eramdam
@eramdam
Sorry! This post has been deleted by its original author.

Lizardguy64
@Lizardguy64

The difference is that when humans take existing things and remix them to attempt a new thing, it usually looks good but makes a lot of stupid and terrible people mad. When AI does it, it looks terrible and makes a lot of stupid and terrible people happy.


eramdam
@eramdam

Bad Art (whatever the fuck that means) is allowed to exist. Someone's shitty drawing is still art even if it's not objectively "good".

'AI' systems might get better (or already are) at making art that looks "good" but they still will be unethical because of the way they're built and why they exist in the first place. Most of those tools aren't built in a "let's help artists be more efficient" mindset but in a "you won't need to pay an artist anymore, instead pay us 20 bucks a month so we can use our model built with stolen work".

That's the issue.


nora
@nora

i think it's also important to realize that AI basically only learns from being given more data, it can only learn from its own results if a human is hand tweaking it, and if you feed it back its own work unfiltered it's just like feeding an animal its own shit. it's totally valid to produce bad art for its own sake, but often the point of making bad art is to get better at making art with practice. AIs do not experience practice like we do.


artie-codecrafter
@artie-codecrafter

Another thing is, AI simply doesn't learn like humans do. Humans learn techniques and concepts and ideas, and introduce their own concepts and ideas and habits, even when copying other artists (as people who learn often do). Compare Raphael's semi-early paintings with his teachers', Perugino's. Perugino's influence is clearly visible and yet Raphael still brings in his own judgement, even when portraying the same subject.
AI art, as far as I understand, is basically a more complex version of Picrew (you know, head, hair, torso, etc) with a bunch of probabilistic data influenced by other paintings and tags/words/tokens. This is why, for what I understand, making the AI actually adjust the art (outside of regenerating one of the Picrew-editor-regions) is impossible. This is why an AI can sometimes throw a hissy fit when you ask it to draw something it hasn't seen before, even if the words are perfectly understandable.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @eramdam's post:

A comment has been hidden by the page which made this post.

it's (almost) always people who have never made any art themselves, too, so they actually don't know a single fuckin thing about the artist experience. they just know "machine learning" has the word "learning" in it and extrapolate that it must be just like a human

in reply to @eramdam's post:

Someone's shitty drawing is still art even if it's not objectively "good".

THANK YOU! I wanna scream this all over the rooftops

I think this is the main appeal image gens have to people who aren't really familiar with a Creative Process, and is being leveraged by their developers to increase reach

Like "now you can finally make art with our tool and express yourself", no buddy you always could. Even if it looked like shit you could still express an idea, and much more about you, when you do it. It can preserve and transfer feelings in a way where they can even morph between person to person, without requiring the thing to Look Impressive

And it's being discarded just for the one of many aspects of creative works that can quickly sell. If there's people that think less skillful art is worse, or not even art, there's people that will feel gatekept by an imaginary gate, and will be taken advantage of by things like these ((vaguely gestures))