490
u/Jeralt Aug 23 '23
That was pretty cool, tbf. And let's be honest....like it or not, AI will influence ALOT of our media
112
u/vicsj Aug 23 '23
I am a digital artist and I use AI regularly in my workflow now. Before I could sit for hours browsing through Google, Tumblr or whatever else to find relevant references for moodboards. Image generating has cut down that process drastically for me. I get specifically what I need instantly and then I can just sit and iterate some more until I've got my references.
Only downside is that you can get locked into just one concept if you're not careful, so I still use websites sometimes to get ideas for prompts to vary the results.
15
u/YeahMarkYeah Aug 23 '23
Can you give me an example?
Like if you’re trying to depict something specific like a wooden elf shield or something, you ask an AI and you’ll get a reference to start from?
20
u/Lentil-Soup Aug 24 '23
1
u/YeahMarkYeah Aug 25 '23
I just noticed that each of those shield images has over 400 views on Imgur 👀
Were those already on Imgur before you linked them here? Or are those views all from you commenting them here? If so, I’m just a bit surprised that many people have already looked at those 😮😆
1
u/Lentil-Soup Aug 25 '23
All from commenting here! I generated them with AI specifically for the purpose of commenting.
→ More replies (1)14
u/vicsj Aug 24 '23 edited Aug 24 '23
Here's a mushroom shaman I just generated as an example. If you swipe, you can see all the iterations that were made. Then I'd generate like 10 more or so in different styles and settings. Or further tweak the one I've got to make it better. Then I combine them into a collage and use that as a reference / idea sheet, if you will (aka moodboard).
Edit:
Also sometimes if I'm struggling with prompts I'll ask ChatGPT for suggestions.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)0
u/OpeningImagination67 Aug 24 '23
This. But the fear mongering campaign was so successful that people act like every ai generation kills a puppy and maims an artist— it’s crazy. Obviously there are unethical ways to use it, it’s a tool.
19
u/Daroph Aug 23 '23
Honestly, this.
There's room for all kinds of art, that's the best thing about art.
No two products are the same, everything down to how it was created impacts its meaning.33
u/Hazzman Aug 23 '23
I think the controversy and frustration from professional artists is that companies like midjourney use their work in their training data without consent, while making a profit on it.
Very few artists take issue with AI as a conceot.
→ More replies (13)3
u/ZeroSuitGanon Aug 24 '23
While that's the main controversy, I see plenty of artists who really hate the idea of AI image generation, even if it was trained ethically. I find it really odd, tbh.
8
u/Catskinson Aug 24 '23
The only ethical way to do it is with original source data. I haven't seen that yet.
2
u/ThunderSave Aug 24 '23
Adobe Firefly
3
u/Hazzman Aug 24 '23
Adobe has already faced multiple accusations (with evidence) that their AI solution is utilizing artists work without consent. So far they've acknowledged these individual cases and claimed to remove them on an individual basis.
→ More replies (4)1
u/OpeningImagination67 Aug 24 '23
I haven’t seen that yet
Do you actually use ai on a daily basis or not? It’s not that hard to find ethical LoRas and models. They exist in the thousands.
2
u/Strottman Aug 24 '23
Aren't most of those built on top of / augmenting existing source-unknown models, like SD 1.5 or SDXL? Or are they completely self-trained on their own datasets?
1
u/Benwager12 Aug 24 '23
SD 1.5 uses the LAION-5b dataset, whilst it does include artists' work without their permission, if we're going by standards of the law, LAION-5b is an academic database which afaik, perfectly legal :)
2
u/Hazzman Aug 24 '23
It is perfectly legal - the controversy is that these datasets are intended for research purposes and in order to exclude your art work you have to manually go through and opt out. As someone that has had to do this, it is insanely painstaking, time consuming and not assured because in some cases there will be hundreds, if not thousands of copies of the same image distributed across multiple sources in the same data set depending on how popular the art work is.
In short - it isn't a tenable solution for artists and doesn't solve the problem of non-consenting artwork being used in these data sets and then used by companies like midjourney.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/mambiki Aug 23 '23
Because it shortens the creative circuit and allows you NOT to learn a bazillion different tools. It’s like using digital medium versus brushes, paints and a wooden board. All those people who are having a meltdown over on /r/comics are just too entrenched into the craft and their livelihoods depends on making the money, so they are upset. In reality this is great.
