Now that the settlement is dusty: can AI art be good? Can you be proud to enjoy any piece of AI art or is it 100% slop?
>>792620the conversation was never about whether or not it can be "good" in the sense of
<can I consume thisbecause the answer to that question was always YES from the start. consume whatever you want, nobody cares. however, if the question is whether or not it's "good" in the sense of
<is this worthy of consumptionthen I think most people are going to say no, unless it's used in tandem with a competent artist's unique style or ability to convey something through art. art still requires an underlying human intelligence, and AI at this point merely masquerades as something that can produce that. it is not author, it is a consumer that reconstitutes data in different ways without a conscious understanding of human concepts like aesthetics or whatever.
finally, I will say that the use of AI by itself does not make the prompter an artist, because art is more than just the ability to produce media, it is being able to utilize that media for whatever purpose is relevant to the conveyance of whatever message or ethos or what-have-you that you're trying to produce.
>>792651> finally, I will say that the use of AI by itself does not make the prompter an artist, because art is more than just the ability to produce media, it is being able to utilize that media for whatever purpose is relevant to the conveyance of whatever message or ethos or what-have-you that you're trying to produce.Then AI art can be art because a lot of Ai generated media is used for propaganda or to make storylines
>>792660yeah, alongside a human intelligence. it doesn't produce anything by itself that is art. is a car door that was built to spec by an autonomous machine a piece of art? if you're somehow really interested in doors then the resultant piece is going to be "art" for you, but only because the machine built something that was engineered by the human mind. can the machine produce its own door with specs that it devised by itself? no. can AI produce anything that wasn't consumed as a dataset that is filled with human knowledge and experience? no.
Art is a form of communication, and AI is just a way of obfuscating or adding noise to that communication.
>>792620I liked the iranian lego videos and the chinese puppet one with the meowtollah
i think ai slop just tore off the facade of what art really was. mass produced industrialized slop. of course "real" artists did like doing it but it was still commodified. and even then artists themselves have been proletarianized in a sense and ai just did commodities better, faster, and just good enough to be acceptable. art was already dead. has it even been alive?
AI has done both a massive service and a massive disservice to gooning
take that as you will
>>792751This.
People like to whine about “AI” graphics but most of those aesthetic graphics were based on cookie cutter style of cartoon graphics that were manually made
>>792751>>792753This is just completely divorced from reality and contrarianism for the sake of it.
>>792753im not even talking about the aesthetics. im talking about the work itself. altho i still agree
>>792620If people can find beauty in oil slicks or the natural world which has no creator then sure why not find beauty in an AI dancing cat video.
>Nearly every reply supports AI slop
None of you are leftist you are all techbro goyslaves kek nice one have fun with no drinking water while being cucked by r2d2 you robo dick munching faggots
The unenlightened will say that modern art isn't art, when the whole point of the movement is question what art is at a conceptual.
Yes, it's stupid that a banana taped to the wall is displayed in an art gallery, that's the point.
If anything, I can see it evolving into ai, where instead of questioning what is art, it's questioning "is it art if a human doesn't even touch it?"
However, this question is stupid, because modern ai just scrapes the internet and steals bits and pieces of all images it finds, meaning without human created data sets, there is no ai art in the first place.
Which brings it around again to, "well it must be art, millions of humans were involved in it's creation"
>>792620It might be possible, but the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
>>793068
Ok, explain what exactly imbues restaurant food with "artistry" compared to fast food
>>792848Absolutely 0 eroticism or libidinal gaze in these paintings, it's like looking at anatomical illustrations from an encyclopedia
>>793070
>almost as if like most takes on leftypol the sentiment is driven by resentment towards "lib-coded" groups
Well they're the one have a meltdown because some guy generated a prompt instead of paying some graphist to do it
>>793070
Well the jannies insist on advertising to twitter users, and twitter users don't care about going beyond the boilerplate because discourse is a matter of identity seeking rather than knowledge seeking on there.
>>793070I see more strawmen made by anti AI artists than pro AI.
>>793075This.
AI porn is the only way I get to "eat decent food".
>>793079
You're a retard who fell for libertine cultural propaganda around "fine dining", the same way you fell for " real art"
Both are just marketing for artisanal products made by petty bourgs
Jill yourself
>>793074>libidinal gazelmao what?
I don't think porn art has any codified facial expression.
>>793095I'm talking about the artist's gaze.
The horniness, the fetishization, the psychosexual fixations, etc.
