You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t even consider AI generated images to be art since there is no expression of skill, imagination, or feeling in them.
I agree.To me art is an expression of the soul; it’s an expression of one’s perception of the world. It has spiritual qualities (in an atheist sense). There is an inner world that puts out together a piece of art that LLMs do not possess and that’s why they need to train on existing material that comes from human expression.
I highly doubt an LLM suffers, loves, hopes, hates and cries like us. Art is an expression of who we are individualy and collectively. LLMs only hallucinate with art made by humans. While we humans can find inspiration from other artists, it is not a necessity to train on vast databases of art pieces to put something together. They say that while it’s hard to define what art is, you know it when you see it. To me when I get that feeling from something made by AI, all I really see is a piece of an other artist’s soul trapped in some sort of simulacrum put together by an algorithm.
Cut the training material and AI “art” will stagnate. We, on the other hand, won’t.
That’s why I think AI art will never really be art… unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
Gaius Baltar enters the chat.
I tend to agree with that. I also hate that of all the great uses for generative AI, this is the direction they took the tech. It’s not a replacement for whole jobs, and I knew that at the onset, but so many dumb business types thought it could replace entire departments, customer service, etc.
AI generation is a gradient from clean up to controlling every pixel.
If an artist draws the line art, does basic coloring, but has a network do the sharing, that’s art. How far does that carry?
Surely, anything that had heart and soul poured into it is art, right? Text prompt, or otherwise. You don’t have to resonate with it. You can be scared of it.
But you said imagination, feeling, skill make up art. It is bold, or naive, to think those who create AI works doesn’t have these traits, like to say the hobbies, programmers, and the curious, aren’t artists.
Even if the image was regenerated with tweaked prompts until the generated image expressed what the prompter wanted to convey?
I don’t think we’re at the level AI prompting can be used to reflect the subtlety needed to make art. It’s like chainsaw art, cool and mebbe art but it’s not art like the old masters art.
Also everyone thinking that shitting out a Rembrandt liking image is fantastic does not understand what art really is.
Yes even then. Writing a prompt is no more an artistic skill than describing your idea to an artist you’re commissioning. You didn’t create a damn thing. You will not be called an artist for commissioning a work.
to be honest, i’m not only referring to images. any kind of what so called “art” since it’s possible now to make “music” with AI. thanks for the response anyway.
I hate that it’s built on theft. The idea of AI art is fine, but so much of it is just art theft. “Picture of A in the style of artist B.” That kind of shit really makes me hate AI art.
I don’t hate the “art.” The AI can’t do much about it.
What I strongly dislike is people who manage to draft literally 40 words or less and think they “created” something.
You didn’t. You a mathematical model to do something for you. You therw 175 tokens into a whirlpool and got am 87% what you wanted image out. If you even had an idea of what you wanted before hand.
It’s soulless. A mere imitation.
It’s not art. Expanding the sense of the word to all kinds of nonsensical phenomena is both damaging art and artists as well.
I take the liberty of a personal definition of art, or if not definition, at least prerequisites for something to be considered art, and that is that art must be made by the hand of the artist and that it’s conception must include deliberate thought/mental process of the artist. It may not be the best definition, but I consider it to be good enough to draw a definite line between Michelangelo and the internet lady who vlogs about the art of tying your shoelaces or some similar shit.
I hate those who call themselves artists when they’re just commissioning a computer to make a picture for them. I also hate it when those same people deny the unethical aspects of AI generation.
Edit: to add more, I also hate the AI images themselves. They are filling up the internet with slop. This is very annoying, and the same goes for LLMs. I don’t want to get AI generated results when I didn’t search for them specifically.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Don’t try to pass it off as your creation. I have zero skill and like using it to make dumb stuff like a Xenomorph twerking for my most recent request. Had a speech to text typo that created what is possibly the best gibberish meme I’ve ever seen. But again, I am completely honest about it, as if it would’ve been hard to tell anyways.
Here’s a screenshot of the typo prompt and result.
I’m not sure hate is the right word. When you’ve got someone stabbing you in the back multiple times, is it really hate you’re feeling toward them? Or is it anger, fear, and danger?
I “hate” it in the sense that it’s built on theft and requires the exploitation of underpaid workers to develop and maintain it. I “hate” it in the sense that we’re living on a burning cinder with dwindling fresh water resources and “AI” is adding fuel to the fire. I “hate” it in the sense that it’s being used to further undervalue artists and writers. I “hate” it in the sense that it fills our spaces with crap that so often looks like it was cribbed off of Rapunzel, Wreck-It-Ralph, and some other things.
I don’t hate AI art. I hate people who pretend they’re artists when all they do is writing prompts.
AI art is fine being used as a tool. What I have a problem with is it’s users calling themselves “artists”.
A person who types a prompt into an AI is no different than a person who hires a painter and describes what he wants them to paint.
