the decision to only use ai art for the visuals ironically seems to impose a limit on the ability of these videos to have an emotional impact (tho as you mentioned it could still be used effectively within those limitations of course). it's kinda like making a music composition with only percussion like steve reich's drumming or michael gordon's timber, those are good pieces for what they're trying to achieve but if you tried making an adaptation of bach or mozart for the drums it wouldn't really work. it'd probably be cool seeing the messed up ai stuff somehow combines with live action or proper animation in some way tho that also runs the risk of being too much of a contrast. like, you're watching the live action/animation bits and then it cuts to ai footage and you don't go "oh reality is melting", you go "oh this bit is ai i guess. ok"
a while back, when AI was more limited, i think it was google had that weird deep dream thing that would warp any image you put into it, infecting it with spirals and dog faces for some reason. at some point, someone made a of something, some kind of bug or beetle moving across the floor, i think - in my memory it was like a large orb, with these spirals eddying off of it. i could only ever watch it the one time - it was a video that instilled a deep creeping horror in me and i had to click away. you know how lovecraft talks about how his eldritch gods are so fundamentally weird and horrifying that people just go mad at the sight of them? that was the feeling i got, just looking at it. i got the same feeling when you put worm in the house on the screen and i immediately had to scroll down and i still feel deeply weird right now. its something that contrasted with normalcy i think could make for a genuinely horrifying uncanny experience, like it's the most visceral representation of looking at a Thing That Should Not Be, that shouldn't be existing in this realm and is corrupting it by being here.
In the Don't Hug Me I'm Scared TV series, episode 3 "Family", there's a short segment with melty uncanny AI-generated visuals, and I think it works really well in that context. AI uncanniness is just one note, so it works when used sparingly and mixed with other elements but gets boring on its own. I'm not sure what neural network they used, but it was most likely not a diffusion model, given that Stable Diffusion was only released 1 month before the TV show.
thank you for bringing this experiment in AI uncanny horror to light. interested to see if this turns into a genre with established conventions like other formats
Reminds me of those posts on Facebook and those memes on Reddit about "my son made a life-sized helicopter out of plastic bottles" and it's a super obvious AI-generated image.
hey patty, thanks for bringing light to this channel, i haven’t seen anything that really leans into the uncanny valley that ai naturally has in the way this does. i think the potential for stable diffusion-esque horror is not especially strong, but i’m sure that we’ll see at least a couple projects that manage to blend it well with, as you said, contrast with reality.
I think the main problem with AI art is not with the ontological question of what counts as art or how they are trained; but the fact that these tools are developed to replace ppl doing actual work and eventually are going to benefit already existing power. I think the situations where I enjoy AI art feel pretty corrupted by the knowledge of the tool being some form danger.
itd be awesome to see a mixed media project like this, taking the ai generated shifting eldritch horrors of what a computer model thinks video should look like and putting it in a grounded view, you could lean into a welcome to nightvale vibe or a classic eldritch horror, just a thought.
I think the points you raise are very interesting, but I still cannot bare to look at AI images and especially videos. It's uncanny valley that goes deep below my skin and into my guts. I suppose it only serves to strengthen your point. Watching even few seconds of these has me transform back into an 8 year old who cannot reside in a dark room without imagining the countless monsters that inhabit the darkness.
i see what youre saying, but i think this take is a little reductive. like the tool may not understand what makes something scary, but the person generating/editing/uploading these videos does, so i dont think thats super relevant. obviously its potential is 'limited' im a sense, but surely thats the case for every medium haha
yeah weirdly, I think this is the same reason I find "liminal horror" kind of boring now. it used to REALLY fascinate me, but I feel like nowadays everyone is trying to make everything a surreal dreamscape of hallways and doors. like you said, there's no contrast. it's just surrealism for the sake of surrealism.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. There's an unexplored element of horror when it comes to ai or at least replicating. I hate looking at this way more than gore, i feel so uncomfortable. It's literally out of this world.
sorry but i will sit this one out because i am extremely disturbed by ai faces, it is my biggest fear, this isnt a joke, sorry patricia edit: i watched until mario cac. i appreciated that
I watched a few of them after seeing this Video. I must say that i liked "Unremarkable" which is a surrealist Video where a Hand gives Names to AI generated Tools and Images that have no real Purpose. It accurately represented the feeling of seeing such generated Objects that have never had a purpose. But other Videos just fell flat for me, "what about the garden Gnomes" and "The Bird People" seemed pointless. There was no real Punchline or shocker moment. It was just a premise but no substance. "A cake named lulu" was just repitition for 1 minute about how men with great beards from another dimension can count uncountable hats and then we saw a cake with the name lulu. It didn't even look particularly unsettling.(or maybe after watching so many Videos i got sensitivised). Then finally i watched "The Undsmiling Miniority" which was a horror Short story. Except that it spoiled the Punchline Shock moment in the Second Paragraph. I kind of wish that they stuck a bit less to an AI script as it can't do things like setup and Punchline. Im probably gonna watch a few more. Just to make sure that i didn't miss any really good ones.
was NOT ready for your fursona to jumpscare me thought this was a regular drama channel and that was the best surprise edit: just binged everything; watching continues
Perhaps contrast could be introduced by using the Ai visuals more sparingly. Perhaps a sort of Vlog style horror series of someone talking about their new life in some horribly distorted world using regular footage of someone talking to a camera to contrast with the Ai hellscapes they also show off. Perhaps if a diffusion model that uses footage as part of its input could also be made to help add guiding the model where the director wants it.
I am 100% want all ai image makers to be bad, for two reasons. 1. I think it's more useful to making art (you do need to do other things without ai with that of course) and 2. So people stop using it to try and replace all other forms of att. I don't know if i got my opinions across accurately but, eh
fortunately as these generators get better the possibilities for surreal and uncanny only get better. you must be familiar with glitch art, right? you can do the same sort of thing with AI. generally it's accomplished by forcibly perturbing internal values so that they lie outside what the model would have been exposed to during training. this causes the output to be more statistically aberrant, but the diffusion process still tries to refine it back to something closer to the mean. the results are delightfully horrifying.
I can't really decide whether the 'no "complicated stealing" arguments in the comments, pretty please' comment is meant to be dismissive of said argument or if it's just a wish to keep the comments on-topic. Either way, this video did successfully get me from "oh fuck another AI horror channel" to "okay I can see the argument that this is legitimate art". This makes me kinda yearn for more nuanced discussions of the place AI-generated imagery has in art as a whole.
i think it's both. the argument is both irrelevant to the general subject of the video and also just a bad argument rooted in misunderstanding how AI works. AI doesn't store its training data in any way, the stuff it's trained on is used to basically tweak a stupid amount of numbers that it uses to do math to produce a result, a way to put it is that it doesn't copy the brush strokes that artists used to draw a monkey, it recognizes patterns of what a monkey is. at most it's akin to an artist being inspired by someone else's work and subconsciously incorporating parts of what they saw into their own art
Art is still art even if the parts that make it up are plagiarized. What this artist is doing is undeniably art but it doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of moral issues with using and profiting off of A.I. generated content. Stealing paint and making a painting from it doesn't make the final product any less art, nor does it make it any less stolen.