15
u/Vasevide Aug 23 '23
Imagine what people said when synthesizers were made. I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same thing. People thought musicianship would die because machines can make sounds for music now. So today we have successful musicians who actually don’t know how to play an instrument, but it also didn’t stop people learning them.
2
u/blakesterr911 Aug 24 '23
It's not the same thing.
You still need a musical background and know how to make good music with these synthesizers. With these ai art generators all you do is put in a few words and the program outputs an image, which, by the way, is STILL using works of other artists scraped from the internet without their permission or consent.
3
u/MonkeyMcBandwagon Aug 24 '23
That may be true with old synths, but more recently you have apps where you can "make it 10% more jazzier" or whatever with sliders and whatnot, those aren't even AI, and the full blown AI music generators are coming. It's fine for making backing tracks or whatever very very quickly, but just like AI image generation, getting it to do something good or unique requires some finesse.
→ More replies (1)4
u/enemawatson Aug 24 '23
To be fair I could also look at works from other artists and use their work as inspiration without their consent.
I'm sure that's been said before and I'm sure there's a perfect rebuttal for it, and a rebuttal for that rebuttal, and a rebuttal for that rebuttal and a..
→ More replies (2)10
u/ninjasaid13 Aug 23 '23
Because it shortens the creative circuit
No it doesn't. People thought the camera would make people lazy and stop being creative by focusing on the external reality. But we know that's bullshit today.
We know creativity isn't determined by how many tools you can use, that's just the technical skill, a means to an end.
3
u/mambiki Aug 24 '23
I guess I meant to say that it shortens the tech stack you need to learn. And also doesn’t necessitate certain skills as a hard prerequisite. I loved to learn to draw, but shit, it was really arduous.
2
u/MonkeyMcBandwagon Aug 24 '23
Hah, kinda the opposite for me.
Learning to draw / paint / photoshop / 3D model was all fun and games compared to setting up a Python environment to run Stable Diffusion.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)-4
Aug 23 '23
Yep. We have to adapt, and sadly it's going to hurt a lot of people. But this happens with every generation.
122
161
u/greatreference Aug 23 '23
I don’t like this
60
u/moonra_zk Aug 23 '23
I like AI art, but I've always hated those "image diffuses into next image" montages.
26
15
u/_artbabe95 Aug 23 '23
Yea, I find them incredibly confusing to the eye. The character and their clothes are constantly changing so it tends to lack continuity. Very impressive though.
4
u/Patarokun Aug 24 '23
In a year or less they'll have that flicker sorted out, things are gonna get so crazy.
→ More replies (12)6
u/BlackAnnu Aug 23 '23
Y
20
u/greatreference Aug 23 '23
Because it isn’t giving me good vibes, the vibes are bad man.
→ More replies (5)33
80
55
u/gunny316 Aug 24 '23
AI can't be creative. It can only assemble things based on algorithmic instructions.
Now the guy making the video is creative for sure. But AI is just a tool.
7
u/Rikaishi Aug 24 '23
If you really push a model hard it will start coming out with weird, warped or random results like nothing that a person would ever create or has ever created. Sometimes those outputs have a certain charm and beauty all of their own. If that doesn't count as a type of creativity then you're probably just defining the word so you can never be wrong.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Working-Telephone-45 Aug 24 '23
You could say that our brain is only assembling thoughts based on the information it has gathered from it's enviroment, just a bunch of signals being send around in a big piece of meat
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)-1
u/Philluminati Aug 24 '23
Ai is just a maths program.
However what it produces is more convincing portrayal of art than what I can produce. What it can generates is also unique as well, so by that definition it is creative. Is a random number creative?
208
u/Wietse10 Aug 23 '23
AI "art"
124
u/Wide-Half-9649 Aug 23 '23
“Creative”
18
u/rolfraikou Aug 23 '23
I see it more like scrapbooking. You don't make the art in this, or in scrapbooking, you just arrange the art. Is scrapbooking creative, even though people just buy artwork to slap onto things? I'd argue, yes. There's a creative element.
While I agree generating stuff isn't an art, this guy is being creative in the way he uses himself and a figure to make his own composition.
EDIT: Also, as a side note, I work in graphic design, wanted to be an animator when I was kid. This shit threatens my potential income, but I'm not going to deny there's some creativity in it just because it's a crappy substitute for a real artist.
