I don't think AI art is good , it still feels like it's a collage of images , I mean the line art of a skilled manga Artist is really hard to be copied by a software, just my opinion , I think traditional art was and should always be the "real deal" and at some point digital art will merge with this AI crap
I would be perfectly have to have AI render me some backgrounds. The problem with AI is that a lot of times it has trouble comprehending what it is drawing. I think that traditional art is exalted because it's a physical thing which has value independent of "intellectual property" (which is illegitimate). If art creators, digital or otherwise, were no longer paid for use of their "intellectual property," but rather for the service they provide in coming up with artistic ideas, all these problems with digital art and AI would go away, and I would bet a lot of money that artists would all of a sudden be much more accepting of the labor-saving device that is AI.
it depends on the definition of art. the definition I maintain (got it from someone else) is "Art is the re-creation of reality through the lens of the artist." like your own definition, it does disqualify 99.999% of anything made by AI, as the person writing the prompt is in no different position than someone who commissions art with a request on what they want to see. their experience doesn't form the art, the model that the AI uses does. I don't see any way for a prompter to become an artist through their proficiency of prompt engineering. the only way I can see someone being an artist who uses AI is someone who makes their own Stable Diffusion models with their own assets exclusively. not a LORA, not a modified existing model, but a full checkpoint/safetensors model. for many people who don't want to think, text output AI (GPT, Llama) will replace their ability to think. unfortunately, most AI models are not tuned based on the truth, but whatever the people at OpenAI deem acceptable or not since lots of models are trained off of data generated by ChatGPT. whoever runs OpenAI will end up running these thoughtless drones. AI has the potential to tell us the absolute truth, which does have a practical purpose in accurate and effective problem solving, but as long as institutions like OpenAI are calling the shots, AI will remain crippled.
"Intellectual property" is not legitimate. If I copy your painting, you still have your painting. I did not steal it off of your easel. In fact, ideas can't be owned at all, since they are not scarce like physical objects. They also can not be expressed in anything other than physical objects, so having "property rights" over "your" ideas simply means infringing on the property rights of other people with regards to their own material possessions. You are not entitled to the monetary value of your property, only its physical integrity. You can not forcefully deter someone from buying a house in your neighborhood on the grounds that he will cheapen your house. If art creators were no longer paid for use of their "intellectual property," but rather for the service they provide in coming up with artistic ideas, all these problems with digital art and AI would go away, and I would bet a lot of money that artists would all of a sudden be much more accepting of the labor-saving device that is AI.
But maybe there could be another option - more sophisticated law on different ocasions and depending on a case? I think humans are not only rational machines. There are irrational desires, including art. Artist and craftsman are different things
Love hearing your thoughts on AI art.
this is one of the more optimistic takes on AI I've heard as a software developer
Well said, some of the best metaphors I've heard for AI art. The bear example and taking a painting off someone else's easel were brilliant.
I don't think AI art is good , it still feels like it's a collage of images , I mean the line art of a skilled manga Artist is really hard to be copied by a software, just my opinion , I think traditional art was and should always be the "real deal" and at some point digital art will merge with this AI crap
I would be perfectly have to have AI render me some backgrounds. The problem with AI is that a lot of times it has trouble comprehending what it is drawing.
I think that traditional art is exalted because it's a physical thing which has value independent of "intellectual property" (which is illegitimate). If art creators, digital or otherwise, were no longer paid for use of their "intellectual property," but rather for the service they provide in coming up with artistic ideas, all these problems with digital art and AI would go away, and I would bet a lot of money that artists would all of a sudden be much more accepting of the labor-saving device that is AI.
it depends on the definition of art. the definition I maintain (got it from someone else) is "Art is the re-creation of reality through the lens of the artist." like your own definition, it does disqualify 99.999% of anything made by AI, as the person writing the prompt is in no different position than someone who commissions art with a request on what they want to see. their experience doesn't form the art, the model that the AI uses does. I don't see any way for a prompter to become an artist through their proficiency of prompt engineering. the only way I can see someone being an artist who uses AI is someone who makes their own Stable Diffusion models with their own assets exclusively. not a LORA, not a modified existing model, but a full checkpoint/safetensors model.
for many people who don't want to think, text output AI (GPT, Llama) will replace their ability to think. unfortunately, most AI models are not tuned based on the truth, but whatever the people at OpenAI deem acceptable or not since lots of models are trained off of data generated by ChatGPT. whoever runs OpenAI will end up running these thoughtless drones. AI has the potential to tell us the absolute truth, which does have a practical purpose in accurate and effective problem solving, but as long as institutions like OpenAI are calling the shots, AI will remain crippled.
damn
"Intellectual property" is not legitimate. If I copy your painting, you still have your painting. I did not steal it off of your easel. In fact, ideas can't be owned at all, since they are not scarce like physical objects. They also can not be expressed in anything other than physical objects, so having "property rights" over "your" ideas simply means infringing on the property rights of other people with regards to their own material possessions.
You are not entitled to the monetary value of your property, only its physical integrity. You can not forcefully deter someone from buying a house in your neighborhood on the grounds that he will cheapen your house.
If art creators were no longer paid for use of their "intellectual property," but rather for the service they provide in coming up with artistic ideas, all these problems with digital art and AI would go away, and I would bet a lot of money that artists would all of a sudden be much more accepting of the labor-saving device that is AI.
This is the most goofy unemployed take I’ve heard in years.
But maybe there could be another option - more sophisticated law on different ocasions and depending on a case? I think humans are not only rational machines. There are irrational desires, including art. Artist and craftsman are different things