I can see arguments that ai art is still a valid art medium (people remix, make collage, cover songs- I can agree that it’s a new grey area) but art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I would argue that we shouldn’t be using AI to make art if only because it makes creative industries less accessible for human beings. In a world without cutthroat capitalism, I would agree that ai art is just like any other medium, and that it deserves respect. But I can’t help but feel as though ai art lacks the consideration for other human beings in its outcomes- in how it leads to fewer human jobs in creative industries, when creatives need jobs to live. That’s not necessarily the fault of people using ai art, but isn’t it our duty as artists to consider how our art affects the world? Especially if you’re making art for money’s sake. Yeah this is unbridled capitalism- corners would be cut no matter what, but the only way to guarantee that human well-being WON’T be considered in its implementation is to not be critical of it, which if what this video is. It criticizes it from an artistic standpoint, but ignores the context of this art’s impact.
"I can see arguments that photography is still a valid art medium (people make prints, adapt folklore, compile anthologies- I can agree that it’s a new grey area) but art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I would argue that we shouldn’t be using cameras to art if only because it makes creative industries less accessible for human beings. In a world without cutthroat capitalism, I would agree that photography is just like any other medium, and that it deserves respect. But I can’t help but feel as though photography lacks the consideration for other human beings in its outcomes- in how it leads to vastly fewer commissions for portraits, when creatives need jobs to live. That’s not necessarily the fault of 'photographers', but isn’t it our duty as artists to consider how our art affects the world? Especially if you’re making art for money’s sake. Yeah this is unbridled capitalism- corners would be cut no matter what, but the only way to guarantee that human well-being WON’T be considered in its implementation is to not be critical of it, which if what this video is. It criticizes it from an artistic standpoint, but ignores the context of this art’s impact." This isn't the first time technology has radically changed what is possible in art, what is commercially viable in the art market, nor is this even the first time some newfangled _machine_ has challenged the very definition of "art" itself. This likely won't be the last time this happens, either. Your points about social responsibility are valid, but the fact that your critique targets some newfangled machine and not _society_ is purely reactionary.
@@EvilStevilTheKenevilPEN15 Ai, as we know it now, what society has given to it, what the people and corporations who fund, support and make it, the culture surrounding it, the ideas and goals of it, are all based soully on a desire to make money off of it, no matter the cost. It is entirely based on a desire to profit, to replace and to make things *cheaper*. It is a systemic, societal issue, it is not the fault of the machine because the machine does not think, it is the fault of people, because that's all the world is, a network of people. By supporting and giving platform to a technology entirely based on exploitation (not just of artists, but of the workers who are literally enslaved to collect datasets) where the corporations making it and interested in it want to soully profit on it, because it's easy, because it's cheaper, because you don't have to pay as many employees (someone who generates and organizes a script for a movie using AI is not going to be considered a writer, cause they're not writing, not as much as someone writing manually, therefore they won't get paid as much as a writer), a tool that makes it extremely easy to scam and trick people, spreading misinformation, as scams that are trying to be convincing and realistic require some kind of actual effort and talent to actually work to an extent, made extremely easy without any moderation for it, tool entirely controlled by corporations, a tool that can be used as an excuse for human mistake, irresponsibility and bias "well it was the ai not me", a tool who's ideology and marketing is entirely based on tricking people and keeping them confused as to what AI actually is and works as (It's not actually intelligent because it can't actually think, it's not as complex or as good as people actually make it up to be), and I could go on and on and on. Corporations replacing employees, replacing artists specifically isn't new, the idea of capitalism itself is avert to artists, boring generic bullshit mainstream garbage made by people who are specifically teached to value "be capable of making anything and everything for a corporation and for profit" more than appreciating art have always existed. Ai is just the newest (and most dangerous example) of this, I truly believe that if capitalism wasn't a thing "AI" technology as we know it would not exist, it would be something entirely different, and if ai ever becomes, not horribly harmful and something fully good not fueled by greed and desire to exploit and ignorance, then it wouldn't be ai, it would be something else entirely. This argument about photography and most people in this comment section miss the point, even a lot people who are against and scared of ai don't really understand why it is harmful and evil. Yes, it is art, we know this, we understand this. Art, can be harmful, and horrible, and support systemic issues, and be horrible, soulless and empty. It is still art, doesn't mean I'm gonna encourage it though. The reason (most) of the people that say "ai art isn't art" don't say it cause they literally want to argue it isn't art, they argue that it is *harmful*, that it harms artists and that it has no deliberate, conscious, or even subconscious artistic value because ai doesn't have a consciousness or subconsciousness, it is still generated by people and organized by people, but the things the AI's output is comprised of isn't chosen by the person who uses the tool, it's a random slurry of the data set that was chosen and approved by the corporation (which is also a privacy breach btw! Not just plagiarism! I love corporations selling my online data!), corporations, comprised of people, that have biases, and specifically choose things to benefit them. A photographer doesn't have to deal with a 3rd party who wants to make money off of the camera they're using by deliberately putting pictures in the camera and saying "you have to use these images that we don't own so that we can make money". The photographer just takes the fucking picture themselves. A paintbrush doesn't make you make paintings that the paintbrush corporation wants you to use that they don't even own and weren't made by them and they didn't pay anyone to do and they don't make money off of your shit just cause you used a paintbrush. You don't have to pay a subscription fee for paintbrushes. YTPs and collage art is made by individuals, their stuff is not a blended mixture of shit a corporation stole without permission to make money from, it's random shit an individual person finds on the internet, and if that person does something bad with it, all the fault falls on them, as it should. But when someone who makes ai art does something bad with it or causes harm, they're gonna be like "well it's not my fault it's the ai, it can think! It works just like a human brain! I didn't plagiarize!" And then the corporation can say literally the same thing. And then you gotta get into an argument of "what is art?" "What counts as art" "well photographers..." And no one is gonna realize that this is all fucking bullshit and it's the corporation's fault, it's the pro-ai assholes it's all the dickheads taking advantage of something that is rotten and fucked at its core, generated from pure desire to make a quick buck, and people who support it and even people who don't support it are either ignorant, complicit, are being tricked or scammed, don't care, or don't want to actually understand. Why do you think NFT and crypto tech bros love ai? Maybe one day this technology can be not ridden with all this awful shit, and can be used for cool shit, but when that happens, as I said before, it will not be the thing we're talking about. For it to not be those things, it has to change something at its core. It needs to ship of Theseus itself. The technology, at least post 2019, is rotten at its core, and specially what it represents, the meaning people give to it, don't make it any better. You say that the societal concerns are valid, yet say that attacking the technology itself is "reactionary", when they are both one in the same, the technology is based on and represent the exact systemic issues it causes. It's just capitalist automatization with a new coat of paint. Now I'm gonna go eat something
@@EvilStevilTheKenevilPEN15 yeah, why. Give me like a reason. Is being opposed to a (relatively) new idea or concept (even if I've thought about it a lot for months if not years) inherently reactionary? Isn't reactionary like purely a knee-jerk reaction? Oh yeah I'm also against NTFs and Crypto, im such a reactionary! Self-serving to what? What do I accomplish with these views that isn't just "I care about the livelihood of others"? Explain it to me. Engage in the conversation and actually respond to and address my points or don't say anything, I'd rather not hear a response than get such a nothing passive aggressive sentiment that doesn't try to deconstruct or defeat what I said in any way, instead fully dismissing them entirely. If you're not trying to convince me of your argument, then you either think I'm dumb and that I'm not going to understand you, that I'm not worth your time, that you don't actually care that much or that you didn't even read my comment at all. If you actually care about this then engage with me. Listen to the other side. Backup what you said or shut up. If you believe what you are saying is true, and you want that sentiment to be believed by others, then convince people. That's what arguing and debating is for, to make a point, to send a message, to either convince others or let yourself be convinced, it's a way to either learn or teach others. Unless you just argue for the sake of arguing and don't actually care about changing people's minds or letting your mind be changed. Hope not. Frustrating.
