My doodle this week. I trace from cute pictures I see on the internet.
I rushed to dig through my old high school art class work and found this:
Love it!
that do be a nice doodle
Can we just cut the back and forth and accept AI as another tool and let soulless AI content die off naturally. No one listens to music that’s all autotune after we decided that it was shit. The same will be said for AI.
Some people need something to rage and virtue signal against. Those who work in private STEM sectors or took machine learning classes years before the LLM craze already understand the tool is here and are willing to learn to work with it if applicable in their job or daily life.
Those who don’t understand anything about the science of machine learning and are angry at the how megacorporations got away with unconsentually scraping their copyright infringed data off the internet for the first iterations of training data still get to let off some steam by calling it ‘hyped autocomplete just as bad as NFTs that will never do what a person can’.
If I were an artsy type whos first exposure to ML was having my work stolen followed by the thief bragging to my face about how copy protection laws dont matter to the powerful and now they can basically copy my honed style 1 to 1 with a computer to sell as an product, I would be unreasonably pissed too and not interested this whole 'AI’thing. Megacorps made chatGPT and stable diffusion using my work therefore AI bad. I get it.
That said, I’m not an artsy type or an idealist. I’m a practical engineer who builds systems to process the flows of information and energy with the tools available at my dispersal. Theres more to machine learning than proprietary models made with stolen information to be sold to th masses. Instead models are just the next new way to process large datasets full of complicated information. Its just that now were taking cues from natures biological information processing systems. Whether such processes prove more certain and effective to the old analog and digital ways have yet to be seen. Perhaps using these new tools will open up entirely different ways of treating information for all of society. Perhaps it will be just another niche thing for researchers to write papers about. Time will tell.
I will see ai as a tool when it behaves like a tool to help human creativity and not syphon it to make derivative trash; AI has potential but current applications are very dependent on training and mimicking content that was already made. Why waste my life viewing that with so many great artists and writers out there?
It does behave like a tool. Just like every other tool it can be used improperly.
bullshit! By the way who is your favorite AI artist? tell me something good about their work?
I like neuralviz. It’s really funny and has a lot of continuity jokes.
I don’t know any AI artists. Me i gues… I generated a coupled… they sucked… but I like the guy anyway.
Places i would deploy AI:
-Foggy background scenes
-Random textures
-custom shadin
I could go on but I’m not a professional artist so there could be already great tools for those use cases. I’m sure I could find a use if I spent more time in the space.
I think that if you can’t make the art without relying on AI then it isn’t art.
I can’t design a Minecraft house (art) without having access to Minecraft
I value your discussion on this topic, even if I disagree, but this specific point isnt very good imoMinecraft doesn’t replace the mental processes involved in making the art though
I used to play Minecraft and watch movies at the same time because neither required much mental processes, what did M$ do to MC?!
As you wish
The line work on this is very expressive.
You are clearly a connoisseur
Yes. I am. Let me share my credentials to make sure my audience understands my credibility:
- 6 years in art school
- 12 years as middle school teacher I could go on, but I don’t think that’s enough to make my case.
Thank you for reading my post.
awesome
Thats my finest AI slop.
Dangerously based.
fr?😡
Yeah, even passes detection.
This is the only one that detected it 100%, every other one thought it was real.
fr? 😂
Here’s my shitty drawing of something AI can’t draw
That’s actually pretty good depiction of a chunk of roast beef with a revolving rotor attached to it and flying upwards.
Time to move the goal posts again:
I’ll be pedantic and point out that only a robot would fill a glass of wine to the brim. Asides from that it looks legit, though I wonder how well it would handle generating a glass of wine that is being held out drank from…
If this is a reference to Asimov’s novels, kudos! Though I believe in his books, humans would fill the glass to the brim to test if someone was a robot, because only a machine wouldn’t spill a drop.
My career as an artist is in shambles
You didn’t even draw it on a napkin, you used a computer. Real Artists don’t use digital tools.
Oh wait, it’s not the 90s anymore and that argument is dead? Oops, sorry I was in a coma for a few decades.
Probably an unpopular take, but I think it’s got its uses. My artistic skills is not too great, and I don’t want to spend the time to get better or pay someone to draw a banner or icon for a Lemmy community or D&D character, for example, because it’s not that important to me. I’m cool if an AI can get kinda close to what I want and it’s nothing I consider to be load-bearing. To be clear, I mostly use it as something to fill up the blank spaces.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while. It can also be a fucking hilarious toy if you’re bored. I gave Dall-e a picture of my wife and her sisters and asked it to give me an upscaled version of the picture and it basically drew them as the canker sisters. Good times.
Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while
yeah, probably because the person that generated that image actually took time to write a detailed prompt, used appropriate settings on good hardware, generated many images, and maybe even fed it some composition images to base the generated image off, instead of just typing in “shark motorbike”
Randomly made this when clearing a pen’s nib on a post-it
this is some really good shitty half-assed doodle
what an esteemed little guy :)
Somewhat related: Has anyone else gotten the fountain pen version of this? I’ve tried three of them over the years hoping for a functional refillable pen, but they’ve all stopped flowing or never worked at all.
You’d think they would fix the design eventually, but alas?
Everyone is welcome to do just that in [email protected] :)
- There is no “AI”.
- There’s nothing inherently wrong or bad with generated art. The assumption that generated art is “slop” is literally the inverted assumption that “AI” will save us. But in reality there’s lots of cool pictures and many cool videos that were generated.
- If you’re mad about copyright/exploitation, the actual problem has always been capitalism.
Absolutely! I want to see art and human expression and not corporate generated productivity outputs.
Depends on the artist. Shitty at drawing but got skills on the comp? Ill take the art you used AI for.
Plenty of AI slop out there sure, but there is also plenty of drawn/painted/sculpted/whatever slop out there as well.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
The algorithms are beautiful, revolutionary, a true achievement of humanity.
The way the corporations have used those algorithms is unethical, inartistic, a true embarrassment of humanity.
The way the corporations have used…
This is true of everything under capitalism. And it doesn’t mean the art is slop.
For example our phones are made by slave labor but nobody is posting memes about how all phones are slop. Maybe they should do. It would be a better cause than crying about generated art.
I’m not sure I’m convinced by your argument. It seems to boil down to:
- Thing A is bad.
- Thing B is also bad, but you didn’t say anything about that.
- Therefore thing A is not bad.
To me, it’s more that I get a glimpse of the human behind the art, even or especially if they’re shitty at drawing. That’s why I also like memes which are thrown together haphazardly. If it’s pixel-perfect imagery, I don’t see much from that at all.
This is Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap.
I thought Sturgeons law was that 98% of everything on the internet is crap?
It is explicitly “90 percent of everything is crap,” emphasis on “everything.”
Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you prefer), the Internet is indeed included in everything.
It’s less a tool and more a short cut. and short cuts are a disservice to the artest and the art appreciater.
Ok yeah. That’s what they said about the hammer. It’s a disservice to the fine artisans using rocks.
… No, they didn’t.
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn’t like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
One of those things is not like the others. AI “art” is just feeding an AI a prompt until it spits out something you like. Some people may do a touch up to hide the hallucinations, but they aren’t actually creating the image.
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
No AI will ever turn an idea into a picture better then taking pencil/paintbrush/pen in hand doing it yourself. The best you can get is “yeah that’s close enough to what I was Invisioning” the computer doesn’t know what you are thinking, and a description, no matter how in depth, can ever take what you have in mind and perfectly create it. AI is doing it’s interpretation of what you ask for. And plus, the AI isn’t an art tool, if anything, it’s the artist. The prompt whiter is just the one commissioning it.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
This has never been what the issue is. The issue isn’t the tool, but how it’s made and how it’s used.
AI gen programs are almost to a fault created using art without permission with the express purpose of then using said programs to put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job. Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on. They are basically the definition of wage theft in their current form.
You might as well be arguing that Temu brand fast fashion is just as good as any other kind of clothing.
And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They’re jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
using art without permission
Every artist does this all the time. The actual problem is “IP” - a system of capitalist control whereby the rich control everything and workers are still exploited.
put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job.
Nobody can steal another person’s skills. If people are losing their jobs, the problem is being forced to serve capital in order to survive. That’s a much bigger and more important problem than “AI slop”.
Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on.
Without artists, artists would have nothing to train on. But in reality artists will always exist.
wage theft
This is the biggest form of theft under capitalism but somehow people only complain about it in terms of “AI”. Again this is a direct result of the exploitation of worker by capital. There is nothing inherently exploitative about making art on a computer (apart from the manufacturing of the computer which is extremely exploitative).
And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They’re jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
If this is even real? It seems like two completely difference category. And more importantly who cares? Petty AF.
AI bros fall into 2 categories in my experience, the “who cares, picture making machine go brrr” group and the “I can make works that rival the great artists like Da Vinci with just a few words, thus making me the winner and better than any so-called artist” group.
