1,551 karma · joined October 17, 2013
It would be much simpler to experiment with such a film about Van Gogh today with the help of machine learning. But the story has to live up to the visuals. Art and story must complement each other in a way that makes the style use undeniable, not just a gimmick.
There is also a controversy with that piece by Duchamps; there is some evidence it was by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
Sure, but nobody will remember someone said that seven years before. They might be hiring by that point, too.
It looks like you've just answered your question right there.
One of the only valid points of crypto is separating money from the government.
However, its proponents emphasize obscure benefits that make it look more obtuse than it should. As they stand, cryptocurrencies, in the eye of the general public, look either like a Ponzi scheme, free money, or too convoluted to bother, as they solve nothing other technologies don't solve already.
But sure, let's first verify that you are a genuine human. Insert coin to play again, please.
And yet, the more I play with these image models, the less I worry they might replace all artists.
Granted, it will commoditize some skills, such as photo bashing, mockups, and visual exploration.
It is a "creative" tool in a way, in the sense that a prompt can give unexpected results, such as associations that were uncalled for. But as much as you can replace higher-paid video game concept artists, you'll still need people to operate these text-to-image tools. We are past the initial discovery days, where all the results look incredible, and even the public will grow more discerning. Artists can't ignore these tools. As tools for the individual, they can be a lever. As a full-time, corporate job? Not so much. That is to say, as a job, this is not different from many other bullshit jobs. Prompting all day long is as fun as filling boxes in Excel. That will probably attract a new crowd of less specialized workers, and artists will have no choice but to adapt.
Digital artists could find new ways of expression using traditional art (a luxury), diversify, and engage in content creation. There are many alleys to confront pessimism, despair, and the fear of becoming obsolete.
Artists thrive in adversity and uncertain situations because they are problem-solvers first. Imagination is their job.
Photography made portrait artists redundant, but it didn't eliminate artists. It will change the nature of an artist's job and kill some of the joy in some cases, but it will trigger creative responses, too.
Right. Because this whole "prompt engineering" is just another job title, not an applied science, and then again, prompts can and will be automated away.
Yes, you nailed it. This trend of books built upon a single idea backed by tons of anecdotal references is like intellectual junk food.
Exactly. Same back then as today.
An insecure cave person would be protective of their cave painting turf. A well-adjusted cave person (also likely more talented) would be sharing ideas and resources or have other work for/with them.
There will be innovation outside of the latent space thanks to the AI art movement, that will be a positive development. An enormous body of artworks has zero online presence and exists outside of its reach, at least for now. However, art reflects its time, and generative, machine learning, text to image art will all influence artists in unseen ways. Offline artists are watching.
Nobody needs a computer to do outstanding art. Even the most primitive tools can produce unmatched results in the real world. That's the beauty of making art. Models cannot even begin to touch it. Good artists have nothing to fear about ML as a tool, which is fantastic and promising as such. It's undoubtly diruptive. As image-making takes less time, the value of an individual image will tend to zero. Prices will go down, and artists will adapt. That's what they do. Sure, there will be a bunch of profeteers and imposters using AI. Art always had its share of those. Art is a dream field for fraudsters. A known issue since we commercialised art, because it carries intangible value. Hence why NFTs started with art. That doesn't make the whole initiative a fraud. That said, digital artists who have copyright issues should absolutely fight back. The gray areas around training model with art by living artists needs an open discussion.
Word. There will be a large portion of the internet dedicated to bots talking to other boys.
It does if we are being honest. But that's not taking away the immense potential of these new tools and models.
Alway keep a back up.
Sometimes products reach a natural end of life, but it also highlights the importance of supporting open source.
Another great parallel would be Guy Debord's La société du spectacle, published in 1967.
Given the number of communication agencies working with the EU and since the EU had its own communication branches, one has to wonder whether having such a low outreach is by design and why this is.
Opening that conversation is laudable.
> But for personal? "Never talk about how much money you make, you either make more or less than them. Either way it makes for a very awkward conversation".
It's true, but also in large part cultural. Culture changes, though. We should discuss transparency's merits. What are the potential downsides versus benefits of having a more open salary approach?
I found that for freelancing, having an open-price policy is beneficial. For example, it filters out low-paying clients. And by providing this information to your competition, you also level up the entire field. Competition works better with a certain level of solidarity and fairness within a given field.
On the other hand, these claims turned out to be excellent marketing for those records.
This comes off as electioneering, which it probably is. It still is not a bad idea.