i honestly feel like i need to meet most drama revolving around ai art with neutral indifference, much like with any other kind of drama. it's a decent tool and when used in certain ways it can look either really messed up or kinda pretty. idk i think the ai horrror stuff has potential.
As a web horror fan that has been in this "community" (saying that in quotes since its so fragmented) since like 2017, sooner if you count me being into creepypasta and videogame mysteries, i've seen A.I. art used before in web horror content. Ben Drowned utilizes it sparingly, using it for a few images and characters, maybe 3-4 videos, and that's kind of it, i think, similar to WayneradioTV's old A.I. streams where they utilized that old ai website that let you make fucked up faces and edit them in a complicated manner, which Jadusable also utilized for the ARG, works to an extent, because it's bad, because it looks weird and gross and freaky. And i get it, i understand your argument, i do think A.I. tools can be used to make art, and i do agree this channel is art. I think it looks very boring, and generic, and kinda shitty, and while it has good ideas, it honestly just makes me sad that this isn't made using real actors and live action footage. Like this *could* be some adult swim infomercials type shit, but it's not. I do think that while A.I. art can be art, and someone can make it with an intent to express something or tell a story, i agree with a lot of commenters with the fact that it is immoral. I've thought about the idea of harmful and immoral art a LOT. Like a lot, almost if not daily, it's something that matters to me a lot to the point where a big part of my philosophy is based entirely on how art affects people and society and the world at large, including negatively. Jadusable, creator of Ben Drowned, is an asshole, he's a cryptobro who wasted patreon money on bitcoin and while i think his use of ai, pre-2021, was tasteful and used well, i cannot feel about it in any way other than a huge feeling of "lame", that he's only using it because he thinks it's the future and he's gonna get rich off of A.I. somehow, while i was very fascinated by a.i. images in 2019-2020, the realization that the only reason this is a successful thing that exists, is out of pure greed and desire to replace and automize everything, that in the modern capitalist world, the only reason A.I. even happened, the only reason it became successful out of really specific nerd research groups, is because of money, technocrats, and the desire to have cheap if not straight up free labour that was previously going to profit artists, and this isn't like new, corporations have always desired to replace workers and artists, even before A.I. I do think this youtube channel is art, but i think the tools it utilizes to make its art is not a moral thing you should support. and i don't even have any idea if this could evolve into anything more than, this. Like this is why i don't like analog horror, extremely limited, extremely specific, extremely lazy, it's art, but it's not good. I do think analog horror has harmed the web horror and general diagetic media perception so, at least to me its a similar comparison. The reason why Ben Drowned's usage of it worked, is because of how scarce it is, and how it was already based on pre-existent writing and character ideas that Jadusable had, plus there was uhm, literally everything else that was done for the ARG, the modding, the editing, the writing, the puzzles, the organizing, the player interaction, the websites, and RTVS' usage of it was funny, but it was funny because they were funny, and because of how gross and shitty and freaky they looked. I don't know if i'm willing to give the same treatment to something entirely made out of A.I generated, everything, if not most things. I do think it is complicated stealing, sorry, i do think it is immoral. And while the artist can utilize this and give it a different meaning and a different reason to exist, i still don't think it's okay to fully or if at all separate it from it's origins, the fact that, the idea of A.I. art and A.I. text/general generation is at it's core, done entirely for selfish reasons, least the post 2018 version of what A.I. is now. The fact that this youtube channel can be utilized as an example by someone who only wants to get money and replace and harm artists, the fact that this piece of media can be utilized as a way to justify plagiarism and the automatization of jobs and art, even if it wasn't your or the artist's intention, because it is just inherently linked with the tools. Bad art is art, and bad art deserves to exist, but systemically harmful art... deserves to be heavily critiziced morally, there's a reason why people don't want to call it art, even if it is reactionary to an extent, sorry heavily disagree with this one, even if this was a masterpiece and the best piece of media i've ever seen, i would still not want to support it. Art does not exist in a vacuum, and that is extremely important to me. There's also a distinction we should make between A.I. and remix media. It is very interesting specially as someone who loves remix art and collage art, utilizing other people's art and giving it your own meaning. I feel like the difference is that remix media is specific, it chooses just straight up entire pieces of pre-existent media, or at least pieces of it, like tangible pieces of it, that's the same as like sampling and YTPs, remix art, it's a remix. It has a reason to be remixed, and it remixes very specific things, A.I. art doesn't really remix, anything specific unless you are very very specific, and even then it still is merely a recreation, a copy, not taking pre-existing things and putting them together, while adding stuff of your own, but just mashing them together with no rhyme or reason, to the point where not even the artist utilizing the tools knows what it is using or pulling shit from, and i dunno, it is pulling from pre-existent art without the consent of the artists, which you could also make a point to with YTPs, but YTPs are not being utilized by corporations that want to replace artists and writers, and YTPs are not supporting a technology that has horrible irresponsible biases that can genuinely harm people or be actually literally bigotred, cause surprise, people who create and manage A.I. algorythms have terrible biases and bigotry that are merely reflected in A.I. The problem isn't that it is or isn't art, the problem is that this project using entirely A.I. is supporting a technology and a system that is horribly harmful to a lot of innocent artists and writers and just general workers and utilizing these tools for the sake of art, is systemically and just generally harmful to society at large, which has been proven multiple times, so you just not mentioning or acknowledging that it can and is harmful is kinda iffy. tldr; A.I. art is art, but it is harmful and morally wrong art. Okay that's that
ai art can be used to create art but the problem is that under capitalism it will always be exploitative and use other people's works without their consent. it's just an inevitability under this system unless we do something about it. if me pointing out this aspect means i am a reactionary, then it's just silly
I agree. Like, it’s art, but what good is art if all it does is hurt people? If creating ai art and pictures is supporting the practice driving people out of creative industries, why do that instead of making art that doesn’t do that? Like you could destroy a public bench to make room for a statue, and the statue is still art, but it’s art without consideration for human well-being. Something being art doesn’t mean it’s okay.
