[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'

Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it's unlikely that your work will be impactful.
I'm still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it's possible to use this tool in a way that's revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.
- Good take.
  Don't hate the tools, hate what capitalism turns them into and uses them for.
  Reminds me of the old panic that photography would be the death of painters. It was shortly followed by an all time boom in art and creativity as painters tried new things and moved on from photorealism.
  There's still so much room left for human art and artists even in a post-AI world, as long as we keep rejecting the slop and supporting actual artists. Then maybe new art forms will emerge. Who knows!
- Oops, just wanted to write a quick comment but it evolved into me giving some of my thoughts on AI gen as a means of artistry. Oh well, not deleting this now.
  I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art.
  Most self proclaimed AI artists just type a prompt, maybe do a bit of "prompt engineering" (Read: putting the name of a good artist on the prompt) and then in-paint (Read: re-prompting, but only affects a specific area). That does not give you enough control over the drawing to do anything interesting.
  I say this from personal experience. Even small differences is facial expressions, too small to be described with words, can make a big impact. The no. reason artists don't use AI and dislike it is because it doesn't given enough control over the final image, because it does not let them put in details which cannot be described through words. You might say we might someday have an AI that (somehow) gives you more control, but that would nullify the whole "advantage" of AI: Not having to spend time worrying about the details. If you are going to spend 4 hours prompting in details... you could have just gotten a better result by just drawing it yourself.
  Think of it like making a level in Mario Maker VS making a game in a game engine. Sure, making things in Mario Maker is faster than making a game yourself, but it doesn't give you the same fine grain control that making a game from scratch would. (But even this is not a perfect analogy has, in Mario Maker you actually get to choose where the blocks go, instead of with AI, where you can only describe how the blocks go and hope the AI gets it right with little hope of editing it yourself.)
  Actually, about that "editing it yourself". In this hypothetical AI Mario Maker scenario, you could go into Mario Maker's editor mode and edit the level with the same amount of detail a normal, handcrafted, Mario Maker level would, but with AI image gen, you get the image and... Ya, about has useful as any other downloaded image. Artists typically create layers to do their art thing, but AI output puts everything in one layer, making hard to edit. I could go on this, but I don't have all the time in the world to write this. Someone posted this video on !fuck_ai@lemmy.world , where an AI "artists" quit AI because of these problems of lack of control. (Don't judge me based on the video, I found it on the aforementioned community here (lemmy.ml link))
  I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
  That's the multi billion dollar the AI companies are trying to solve, having to pay wages. The far right loves this as they feel like those who worked hard to develop artistic skills are below them somehow. Part of the conservative rhetoric. AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.
  I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
  I feel like people who want talk and argue about AI should know how the training works at a mathematical level. I swear the number of people who act like it's magic is way too much. I say this because it would give you a really good idea of how specialized training won't solve the lack of originality problem. I haven't had a refresher on this so I might be misremembering some things... Any who, this playlist is pretty good I think.
  
  The problems you describe with control is severely outdated. There are tools specifically to allow you more control outside of prompts. Ipadapters, controlnets, etc.. invoke and krita support layers and all sorts of other normal artistic methods for image editing. For people who use ai image gen more seriously, prompting is just the tip of the iceberg.
  For the insane amount of slop generated every day though, sure, prompting is all they use.
- I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
  That Machine Learning model will learn... from what?
  
  The training data could be the same as it is today, but maybe something novel could be produced by changing the objective function?
- Brian Eno, Terry Riley, and John Cage are names that come close to doing what you are describing. The idea of “generative” or “stochastic” or “aleotoric” music has been around for longer than this current AI boom has.
  I also found this fascinating bit of music on wiki:
  viral symphOny is a collaborative electronic noise music symphony created by the postconceptual artist Joseph Nechvatal. It was created between the years 2006 and 2008 using custom artificial life C++ software based on the viral phenomenon model.
  There are possibilities, but there are 99 lazy and uncreative people who just want to press the “make music now” button for every 1 person that wants to spend hours building and training their own models/sequences. (Those 99 have absolutely ruined the lofi/study beats on YouTube…)
- That would be possible, in an abstract way.
  Let's say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.
  Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.
  This will be a model that only knows the artist's work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.
  Now, let's do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.
  Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That's a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.
  I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.
- Have you not seen the AI generated QR code embedded in an image ? I don't think it can be done without AI, Don't know if you would consider it art, but I do : for example here is the first one I got when googling it https://www.qrafted.ai/img/gallery/girl-3.jpeg
  Like all AI things unfortunately the web is flooded with them now..
  
  This is a very cool concept, but has anyone actually gotten this to read as a qr code?
  I've tried a bunch of apps without any luck.
  
  Embedding the features of one image into another to create an illusion is a task I'd consider AI for, IF the artist performing that task can be propelled by using the output as a base. If it takes far more manual correction by artist to the point that it takes longer to make a finished piece, or if the time spent enjoying the process is diminished, it's no longer worth it.
  AI in art should be about automating the tasks that require scale or repetition, like how 3D graphics took much of the mathematical work from artists, letting them focus on sculpting their forms precisely.
  Time freed from automating one task should be spent by the artist on another task, such that the work is done faster AND is appealing in a clear and obvious way.
  The most "creative" way I've seen this done so far is using separate prompts for different 2d image elements in still painting, which appears to take longer to make less consistent results.
  It feels like prompters rely on the divided tastes of the internet to convince people that their art looks good to someone, just not the current viewer.