It's just a literal depiction of sex, there's nothing less arousing than that
the problem really isn't ai art in itself, but rather that it is wrongly being used by many as a subsitute for humanmade art
>>793081
It wasnt about furries in particular
>>793099
No, there's no difference, even on "chemical level", that's positivist nonsense sorry
It's all just a question of how much human labor goes into the commodity, that's it, that's the " artistry" and "quality"
>>793101asexual and sex repulsed people do exist ya know? the libido do have large influence when it comes to the creation of art don't get me wrong but its not a universal constant and the whole sanctifying around it is really corny and capeshit-y and ultimately in my opinion has caused more harm than good in the long run
>>793113the comparison between the creation of art and manufacturing is not really comparable, like there is a reason that the humanities and stem are (often not always) seprate
>>793114
The average "human" in the west wants to own a cardboard mcmansion that "appreciates in value" while they wate water pouring it on the lawn and commute 4 hours a day vs l8ving in an apartmrnt
The point is that this "preference" is literally just spontaneous ideol9gy born from petty bourgeois interests around accumulation
>>793101I don't know. I've seen plenty of porn art that seem like looks pretty similar to that AI art.
>>793124
Well I don't see anything wrong with reducing such things to commodities.
Luxury commodities, mass produced commodities, they're still commodities at the end of the day.
Art is a social relation. The actual "artifact" of artistic production and its method of production is not as important as its social role
And AI art is already playing a social role and AI stuff is already impacting culture
The problem is twodold:
Artists think art is something produced by the "soul" of the individual possessing the social role of artist, and people trying to put AIgen in museums or sell them crave this social position and think "artistry" is contained in the physical object, thus granting them the spcial title of "artist" for prompting
>>793123Not everyone is cut out to be a real pervert, normie sexuality is more about property rights than sex tbh
AI illustration, text, audio, and video can be entertainment, sure, but not art. Art is human self-indulgence.
AI porn sucks btw.
>>793138>AI porn sucks btwAI porn is actually the only form of acceptable AI usage.
Why? Because normal AI generation has moved on to models based on massive data centers which are resource hogs and environmental catastrophes.
AI porn, on the other hand, is banned by basically every corporation and thus has to be made with homebrew models on personal computers and therefore isn't any more resource intensive than playing a really graphics intensive video game for a couple minutes.
>>792839Sometimes, I do wonder how much online resentment of AI is driven by "I was the weird fetish commission guy!"
Mostly because it seems to be a sore spot.
>>793175It looks like shit though
>>793109fuck you muzak kicks ass
i wish we still played music like this in public spaces
>>793267wtf, this is more cinematic than i thought itd be
>>793256
I mean, its not like a person who hated AI because they were an obscure fetish commission artist who thought that AI was pushing them out would ever openly admit to this fact.
>>792839>The people who say otherwise are fandom queers making hideous furry inflation OC for 100$ that think of "artists" as some kind of protected class entitled to praise no matter how dogshit their outputFunny, the furry fetish artists are still making money while AI "art" really has taken away alot of advertising and billboard artist jobs.
And I do believe>>793070 is right;
>It's very funny that every pro-AI art post on this website has to bring up this exact stereotype/strawman, almost as if like most takes on leftypol the sentiment is driven by resentment towards "lib-coded" groups and not by actual logic or material analysis. >>792839>>792848Tepid take, but this stuff genuinely convinced me that there are people (maybe even a majority) that just fundementally see and/or process visual information completely differently than the rest of us. Like how does one look at shit like this and say "yep this is awesome". Like does the fact that some of it is an unintelligible, purposeless mess just not matter to some people? Do people not care that most AI porn is completely off model in a way that doesn't demonstrate the artist's idiosyncratic style? Like yeah sure maybe one day AI will be able to post stuff that is perfect or perfect enough but that's not the stuff people are currently using as wallpapers and/or spank material.
And i picked a particularly egregious example here but just look at the average jap animation for the last 15 years and it's about as bad.
>>793363You're supposed to beat off to porn.
>>793369hating on these comics just feels like resentment
>>793398people hate on it because its pushed down our throats. literally everything has to be AI nowadays even though if it brings 0 benefits, like slop pages on social media that repost human comics but make them go through an ai filter first, like, why? it just makes it look worse
>>793402I agree. But that wasnt the OPs subject. And also "artists" who make ugly retarded shit hated it from the start, before it became mandatory at your job and before boomers and thirdies started pouring sewage all over the internet with it.
>>792620It entirely depend on how the human prompter can make the AI do what they envision, and how they are willing to filter the terabits of garbage until it actually get there.
>>793403it is ugly and trashy. plus techbros are smug retards who kept bragging about hkw their shitty AI would replace artists and make them starve, so artists naturally got defensive
>>793406what i do find cringe is people on twitter purity testing others because they used AI for a shitty meme instead of paying an artist 500 dollars.
>Do people not care that most AI porn is completely off model
Most drawn porn is off model.
>>793406Techbros aren’t trying to make artists starve.
They’re more obsessed with using AI as next level automation
Also most artists already make only scraps anyway
>>793369>Or do you think picrel is fundamentaly better than a computer copying a great artist style just because some fleshbag made it?Yes. Next question.
>>793776>Can't even read entire sentencesLOL?