@@redtaileddolphin1875 the word 'can' implies that some pictures made with ai aren't art. art can be exploitative and lowbrow and terrible. still art. the reactionary part is the part where it being bad discounts it from some category in your brain
this ignores the fact that within the technological era all images are infinitely reproduced and no theft in the classical sense occurs in this process. not to mention the mish-mash of training data that compose the images cant be so easily reversed as this argument suggests. i dont see how an amalgam that traces 0.01% of its genealogy to your artwork can even be considered as stealing. besides, the crux of this argument resides in the framework of private property and Copyright Law, which is inherently bourgeoise and reactionary
The way it was made, is being used and the enviromental impact it has will forever put me off. Yes it may be art. But its not ethical. And its not made in good faith
See, this is exactly why I say anything can be art. Even something soulless like AI art can be used by someone with a soul to create something interesting. Sure, this hakfilm stuff has problems, but I think that's more an issue of execution rather than concept.
exactly, it still takes a person to give the meaningless generative slop AI produces and make something out of it because AI doesn't create anything with intent because it's not sentient. You still need human creativity to give it meaning
What they’re making is art, no doubt about it. The “Info News” beach man is especially uncanny, combining both the unsettlingness of “fucked up sand sculptures” with “fucked up ai generation”. But my praises for this work end there. To make art is not to make a moral product. Art can be beautiful and captivating and horrific and deeply interesting while also being morally wrong. While I applaud their use of the medium, ai generated art is deeply immoral. Like, it takes pieces from all over the internet without the consent of the artists and feeds them into a machine designed to replicate the artists it takes from. I feel uncomfortable watching you praise this work so heavily without mentioning the costs of the medium. The art can be beautiful and immoral, but because experience cannot be so cleanly divided between these two lines I still come away from this video feeling nothing but sadness. It’s impossible to separate this from the medium in which it was created, and I hope that this is the last of its kind.
"Any argument that tries to deny the title of "art" to diffused images will inevitably leave out entire movements in art history. It's a reactionary impulse no matter how you slice it." Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself, and I've been trying for years.
If ai art isn't art because it's exploitative, then neither is like. The Shining. or Picasso. If we're going to oppose it, we should be opposed to it on the grounds of the exploitation, not its perceived artistic value
I am curious what your thoughts are on the “complicated stealing” argument. I think it’s really a philosophically charged argument over the nature or plagiarism. Where is the line drawn between stealing and reappropriating? Why is collage acceptable when AI art is not? To me, it comes down to transformation. Is the artist saying something new with the art? Not just in the literal sense of “is the are different from the original”, but if the artist is adding their own perspective to the original. And AI art can’t do that, because it inherently has no perspective. It does not understand what a “dog” is, it only knows the patterns of pixels that can be associate with the combination of characters “D-O-G”. So I don’t think there is any way for an AI to meaningfully transform a piece of art. But that’s just my opinion. I’d love to hear yours!
I mean, I don't think humans understand what a "dog" is either, not until being exposed to a bunch of examples of things that are called dogs. And even then, we can attribute doglike qualities to distinctly non-dog things, or say that some dogs feel more prototypically doggish than others. It's all a game of associations, whether you're explicit with the statistics or not
AI art isn't art in the same way any physical material in and of itself isn't art. I think the point is that, like any material or existing media, it can be used by humans to _create_ art. I think the closest thing we had to AI art before it became a thing was fractal art. Most fractal images are generated simply as party tricks in the same way people use generative AI for some cheap entertainment. But then you have artists like Julius Horsthuis that explore the space more thoroughly and create some genuinely fascinating works.
I think it's more about consent. Artist want people to see their art, and make more art out of that. But they never knew AI might see their work and learn from it. It happened before they could decide if they wanted to support this technology or not. So in the end, I don't think AI art is theft. But gathering data from artists without their knowledge or consent is still super scummy.
the decision to only use ai art for the visuals ironically seems to impose a limit on the ability of these videos to have an emotional impact (tho as you mentioned it could still be used effectively within those limitations of course). it's kinda like making a music composition with only percussion like steve reich's drumming or michael gordon's timber, those are good pieces for what they're trying to achieve but if you tried making an adaptation of bach or mozart for the drums it wouldn't really work.
it'd probably be cool seeing the messed up ai stuff somehow combines with live action or proper animation in some way tho that also runs the risk of being too much of a contrast. like, you're watching the live action/animation bits and then it cuts to ai footage and you don't go "oh reality is melting", you go "oh this bit is ai i guess. ok"
It would probably work better with AI gen assets in a human made setting.
the sawblade of disillusion
a while back, when AI was more limited, i think it was google had that weird deep dream thing that would warp any image you put into it, infecting it with spirals and dog faces for some reason. at some point, someone made a of something, some kind of bug or beetle moving across the floor, i think - in my memory it was like a large orb, with these spirals eddying off of it. i could only ever watch it the one time - it was a video that instilled a deep creeping horror in me and i had to click away. you know how lovecraft talks about how his eldritch gods are so fundamentally weird and horrifying that people just go mad at the sight of them? that was the feeling i got, just looking at it. i got the same feeling when you put worm in the house on the screen and i immediately had to scroll down and i still feel deeply weird right now.
its something that contrasted with normalcy i think could make for a genuinely horrifying uncanny experience, like it's the most visceral representation of looking at a Thing That Should Not Be, that shouldn't be existing in this realm and is corrupting it by being here.
deep frog..... i absolutely love that video but i definitely understand the Horror of it
In the Don't Hug Me I'm Scared TV series, episode 3 "Family", there's a short segment with melty uncanny AI-generated visuals, and I think it works really well in that context. AI uncanniness is just one note, so it works when used sparingly and mixed with other elements but gets boring on its own.
