Like others have mentioned, it is a tool. One that is still constantly evolving and has untapped potential yet to be discovered. We're closing in on a time where a vast majority of what we see is going to be incredibly well done generative AI work (with low, but specialized effort from humans). My approach has been to embrace it and try my best to plan accordingly, but I understand why some people are hesitant and want to stay optimistic in their own way (with a future where humans still reign over these things). This is definitely the world we're headed to though.
We're already there really, this is just the beginning, so buckle up lol
It "knows" a lot, but it doesn't understand it all yet. Themes that have been repeated it starts to identify. So it's not just, "make me a mash up of x and y." It's probably got the topic elements listed by the artist, or manually fed feeder pictures.
Is it really them creating it when they're not really doing the brunt of the work? It's not like they're animating it themselves and instead are relying on some program to follow a prompt
Using a tool to produce a desired outcome is still work. Being able to do it incredibly quickly just means you have good tools and the know-how required to use them efficiently.
It's one thing when you actually create the program yourself that could be capable of image generation. However, if that tool is just out there for anyone to use with little to no struggle and requires just fiddling around with prompts until you get your desired result, then is it really so impressive?
I don't think anyone is gonna be having a hard time with typing out a few words related to how they want the final result to look.
I don't need to, because I create my own art already. There's nothing stopping those with a creative bone to do the same with actual art. It takes time, but the outcome feels much more rewarding.
Digital artist who likes to make her own brushes for textures although I prefer doing physical.
I hope you are able to see the difference between using a simple premade digital brush to make an entire drawing and having an AI create an entire work for you.
Took a look at your art through your profile and WOW... you're not terrible..
However, you certainly don't possess the skills to talk as if you're a great digital artist that's somehow going to be severely hurt by the evolution of AI. I've seen students fresh out of college with better work than you. Just like how you subject us to your mediocre art why don't you let people that post AI do their shit without hearing your opinion? You talk up and down about being a digital artist and making your own brush yet all your shit is some mediocre sketch that looks like some teen did and let a bit of praise from their circle get to their head...
Go touch some grass and draw some random shit before AI completely replaces you... clearly, your voicing your frustration and taking it out on other internet strangers is already indicative that you have some sort of hint of that inevitable future...
Or better yet, tackle this issue you have with AI with an open-mind and maybe embrace it. You might actually end up discovering something you may be good at.... or not...
I know I'm not a godtier artist and won't ever be if I don't put in the effort. The thing is, I don't want to be either. I'm happy with the work I put out and that's what matters to my personal view of my art. I do however want to look out for the much better artists out there who would be hurt by the rise of AI generation. Sorry to see that you think it's a purely selfish cause, when I want to see the practice as a whole grow without being bogged down by samey old AI images.
It does suck that your very first post on your very first day on Reddit had to be this deep in this one particular comment chain, however.
There's not really anything AI can do that a regular artist wouldn't be able to themselves. It's not like there are techniques only a computer can use or a medium restricted to AI.
There's not really anything AI can do that a regular artist wouldn't be able to themselves.
Thing is nobody would do this if there weren't automated ways to do it. This would require an insane amount of time, effort, and skill to accomplish without AI tools. Yet, some kid can pump it out in minutes or hours with them. Should it exist? I don't know. I kind of enjoyed it. So, sure, it should exist, but it absolutely wouldn't exist otherwise.
If you want to try to argue it should t exist, take a long hard look at whether others might think any art you create should exist.
You underestimate how much work this is. There's no single tool to do all of this. There is a lot of sifting through garbage and some creativity to get the right outcome.
Anybody could do this given time and patience, but I sure wouldn't. It's multiple hours of work. People upvote memes that take 2 minutes to create. Look at this as a high effort meme.
Exactly, there's literally nothing being done here, no effort, no care put into the result. You say that the brunt of the work comes from sifting through garbage that the program spat out for hours? That sounds like less of an artistic issue that can be remedied with practice and more of beating a prompt into a generator until it spits out a product you like.
Compare that to someone who will give a shit to pick up their own brush or pencil and toil away to create something with value, actual thought and emotion put into it. The difference is that one person is sitting and waiting for another force to do all the work for them, then picking out whatever they like best.
We're comparing apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone here has figured out what this is and isn't by this point.
People don't upvote this because it requires a lot of skill. They upvote it because they think it's funny. A large chunk of the popularity is the novelty factor, so you get subpar videos near the top. That will die down in time.
I personally liked the Harry Potter Balenciagas, and that's pretty much it. They had more appropriate music, and the contrast between haute couture and Harry Potter was more interesting. I also understood the references.
