Dunno, I feel sad about artists a bit. I hope they won't stop creating. I am sick of these flashy AI fakes.
It's increasingly looking we'll all be working in construction, scrubbing floors, or performing maintenance on the machines that took our pleasant jobs.
The saving grace is it'll probably be just 10 hour work-weeks.
Most people would always face an uphill battle, producing mediocre art which only a few (likely with some personal connection) would appreciate.
You're viewing art as a commodity in a capitalist society.
1) for their own creative fulfillment. Generative AI makes no difference.
2) for enjoyment / appreciation from other people. Generative AI makes little difference here since the average person's art is likely to be mediocre with or without generative AI
3) as a way to earn their living. Here generative AI will make a difference in some art professions, but that doesn't seem to be the implied scenario of the comment I was replying to.
I'm also talking about the way it would feel as a human.
You're jumping to conclusions.
Edit: You also didn't answer the question.
How could you possibly expect this sort of worldview to reflect well upon you as a person?
When you read a book do you jump to the final chapter, read it, and then shut the book?
Because it sounds like that's how you view art.
I keep photographs of moments as memories, eventually I'll collage them together, maybe I'll do this a few times to develop a style that I enjoy. For the argument, say that it looks horrendous but in a consistent way that I like. This collection and its output have significance to me and to others I'd share it with because of the attachment to the reflection of my identity, not because it was something I created "correctly". If AI art was generated of every moment of my life and done in the same style, it wouldn't have value not because it was made incorrectly, it wouldn't have value because it has no personal meaning to anyone.
If you view art without meaning to others being less financially valuable as an attack on all creative work, I don't think you view art much better.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a good chunk of art is meant to be consumed rather than created. but the only way to know that is to gather all artist and ask them.
There are some art that insincerity meant to be seen of course. Such as murals , street, Large wall Paintings and it would be silly to act as if they’re not meant to be
You're allowed to read it however you like. No one is saying you're not. But, given those circumstances, is your interpretation of the art valid? At that point why even read the last chapter? Just make up your opinion based on the cover, you'll get through books much faster since that is your only goal.
But understanding an art piece frequently (usually?) doesn't end with that individual piece of art anyways. If Duchamp presented Fountain in 2024 would it have the same appeal? Could Fountain have been produced in 1200? Does the fact that Fountain started as a mass produced item fundamentally effect it's statement?
Your final sentence is just a completely unfounded ad hominem? No reason to attack me bud. I haven't told you how I view art (except for "in full") and I certainly didn't say anything like "art without meaning to others being less financially valuable is an attack on all creative work"
I don't think your comment really fits this thread, which is about why artists are creating art.
But if anything, it strengthens the point. The art in the Fountain is not reproducible by generative AI, its existence therefore makes no difference.
No, it really doesn't. The value in Fountain has nothing to do with the tangible piece of art itself. That's what I'm trying to communicate to you.
Attempting to boil "art" down to any one quantifiable aspect is impossible. That is the point of the anti-art like Fountain.
In other words, I disagree with your assumption that highly polished corporate art is superior to home made "mediocre" art. I grew up with TV shows like 12 OZ Mouse, Home Movies, Shin Chan, Tom goes to the Mayor, etc. If you think running those shows through generative AI would improve the shows... I would say again you don't understand what made that art good.
At best you could try to make a case for "death of the author" but I'm not sure if that principal applies to art that never had an author.
wat
Now there's no need to care about them at all!
At work we have a social gathering run by different groups each week. They put up posters.
The past year it’s been very obvious the poster images are ai generated. It’s not like they’re going to hire artist to do this poster…
The older posters were know for sometimes being topical and sometime ingenious (movie poster photoshops where clever).
Now they have better custom images, but custom bland art. I guess it’s better than just clip art.
But at the same time the barrier to entry is really low. I now see AI art everywhere: in articles, on LinkedIn, on posters etc. But most of the time in the very most basic style. It feels like instead of searching for an image of X people just type "image of X" in MJ / DallE3 and co, and go with whatever generic stuff they get
Further, "style" isn't copyrightable or sellable.
Artists don't sell a style, they sell artwork.
I just think it's wild that the entire human art scene is allowed to blatantly rip each other off (all pop sounds the same, all anime looks the same, all comic books look the same, etc etc) and it's OK, but the second that a computer does it, it's the most horrifying crime against art in history.
I think the fascinating part to me will be when AI is good enough to pick apart human art and point out all the thefts. "You stole this chord, these lyrics are basically ripped from here" "Your style is 98% this artist and you've only really change two elements" etc.
Artists hide behind their influences and it's going to be a new world when a computer can ascertain every single reference that was stolen, going to be a lot of interesting law suits.