It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.
It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.
It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.
Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.
It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.
It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.
- Not to mention the ecological damage.
  
  That’s my secondary issue with it.
  My issue is less with AI and more with how capitalism has mucked up an opportunity.
  
  it uses less power than a refrigerator. are you going to stop using your refrigerator?
- If I ask Taylor Swift to make a song about a chicken eating marshmallows and she does, all the lyrics, music, production, and voice, are me and not Taylor. I made it. Me. That's how AI art works. Even if Taylor was also just copying other artists. All me. I'm so talented my words can only be appreciated in prompts to Taylor. You wouldn't understand. Buy my marshmallow song.
- The same people saying shit like "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing" are calling training AI on publically available data "stealing"
  
  Because obviously pirating games & shows for personal use does the same amount of harm as a corporate entity stealing the work of hundreds of thousands of writers and artists in order to turn a profit
- i know people who have used AI art to produce something not possible for a human artist in a short time frame. it was part of a larger product which was more than just art, and wouldn't have had nearly the same impact without the art. it actually does empower small artists if they think outside the box about how to use it.
  
  I think as long as you can keep it at arm’s length and don’t let it permeate your entire process, it can be valuable in triggering things during that ideation and creative process. That’s ultimately how I think tools like this should exist. They should be at your side filling a small percentage of need, with the human artist building something larger from it.
  That said, the timeframe for producing things continues to shrink because of unrealistic capitalist demands. So anything that brings a 12-hour process to 1 hour is heralded in as progress by execs, even if it demoralizes the creative team and reduces their personal footprint.
- That's not how AI works.
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  You don't own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  You don't own the definition of art.
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
  
  That’s not how AI works.
  How does it work ?
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
  Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  Strawman? maybe?, it's unclear how it's related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
  You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  This i agree with.
  You don’t own the definition of art.
  I agree with this also.
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
  AI is for profit, not for everyone.
  The major difference here is the scale but you'll have to look in to that yourself.
  
  hallelujah.
  kill the capitalists, not the technology.
  
  That’s not how AI works
  How does it work then? I see lot's pf people claiming to know how it works... only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  How so?
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don't know how humans art nor how machines train.
  You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
  I got news for ya.
  You don’t own the definition of art.
  This is not about definitions, I won't spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online
  Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
  
  I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
  If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
  If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
  If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
  If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
  Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
  The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
  Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
  Edit: a wild article appears.
  
  4 Is definitely wrong
  7 Yes
  And I'm sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are "collateral" products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
  Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
  That's why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.

Me: "Oh? Show me some of your original art."
Artist: "ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE!"
Me: "What... what are you doing?"
Artist: "Sorry, my artistic tools aren't working properly. Let me try refining my prompts."

Real :3

People who unironically call themselves "AI Artists" are easy targets.

Check out the youtuber "Neural Viz". Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters. As @tjsauce pointed out, it ultimately comes down to how much you care about what you publish. You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you're aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific. That’s where the artist becomes a designer: someone who not only creates, but curates with intention. Most people aren’t thinking that way.
- Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.
  He hasn't, though. He's done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion's share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
  You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.
  I think part of the problem with the "AI is Art, aktuly" discourse is that people who aren't professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist's end goal. This isn't about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
  There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking "I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle" instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
  ‘An Overwhelmingly Negative And Demoralizing Force’: What It’s Like Working For A Company That’s Forcing AI On Its Developers
  
  I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
  AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its "art" should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
  Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
- OK but now do that without stealing other people's art.
  
  Like sampling?
  
  In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people's art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it "feels" more original.
  I'd argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
  Which does not mean that we can't disapprove of literal copies of other people's work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it's more or less a complexity scale.
- This is Lemmy, all AI is evil and useless.
  
  I thought we left the echo chamber bullshit behind on the other website
  -.-
  Can’t people discuss stuff without it being derailed by other people who don’t want to discuss?
  
  Correct! 🥰

I like the tech and I want it implemented in an ethical way by someone who cares. I got into technology because I love it, I want to see humanity reach ever greater feats of knowledge and have the benefits accessible to as many people as possible. I think LLMs and image generation have enormous potential and it'd be a shame to not it see so much of it fulfilled in my lifetime.
That said, god, I hate the absolutely insane arguments used by AI fans. Look at this comment section. It's just the worst, most nonsensical comparisons, over and over again. Use the fill tool in paint but don't like it when someone compares a fill algorithm with massive art theft by corporations enriching billionaires? Hypocrite. Use anything you've ever seen as reference but don't think software and human beings are comparable? Hypocrite. Take pictures with a camera? Believe it or not, hypocrite.
Can't we agree that Sam Altman and his friends don't have our best interests in mind? That what has been done to artists, authors, journalists, and all sorts of creators, is immoral and shouldn't be ignored? Shit, they're the only reason the tech is even possible! We would not enjoy such powerful image generation if not for the decades of material they've provided humanity and AI companies have taken without permission.
Why are you so cruel to those who made it all possible? To frame the shoulders you stand upon, those of creators whose work was stolen and whose livelihoods are at risk, as of Luddites and elitists, then claim their protests should be ignored, is beyond disrespectful.
Angry and scared people often lash out, and nobody likes being on the receiving end of that, I get it. I would also like it if we could talk this out calmly... But they're the ones being kicked down. I think a bit of anger is to be expected, it's understandable. What it isn't, is an excuse to keep trampling over humanity's creative workers because someone was mean to you.