I'm not sure what neural network they used, but it was most likely not a diffusion model, given that Stable Diffusion was only released 1 month before the TV show.
I'd love to know what she thinks of the series🖤🖤
@@bobsbrain397cant tell if this is a joke but she has a whole video essay on her main channel about it
@@everfluctuating she's only covered the youtube series, bobsbrain was asking about the tv show
@@mutantfreak48 ah, my mistake
wait there's a tv show
that video in the intro looks like something you'd see in a tomodachi life news segment lol
I hate that I read the title as a Weird AL generated horror youtuber. Now I just wish there was a Weird Al Yankovic themed horror series
There’s Gilbert Garfield, it can happen
The hardware store changed him
I love that I’ve actually considered doing that before, something based around his “Do I Creep You Out” song.
there's nature trail to hell! an underrated song in my opinion
mario cac
i love mario cac
cario mac
Mario CaC oiraM
Jumped in the caac
@@skep2923 jumped in the ####
thank you for bringing this experiment in AI uncanny horror to light. interested to see if this turns into a genre with established conventions like other formats
Reminds me of those posts on Facebook and those memes on Reddit about "my son made a life-sized helicopter out of plastic bottles" and it's a super obvious AI-generated image.
I realized captain was getting faster at the end and nearly lost it
hey patty, thanks for bringing light to this channel, i haven’t seen anything that really leans into the uncanny valley that ai naturally has in the way this does. i think the potential for stable diffusion-esque horror is not especially strong, but i’m sure that we’ll see at least a couple projects that manage to blend it well with, as you said, contrast with reality.
I think the main problem with AI art is not with the ontological question of what counts as art or how they are trained; but the fact that these tools are developed to replace ppl doing actual work and eventually are going to benefit already existing power. I think the situations where I enjoy AI art feel pretty corrupted by the knowledge of the tool being some form danger.
itd be awesome to see a mixed media project like this, taking the ai generated shifting eldritch horrors of what a computer model thinks video should look like and putting it in a grounded view, you could lean into a welcome to nightvale vibe or a classic eldritch horror, just a thought.
That would be interesting
I think the points you raise are very interesting, but I still cannot bare to look at AI images and especially videos. It's uncanny valley that goes deep below my skin and into my guts. I suppose it only serves to strengthen your point. Watching even few seconds of these has me transform back into an 8 year old who cannot reside in a dark room without imagining the countless monsters that inhabit the darkness.
Its potential for horror is limited, since the program doesn't have its own fears.
i see what youre saying, but i think this take is a little reductive. like the tool may not understand what makes something scary, but the person generating/editing/uploading these videos does, so i dont think thats super relevant.
obviously its potential is 'limited' im a sense, but surely thats the case for every medium haha
yeah weirdly, I think this is the same reason I find "liminal horror" kind of boring now. it used to REALLY fascinate me, but I feel like nowadays everyone is trying to make everything a surreal dreamscape of hallways and doors. like you said, there's no contrast. it's just surrealism for the sake of surrealism.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. There's an unexplored element of horror when it comes to ai or at least replicating. I hate looking at this way more than gore, i feel so uncomfortable. It's literally out of this world.
The dog has posted a viewfilm!! I must consume her content with my ocular spheres
I think this is the best UA-cam comment I've ever read.
How the fuck did a hylics npc get here?
sorry but i will sit this one out because i am extremely disturbed by ai faces, it is my biggest fear, this isnt a joke, sorry patricia
edit: i watched until mario cac. i appreciated that
I watched a few of them after seeing this Video.
I must say that i liked "Unremarkable" which is a surrealist Video where a Hand gives Names to AI generated Tools and Images that have no real Purpose. It accurately represented the feeling of seeing such generated Objects that have never had a purpose.
But other Videos just fell flat for me, "what about the garden Gnomes" and "The Bird People" seemed pointless. There was no real Punchline or shocker moment. It was just a premise but no substance.
"A cake named lulu" was just repitition for 1 minute about how men with great beards from another dimension can count uncountable hats and then we saw a cake with the name lulu. It didn't even look particularly unsettling.(or maybe after watching so many Videos i got sensitivised).
Then finally i watched "The Undsmiling Miniority" which was a horror Short story. Except that it spoiled the Punchline Shock moment in the Second Paragraph.
I kind of wish that they stuck a bit less to an AI script as it can't do things like setup and Punchline.
Im probably gonna watch a few more. Just to make sure that i didn't miss any really good ones.
Do you have a link to "unremarkable"
@BirchTainer /watch?v=dCKYQ93p69U
Oh no not the local economy!
was NOT ready for your fursona to jumpscare me
thought this was a regular drama channel and that was the best surprise
edit: just binged everything; watching continues
complicated stealing arguement
I had to hide mario cac, he's doing his job too well
piss flavored soup was an amazing analogy
Perhaps contrast could be introduced by using the Ai visuals more sparingly. Perhaps a sort of Vlog style horror series of someone talking about their new life in some horribly distorted world using regular footage of someone talking to a camera to contrast with the Ai hellscapes they also show off. Perhaps if a diffusion model that uses footage as part of its input could also be made to help add guiding the model where the director wants it.
I am 100% want all ai image makers to be bad, for two reasons. 1. I think it's more useful to making art (you do need to do other things without ai with that of course) and 2. So people stop using it to try and replace all other forms of att. I don't know if i got my opinions across accurately but, eh
the mario cac bit is so good
miku's message to ai art shits or whatever
i forget that people generally being decent doesn't exclude them from horribly shit takes
I miss wombo ai. When the generated images were weird and bad and pretty and you had to figure out how it fit the prompt
fortunately as these generators get better the possibilities for surreal and uncanny only get better. you must be familiar with glitch art, right? you can do the same sort of thing with AI. generally it's accomplished by forcibly perturbing internal values so that they lie outside what the model would have been exposed to during training. this causes the output to be more statistically aberrant, but the diffusion process still tries to refine it back to something closer to the mean. the results are delightfully horrifying.
I can't really decide whether the 'no "complicated stealing" arguments in the comments, pretty please' comment is meant to be dismissive of said argument or if it's just a wish to keep the comments on-topic. Either way, this video did successfully get me from "oh fuck another AI horror channel" to "okay I can see the argument that this is legitimate art". This makes me kinda yearn for more nuanced discussions of the place AI-generated imagery has in art as a whole.
i think it's both. the argument is both irrelevant to the general subject of the video and also just a bad argument rooted in misunderstanding how AI works. AI doesn't store its training data in any way, the stuff it's trained on is used to basically tweak a stupid amount of numbers that it uses to do math to produce a result, a way to put it is that it doesn't copy the brush strokes that artists used to draw a monkey, it recognizes patterns of what a monkey is. at most it's akin to an artist being inspired by someone else's work and subconsciously incorporating parts of what they saw into their own art
Thanks for what, Patricia, thanks for what?!
the sniper got her :(
i thought this video was gonna be about Weird Al...
