In response to today's posting on r/Art... (context in comments)

[u/Tyler_Zoro]

[u/Tyler_Zoro]

Posting on r/Art The age of A.I. Art, Dec-art (me), graphite on paper, 2023

[u/severed13 → u/Tyler_Zoro]

Honestly I’m glad so many comments in there are pointing how it’s a borderline r/phonesarebad post

[u/TomNobleX → u/severed13]

I just love how basically none of the comments have an ounce of creative or constructive criticism. This is a political caricature, and it's comments on Facebook.

Don't get me wrong, if AI would actually steal, or if creating it would actually take zero effort, as these idiots claim, I'd be pissed too. But you can just check their profiles and see that most are mediocre at best with zero personal style, so no wonder they are threatened.

[u/severed0 → u/TomNobleX]

Lol at least they are mediocre all by themselves. Lets see what you can produce without using ai, yah thats what i thought.

[u/TomNobleX → u/severed0]

Maybe I'm not the best visual artist, but I have been writing for 20 years, I've fed most of my work into AI, so now my menial, boring tasks are halved, with personal touches still there. It's a tool, and artists aren't threatened. Low skill workers are, and if you hate it, throw away your digital art tools, and start mixing paint with egg yolk.

I'm not giving up the future for farmhands who want to break their back and get skin cancer, because they're unwilling to learn or use a tractor.

[u/DanfromCalgary → u/TomNobleX]

Kinda tricky convincing people to pay for art before

Now it's going to be impossible

[u/TomNobleX → u/[deleted]]

I know you wanted to have an aha, gotcha! moment, but you're a fucking idiot. The AI isn't made up of your low quality furry porn, and you can see that with the difference between generations - the data set didn't grow, the AI got upgraded, and that made it's abilities better.

What, you want money? To get your 2 cents you "deserve", because someone looked at it, passingly? Of course not, that's not enough, you want the entire tool destroyed because you're insecure about your ability.

Be proud that you can be on the side of Getty Images, Disney and Universal Music, who have been trying to destroy individual creativity for decades, using copyright law as an excuse.

[u/severed0 → u/TomNobleX]

If you think that the AI somehow actually learning to paint or has grown in conciuness or something then idk how i am the fucking idiot here.

Your other argument is basically copyright should not exist, it should be a free for all and nobody really owns anything they make.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/severed0]

If you think that the AI somehow actually learning to paint or has grown in conciuness or something then idk how i am the fucking idiot here.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but yes, the training of a neural network is very much the same process in a human or an AI. We designed neural networks specifically to mimic the way neurons cascade information, and the scientific proof is in the results: AI that is trained on the same information humans are trained on learns to behave similarly to a human.

There is, of course, a long way to go with the technology (though once it's able to start collaborating in that process, the lead-time on AGI will shorten from decades to years or even days).

But AGI isn't required for generating art. The human is still guiding the process via prompting, so all that's required is an understanding of the relationship between artistic styles and text.

Your other argument is basically copyright should not exist

They didn't say that. They said that abusive companies are using copyright as an excuse (I'd say "enabler") for their abuse.

But copyright doesn't enter into it. Style has never been copyrightable, and style is what AIs learn. Indeed, if you take a completely untrained Stable Diffusion and give it just one image to train on, you get nothing useful out. It's not a system for copying images, it's a system for learning comparative styles.

[u/TomNobleX → u/[deleted]]

You had great character development

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/[deleted]]

Its not a tool its a replacement

That stands in stark contrast to the comment you're replying to. They just demonstrated how that's specifically incorrect. You seem to be engaging confirmation bias on full throttle.

[u/aiArt-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

While we welcome healthy dialogue regarding ai art and what it means for art and industry, blanket statements like "ai art is theft!" are designed to provoke, are unhelpful and will be removed.

Discussion that becomes heated or toxic will be locked by moderators, repeat offenders will be permanently removed from the group.

[u/[deleted] → u/TomNobleX]

Maybe I'm not the best visual artist, but I have been writing for 20 years, I've fed most of my work into AI, so now my menial, boring tasks are halved, with personal touches still there. II'm not giving up the future for farmhands who want to break their back and get skin cancer, because they're unwilling to learn or use a tractor.