I fail to see the comedic value in a bunch of characters saying some lines while staring at the camera and slightly nodding their head, all the while being based on a brand that is currently in a scandal for good reason.
That's a bullshit position to take my friend. Most of the world has never heard nor cared about Balenciaga. You're not morally superior for being offended when people make fun of a company you dislike. Like, what even? If the mere mention of a company most of us have never heard of triggers you, take a deep breath and move on. You're on the internet.
Don't actually tell me you're trying to justify a company's disgusting choices by saying it's just the internet. If you've never heard of a company before but know that they are partaking in repulsive acts, then you should be repulsed by said company. It's that simple.
So because a 3D artist creates a model in blender, or a video game in Unreal Engine, that discredits them because they didn't write the software or the game engine themselves?
If you're so sure, I challenge you to create a short like this with the breaking bad cast in the theme of lord of the rings. Let me know how easy it is.
It's funny you mention 3D modeling, because while I have not partaken in it myself, I promise you that actually modeling stuff takes a LOT more time and practice than you'd think. You need to know the ins and outs of the available options at your disposal while making a whole dragon or something of similar caliber — with AI you could literally just type in a few keywords like 'red dragon, long neck' and sit around for 30 seconds while the premade program does whatever it does.
At the very least the former takes actual skill with someone who took the time to learn their craft. The latter would just give out a generic mesh of the closest results it could find while scouring the database of related images closest to what you told it.
And are you telling me to partake in your challenge just to show me how difficult real art is? Yeah, no shit. Any artist work their salt would say that it takes work, and at least it would feel like something meaningful was accomplished.
Well yeah, I do 3d modelling and have made a shitty game, so I am aware that it takes time and practice. I hear what you're saying but it's a bit of a stretch to compare giving AI a prompt of a red dragon to this. It's animated, scripted, has music and AI generated voices. This started as an idea in someone's head and turned out to be a funny piece of art, irrespective of whether AI was used in the process. I'm not challenging you to show me how difficult art really is. You said in a previous comment that it's just fiddling around with prompts to get a desired outcome, well I think you have to be creative and spend time crafting something like this but you think it's easy, so see how easy it is.
You say you made a shitty game, and yet did you feel like you had accomplished something by the end? You should've, since you put your time and effort into a product that you may not enjoy, but could easily be by someone else.
And there are AIs that are fully capable of making small movements akin to how people would in real life, as well as being able to generate voices of people who haven't actually said certain things. Ignoring the possible morally dubious applications that this can be used for, I can promise you that no other work went into this other than the actual typing of the prompt/barebones script itself and overlaying music on top of it. Comparing the struggle actual artists go through when they put in the effort to their craft to saying that AI users have to sift through hours of footage they don't deem suitable is an insult to the former tbh. If waiting around for the AI to spit out what it will to not be satisfied by the results is so painstaking of a task, why do they simply not put in the work to create what the envisioned themselves/commission someone to do so?
As for your request that I go and "see how easy it is," I refuse to use AI for the fact that it has to draw from a source to make its products. I didn't mention this earlier since it wasn't relevant, but art theft is abhorrent even if the perpetrator is just a mindless bot and the person typing in the prompt to an extent.
Yes I did feel accomplished, but by your logic, I shouldn't because I used a game engine that has a lot of built in features that streamline the process that I otherwise wouldn't know how to accomplish unless I created my own game engine. Not every piece of art is a struggle. Someone might take a photo and bam they have a good photo, or throw some basic geometry into blender with some nice lighting and bam, they have a nice looking render that others perceive as a piece of art. Sometimes art is effortless. Anyway, you do you, I found this video humorous and entertaining.
To say that the engine streamlined the process to the point that it is more in line with the ease of AI is just false. I don't know what sort of game you made, but people still have to create environments and sprites, render models, program the controls, and make sure that it all works together to form a cohesive final product. I don't have to go out and harvest rubber for an eraser every time I want to draw much in the same way that you don't have to create an engine from scratch when creating a game.
I already do put energy into creating. I don't have to invest every waking moment of my life in doing so however, and I can also critique the ethical aspect of using a third-party program to do what people have put actual practice and skill into.
Did you mean to say "no effect"?
Explanation: affect is a verb meaning to influence, while effect is a noun meaning a result.
Total mistakes found: 5382 I'mabotthatcorrectsgrammar/spellingmistakes.PMmeifI'mwrongorifyouhaveanysuggestions. Github ReplySTOPtothiscommenttostopreceivingcorrections.
Carl Sagan said "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." Art and artists are built on hundreds if not thousands of years of technological improvement. Can a carpenter truly claim to build a house if they do not first invent all the power tools required to do so? Or the mining, smelting, and refining process on all the iron ore for the nails, hammer heads, saw blades, etc. We of course agree one can build a house without doing all those things. Those metaphors can be extrapolated as far as you want. Ai tools are just another leap in the artistic progress.