Art is still art even if the parts that make it up are plagiarized. What this artist is doing is undeniably art but it doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of moral issues with using and profiting off of A.I. generated content. Stealing paint and making a painting from it doesn't make the final product any less art, nor does it make it any less stolen.
Excellently put
I can see arguments that ai art is still a valid art medium (people remix, make collage, cover songs- I can agree that it’s a new grey area) but art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I would argue that we shouldn’t be using AI to make art if only because it makes creative industries less accessible for human beings. In a world without cutthroat capitalism, I would agree that ai art is just like any other medium, and that it deserves respect. But I can’t help but feel as though ai art lacks the consideration for other human beings in its outcomes- in how it leads to fewer human jobs in creative industries, when creatives need jobs to live.
That’s not necessarily the fault of people using ai art, but isn’t it our duty as artists to consider how our art affects the world? Especially if you’re making art for money’s sake. Yeah this is unbridled capitalism- corners would be cut no matter what, but the only way to guarantee that human well-being WON’T be considered in its implementation is to not be critical of it, which if what this video is. It criticizes it from an artistic standpoint, but ignores the context of this art’s impact.
put it very well
"I can see arguments that photography is still a valid art medium (people make prints, adapt folklore, compile anthologies- I can agree that it’s a new grey area) but art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I would argue that we shouldn’t be using cameras to art if only because it makes creative industries less accessible for human beings. In a world without cutthroat capitalism, I would agree that photography is just like any other medium, and that it deserves respect. But I can’t help but feel as though photography lacks the consideration for other human beings in its outcomes- in how it leads to vastly fewer commissions for portraits, when creatives need jobs to live.
That’s not necessarily the fault of 'photographers', but isn’t it our duty as artists to consider how our art affects the world? Especially if you’re making art for money’s sake. Yeah this is unbridled capitalism- corners would be cut no matter what, but the only way to guarantee that human well-being WON’T be considered in its implementation is to not be critical of it, which if what this video is. It criticizes it from an artistic standpoint, but ignores the context of this art’s impact."
This isn't the first time technology has radically changed what is possible in art, what is commercially viable in the art market, nor is this even the first time some newfangled _machine_ has challenged the very definition of "art" itself. This likely won't be the last time this happens, either. Your points about social responsibility are valid, but the fact that your critique targets some newfangled machine and not _society_ is purely reactionary.
@@EvilStevilTheKenevilPEN15 Ai, as we know it now, what society has given to it, what the people and corporations who fund, support and make it, the culture surrounding it, the ideas and goals of it, are all based soully on a desire to make money off of it, no matter the cost. It is entirely based on a desire to profit, to replace and to make things *cheaper*. It is a systemic, societal issue, it is not the fault of the machine because the machine does not think, it is the fault of people, because that's all the world is, a network of people. By supporting and giving platform to a technology entirely based on exploitation (not just of artists, but of the workers who are literally enslaved to collect datasets) where the corporations making it and interested in it want to soully profit on it, because it's easy, because it's cheaper, because you don't have to pay as many employees (someone who generates and organizes a script for a movie using AI is not going to be considered a writer, cause they're not writing, not as much as someone writing manually, therefore they won't get paid as much as a writer), a tool that makes it extremely easy to scam and trick people, spreading misinformation, as scams that are trying to be convincing and realistic require some kind of actual effort and talent to actually work to an extent, made extremely easy without any moderation for it, tool entirely controlled by corporations, a tool that can be used as an excuse for human mistake, irresponsibility and bias "well it was the ai not me", a tool who's ideology and marketing is entirely based on tricking people and keeping them confused as to what AI actually is and works as (It's not actually intelligent because it can't actually think, it's not as complex or as good as people actually make it up to be), and I could go on and on and on.
Corporations replacing employees, replacing artists specifically isn't new, the idea of capitalism itself is avert to artists, boring generic bullshit mainstream garbage made by people who are specifically teached to value "be capable of making anything and everything for a corporation and for profit" more than appreciating art have always existed. Ai is just the newest (and most dangerous example) of this, I truly believe that if capitalism wasn't a thing "AI" technology as we know it would not exist, it would be something entirely different, and if ai ever becomes, not horribly harmful and something fully good not fueled by greed and desire to exploit and ignorance, then it wouldn't be ai, it would be something else entirely. This argument about photography and most people in this comment section miss the point, even a lot people who are against and scared of ai don't really understand why it is harmful and evil.
Yes, it is art, we know this, we understand this.
Art, can be harmful, and horrible, and support systemic issues, and be horrible, soulless and empty. It is still art, doesn't mean I'm gonna encourage it though. The reason (most) of the people that say "ai art isn't art" don't say it cause they literally want to argue it isn't art, they argue that it is *harmful*, that it harms artists and that it has no deliberate, conscious, or even subconscious artistic value because ai doesn't have a consciousness or subconsciousness, it is still generated by people and organized by people, but the things the AI's output is comprised of isn't chosen by the person who uses the tool, it's a random slurry of the data set that was chosen and approved by the corporation (which is also a privacy breach btw! Not just plagiarism! I love corporations selling my online data!), corporations, comprised of people, that have biases, and specifically choose things to benefit them. A photographer doesn't have to deal with a 3rd party who wants to make money off of the camera they're using by deliberately putting pictures in the camera and saying "you have to use these images that we don't own so that we can make money". The photographer just takes the fucking picture themselves. A paintbrush doesn't make you make paintings that the paintbrush corporation wants you to use that they don't even own and weren't made by them and they didn't pay anyone to do and they don't make money off of your shit just cause you used a paintbrush. You don't have to pay a subscription fee for paintbrushes. YTPs and collage art is made by individuals, their stuff is not a blended mixture of shit a corporation stole without permission to make money from, it's random shit an individual person finds on the internet, and if that person does something bad with it, all the fault falls on them, as it should. But when someone who makes ai art does something bad with it or causes harm, they're gonna be like "well it's not my fault it's the ai, it can think! It works just like a human brain! I didn't plagiarize!" And then the corporation can say literally the same thing. And then you gotta get into an argument of "what is art?" "What counts as art" "well photographers..." And no one is gonna realize that this is all fucking bullshit and it's the corporation's fault, it's the pro-ai assholes it's all the dickheads taking advantage of something that is rotten and fucked at its core, generated from pure desire to make a quick buck, and people who support it and even people who don't support it are either ignorant, complicit, are being tricked or scammed, don't care, or don't want to actually understand. Why do you think NFT and crypto tech bros love ai?
