All the art seems to blend together from what I've seen.
Sometimes someone says to do something in the style of an existing artist, but there seem to be so many people making those requests it loses any sense of originality.
I don't doubt it will be an amusing toy for awhile, but over the years the lack of actual artists will leave us with artifice rather than genuine art.
(2023-05-25, 12:24 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]All the art seems to blend together from what I've seen.
Sometimes someone says to do something in the style of an existing artist, but there seem to be so many people making those requests it loses any sense of originality.
I don't doubt it will be an amusing toy for awhile, but over the years the lack of actual artists will leave us with artifice rather than genuine art.
I think people churning out the same stuff will go, yes... but people creating new stuff, or directing it's creation - that's going to stay relevant, and one of the reasons for creating art is because people enjoy the process of creating it... they'd create it anyway, because they enjoy the process of creation. People enjoy playing together in bands, taking pictures, painting, sculpting, you name it... and they don't earn a dime from it. Just look at the music distribution services... 60,000+ new tracks a day. Freeing people to create... well that might take us in unexpected directions. When I was younger, I could go out to the town center on a Saturday and see practically the whole town wearing blue jeans... bit by bit it's got more varied... today there is huge variety... this may be about to explode...
(2023-05-25, 12:47 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I think people churning out the same stuff will go, yes... but people creating new stuff, or directing it's creation - that's going to stay relevant, and one of the reasons for creating art is because people enjoy the process of creating it... they'd create it anyway, because they enjoy the process of creation. People enjoy playing together in bands, taking pictures, painting, sculpting, you name it... and they don't earn a dime from it. Just look at the music distribution services... 60,000+ new tracks a day. Freeing people to create... well that might take us in unexpected directions. When I was younger, I could go out to the town center on a Saturday and see practically the whole town wearing blue jeans... bit by bit it's got more varied... today there is huge variety... this may be about to explode...
Ah maybe I'm too old to appreciate it but it just seems like edited variations of what the human artists they took from actually made. (There is, admittedly, already a flood of art work drawn in the same style or mass produced even without AI art generators.)
I don't really see typing prompts into AI art gen as creating, any more than slight changes to an order off a menu makes one a chef.
That said, I don't doubt that some artistic work will be discovered indirectly such as a self-published writer or table-top game designer being able to have art they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
But I also believe we won't really understand the cost until a generation from now when the number of artists is greatly diminished and we just have a flood of AI generated junk.
(2023-05-25, 01:54 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Ah maybe I'm too old to appreciate it but it just seems like edited variations of what the human artists they took from actually made. (There is, admittedly, already a flood of art work drawn in the same style or mass produced even without AI art generators.)
I don't really see typing prompts into AI art gen as creating, any more than slight changes to an order off a menu makes one a chef.
That said, I don't doubt that some artistic work will be discovered indirectly such as a self-published writer or table-top game designer being able to have art they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
But I also believe we won't really understand the cost until a generation from now when the number of artists is greatly diminished and we just have a flood of AI generated junk.
It can’t however make anything physical (yet) - so classical art like paintings is safe so far.
(2023-05-25, 01:54 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Ah maybe I'm too old to appreciate it but it just seems like edited variations of what the human artists they took from actually made. (There is, admittedly, already a flood of art work drawn in the same style or mass produced even without AI art generators.)
I don't really see typing prompts into AI art gen as creating, any more than slight changes to an order off a menu makes one a chef.
That said, I don't doubt that some artistic work will be discovered indirectly such as a self-published writer or table-top game designer being able to have art they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
But I also believe we won't really understand the cost until a generation from now when the number of artists is greatly diminished and we just have a flood of AI generated junk.
In the case of mid journey, it’s compressing past human pictures/photos to make that information useful. Instead of going to a search engine or searching a stock image site for a suitable photograph using keywords, Midjourney has learned the relationships between the keywords and the images, and creates the image you require. It’s just the difference between searching for an image with keywords, vs creating the image with keywords.
All artists stand on the shoulders of past artists. All music written by composers today, borrows from the composers of the past. Midjourney is no different, in that it compresses all that past information into something functional.
I don’t know where it will take us. But the servants of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, those who were ‘in-service’ must have wondered about their world disappearing, and how the world could cope without servants… this pattern has repeated throughout history. Hunter gatherer to farming, Rome invading the British Isles and destroying Druid’s. Etc etc
(2023-05-25, 07:26 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]It can’t however make anything physical (yet) - so classical art like paintings is safe so far.
Interesting point... whilst I was on discord last night... It popped up with a chat from the creators of MidJourney... he mentioned that the next evolution they were working towards was 3D models... it seems a short step to take that 3D model and send it to say... a 3D printer...
(2023-05-25, 08:36 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]In the case of mid journey, it’s compressing past human pictures/photos to make that information useful. Instead of going to a search engine or searching a stock image site for a suitable photograph using keywords, Midjourney has learned the relationships between the keywords and the images, and creates the image you require. It’s just the difference between searching for an image with keywords, vs creating the image with keywords.
I get this is the explanation, but given the dependence on the training data it still seems to me artists should have been granted the right to opt in or out.
I think the end result will be a major lack of original art which to me is different than other kinds of automation. The high art world will be safe for a time, but lots of other art will just disappear.
The same-ness of AI art is already bad, but AI art trained on AI art...the world is going [to] just get duller & duller IMO...
(2023-05-25, 04:56 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I get this is the explanation, but given the dependence on the training data it still seems to me artists should have been granted the right to opt in or out.
It's a bit difficult because a real artist can be influenced to the nth degree by another artist and yet still produce new art. Is this not the same, just automated?
(2023-05-25, 07:26 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]It can’t however make anything physical (yet) - so classical art like paintings is safe so far.
I don't doubt they'll give a robot a paintbrush to paint a generated image...this might be as early as next year as I can't think of any major programmatic barriers to this happening.
Of course reading about the life and art of, from personal experience, Tiepolo and then correctly identifying one of his paintings from afar in a museum...that delight has no place in the dull world of mass produced junk.
There are apparently people who guard their prompts because they don't want the AIs to make the image for someone else, and some even think these prompts are a sign of their own artistic merit...to me that's like a supposed lothario bragging about how much porn he watches...
(2023-05-25, 05:40 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]It's a bit difficult because a real artist can be influenced to the nth degree by another artist and yet still produce new art. Is this not the same, just automated?
That's the argument used, but to me the reliance on these images is still there in the underlying maths.
For example I played around with a few of these [art generators] and it wasn't that hard to get them to produce somewhat altered collages of copyrighted work. I'm sure the AI art gen companies are getting better at hiding what art they took but we'll have to see what the IP lawyers are able to "trick" the AIs into making.
AI Spits Out Exact Copies of Training Images, Real People, Logos, Researchers Find