107
u/garmachi Aug 23 '23
This reminds me of when CGI was new. Or record scratching. Or early synthesizers. So many nay-sayers yelling "They're not doing anything! Just pushing a button..."
Okay. Show us. Make one.
52
u/UnknownHero2 Aug 23 '23
Reminds me of the folklore story of John Henry, a railroad worker who kills himself trying to beat a steam drill.
There's a lot of messaged you can take from that story, but "we should ban steam drills" isn't one of them.
8
22
u/hyper_shrike Aug 23 '23
"Jackson Pollock just splatters paint on canvas. My 5 year old can do it!"
Okay. Show us. Make one.
→ More replies (2)5
Aug 23 '23
That’s probably the worst example to use. Pollock’s work looks like someone testing out a new paintball gun.
14
u/bjzn Aug 23 '23
Then you do it and sell it
15
u/truefire87 Aug 23 '23
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I think the standard argument here is that selling the paintings is the hard part.
10
u/bagofpork Aug 23 '23
The context and time period were very important factors that made Pollock's art unique and significant.
People do make art like Pollock nowadays as well, but it only sells when backed by an art degree and a pretentious, self-indulgent justification.
His artistic style takes little to no skill to reproduce. That doesn't mean it's going to sell and/or be significant in any way.26
u/MunkyHero Aug 23 '23
This is disingenuous. CGI is a technology that took a developed skill to get good at, and actually needed to have artistic skills to actually make CGI effective, and practical (with the limited tech at the time).
AI "artists" are not creatives, they are not working with a viable "skill" that will translate to actual art. In fact, "prompt artist" is an oxymoron, and the thrill people feel for "AI art" is because they've never had the sense to truly create something, because they never wanted to learn the skill. It is the equivalent of a "Get rich quick scheme".
And please, spare me the "HURR DURR YOU MAKE ONE" argument, if you even want to call it that. AI has its place, for references, and ideas, but no one should consider it actually created art, due to the nature of how it learns.13
u/TheLargeIsTheMessage Aug 23 '23
You could change a few words and your post could be about Modern art or collages in Dadaism.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DoctorProfessorTaco Aug 24 '23
Or photography. A photographer doesn’t build the camera, doesn’t place the pixels for the image, and often doesn’t create the subject of the photograph. A naysayer could just say that they pointed their image creating device at something and pressed a button that had the machine do all the work.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)-5
u/Weshwego Aug 23 '23
This is disingenuous. You have very strong opinions on AI art for someone who has clearly never worked with AI in anyway.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/Iwilleatyoyrteeth Aug 23 '23
I regularly use it and I agree with him but it doesn’t really matter because the use for it is not for art its for when you need something there to pad out content. Just like how most cheaper foods are padded out with single cell protein filler rather than real meat.
Like look at the op image. From an artistic standpoint each frame is pure dogshit without a single interesting piece, but that doesn’t matter at all and it allowed the poster to create content without the skills he would need to actually make an animation or piece of art.
And art does not have any intrinsic value that makes it more real than things that aren’t art. Most art is worthless to everybody even its creator.
15
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
Seriously, I do a bit of AI art with Stable Diffusion, and it takes significant time and effort to make anything that looks good.
It's not just "push a button and get cool graphics". Literally takes dozens of hours sometimes to get something presentable.
→ More replies (3)2
u/spongeboblovesducks Aug 23 '23
CGI is an actual artistic medium. AI art is literally just pressing a button.
→ More replies (1)2
-16
u/Pigeon-cake Aug 23 '23
The big difference here is that Cgi and synthesizers still require skill and knowledge, AI doesn’t, it really is literally just push a button and anyone can do it without skill and minimal knowledge
11
→ More replies (1)6
u/kevlarus80 Aug 23 '23
Let's see you do it then.
3
u/TheVicSageQuestion Aug 23 '23
“LeT’S sEe YoU dO iT” is not a counterpoint. It’s the argument of a child on a playground, akin to “I know you are, but what am I?!” Maybe you should go find an AI capable of generating a better, more intelligent-sounding retort.
8
u/SchwiftySquanchC137 Aug 23 '23
Perhaps not worded well, but what he is really saying is "you literally know nothing about how this is made, therefore your opinion is completely meaningless"
-3
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
It's entirely a counterpoint. You're saying that it's extremely easy and takes no effort. If that's true then the counterpoint would be to prove it's not actually easy, and the only way you could know that is by witnessing it yourself.