Maybe one day this technology can be not ridden with all this awful shit, and can be used for cool shit, but when that happens, as I said before, it will not be the thing we're talking about. For it to not be those things, it has to change something at its core. It needs to ship of Theseus itself.
The technology, at least post 2019, is rotten at its core, and specially what it represents, the meaning people give to it, don't make it any better. You say that the societal concerns are valid, yet say that attacking the technology itself is "reactionary", when they are both one in the same, the technology is based on and represent the exact systemic issues it causes. It's just capitalist automatization with a new coat of paint. Now I'm gonna go eat something
@@ToxikBox I'm sorry you think your views are less self-serving and reactionary than they are. But they are self-serving and reactionary.
@@EvilStevilTheKenevilPEN15 yeah, why. Give me like a reason. Is being opposed to a (relatively) new idea or concept (even if I've thought about it a lot for months if not years) inherently reactionary? Isn't reactionary like purely a knee-jerk reaction? Oh yeah I'm also against NTFs and Crypto, im such a reactionary! Self-serving to what? What do I accomplish with these views that isn't just "I care about the livelihood of others"? Explain it to me.
Engage in the conversation and actually respond to and address my points or don't say anything, I'd rather not hear a response than get such a nothing passive aggressive sentiment that doesn't try to deconstruct or defeat what I said in any way, instead fully dismissing them entirely. If you're not trying to convince me of your argument, then you either think I'm dumb and that I'm not going to understand you, that I'm not worth your time, that you don't actually care that much or that you didn't even read my comment at all. If you actually care about this then engage with me. Listen to the other side. Backup what you said or shut up. If you believe what you are saying is true, and you want that sentiment to be believed by others, then convince people. That's what arguing and debating is for, to make a point, to send a message, to either convince others or let yourself be convinced, it's a way to either learn or teach others. Unless you just argue for the sake of arguing and don't actually care about changing people's minds or letting your mind be changed. Hope not. Frustrating.
hakfilms videos are weirdly funny to me, something about them makes me laugh, idk what it is.
i honestly feel like i need to meet most drama revolving around ai art with neutral indifference, much like with any other kind of drama.
it's a decent tool and when used in certain ways it can look either really messed up or kinda pretty.
idk i think the ai horrror stuff has potential.
I recently posted a bandcamp comment that there’s a typo in the I’ll Be lyrics.
It’s funny to see Mario Cac a few days later.
As a web horror fan that has been in this "community" (saying that in quotes since its so fragmented) since like 2017, sooner if you count me being into creepypasta and videogame mysteries, i've seen A.I. art used before in web horror content. Ben Drowned utilizes it sparingly, using it for a few images and characters, maybe 3-4 videos, and that's kind of it, i think, similar to WayneradioTV's old A.I. streams where they utilized that old ai website that let you make fucked up faces and edit them in a complicated manner, which Jadusable also utilized for the ARG, works to an extent, because it's bad, because it looks weird and gross and freaky. And i get it, i understand your argument, i do think A.I. tools can be used to make art, and i do agree this channel is art. I think it looks very boring, and generic, and kinda shitty, and while it has good ideas, it honestly just makes me sad that this isn't made using real actors and live action footage. Like this *could* be some adult swim infomercials type shit, but it's not. I do think that while A.I. art can be art, and someone can make it with an intent to express something or tell a story, i agree with a lot of commenters with the fact that it is immoral. I've thought about the idea of harmful and immoral art a LOT. Like a lot, almost if not daily, it's something that matters to me a lot to the point where a big part of my philosophy is based entirely on how art affects people and society and the world at large, including negatively. Jadusable, creator of Ben Drowned, is an asshole, he's a cryptobro who wasted patreon money on bitcoin and while i think his use of ai, pre-2021, was tasteful and used well, i cannot feel about it in any way other than a huge feeling of "lame", that he's only using it because he thinks it's the future and he's gonna get rich off of A.I. somehow, while i was very fascinated by a.i. images in 2019-2020, the realization that the only reason this is a successful thing that exists, is out of pure greed and desire to replace and automize everything, that in the modern capitalist world, the only reason A.I. even happened, the only reason it became successful out of really specific nerd research groups, is because of money, technocrats, and the desire to have cheap if not straight up free labour that was previously going to profit artists, and this isn't like new, corporations have always desired to replace workers and artists, even before A.I.
I do think this youtube channel is art, but i think the tools it utilizes to make its art is not a moral thing you should support. and i don't even have any idea if this could evolve into anything more than, this. Like this is why i don't like analog horror, extremely limited, extremely specific, extremely lazy, it's art, but it's not good. I do think analog horror has harmed the web horror and general diagetic media perception so, at least to me its a similar comparison. The reason why Ben Drowned's usage of it worked, is because of how scarce it is, and how it was already based on pre-existent writing and character ideas that Jadusable had, plus there was uhm, literally everything else that was done for the ARG, the modding, the editing, the writing, the puzzles, the organizing, the player interaction, the websites, and RTVS' usage of it was funny, but it was funny because they were funny, and because of how gross and shitty and freaky they looked. I don't know if i'm willing to give the same treatment to something entirely made out of A.I generated, everything, if not most things. I do think it is complicated stealing, sorry, i do think it is immoral. And while the artist can utilize this and give it a different meaning and a different reason to exist, i still don't think it's okay to fully or if at all separate it from it's origins, the fact that, the idea of A.I. art and A.I. text/general generation is at it's core, done entirely for selfish reasons, least the post 2018 version of what A.I. is now. The fact that this youtube channel can be utilized as an example by someone who only wants to get money and replace and harm artists, the fact that this piece of media can be utilized as a way to justify plagiarism and the automatization of jobs and art, even if it wasn't your or the artist's intention, because it is just inherently linked with the tools. Bad art is art, and bad art deserves to exist, but systemically harmful art... deserves to be heavily critiziced morally, there's a reason why people don't want to call it art, even if it is reactionary to an extent, sorry heavily disagree with this one, even if this was a masterpiece and the best piece of media i've ever seen, i would still not want to support it. Art does not exist in a vacuum, and that is extremely important to me.