I think contemporary art which is just a single colour or whatever is NOT art it is just a statement.
>>794168You should post some vids from Dr Phoxotic
>>792620This petit porky screeching about AI taking their art jobs is the least interesting aspect of AI.
If you enjoy AI generated content, then your engagement with it can only be on the basis of what it is by itself. You cannot engage with it in terms of what the creator did to achieve it, and in a lot of cases not even really the motivation for creating it, any meaning meant to be conveyed, or the social context of the piece. The reason for this is that even when those things are there, the computer muddles and averages the content so much that usually little to none of it remains discernible. Furthermore, the type of people who pursue making things with AI generally lack any discerning taste or knowledge relating to the medium, either in terms of the craft or in terms of conventions used to express meaning. And even if they do, this is something difficult to even approximate using prompts. The nature of the thing is to produce something generically "aesthetic" with virtually no regard for the content itself or what the delivery of that content conveys. Even in the best examples people can come up with, genAI still struggles with extremely basic continuity. Characters and objects are not even consistent from one second to another.
So if you don't care about consistency, story, ideas, artistry, or any of the other stuff usually associated with liking art? Yeah I guess it's fine. A lot of people do only engage with art on the level of flashing lights and jangling keys, and that's who genAI is meant to entertain. It's just we're all meant to homogenize down to that lowest common denominator, which is pretty insulting and the main reason AI art faces so much backlash.
It's not even good for advertising btw. The market research shows that people can pretty consistently clock the AI and it makes them hate the associated product.
>>794178Have you ever watched any videos that use AI?
Like Schmozzle or Phoxotic?
You’re gonna tell me that’s not art?
>>794172>artists are petit bourgeoisyeah, and? marx loved shakespeare and art in general too
i hate ai because its slop, not on any """communist basis""
>>794179>have you ever eaten any food made of diarrhea?>like blumfblele or wugpumpo?this is how you uyghas sound
>>794181You’re not making a point.
You’re just promoting a strawmen based on your bias
AI content isn’t just merely made with prompts automatically. A lot of high quality AI videos require some manual editing after the prompted product.
>>794180May as well hate ten-penny comics, pulp fiction, sampling music, and photo manipulated art
>>794182>if you dont like generative AI slop why do you not also hate (things that only a braindead moron would find remotely similar to garbage that LLMs shit out beyond being considered "bad")retard thought he was cooking lmao, try using your brain sometime
your life is legitimately worthless bro 💔 you have no qualia
>>794184Again, hatred against AI is just another wave of “new media is evil”
Just like Photoshop and photography before it
I love how AI makes peoples mad that their shitty amateur artwork is no longer valued by other people. I bet artisans of the 19th century also felt the same way when people chose to buy mass produced furniture or utensils instead.
AI is incredibly historically progressive, even Musk himself keeps talking about Universal High Income, how robots and AI will do all the jobs and they'll just print money. Even if he's just lying about it, the fact that they're acknowledging that the mode of production is fundamentally changing is an incredible development
>>794186I love the "people getting mad at AI is like when people got mad at cameras!!" argument. It's complete nonsense said by midwits whose entire understanding of photography is clearly "that thing you use to take pictures of people and things"
>>794196>AI is incredibly historically progressivelmao, no it isn't.
Once you realize what it actually is, it becomes pretty clear that "AI" (actually Large Language Models) is the Simpson's Monorail of technologies. It maxed out on its actual potential as a prototyping program with very niche applications years ago, and everything else has been an attempt to brute force this idea that LLMs are actually "Artificial Intelligence," this sci-fi idea of intelligent, autonomous computers. They are nothing of the sort, no matter how big your data centers are.
AI is a bubble that is going to burst, and what's left behind (it overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards "AI" doesn't cause it to get banned) will likely be prototyping tools and programs that do meaningless busy work to be later touched up by a human. I could see an artist using AI to throw up a quick background for a character they just drew, and then touching up the little hallucinations to save time. I don't see LLMs ever replacing the artist.
>>794212Seriously. Too many people here take the term "AI" at complete face value, falling head over heels for techbro propaganda. The argument over whether AI will bring about """luxury space communism""" or whatever is moot because LLMs are not that AI, there's just some very wealthy people spending a fuckton of money making sure you believe that because you believing that makes their wallets just a little bit fatter.
>>794212Another thing that I think it might be good for, though I'm sure some people here might disagree, is the creation of audiobooks for more obscure literature that can't justify professional voice work and "filler" voice acting for video games.
It still wouldn't be what's advertised, because it wouldn't be automated. You would need a human behind it curating it and monitoring for fuck-ups and hallucinations. But I could see a long-term situation after the AI bubble has burst where the vendor NPC in an RPG that only says "Hello, adventurer! Would you care to look at my wares?" is done with an AI voice. It wouldn't replace proper voice actors for the real roles, but it could do that.
Unique IPs: 47