As for your argument about artists doing the same thing all the time, there’s a fundamental difference between artists and AI: a person learns the rules/reasons behind something while AI merely generates a statistical average. An AI is incapable of understanding concepts like perspective and lighting, nor can it learn anatomy. It’s much closer to tracing art than it is to going “I really like the way that guy does hands, I’m gonna learn to do that.” If you write a haiku, you’re not stealing your poem from other writers. You know the rules that make a poem a haiku. But an AI, asked to write a haiku, doesn’t know what makes a haiku a haiku, it just knows that its statistics say that x number of syllables is followed by a line break, etc.
If artists can’t exist without having artists to train on, then where did the first artist come from? Where did Impressionism come from? It hasn’t always existed as an art form. Who created the art that the Mona Lisa was generated from? I can tell you: the actual person that Da Vinci was drawing and the years upon years of study of things like anatomy and lighting that he had. The cavemen who drew stick figure horses on cave walls didn’t train on other stick figures, they drew what they saw in nature through the lense of their own interpretation and creativity.
Nobody can steal another person’s skills.
Look at your own words here: Nobody. No person. AI isn’t a person stealing the skills of another, it’s a tool using patterns and schematics created by people to make knockoffs. And just because this is a problem of capitalism stealing from workers doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem that we should address.
Again this is a direct result of the exploitation of worker by capital. There is nothing inherently exploitative about making art on a computer (apart from the manufacturing of the computer which is extremely exploitative).
This is what I’m saying. Making art using digital tools? Totally fine, I do it myself and even have a side business from the stuff I make in Blender. Using the tools created by companies committing wage theft rather than paying artists a living wage because it’s cheaper and easier for you? Not okay. It’s like buying stuff from Temu. You don’t have to subscribe to Netflix and watch all the latest shows. You don’t have to use Stable Diffusion to make memes any more than you have to use Reddit.
If 2 things were to change, nobody except for the stupid “photography will kill painting” people would care: people using AI to avoid paying people a living wage, and people who think that using AI makes them better than others.
Sharing AI art has the same vibe as telling people about your dreams.
Some dreams are wild tho
Even worse.
It’s like someone describing a tv show you don’t care about in painful detail, only without the enthusiasm.
You know, at this point part of the fun of using AI art is pissing off the holier-than-thou luddites.
Just like part of the fun of voting Trump is pissing off the holier-than-thou liberals
Oh yeah, using an image generator is totally the same as voting for the literal fascist that’s putting people in concentration camps. That’s very comparable.
Both fill the world with shit.
Voting for Nazis doesn’t make art more accessible to people with disabilities.
Well if they’re looking at generated art, then they deserve the gas chamber… \s
Luddites would be attacking the capitalism that’s exploiting us all, that coerces artists in serving capital, etc.
These people just think all generated art is bad because it doesn’t have a “soul” or whatever. They’re literally preferring napkins and poop on the walls.
I think you’ll find that those of us hating on “AI” “”“art”“” mostly are pretty outspoken anticapitalists.
And I get how people talking about how it’s all “soulless” slop (it is) can make that objection seem completely metaphysical and disconnected from material reality, but fundamentally that point is about how art is an expression of the subjective self, something that machines are not.
When a human creates art, every line drawn, every brush stroke and every pixel placed is a choice that says something about the artist, but all that gets abstracted and automated away when the only artistic intent is input as a set of brief verbal instructions.
Fuck it, the reason all this AI bullshit is getting pushed so hard mainly by fascist tech capitalists is precisely because that kind of abstraction of intent functions chiefly to alienate workers from the means of production. GenAI is, in that regard, fundamentally pro-capitalist.
I would rather…fuck it I don’t care, Chat GPT finish this comment:
Black holes don’t “suck” things in like some cosmic vacuum cleaner—they warp spacetime so hard that falling in is like rolling down an infinite hill you can never climb back up.
The event horizon is the point of no return—cross it, and not even light can escape, meaning you’re officially part of the “never gonna see your mom again” club.
Time slows down near a black hole—so if you watched someone fall in, they’d appear to freeze in place forever while they, from their own perspective, are getting spaghetti-fied into an infinite death noodle.
The closest known black hole to Earth is about 1,000 light-years away, which is reassuring until you remember the universe is constantly in motion, and cosmic surprises are a thing.
Some black holes are so massive they can contain billions of suns—like Ton 618, which is 66 billion times the mass of our Sun and makes everything we know feel pathetic by comparison.
If you replaced the Sun with a black hole of the same mass, Earth would just keep orbiting like nothing happened—except for the minor issue of all life instantly freezing to death.