There's also a distinction we should make between A.I. and remix media. It is very interesting specially as someone who loves remix art and collage art, utilizing other people's art and giving it your own meaning. I feel like the difference is that remix media is specific, it chooses just straight up entire pieces of pre-existent media, or at least pieces of it, like tangible pieces of it, that's the same as like sampling and YTPs, remix art, it's a remix. It has a reason to be remixed, and it remixes very specific things, A.I. art doesn't really remix, anything specific unless you are very very specific, and even then it still is merely a recreation, a copy, not taking pre-existing things and putting them together, while adding stuff of your own, but just mashing them together with no rhyme or reason, to the point where not even the artist utilizing the tools knows what it is using or pulling shit from, and i dunno, it is pulling from pre-existent art without the consent of the artists, which you could also make a point to with YTPs, but YTPs are not being utilized by corporations that want to replace artists and writers, and YTPs are not supporting a technology that has horrible irresponsible biases that can genuinely harm people or be actually literally bigotred, cause surprise, people who create and manage A.I. algorythms have terrible biases and bigotry that are merely reflected in A.I.
The problem isn't that it is or isn't art, the problem is that this project using entirely A.I. is supporting a technology and a system that is horribly harmful to a lot of innocent artists and writers and just general workers and utilizing these tools for the sake of art, is systemically and just generally harmful to society at large, which has been proven multiple times, so you just not mentioning or acknowledging that it can and is harmful is kinda iffy.
tldr; A.I. art is art, but it is harmful and morally wrong art.
Okay that's that
ai art can be used to create art but the problem is that under capitalism it will always be exploitative and use other people's works without their consent. it's just an inevitability under this system unless we do something about it. if me pointing out this aspect means i am a reactionary, then it's just silly
it's still art!
@@OwlyFisherthat was covered within 8 words of the comment you replied to
I agree. Like, it’s art, but what good is art if all it does is hurt people? If creating ai art and pictures is supporting the practice driving people out of creative industries, why do that instead of making art that doesn’t do that? Like you could destroy a public bench to make room for a statue, and the statue is still art, but it’s art without consideration for human well-being. Something being art doesn’t mean it’s okay.
@@redtaileddolphin1875 the word 'can' implies that some pictures made with ai aren't art. art can be exploitative and lowbrow and terrible. still art. the reactionary part is the part where it being bad discounts it from some category in your brain
this ignores the fact that within the technological era all images are infinitely reproduced and no theft in the classical sense occurs in this process. not to mention the mish-mash of training data that compose the images cant be so easily reversed as this argument suggests. i dont see how an amalgam that traces 0.01% of its genealogy to your artwork can even be considered as stealing. besides, the crux of this argument resides in the framework of private property and Copyright Law, which is inherently bourgeoise and reactionary
i cant stop looking at the mario cam you need to get rid of it so i can pay attention to these videos lol
complicated stealing
you have a very cool yt account. subbing
All of these takes are good and based.
Hi just found your channel. I absolutely love your sona 🥰
What a cutie and those feet wraps are adorable.
Finally a video about ai let's goooo, been asking for literal years lol
The way it was made, is being used and the enviromental impact it has will forever put me off.
Yes it may be art. But its not ethical. And its not made in good faith
See, this is exactly why I say anything can be art. Even something soulless like AI art can be used by someone with a soul to create something interesting. Sure, this hakfilm stuff has problems, but I think that's more an issue of execution rather than concept.
exactly, it still takes a person to give the meaningless generative slop AI produces and make something out of it because AI doesn't create anything with intent because it's not sentient. You still need human creativity to give it meaning
So, five years ago, Hakfilms made some sort of cover of one of *your* songs. Coincidence? :o
so it was getting faster
What they’re making is art, no doubt about it. The “Info News” beach man is especially uncanny, combining both the unsettlingness of “fucked up sand sculptures” with “fucked up ai generation”. But my praises for this work end there. To make art is not to make a moral product. Art can be beautiful and captivating and horrific and deeply interesting while also being morally wrong. While I applaud their use of the medium, ai generated art is deeply immoral. Like, it takes pieces from all over the internet without the consent of the artists and feeds them into a machine designed to replicate the artists it takes from. I feel uncomfortable watching you praise this work so heavily without mentioning the costs of the medium. The art can be beautiful and immoral, but because experience cannot be so cleanly divided between these two lines I still come away from this video feeling nothing but sadness. It’s impossible to separate this from the medium in which it was created, and I hope that this is the last of its kind.
Personally I would never argue it’s complicated stealing I would argue it’s just stealing
Finally, someone who agrees that AI generation can be art.
weird but good!
videos for the
"Any argument that tries to deny the title of "art" to diffused images will inevitably leave out entire movements in art history. It's a reactionary impulse no matter how you slice it."
Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself, and I've been trying for years.
nice!
If ai art isn't art because it's exploitative, then neither is like. The Shining. or Picasso. If we're going to oppose it, we should be opposed to it on the grounds of the exploitation, not its perceived artistic value
I am curious what your thoughts are on the “complicated stealing” argument. I think it’s really a philosophically charged argument over the nature or plagiarism. Where is the line drawn between stealing and reappropriating? Why is collage acceptable when AI art is not?
To me, it comes down to transformation. Is the artist saying something new with the art? Not just in the literal sense of “is the are different from the original”, but if the artist is adding their own perspective to the original. And AI art can’t do that, because it inherently has no perspective. It does not understand what a “dog” is, it only knows the patterns of pixels that can be associate with the combination of characters “D-O-G”. So I don’t think there is any way for an AI to meaningfully transform a piece of art.
But that’s just my opinion. I’d love to hear yours!
I mean, I don't think humans understand what a "dog" is either, not until being exposed to a bunch of examples of things that are called dogs. And even then, we can attribute doglike qualities to distinctly non-dog things, or say that some dogs feel more prototypically doggish than others. It's all a game of associations, whether you're explicit with the statistics or not
AI art isn't art in the same way any physical material in and of itself isn't art. I think the point is that, like any material or existing media, it can be used by humans to _create_ art.
I think the closest thing we had to AI art before it became a thing was fractal art. Most fractal images are generated simply as party tricks in the same way people use generative AI for some cheap entertainment. But then you have artists like Julius Horsthuis that explore the space more thoroughly and create some genuinely fascinating works.
"Don't have the complicated stealing argument in the comments"
*has the complicated stealing argument in the comments*
@@evelynminer8568 I was trying not to make it an argument, I was just curious about her thoughts and wanted to say my piece.
I think it's more about consent. Artist want people to see their art, and make more art out of that. But they never knew AI might see their work and learn from it. It happened before they could decide if they wanted to support this technology or not.
So in the end, I don't think AI art is theft. But gathering data from artists without their knowledge or consent is still super scummy.
holy shit mario cac
Woooo, analog horror style
i wouldn’t say that, in fact i think this horror can only be digital by nature
Sorry, I can't stomach anyone seriously believing AI art isn't theft. Cheers.
move over david lynch
sorry nonoomf, your points are good-natured but i can't stomach AI art. it has like 3 pros and 40 cons
Wow... you're so cute...
mario cac