AI Art Gallery
ai-art-gallery.sintef.cloud
ai-art-gallery.sintef.cloud
I'm not sure that exercise is going to be very productive, though. A lot of time my feedback was "looks cool, but the hands / faces" look weird; except when the art style was more abstract, or the subject was landscapes where the generation errors were less blatant.
I don't think that feedback gives the AI something actionable. An AI trained on this feedback won't learn "I need to draw faces and hands better" (and anyway, we already knew that these were the areas to improve), it's going to learn "humans like it better when I do abstract styles and landscapes".
You don’t have to give feedback to the AI, you can write whatever you feel.
It’s a bit explorative research. Perhaps the final dataset will be useful but it’s not a given.
The computer generated images in a weird way by using random noise and mixing the prompt embeddings.
It results in a lot of broken or corrupted images but also some unique images.
The page contains some technical details and some opinions about generative AI art.
It won't work, because we are wired differently. I browse a lot of art and AI art too, and there are about 1-2 pictures among a 1000 that I say is good and has human made characteristics. Most of them are trash.
So we are a long way away from rearranging talent space and giving the talent of pro artists in the hands of average joes (or rather to the elite).
"AI art" is an oxymoron.
I'm about a 1:20 like to dislike ratio. Most of the dislikes are do to poor anatomy, ornamental text, overly smooth output(which weirdly people seem to like), unidentifiable objects.
Does it get more interesting?
A pet peeve of mine as well. The over-processed look is something I can't get behind. Especially recently on TikTok, users apply a very strong smoothing filter to film footage sometimes, like an denoise turned up to 11.
Does art require intent and meaning?
We're talking about art, not phone wallpaper screens.
Some people just type in “pretty woman wearing armor.”
Where’s the line?
The line is where we draw it, and we have to draw it somewhere.
It's clear to anyone that typing prompts into a black box (that likely was trained on stolen art) and expending zero effort other than selecting from the randomly generated images is different than the process you described.
* simply writing prompts doesn't make anyone an artist
That is a form of a creative human effort. Not that different from a photographer who shoots a couple dozen photos on the go, and later selects one or few they like best, to publish without further retouching.
It's gonna be more blurry when someone loops SD derivative with GPT-4V derivative, to have the latter rate the output of the former, and the loop running until the rating model deems the picture good enough.
In the above case, the photographer had a particular vision in mind and fulfilled it with their camera, choosing the scenery, lighting, model, colors, framing, and overall composition. They set up all of those factors, and then chose the best take from the portraits to use for further work. It was deliberate and done with specific intent. There is no way one can argue this is the same as entering words into a prompt with a straight face.
I have no stakes in this game but yeah, I think they are the exactly the same. I always thought of photography as a "phony" art, unlike classical canvas painters. You're using a machine that does all the work for you. In this case, the prompt is the camera positioning, lighting etc.
Not that any of this matters anyway, so don't waste energy with an uphill battle. As long as they like the actual result, people won't care.
That's why I didn't write "a photographer setting up a photoshoot"; I specifically wrote "a photographer who shoots a couple dozen photos on the go". Perhaps I should've written "a person owning a DSLR" or "amateur instagrammer" instead.
Point is, when discussing copyright both in general, and wrt. generative AI in particular, people tend to bucket together casual, amateur and professional photographers, making it seem that the former do the same kind of creative work as the latter. But that's not true, and not fair - there isn't much more effort or creativity going into casual photography, than there is into iterating a stable diffusion prompt until one finds something they like. Professional photographers have their generative-AI-user counterpart, but in form of an artist or graphic designer using AI-assist tools as part of their overall workflow.
Being an artist is a self-designated term so you’re only projecting your own biases with this statement.
People writing prompts can certainly attempt to call themselves "artists", but they will not be perceived or acknowledged as such by literally anyone who takes making art seriously.