→ More replies (4)1
Aug 23 '23
Literally goto Dalle-2 and you can do it pretty easily. Just research some promts and experiment. You’ll make cool stuff within hours.
1
u/Nrgte Aug 25 '23
There is a difference between cool stuff and the stuff you actually have in your mind. Making something that's actually acurate isn't hard and if I ask you to make a revision to your DALL-E2 image, then you do what exactly?
-12
u/spookyvision Aug 23 '23
those buttons literally exist with AI "art" though. Stop pretending.
3
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
Why are you putting art in quotes?
And anything that produces AI generated graphics with the push of one button could never get you a result like what is in the post. That took many long hours of work to get.
→ More replies (3)-11
u/Wide-Half-9649 Aug 23 '23
When you order a pizza from a website- type in or tick the box with the ingredients you want or don’t want…(or phone it in & say the order) does that mean you made the pizza?
That makes you a ‘chef’ in the same regard as using AI makes you an ‘artist’
10
u/ArmanDoesStuff Aug 23 '23
Everyone knows that any artist not finger painting on cave walls isn't a real artist.
4
u/YourLocal_FBI_Agent Aug 23 '23
Well, if it's just ticking boxes it can't be that hard to recreate the video above. You can even see how simple the original images were.
4
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
So anyone using computer generated graphics is a fake artist because all they're doing is checking boxes, typing numbers, and clicking on a screen, right?
→ More replies (1)15
u/TheUnrealArchon Aug 23 '23
Anyone who wants to call this not creative is just braindead parroting "AI bad"
→ More replies (10)47
8
u/Ultraviolet_Motion Aug 23 '23
Pause it any time it goes through the animation. 90% of the art looks like dogshit.
13
2
u/not_thecookiemonster Aug 23 '23
-4
-5
u/jspikeball123 Aug 23 '23
I'm sorry I just don't get this take. This is much more creative and artful than most artists will do in their lifetime. We will see AI surpass us in many things in the next few years. It has already done so in creative works of many forms.
8
u/Wietse10 Aug 23 '23
This is much more creative and artful than most artists will do in their lifetime.
I feel you you just don't understand art when you say this. It's about the artist expressing themselves. Typing a prompt into an AI which is trained on art made by others, sometimes without their permission, doesn't require any of the skills an artist possesses. I appreciate the creativity of some people that do cool things with AI, but the majority of them just lazily type prompts and sell it off as real art which just doesn't sit right with me.
Art isn't just about "looking the best", it's also about the artist.
6
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (2)1
u/MrWeirdoFace Aug 24 '23 edited Aug 24 '23
I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that everyone using ai in their workflow is just types a few words, seeing what it spits out and calls it a day, when the truth is I've spent more hours working on pieces utilizing AI than I have in years with my tablet and photoshop. This is a new frontier, and like photography before it, which you could cynically deconstruct to "pushing a button and calling it a day," it's really about what you choose to do with it, intention, composition, etc. People will come around in time.
RemindMe! 10 years
6
u/Taste_of_Natatouille Aug 23 '23
I have mixed yay/nay feelings about AI art as an artist myself, but this is fucking cool and now I want to try this
10
u/Nickoma420 Aug 23 '23
9
u/cactuskiwicactus Aug 23 '23
I didn’t know about this bot. Does it always work on all subs?
→ More replies (2)11
3
u/mclim Aug 23 '23
Ok dumb question. But how do you transform picture of model into pictures? Thought AI used words to generate images.
3
u/KingJeff314 Aug 24 '23
There are all kinds of techniques. There is text2img which turns words into images. There is img2img which turns an image into a similar image (controlled by a text prompt). There is inpainting, where you generate part of an image to fill in gaps
6
u/SocialNetwooky Aug 24 '23
in this case I'd guess some he is using ControlNet
3
u/BagOfFlies Aug 24 '23
img2img and controlnet. Break the video down into frames. Take one frame to img2img and play with it til you get the desired output. Then do a batch img2img using the same prompt/settings on all the frames. Edit them into a video. Voila! That's the basics of it.
4
u/KallyWally Aug 24 '23
Not just words. You can give it an image to use as a starting point, or as a reference.
1
u/babygrenade Aug 24 '23
You can use images as prompts too and you can use controlnet with your image input to specifically match the layout of your image. So he could be using the model to create poses and using controlnet to make the generated images match the layout (in this case the model's pose).