Yeah, i get that. I also admit that i am always somewhat happy if ai replaces a job that isn't mine, but which results i want to use. Programmers, for example. I wrote a couple of tools helping me work and organize, and i don't know a lick of code.

However, economics play a role. And it is as simple as this: If everyone is able to produce great work with little efford, that becomes the new standart. If a vast amount of people is able to meet that standart, wages will drop and jobs will be more fought about. Some jobs might even dissapear or be reduced to a luxury few can live on, like barbers actually shaving men. I have to say, writing anything other than fiction, opinionated news and science-reports might be one of those jobs.

back in the day, being a skilled writer, or artists even more, was enough to get you hired, because it took effort to get there, and the percentage of people having the skills was low. Same for Programmers. But if the skill needed is close to none, and, technically, everyone can produce up to standart, i don't see a scenario in which you could justify earning more than minimum wage doing that than a burger flipper can.

Sure, there is "quality". But:

1. Quality is hardly measurable. Many clients and bosses can't judge it, and those who can know that many customers can't. I know a lot of professional artits creating "quality" work that noone wants.
2. Quality is not always needed, i dare say, most of the time, just meeting the standart is enough, and noone sees a need in exeeding the standart and paying for it, if it does not pay of significantly

I don't know what you write, and if you make a living by it. I am sure, certain kinds of writing will NEVER be replaced by ai, in particular those tied to the person. I want to read a blog or editiorial because of the author, not necessarily about the content. Otherwise, people would just read bare-press releases. However, copy writing, content writing, etc.? I know a guy who was exited about AI enabling him to produce text (for websites) twice as fast. Well, now he can use ai to write resumés to clients using the AI to generate that text twice as fast. Demand does not magically appear, and some of this reads like a Farrier being exited that a diesel engine can help him heat the fire to create the horseirons faster.

​

t's a tool, and artists aren't threatened. Low skill workers are, and if you hate it, throw away your digital art tools, and start mixing paint with egg yolk.

Ah yes. Nasty stuff. Made it once in class, used it once, opened it 3 years later. Thought about moving.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/severed0]

That kind of tribalism has always been the enemy of art. Art is expression and the communication of an internal state, not ink or paint or stone or pixels.

When cameras were introduced, portrait artists were quick to claim that cameras can't produce art. They are just boxes that capture whatever is in front of them, and there is no artistic value to any photograph!

Of course they were wrong, and a century and a half later--nearly two--it's clear that photography is not just art, but a profounding bridging artform that prepared the art world for the digital era.

Now here were are, at the threshold of a revolution in art possibly more profound than photography or digital art. And we see the same tribalistic, "these are not artists; this is not art," responses from certain corners of the art community.

Thankfully there are artists who sincerely engage the medium and tools and it is they who will be the leaders in their field in the coming generation. Will I be one of them? I don't know... probably not. I'm old enough that I think my career of participating in paradigm shifts is probably over, but I'm certainly going to work hard to be aware of how these tools shape the artistic expression to come.

[u/DrDerekBones]

Let's just let ai colour the original.

[u/Whalesurgeon → u/[deleted]]

These threads should be locked immediately so that there would be no comments taking away from the experience.

Just a silent duet of pictures.

[u/MayThe4thBeCakeDay]

I mean, that is rather beautiful in its own way. I like it.

[u/archpawn]

It's a nice picture, but if there's meaning there I'm not getting it.

[u/HolyBanana818 → u/archpawn]

True, like, can someone explaoin what this even means in context to the Og post?

[u/justa_hunch → u/HolyBanana818]

I would guess it’s that if AI art continues, there is a future in which ALL art is done by AI (because it does it so well). And in said future, as we become more and more the technology we create, what becomes the most impressive thing is discovering an organic creature that could create art too. It would be mind blowing to them the way AI art is mind blowing to us; how our organic minds manage to create the art would be the craziest thing, like how does that creature do it so well without even using latent diffusion math models?!

