classical art doesn't because it's stories have been lost through history.
The backstories of most landscape paintings is literally "hill with caste in France, july evening".
Actual paintings are even far beyond the scape of AI art, as it replaces digital and digitalized art only, not handcrafted works.
Your criticism relies on you, not wanting to assign deeper meaning to a computer output, which relies on knowing that it is one.
No.568955
>>568954I can't teach you to not be an NPC, sorry.
>The backstories of most landscape paintings is literally "hill with caste in France, july evening".This basically gets at the heart of the issue.
To your ilk, art can be distilled to a textual description of its literary content.
No.568957
>>568955To your ilk art has no intrinsic value without a backstory that is conveyed to you by text.
So if the world forgot that Claude Monet painted his favorite lilypads and the style reflected his diminishing eyesight, would the Monet lilypad series go to the trash?
Is the Mona Lisa devalued by the fact that we don't know who she is for sure? Several works attributed to Michelangelo were done by his apprentices, we don't surely know which ones. Art galleries are full of forgeries.
Art that can't stand on it's own isn't art. But art that has no or an unclear backstory is universally accepted as art, including the forgeries.
No.568958
>>568957You seem really concerned with the classics / more technical focused artists. Art can convey stuff intuitively without text.
No.568959
>>568935no because the average hand has less than 5 fingers
No.568960
>>568957This entire reply chain was me condemning text over what stands behind the text and you accuse me of prioritizing text.
(note: in art criticism, the word "text" holds meaning beyond "le words you can describe something with")
It seems like you are out of your depth and fighting phantoms, you should read a book.
Start with parmeindes and work your way up to today.
No.568961
>>568958>Art can convey stuff intuitively without text.Yes, both human and AI can.
>>568960>This entire reply chain was me condemning text over what stands behind the text and you accuse me of prioritizing text.No, you're badmouthing AI work because you refuse to assign any meaning beyond plain appearance to AI images because the author is a soulless machine and the art is generated on a text prompt.
This is solely based on you knowing it's AI art and thus your bias against AI is based on prejudice rather than quality.
>It seems like you are out of your depth and fighting phantoms, you should read a book.>Start with parmeindes and work your way up to today.No need for that because most art AI is going to replace is going to be much more mundane, like digital contract work.
Which is basically prompt to image, but by human on computer, rather than computer only.
No.568962
>>568961It seems like you just refuse to engage in good faith. Like what possible response could you receive where you wouldn't just ignore what's being said and act like they just said boilerplate.
No.568964
>>568962OK i'll try my best with this one.
>>568952>The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.>The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.I agree that the "artness" depends a lot on the context and intentions of the artist, especially good art.
But this is no obligate property of art. It can exist just on its own, art from unknown artists has no "lore", we interpret and project what we think is fitting. And that's where I don't understand why AI art is different. We can engage with it like we do with any art that is a standalone piece.
For me, AI art is art. Still, I enjoy human made art and think the beyond paint and canvas adds much to it.
No.568966
>>568934It's pretty impressive that it can generate a hand with fingers at all
No.568967
>>568964ok whatever retard
No.568968
>>568383art isn't very valuable anyways especially when its been reduced to "nice pictures"
digit art isn't art and AI can do it better then people.
Until an AI can paint like Monet its best use is making digital "artists" seethe
No.568969
>>568968>digit art isn't art Langley is dusting off the DeviantArt/Google+ files lol.
No.568970
>>568968>Um, it's not art because… well, it just isn't okay?!Come on, try harder.
No.568972
>>568971Those look sick af ngl
No.568973
>>568959Most hands have 5 fingers, especially in art.
No.568974
>>568971oh my god, do you know what model this is? I must have it.
>These programs are basically using an algorithm and the internet to create an image basically pulled out of the collective conscious of humanity, or at least the collective conscious of people who post images and artwork to the internet. These AIs have no real creative capacity unto themselves. It's just a tool, like many others.the sad thing about the luddite artists is that the models aren't very creative on their own, as you said, but coupled with a human artist who actually does have artistic talent allows majestic artwork to be created from what is actually in the artist's mind, helped by an approximation of artists' collective effort. It's very socialist.
The computer allows us to manifest a collective unconscious, it gives materiality to what was previously only known in the discipline of metaphysics
No.568975
>>568971>Tapping into the collective conscious of humanity is a mole hillmoles are pretty based, anon
No.568976
>>568975computers will have a deeper relationship with humanity in the future than even the weird reactionary singularity people think they will.
we are grasping into the nonexistant, false realm of metaphysics and pulling out approximations of abstract concepts using the neural network. of course, this is a massive analogy, philosophical word salad even, of course stable diffusion is based on denoising, tokenizing etc
the neural network, in the future, will accomplish things impossible for us to predict
No.568977
>>568976I am in agreement with you, the point is not that some of these paintings have extra fingers or that the chats composed include bullshit. The point is that we are in the liftoff era of this technology and every sign points to it improving at an increasing rate. It is quite exciting ( and at the same time as a fusion lab achieved ignition ) ! Now if they can get a quantum computer working we'll really be in the 21st century.
No.568978
>>568977if there is a collective unconciousness, that it's the universe that is concious and we're partitioned sapient parts of it with the same conciousness as one another as in daoism, buddhism etc, then we are achieving the schizo false shit for real via approximations in the computer.
there is no "collective unconscious" that has opinions like Carl Jung thought. it's actually the internet that made that material.
No.568979
>>568978Not sure what that has to do with
>>568977 No.568980
>>568979that
>The point is that we are in the liftoff era of this technology and every sign points to it improving at an increasing rate.is connected to the concept of computers achieving unthinkable feats in the future, more and moreso having effect on humanity
No.568981
>>568974It's Midjourney, but it's specifically Midjourney v3, not the current one. The current version produces much crisper and in some ways higher quality images, but I think its trained on an almost entirely different image set because it now produces images that are drastically different from what it used to produce.
So, for example, here's an example of images produced by the current version (v4)
The prompt is "In the Court of the Crimson King"
No.568982
>>568977>every sign points to it improving at an increasing rateEvery sign points to it improving at a decreasing rate.
It's exponential growth in computing power and data for linear gains.
My prediction is that we will see one more solid improvement in AI output, and after that it will more or less stagnate, then it'll be a scramble to actually make it useful for something.
>>568981I bet they excluded all images currently owned by anyone powerful enough to sue them lol.
No.568983
>>568974>>568981And this is the sort of image it produces on v3. A pretty stark difference.
The prompt was the same as above: "In the Court of the Crimson King"
No.568984
>>568982Actually, there's a good case for that. v3 seems to be based much, much more on artwork than v4 is. Maybe they got cold feet when they realized that lots of rich people own said artwork.
Unique IPs: 23