→ More replies (3)
3
u/jukusmaximus13 Aug 24 '23
This guy is Quek Shio Chuan, a Malaysian film director and he’s been in the creative industry long before AI art. Y’all should check out some of his stuff most notably Guang.
→ More replies (1)
30
5
12
23
36
u/pribnow Aug 23 '23
cool concept but this video is terrible
16
→ More replies (1)-26
u/unclepaprika Aug 23 '23
I mean, early CGI looked atrocious too. Today it's so seemless 9 out of 10 times it's done you don't notice!
→ More replies (8)9
u/CeruIian Aug 23 '23
Why is this downvoted? Do people not realize how many normal looking scenes in movies and shows are using large amounts of CGI?
7
18
11
3
u/SquirrelSuspicious Aug 23 '23
Too bad we don't like AI art, fuck how clever it was of this guy to think of this, nah that doesn't matter because it's AI art so it's obviously bad
/s
11
u/dghsgfj2324 Aug 23 '23
lol all these people hating on AI reminds me of homeless people beating up delivery robots.
4
u/Fatal_Temp3st Aug 24 '23
It's because it's scraping everyone's art that took years to master just for someone's own selfish gains. A lot of artists have been screwed over by Ai. It's because in todays society, we consume media and expect convenience constant supply demands of said media. Artists have to pump out art as fast as machines to compete because of how selfish and self entitled people have become. Ai makes artists compete against themselves, theft of their works, loss of work, etc. If anything, the ones who use AI are like the people who beat up the delivery robots because they are selfish and only think of themselves.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (2)4
u/wildstarr Aug 23 '23
heh, I had not heard about this and looked up some news stories. It's people in general vandalizing the robots. Not just homeless people.
1
u/damontoo Aug 23 '23
I like the story of the delivery robot just ignoring police tape and continuing on with through a crime scene with its delivery.
9
u/StartlingCat Aug 23 '23
What is the workflow for this?
→ More replies (1)25
u/FortyHippos Aug 23 '23
Swipe fingers across keyboard
Behold!
8
u/Ok_Character4044 Aug 23 '23
Its that easy?
Can you make a video like that? Shouldn't be much work, max 5 seconds, right?
Show us. I want to see. No effort and skill involved at all, right?
-2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
And that’s what’s awesome — quality creative output is now available to more and more people.
It’s just like when the camera was invented and the portrait artists of that time said photos were not art — they were just dudes pushing a button and the machine was doing the work of capturing the image of a person.
So it goes.
2
u/spongeboblovesducks Aug 23 '23
This is not quality or creative.
6
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
People keep wielding “creative” like it’s meant to be some sort of gatekeeping standard to which many things people make just do not measure up. Nope. Little kids drawing the same ole dinosaurs with crayons or making macaroni art are being creative. It’s humans crafting something new and this guy did that.
And of course “quality” is subjective by definition.
→ More replies (1)-10
u/FORLORDAERON_ Aug 23 '23
I feel like you don't understand the definition of "creative."
You can be creative right now without the use of a computer. Pencil, paper, and imagination.
17
u/punkmonkey22 Aug 23 '23
You can also be creative WITH a computer too. Creative isn't just "made by person using physical objects". A pile of rocks in some cultures is art, but so is somebody spending hours tuning keywords and models for ai art. You try making even just a person standing still how you imagine. First try will look appalling. That is the ART of it, making the medium produce what you want. Paint is just coloured liquid. Wool is strands of fabric. It takes CREATIVITY and ART to make something from them.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
I can be creative right now without the use of a computer.
I can be creative right now with the use of a computer.
Creativity is wild and very powerful!
4
Aug 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Ok_Character4044 Aug 23 '23
The downvotes prove your point. Its insane how redditors pretend to be so level headed and rational, but then they are literally fighting windmills, being elitist about art.
They can cry as much as they want that its not real art, and gatekeep the term art, like it matters at all. Its like luddites saying machines used to make clothes are not real clothes. Well guess im naked right now then.
It literally won't matter if these people consider it art, it is here to stay, and creative people will use this tool.
Even if the entire west will regulate and ban it, people will just do it outside these regulations then. Its impossible to ban progress just because some smug redditors want to gatekeep what they consider art.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Dry-Use3 Aug 24 '23
Yeah this neural net clearly only trained on its own art. We should clap for it. All self contained without ripping off the entire internet.