Eg Grimes sees it this way, anyone else? It’s very surprising to me this isn’t a dialectic within the global community of artists. It points to me as a sign that perhaps art has become so intertwined with commercial and financial interests the latent mental models artists have of art have shifted over time, broadly speaking, away from art for art’s sake or art to speak.
The cracks forming around you aren't fault lines, they're growth rings.
The issue for this site is that they're using the artist names against the reproductions -- that could be argued as intentionally misrepresenting the origin of the works. I imagine, in no short order, they'll remove the artist's names or otherwise change the language to reflect that these are not the artists original works.
I'm not sure what people would use these for, other than their own personal use? Maybe inspiration, mood-boarding, or concept art... Some printing at home? I don't know.
They might release fewer pieces publicly out of style-copying fears. Or if they get paid less they might have less time to spend creating art.
Personally I think generative models enable more people to make art and may even let professional artists create more art.
I mean, sure. Hollywood has screwed over artists for decades now. But I don't think that's a good excuse to stop trying to make them pay.
To be clear: however many new indie prompt artists come out of this will be swamped by large studios. I hope this isn't a take I need to elaborate on.
Some people need to live off their art.
Would you rather have a few people thriving and the rest not doing so well? Or is it better to have more people doing marginally better, at the cost of those few thriving exceptionally?
Brilliant.
I don't think AI will affect "high art" much, it will rather destroy careers of "contract artists".
Well this is coming for every other profession, so ...
It doesn’t make sense to preserve analogous records for most other professions.
Resources will have to fairly be being distributed; not through authoritarian collectivism mechanism, control and suppression isn't the answer - but through "a rising tide lifts all ships."
Tyranny is extremely expensive, and abundance generates exponential riches for all - so long as the greedy and authoritarian don't capture systems and implement policy that suppresses various populations; why I believe Elon Musk said he thinks UBI is inevitable, however how that manifests is important. A corruptable-capturable centralized state government is too much of a single point of failure to risk such a mechanism, and if learning from the efficiencies of free market systems then in reality it will be the controller(s) of systems who then employ and fund their workers enough [who voluntarily decide they are the best employer to support to accelerate the values-processes of the organization's hierarchy] via their inherent built-in profit mechanisms to the organizational structure, to allow for those families to thrive, and fuel evolution towards such a culture winning out; otherwise "leave the dead to bury the dead [who are misguided off a cliff by tyrants]" - as Jesus said.
I agree too, the "flashy AI fakes" are in my mind equivalent to porn, crafted to maximize excitement but void of soul-spirit-authenticity, etc; at least so far - I could see, as AI avatars begin to become a thing that an individual can refine to respond how they deem acceptable, could also craft or refine AI art generator styles to weight various aspects in much more nuanced way - that then reflects their own tastes and sensibilities.
>It builds token databases
Well, you don't seem to know either.
Isn't pretty much all human art just regurgitation, recombination of prior art, audiovisual experience, emotions, human experience?
But you're asserting that in case of AI training it's "stealing property", but imply it's not stealing for human learning. I think you need to substantiate this claim/difference. "Humans learn differently from AIs" is not enough.
Seems like its working on some people.
Right not with a high degree of confidence we can state that they are taking what’s not theirs, apply software to it, and resell it.
Everything else is their defence of said process, gaslighting people and spreading schizoid fear to obfuscate it.
I am surprised at the prevalence of building armies of strawmen here.
Better to call them out or not engage in discussion.
Swiping everything under strawman without explanation is not productive to the discussion.
For humans its impossible to create same art as someone elses. For LLMs its impossible to create anything else than copy of art thats in its database.
Even if you model yourself on someones work and try to replicate it the results will be different. Its not that artists want to always create work different from each other its actually impossible for them.
Saying that art is “just” recombination of prior art is extremely dehumanising. Its like saying are ideas are just recombination of the ideas before… ok so general theory of relativity is just recombination of caveman thinking about fire and finding out how to create it?
You forget that LLMs don't generate images out of its own volition. You need to prompt them. That's the injection of emotions, human experience, into the LLM. LLM provides technical means to create an image, the prompt author provides the idea behind the art, the composition, juxtaposition etc.
> Saying that art is “just” recombination of prior art is extremely dehumanising.
Based on your previous lines, you did notice that I mentioned "prior art, audiovisual experience, emotions, human experience", so I won't reply to that strawman.
Execution is the creative and hard part not thinking out the content of the artwork. Most artworks content is super basic like face of a person. Midjourney will make even the basic prompts look awesome.
I am sorry but you wont experience what artists do by prompting LLMs. We just stole, copied their work and possibly destroyed their lives. Shame.
Humans after all can't after all generate accurate logos even when intended, GenAIs trivially do. They're not the same even by that.