"I am a photographer!"
"So you just push a button and steal people's privacy? Not real art!"
- Photography involves shot composition and timing. You don’t just point and press a button. That’s why people typically hire photographers for things like weddings - it’s an actual skill, and not something you want to just trust some random who doesn’t know at least stuff like the rule of thirds with. What to include in the frame, not cropping things out awkwardly, dealing with moving people, trying to catch flattering angles…
  That’s not even getting into post processing and editing.
  Your example would only make sense if someone was going around claiming they were an “artist” because they went around a museum taking full frame pictures of the pictures.
  
  That is exactly why I said it
  If you open up your camera app and spin around and take a picture, 99% of the picture will be garbage.
  If you boot up a AI art program and type in a random prompt, 99% of that will be garbage.
  Photographer have specialize lenses and choices of FOV that affects how the pictures look. Ai artists have specialized weight and loras that affect how the picture will look.
  Photographer don't just take pictures at random. They set and frame the scenes - doing prep work and framing. AI artist can use base pictures instead of random noise to bias the outcome (image to image).
  With live subjects, photographer can either give no guidance, or direct the subjects (think "look at the camera and say cheese", only more nuanced). With AI art, there is a whole subfield of prompt engineering l which is akin to this.
  After a photographer take pictures, they do minor touch ups and photoshoping to clean up parts that didn't come out right. So too with AI artists.
  And with both, you can get 100s if not 1000s of pictures of a subject. The photographer and the AI artist true test is being able to pick from those thousands the one or two good shots.
  Yes there is a bunch of legal and copyright problems with AI art. When the camera was first invented, people argued that you couldn't take pictures of crowds without getting everyone's concent, nor could you take picture of other people's property with out breaking the law. That the legal realities around photography weren't settled didn't mean those taking picture back then weren't artists, and it doesn't mean that people doing AI art today aren't artists. AI generators are like camera in that you get out better results depending on how much work you put it.

This is as lazy of content.

"ai bad, updoots to the left"
I think this is really rivaling AI generated images for lack of substance

Yeah, that is pretty much how it goes. Some nice person shares a piece of AI art they find interesting and the AntiAI bros bully them nonstop and proceed to word vomit their nonsense for the next 3 years all over every site even when it isn't relevant.
- Machine learning is a net positive for technology and society, IF used wisely. The people who consume art are distressed that they can no longer filter for AI. AI images would be less controversial if we didn't have so much of it masquerading as human art.
  This technology is not the issue, it's how people use it to the detriment of society and the environment.
  
  I am not convinced this is even an actual problem, just what people are worried about happening.
- What's it like not being creative? Must suck.
  
  You'd know.
- Odd that there's so much hate for the image generation. I hate AI, but not for the images. I have an image generator myself and it's funny as hell. I hate AI for ruining the internet. After August of 2023, every search engine became borderline useless, and every "informative" website became auto generated dogshit.
  
  Image generation is often done remotely, using massive amounts of energy and water cooling. I enjoy the funny images as well, but I don't like the massive volume of AI images that make it tougher to find human artists.
  
  You're still on Lemmy, so you get downvoted for any semblance of approving technological advancements if it includes the wrong 2 letters
  Edit: case in point
- at some point you just have to stop arguing and punch them in the face.
- Careful now, Lemmy is the most anti AI echo chamber there is
  Edit: case in point
  
  People love it when they find something they can bully people with and feel self righteous about it. Especially when they feel like they have a big enough gang to back them up.
  
  True, but I've been noticing a trend in a positive direction over time. Look at the upvote/downvote balances, it's still a net negative whenever you say something good about AI but there are a lot more upvotes than there used to be.
  I think the anti-AI rage is dying down. People are exhausted by it, and more and more people are actually trying out AI tools and finding them to be fun and useful. And the Fediverse is getting bigger, too, which dilutes the bubble with more competing views.
- Sure but then you have the anti-AntiAI bro replyguy bully bros in the comments, which imo is the real tragedy

Keep fighting the good fight. If we can just be a little bit more elitist and haulier than thou I'm sure we'll make AI art go away.
- Oh no, we made talentless duschebro sad by dissing his favourite slop creating forestburner. Whatever we will do
  
  Exactly. If you just insult people enough, they will surely chabge their mind!!!
- Dude. DUDE. Really?
  
  Yes. The smug elitism about AI art is just stupid.