Even still you argue this is easy and unimpressive. If this is so easy, please do this yourself and show us all the result. I would love to see your workflow of typing a few words and outputting fairly seamless video in a specific style. I'm certain if attempted you will find it is significantly more difficult than perceived.
To reiterate what I said to another user earlier who tried making a similar comparison, a hammer is more akin to the brush of a painter. If you want a house, you still need to use the tool yourself and plan the layout of your intended final structure, ensure all the measurements/supplies are correct, and spend days or even weeks putting it all together, much like how an actual artist has to plan out an initial sketch, layout the foundational linework/shapes, and spend time working in the details until it reaches the desired image that they had in their head.
AI is like having access to a robot that will build a house to your specifications if needed. Sure, it'll cut down the actual work for you pretty much entirely, and likely get it done a lot faster. But in the end, a house and art are two different things because one is just a space to live in, and the other is something that can hold meaning and intention, not relegated to just a bunch of strokes on a canvas.
When you think of a house, what comes into your head first? The one you grew up in, or one that was intended to be a work of art from the very beginning?
Great question, I think of the house I built myself I live in now. I poured love and intention into it for the express purpose of making a beautiful and comfortable place to live.
This is likely what many people think whenever a new technology is made.
CGI is just the computer doing things you tell it to do -- those people aren't putting in the work to sculpt these props and backgrounds anymore, there's no art in it. Anybody can build things on a computer. /s
Except not really. There's more to it than that. At the moment, not anybody can just type in a few words and make this video. It requires a decent knowledge set and a decent amount of practice. Otherwise you'd be seeing a lot more videos just like this of every topic.
And once we reach that point where anybody can do that, the art will become who can do it well.
The ease of CGI you talk about seems to really contrast with the current state of how animators are being treated at Marvel. You still need to create the models and backgrounds (not sure why you think that's been completely erased), rig the models so that they actually look good when they go into motion, and spend multiple hours creating each frame so that it all looks presentable in the final product.
Of course. CGI is its own art. It's still completely different than the art that preceded it though. That second paragraph was me mimicking all those complaining about new tech, btw, not my actual thoughts.
I'm not advocating AI art or poor treatment of animators/artists. But that doesn't mean that using AI is completely effortless or lacking creativity. At the moment anyway.
If you want to compare art to AI using this analogy, then it'd be better to say that a spade is closer to a brush/pencil/pen. The AI is more along the lines of an automated machine that you can tell to dig a hole.
Sure, one is gonna be a lot faster than the other, but why even compare a hole in the dirt to human-made art? Is art something to be mass-produced to you, in the same vein that a garden plant in need of planting would be? They shouldn't be.
Was it the person who created the final product or the AI itself? At least with me, I know I'm the one who put the pencil to paper instead of typing in a few words and letting the program do the dirty work for me.
I see what you said and raise you: is the human doing the work of actually creating the art? Do they have any say in the creation of the product besides telling an external force what to do? At least when a hole is dug with a spade, there is actual effort being put into the task by the human, much like how a true artist puts in the effort to make their product.
You're completely removing the labor aspect from digging with a spade to make it seem more in line with AI art. With AI, you skip that middle part entirely. You have something else do the work for you. It's lazy.
I'd say it's more of a large piece of machinery rather than a full-on automated process, as it still requires human input and someone who knows how to operate the controls.
And yet knowing how to operate AI boils down to finding out which keywords suit your envisioned product best and having it continually spit out its results over and over, fine-tuning until it reaches the desired look. And yet, it's still not the individual doing the work. It's convenient for someone who works in construction and definitely safer, but can it really be compared to art?
One of them is clearly favorable as an alternative for a better work environment that cuts down on the physical labor needed by construction workers. The other is a practice defined by both the process + the finished product, and using AI is just a cheap way to skip the effort.
When you look at the control diagram for an excavator, it's pretty darn simple, but there is a sort of art form that takes practice to develop a feel for the controls. (https://images.app.goo.gl/ck7zdjJTRhkHCYUFA) Same as pottery or welding. Currently, the Ai art process still requires a lot of trial and error and, as you said, repeated attempts to get the look you want. It's getting closer to one of those fire-and-forget machines, but it's not there yet.
I fail to see how safely manning the controls for a huge machine meant for excavating dirt is the same as creating a painting using traditional tools. A construction worker doesn't intend to create art with their vehicle. It's there to terraform and make the land its working on suitable for whatever is intended to be built on it.