Just because that “painter” in the first case happens to be a computer, that doesn’t mean that by default the title of “artist” defaults back to the person who wrote the prompt. That person is still just someone telling someone (or something) what to draw.
In other words, you don’t become the artist just because you eschew paying an actual artist and instead have your computer do it for you.
I see this view a lot and I agree with it, but how can you argue with anyone who says well, that’s what they said about synthesizers for music. Or ipads for art. Or computers replacing typewriters. Are you saying anyone who doesn’t hand write a book in cursive while solely learning the djembe from a scroll is not a real artist ? (Obvious /s but it’s kind of valid). Unfortunately we are the old man yelling at cloud, just 20 years too early. The future will laugh that there were AI detractors (in my opinion).
Everything you’ve mentioned are tools for an artist to use to express THEIR talent. A typewriter doesn’t come up with the words. a Synthesiser doesn’t compose the the music that its playing. Comparinging AI (which requires zero talent) is disingenuous.
To put it another way, if you’re a carpenter using hammers and saws (tools), and then some engineer creates a robot that can be programmed to do that job and allows them to fire all the carpenters. Does that make the programmers carpenters even though not a single one has used a circular saw.
The line between “tool” and “crutch” is drawn by how much talent and training it takes to use it.
AI is NOT used as a tool in that traditional sense, its a shortcut to fake talent in ways that hammers, paintbrushes, typewriters and even just good old fashioned traditional Photoshop aren’t…
You have to have the training and talent to get use out of a real tool. And AI certainly potential for use in that regard; proofreading, background removal, grammar checking etc…
Your comment made me think of DJs. Not “real” musicians? Seems like a similarly-structuree argument.
Are modern DJs musicians as compared to a classically trained cellist (sp?)? In my thoughts, not really.
DJs use the tools to express THEIR talent. They don’t just say “create a composition that sounds good”. That’s the difference between an artist and a fraud.
No. It’s useful when you need a quick picture for something or help visualizing something. A huge timesaver. I haven’t seen it generate anything good enough to be hung in an art museum, so I don’t really understand why anyone would hate it. It’s not really competition for actual art. Also, I want to say that I don’t think anyone’s art was “stolen”. That’s the same ludicrous argument the RIAA uses against online file sharing. Any images used in the training was downloaded, mathematically analyzed, and deconstructed. “Stolen” would require a heist at the museum.
I’m not entirely against LLMs as a tool, but I especially despise the image-based LLMs. They are certainly neat for some fun things. I’ve used them a little bit here and there for a dumb profile picture or a “I’m kinda thinking about this…” Brainstorm, but even in those cases I noticed the capabilities of the LLM and its tendencies quite literally pidgeon hole my artistic vision and push me in other directions that felt less and less creative. (Sidenote: I feel the same way about coding LLM tools. The longer I use them at any given time, the less creative I feel and it has a noticeable impact on my interest in the code I’m writing. So I don’t really use them much. Also I consistently manage to point out coding LLM code in PR reviews because it’s always kinda funky)
I’ve avoided using AI art tools for a while now. I’ll consider some limited use if the cost, billionaire ownership, blatant theft of real IP without compensation, and environmental impact problems are solved. (No, an “open source” model doesn’t solve all of these problems, especially since nearly all open source models are not truly open source and are almost always benefiting from upstream theft)
You know what I do like about AI art? I like the older Google machine learning art experiments from the mid-2010s. They invoked a strange existential curiosity. But those weren’t done with LLM’s.
Outside of LLMs, I like that there are some newer tools for editing that can do a better “lasso” select, that can mix and match into brushes as an alternative to something more algorithmic, the audio plugin that uses a RNN to simplify or expand upon an audio technique. Things that are tools that can be chosen or avoided and have nothing to do with LLMs.
I honestly cannot wait for this bubble to burst and for these tools to return to a cost that they’d need to be for these companies to turn a profit. A higher cost would eliminate all this casual use that is making people worse at research, critical thinking, and creativity, as well as make the art tools less competitive to just paying artists, even for scumbags wanting to cut the artists out. And it’d incentivize non-LLM, non-insanely costly ML techniques again instead of the current “LLMs for everything” nonsense right now.
of course! aside from detracting from artists with actual talent and creativity, there is one example i’ve seen in my school that makes me hate it even more: teachers deciding to print out posters, flyers, etc. with obviously ai generated images, despite the fact that we have an entire art department in the school, full of students who’d be very much interested in making something up for them. even then, tools like canva and the sort are always available, hell, even mspaint could work! i’d rather see 10 poorly made posters than have to see one more ai image used in the school.
It’s ruined art for me. Someone posts something, and I don’t know if it’s real art or a theft of other people’s work.
That’s the problem. We can’t tell the difference.
deleted by creator
Art is cool cos it’s like holy shit a person did that!?
If it’s just an algorithm it’s not very impressive.