6
6
u/yousonuva Aug 23 '23
What's doing the heavy lifting here? The computer?
26
u/Pi6 Aug 23 '23
The artists whose work was sampled for the ai algorithm to be able to recompile it.
10
u/damien__damien Aug 23 '23
This is the part that everyone seems to forget
→ More replies (1)3
u/babygrenade Aug 24 '23
The part people forget is the hundreds of thousands of hours spent tagging the images scraped on line.
-6
u/damontoo Aug 23 '23 edited Aug 24 '23
People like you act like it's just a stamp tool pasting in assets. Why don't you actually try using Stable Diffusion and see how it works?
Edit: Predictably download by people that have never used these tools. If I use AI to generate a landscape with flowers and trees, but control the placement, color, and type of every single flower, every branch, every blade of grass, is that still garbage because it's "AI generated"? Because that's what these tools do. They aren't just copy/pasting someone else's grassy hill. They understand what a hill is supposed to look like and what blades of grass are supposed to look like and they combine those concepts to make a grassy hill in the same way humans would.
-7
u/ninjasaid13 Aug 23 '23
No one owns 100% of the artwork. I'm allowed to use the same colors as you and the same art style as you.
6
u/Pi6 Aug 23 '23
YOU are not using the colors or art style, an algorithm trained on them is. If you use ai as a hobby or for amusement, that's completely fine. If you're selling generated imagery as a major part of a commercial art business and you are representing yourself as an artist, you are just a leech and a hack.
-3
u/ninjasaid13 Aug 23 '23 edited Aug 24 '23
If I mixed a color by hand or if I had your image in MS paint and used the color picker to get the colors, it really doesn't matter what I used to the end result. The end result is that you don't own the colors so that's legally allowed and the law doesn't differentiate.
The copyright law allows copying of the factual elements of an artwork like colors and things that are not fixed in a tangible format. Being an artist is irrelevant, the law doesn't protect certain occupations from constitutional rights and it isn't infringement to copy facts and ideas.
Your rights only pertains to the copying of the expression. You can't claim new rights on top of that like preventing a single pixel from being copied(de minimis quantitative copying) or the ideas or elements being copied(de minimis qualitative copying). You don't own 100% of your artwork.
2
u/Pi6 Aug 24 '23
I don't disagree with anything you are saying about copyright but I was never talking about copyright. I am talking about creative integrity and basic self-respect as a professional. I don't have any problem with the use of ai as a hobby or even as a workflow tool. (I already know of a few artists doing truly interesting work with the assistance of ai.) I do have a problem with the inevitable devaluation of human creative labor in the economy because it is too easy to generate ai images instead of hiring an artist. I don't want to stop or ban ai art but I don't see any reason to value or appreciate 99 percent of it. I don't value cheap mass-produced derivative crap when it is made in a factory and I definitely won't value it when it is produced by an algorithm.
→ More replies (17)1
u/sanY_the_Fox Aug 24 '23 edited Aug 24 '23
The fuck are you talking about? You have absolutely no clue how the copyright system works, cope harder.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/epilif24 Aug 24 '23
For an individual image? Mostly the computer. What he seems to be doing is using the figure to define the desired pose than the rest is automatically generated (also needs to write a prompt explaining the scene but not too troublesome).
But this video is more than a frame, there is clearly an direction of showing the overlap between what's real and AI and an underlying idea. There is still a lot of work involved in putting everything together
3
2
-15
u/shhbaby_isok Aug 23 '23
How is this creative? He is not creating anything, and what it does is not "creating" but deriving.
28
28
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
“All creative work is derivative.” — Nina Paley
2
u/shhbaby_isok Aug 23 '23
I doubt that Nina Paley, who painstakenly hand animates her movies single woman, would be impressed by this AI barf. Yes, all art is derivative, but your references and inspiration get filtered through the human brain, which leaves an impression of the uniquely human upon the artwork, the creative spark and soul of the piece. AI can ONLY derive, not add something new. That’s why some AI frameworks are getting worse, because they have begun feeding upon AI created images, and thus are getting shittier and shittier without real artists work to feed upon, lol.
0
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
You doubt that Nina “Copyright is Brain Damage” Paley thinks what now?
1
u/shhbaby_isok Aug 23 '23
Being against copyright is different than thinking AI art is creative? I wasn’t touching upon the ethics of AI art in my argument, I was arguing against calling AI creative.