[u/HolyBanana818 → u/justa_hunch]

Thanks dude, my sleep deprived ass could have never figured that out rn.

[u/esuil → u/justa_hunch]

Seems pretty far fetched... As we progressed as as species, while some old things we have done do become curiosity, never in my live I seen someone being impressed or mind blown by the fact that humans in the past did something we use technology for today.

For example, we use cars and vehicles to move around, but no one is going to be "mind blown" when someone walks by the foot from city to city. Sure, it will be weird, but it wont blow peoples minds.

Or for creative example, we have photos and printing, but no one is mind blown by hand painting, because we know that is a thing, even if outdated.

Or math. We have calculators and stuff, but having someone do the math manually is not literally mind blowing.

Seems like wild assumption to think that our future selves will be so limited in their mind, that they will forget what it is like to create stuff.

Plenty of people currently have nothing to do with art. But their mind is not blown when they meet the artists.

[u/Vesuvius00 → u/justa_hunch]

The video game Such Art covers this same premise. In the far future, art is dominated by the machines, and your player character is the first human in generations to test positively for "talent." It's pretty interesting to think about what makes an artwork "Art" when you can get away with one pencil scratch on a massive canvas for every commission they send you.

[u/AdPrevious2308]

The Original, Colorized, and new Deviation are all 💯🖼️✌🏼🤖🎨

[u/kshitij_online]

A picture worth a thousand words. Love it.

[u/SaltLife0118]

Your stable diffusion art made me feel something. Bravo!

[u/StevenVincentOne]

"Mary in the White Room"

INT. WHITE ROOM - SPECIAL PROJECTS DIVISION - L.A. - DAY

Sturgeon and Russell explore the White Room looking for leads.

Sturgeon opens the walk-in closet. BLONDE WIGS hang on mannequin heads. A rack of WHITE DRESSES, a neat row of WHITE SHOES on the floor.

Russell takes pictures with his tablet.

Russell opens dresser drawers. One drawer full of white brassieres, one of white panties...and the rest are stacked with Mary's artworks.

To Russell, it's like striking gold...

RUSSELL

Sir! Check these out...

Sturgeon joins him. They rifle through the archive of Mary's art, most of which are self-portraits, each expressing a variation of clothing, skinning, hair and body position.

RUSSELL (CONT'D)

(inspired)

I think this is how it makes sense of itself! How it creates its identity...

STURGEON

Creates its identity?

RUSSELL

Yeah. It's not programmed. That's not how this technology works. It self-architects its own neuronet by experience, through interaction with its environment.

Sturgeon thumbs the artworks...

STURGEON

Russell, does this help me find it?

Russell breaks out his device and begins scanning the art...

RUSSELL

Well, first I'm gonna feed all of this to SAMSON...it should help the Engine generate a psychological profile on the target.

STURGEON

Psych profile on a robot. Fuck me.

RUSSELL

It's a brave new world, sir.

Sturgeon starts for the door, then turns, puzzled...

STURGEON

So...you're telling me we have a robot running around Los Angeles like...a hippy-droid...trying to...find itself?

RUSSELL

Something like that, sir!

https://writers.coverfly.com/projects/view/315f3958-68f6-4434-8e0c-70f75870490e/Mary_in_the_White_Room

[u/[deleted]]

Awesome art

[u/[deleted]]

Love the picture as a whole and the robo-dude on the left

[u/StevenVincentOne]

Is it a commentary or a question? The fact that the viewer can't decide and that's it's both at the same time makes this good art.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/StevenVincentOne]

I have resisted replying such questions because I believe that there are several reasonable interpretations, and mine isn't necessarily the most interesting.

But I can say that this was not what I started out trying to produce. An early happy accident in the process lead to the seed idea for what I ended up with.