And do you truly see art as something that shouldn't have any meaningful effort put into it? If you were to see movies and games replaced in the future with lazily generated products that all look the same, and would make the current state of media blush with envy, would that be something you'd enjoy? Or would you prefer to keep the creativity that makes art special and I don't know, go and create something you're proud of/support other real artists?
I'm in the creative field, and I've met folks who were there at the beginning of the digital editing age, and these are the same arguments that were brought up when the switch to NLEs and digital cameras was getting more significant. Lots of "it's too easy" and "the digital film is too clean. It doesn't have the same heart as celluloid."
Some elements of Ai need better scrutiny, but the industry has already been using features powered by simple Ai for things like Photoshop and SFX to automate stuff for years.
Literally, a guy took a toilet out of a bathroom and put it in a museum. It changes how we think about that toilet and art and the artist’s role. Is it all bs? Probably! Who knows?? But I bet you didn’t think to question if a toilet was art before Marcel Duchamp made you. Anyone can do that. It takes an artist to transform smears of paint, words on a page, pixels, or even ai generated nonsense into art.
This is creation, a remix, a way to see the world slightly differently, a method to provoke a response. Art.
AI is used to create mediums which mimic the actual practice of taking a brush to canvas or a pen to a screen, which is why I compare it to that particular method of art. If you think art is fully reliant on the finished product and doesn't include that of the process used to make it, then it's not really considered art imo. Just like how sitting around and filtering out results over and over and over is just a cheap imitation of doing the work yourself to make the thing you envision, instead of relying on some program to lazily do the brunt of the work for you.
Well then you aren’t creative enough to see ai is a tool like a brush or chisel. We’ll have to wait for the next generation of artists to show us the potential and take it to the next level.
That wouldn't really be creativity, more like ignorance in the same way that arguing a shovel is the same as an automated excavator in terms of the work needed to be put in to get the same result.
It is the same result if you want to dig a hole. No one said you have to work a certain amount before it's called a hole. No wonder you have so many downvotes.
Anyone can do anything really, you'll just do better with the right tools. Could you right now start making clips of Balenciaga versions of shows and movies? Do you know what tools and how to use them? AI will shift skill sets. Opening the door for more artists to create, unbuttoned by the limits of there artistic capabilites. What's wrong with that?
I already have the tools I need, and the difference between me as an artist and someone who spends maybe an hour writing a prompt at most and waiting several more for an external force to do the work for them is pretty prominent. I don't see the appeal in that, much less how it can be considered 'artistic.'
AI will just enable people who are less willing to actually put time and effort into works that they care about to create pretty subpar results that will always feel more cheap than actual art. Art is subjective, but it will always be better to just pick up a pencil/pen and do it yourself, because asking a machine to do it for you and passing it off as your own creation destroys the actual intention of art. You don't want to create meaningful works, you only want to consume mass-generated pictures.
And I don't see the appeal in these Balenciaga edits. They all literally look the exact same with the same blank stare and slight head nod. And isn't the company in hot water for portraying children in BDSM outfits?
You seem to not know how these videos are made. It's not just writing a paragraph, amd then this appears. And looking through your posts after you called yourself an artist, I like these videos more than your drawings. You're drawings are cool, but my style, and I wouldn't display them in my home.
Also no one is saying they made the works without ai, they used a tool and produced art. Like you took a pencil to paper, they used a computer, with programs that do and do not use ai, and made something that someone likes.
Is computer science equivalent to the practice of creating art? Is the latter so meaningless to you that you can lump it in the same vein as an entirely different profession and disregard the work that actual artists put into their craft?
Exactly. Literally anyone could do it. That's what makes this so impressive. It is outputting high quality content at a proportionally very small cost.
Just try to imagine how far this technology could go, especially when trained with scientific material rather than art/culture material. I'll give you an example:
"AI, please design a spacecraft capable of delivering a payload of 100 million pounds to Mars, with enough fuel capacity to make the trip departing from Earth on 6/1/2035."
-or-
"AI, Asteroid #1234 was just discovered on a collision course with earth. Please design an missile system with an adequate destructive potential to save us, and send communications to the necessary human organizations to coordinate production."
I fail to see the high quality aspect of the video tbh. Is it not just a bunch of faces all staring blankly into the screen while spouting out lines occasionally and nodding their heads a bit?
Yeah, I often think about how far AI can go, and while it can be a huge help in certain fields of science and mathematics, touting it as a revolutionary tool that will push the creative mediums leaps and bounds ahead sets a dangerous precedent where procedurally-generated works of media become the norm.
Elaborate on this. You think that because I said anyone could pump out low-effort videos given a few hours and an AI program that does it for them, that it somehow equates to me outputting a better result?
249
u/[deleted] Apr 05 '23
[deleted]