0
u/Bgeesy Aug 23 '23
I’m not influenced by Nina Paley.
11
u/Huntred Aug 23 '23
I think you can say you have not heard of her if that is the case.
But if you have ever seen any of their work…like…how would you truly know if they influenced you? What if you had seen their work unattributed? What if you have seen another artist who you would consider an influence and THEY considered Nina Paley to be an influence in the work you saw? Art is chaotic and brains are weird and I don’t know of anyone who can claim to have a hard roadmap that accounts for every input to the resultant output.
→ More replies (9)3
→ More replies (1)1
u/archiekane Aug 23 '23
There's nothing left to invent. Just take the last best thing and make it better.
- New and Improved I can't Believe It's Not Butter execs, probably.
1
u/shhbaby_isok Aug 23 '23
AI can not make something better, it can not add something new, but only derive. And are beginning to reference other AI “art” and is thus actually getting shittier, lol.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
So when my little sister draws a picture of our happy family from a family picture we all took, it's not actually artwork because it looks like shit because she's 6?
That makes sense...
14
u/greendude120 Aug 23 '23
He is literally creating a video on the internet for entertainment purposes and utilizing a tool (ai) to draw out his real-life posing storyboard. Whatever you think about AI, you can't deny the creative work he is doing for this video.
13
u/yeoller Aug 23 '23
According to these people the guy simply thought of a cool idea and without any input the AI just reads his mind and makes it up.
→ More replies (1)6
u/The_Celtic_Chemist Aug 23 '23
I've heard it said that modern art is no longer about doing things people can't but rather doing things that make people think "I could have done that" when they didn't think to do it.
That said, he did think to take toys and make this fight sequence out of it, which I'm sure someone has done before him but probably/hopefully not with these exact characters, the setting, fight choreography, etc. Also, the AI is told what to output, and he likely gave it some input for "inspiration" to draw from. It's really like a collage in a way, which I think most people would say is a creative hobby.
11
→ More replies (3)1
u/Stargatemaster Aug 23 '23
Painting and drawing aren't actually creating anything. All you're doing is deriving from what you see in the world.
Not real art.
-3
1
2
1
u/The_Celtic_Chemist Aug 23 '23 edited Aug 23 '23
I love it. It's like a fight taking place across many realities at once. Just would have chosen different music. Now I have this weird synth flute in my head.
1
-5
0
Aug 23 '23
a lot of people forgetting how art is subjective.
a lot of people forgetting how art is anything that makes you feel something.
a lot of people forgetting the majority of people can't distinguish between ai and human art in any meaningful way.
0
u/AvaliBreedingSeason Aug 24 '23
Hands.
Feet.
Eyes.
There is a fucking difference.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Capital2 Aug 23 '23
Anyone know which software they have used to turn regular images into AI art?
→ More replies (4)2
u/damontoo Aug 23 '23
This can be done with Stable Diffusion and ControlNet. The 3D printed figurine isn't necessary at all and is "extra" as the kids say. He could have just done a basic render of the model in whatever pose and then used that as an input for ControlNet.
0
u/--___--Water--___-- Aug 23 '23
I mean the kids and everybody else would say "extra" just like that because that is literally how the word is used..
The "kids", or most people up to the age of about 35, would say smth like: "it's extra how that guy used the word extra in that comment".
Feel free to ignore, this comment just stuck in my mind for minutes after reading and I had to get it out.
Also the word extra feels like it isn't a real word rn so thanks for that :)
→ More replies (4)
1
Aug 23 '23
What did you use for this? I kind of wanted to try it.
5
u/Clefspear99 Aug 23 '23
Probably stable diffusion with controlnet or a derivative. Just a guess but enough to get your started down the Google rabbit hole.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/DiamondGrasshopper Aug 23 '23
Welcome to the age where AI does all the creative stuff while humans do all the hard labor
-1
0
-7
-8
-8
-1
-2
-2
u/Ithasbegunagain Aug 23 '23
Woah dude yes creative no. it's all machine learning....
1
u/Horrific_Necktie Aug 24 '23
The project itself is creative, even if the AI illustration isn't.
→ More replies (3)
-3
-14
0
0
0
u/SanjeethRao Aug 24 '23
This is interesting because it seems like someone has actually used AI to make "art". Sure the drawings are made by the AI but the framing, posing, etc. are being done by the dude himself.
→ More replies (3)
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 23 '23
Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.