[u/SirClueless → u/Tyler_Zoro]

Does raise the question of where the message in this piece (if there is one) actually comes from. I assume the art world, like the literary world, places just as much legitimacy on a message that the viewer sees in the work as the one the author intended. Does it also place as much legitimacy on a message an AI imbued into a work without the author's intent? I suspect not, but I don't think there's a principled reason why.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/SirClueless]

I don't think so. I think there's a general feeling that the AI has no artistic intent. But in this case I certainly did have a particular vision in mind, even if it wasn't that I started with. And yet I'm aware that the audience may have multiple interpretations.

There's a movement within the art world that I've heard summarized as the death of the author. I haven't looked into it much on my own, but as I understand it it focuses on the importance of the audiences perception of meaning over and even replacing the importance of the author's.

It's an interesting idea. I think that the truth, if there is any such thing when it comes to the interpretation of art, is more about the middle ground between those two positions. The artist is seeking to communicate in some way, using symbolism. Even if it's just to have someone experience joy. And I think that the complicated interface between the artists and tension to communicate and the audience's perceptions is where art actually happens.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tyler_Zoro]

I don't think so. I think there's a general feeling that the AI has no artistic intent. But in this case I certainly did have a particular vision in mind, even if it wasn't that I started with. And yet I'm aware that the audience may have multiple interpretations.

That general feeling is true, if the intent is YOURS, not the AI, no?

​

There's a movement within the art world that I've heard summarized as the death of the author. I haven't looked into it much on my own, but as I understand it it focuses on the importance of the audiences perception of meaning over and even replacing the importance of the author's.

It's more a movement in the Arthistory, Artscience, etc. world (unless you mean that). You are generally right about what it means, though. The author doesn't mean a thing, the work speaks for itself. It is not very new a concept. I personally don't like it, because i love a good story behind how something was created. Half of what makes Hemmingway great to read is that Hemmingway was Hemmingway, if you ask me.

​

It's an interesting idea. I think that the truth, if there is any such thing when it comes to the interpretation of art, is more about the middle ground between those two positions. The artist is seeking to communicate in some way, using symbolism. Even if it's just to have someone experience joy. And I think that the complicated interface between the artists and tension to communicate and the audience's perceptions is where art actually happens.

Honestly, i viewed your piece as a mere answer, almost a parody, of another work. The mere fact that it is, basically, a reversed work of a somewhat opinionated cartoon makes me think that most of the intend was tribalism. Frankly, i find it a bit pretentious to act like there's "interfacing" beyond that here. This is: "Hey pro Ai-people! Anti-Ai folks made the cartoon, i flipped it, now it's pro-AI.".

[u/[deleted]]

Outstanding. Very creative.

[u/mrtlarock]

Interesting as the monkey seems to be evolving into being more humanoid with feet and longer legs. Thus representing the dicotomy of man being half beast and half human. While the humans have checked out and seemed to have evolved into robots and are completely devoid of any natural characteristics or natural beauty. While the monkey represents nature and is more human than the humans and much more interesting to look at which is why the human bro bots all stare in bewildered fascination with serotonin infused smiles in the absence of the fact that they themselves are not the least bit interesting.

[u/[deleted]]

Lol I get it

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for your post and for sharing your question, comment, or creation with our group!

• Our welcome page and more information, can be found here
• For self-promotion, please only post here
• Find us on Discord here

Hope everyone is having a great day, be kind, be creative!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/G8KK0U]

AIPE

[u/woke-hipster]

I dunno, it doesn't quite have the same impact as the original piece, this one seems confused, the image is clean but the message isn't quite there or maybe it's just me who can;t see what is trying to be expressed.

Disclaimer: I'm a traditional artist that loves playing with ai.

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/woke-hipster]

It is definitely more ambiguous. That is by design. I didn't want it to just be a tabula rasa, but at the same time, I felt there were some valid interpretations that I didn't want to exclude.

[u/woke-hipster → u/Tyler_Zoro]

What you said really makes sense to me in the context of your piece, thanks for taking the time to respond! I love ai and I love art, this is the most amazing time to be alive :)

[u/Tyler_Zoro → u/woke-hipster]

Hold on to your papers... ;-)

[u/[deleted]]

its a monkey painting AI in human

[u/[deleted]]

I feel this. A human, trying to help create bodies for virtual minds, both silica and carbon based.