4 ms·

This is mind blowing. I was not expecting the sketch style images to actually look like sketches. Style transfer based sketches never look like sketches. This

This is mind blowing. I was not expecting the sketch style images to actually look like sketches. Style transfer based sketches never look like sketches. This and the current AI generated art scene makes it looks like that artwork is now a "solved" problem. See AI generated art on twitter etc. There is a strong relation between the prompt and the generated images but just like GPT-3, it fails to fully understand what was being asked. If you take the prompt out of the equation and see the generated artwork on its own, its upto your interpretation just like any artwork.

randomsearch 5y ago
I'm blown away by these results, but one caveat here: the AI is great at creating illustrations, not art. Creating great _art_ that Grayson Perry (for example) would recognise as such is probably AGI-complete, because it requires a deep understanding of the human condition, society, and a lot of reasoning skills. A great artist could certainly use Dall-E 2 as part of their method, though.
- smusamashah 5y ago
  If I showed you a generated piece, and don't tell you what prompt generated it, you will find it just as meaningful as any other piece of art made by hand. This is why we are blown away by some pieces of text generated by GPT-3 as if it has its own mind. Even most abstract art has meaning for anyone who is looking for it. What I am saying is if a generated artwork is indistinguishable from what a human can make than that's all that was needed.
  - randomsearch 5y ago
    Well I suppose a machine could accidentally create good art, just like a human could. But it would only appear to be good art, the same way that randomly enumerating all possible HD images would at some point produce a Picasso. But deliberately, no, it couldn’t, not yet, and human conceptual artists could make far far superior art than a machine. Because great art requires understanding the human condition and deep reasoning about the world.
    - totony 5y ago
      Models are not in a vacuum, their outputs are selected and guided by humans (here captions). The human can have the deeper understand while the model has specific understanding on styles for example.
      - randomsearch 5y ago
        I definitely think a human could use an AI to assist in the creation of great art (and to be clear, that is synonymous with conceptual art to me and also most people with a modern degree in fine art). A comparison can be made with Damien Hurst’s or Anthony Gormley’s use of assistants to create the pieces as instructed by the artists. Duchamp’s urinal isn’t brilliant because the urinal was difficult to acquire or to make, but because it expresses so much and asks so many questions.
  - randomsearch 5y ago
    Conceptual art is not about the artefact that comprises the work, but the conversation that artefact creates with the viewer. If you put both in front of someone with no idea about conceptual art, there’s a real chance you might be right. If they happen not to “get” the work or understand the context or just know enough about conceptual art, then a viewer might easily miss the point. But a computer could not have conceived Duchamp’s urinal, not with our current technology. You’re probably going to need AGI for that (which I’m certain will arrive eventually).
andreyk 5y ago
I would caution that artwork is only 'solved' with relatively simple text prompts. To create a novel painting with a precise mix of elements that would take a paragraph or more to explain is still tough, though DALL-E 2 does seem like a big step towards that.
- nahuel0x 5y ago
  Also note you can make an image out of many spatially localized prompts combined, in an iterative IA-human process.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Sam seems to be demoing something fairly close on twitter. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511724264629678084 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511724264629678084 The solar powered ship with a propeller sailing under the golden gate bridge during sunset with dolphins jumping around was pretty impressive. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511731259319349251 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511731259319349251 I think it's only missing the dolphins.
  - drusepth 5y ago
    It should be noted that most "AI-generated" images shared (Sam's included here) are typically just a first pass, whereas most recent models also include some kind of inpainting method, where you can then mask off various parts of an image and continue to edit those specific areas until the whole image is what you're looking for. This process makes it feel a lot more like a "tool" used by artists than a simple magic box that just gives you an "art piece" and you're done. As a tool, this could be used by an artist to continue working on that image until it's exactly what the artist (or the comissioner) is looking for: masking off the water to actually add dolphins, masking off the ship to redraw it, retoning the sky for a more aesthetically-pleasing sunset, adding other objects to specific locations in the scene, etc. Here's one example of how these composite prompts + masking can make more specific images here: https://twitter.com/jmhessel/status/1511757848442654721 https://twitter.com/jmhessel/status/1511757848442654721

randomsearch 5y ago

I'm blown away by these results, but one caveat here: the AI is great at creating illustrations, not art. Creating great _art_ that Grayson Perry (for example) would recognise as such is probably AGI-complete, because it requires a deep understanding of the human condition, society, and a lot of reasoning skills. A great artist could certainly use Dall-E 2 as part of their method, though.

smusamashah 5y ago
If I showed you a generated piece, and don't tell you what prompt generated it, you will find it just as meaningful as any other piece of art made by hand. This is why we are blown away by some pieces of text generated by GPT-3 as if it has its own mind. Even most abstract art has meaning for anyone who is looking for it. What I am saying is if a generated artwork is indistinguishable from what a human can make than that's all that was needed.
- randomsearch 5y ago
  Well I suppose a machine could accidentally create good art, just like a human could. But it would only appear to be good art, the same way that randomly enumerating all possible HD images would at some point produce a Picasso. But deliberately, no, it couldn’t, not yet, and human conceptual artists could make far far superior art than a machine. Because great art requires understanding the human condition and deep reasoning about the world.
  - totony 5y ago
    Models are not in a vacuum, their outputs are selected and guided by humans (here captions). The human can have the deeper understand while the model has specific understanding on styles for example.
    - randomsearch 5y ago
      I definitely think a human could use an AI to assist in the creation of great art (and to be clear, that is synonymous with conceptual art to me and also most people with a modern degree in fine art). A comparison can be made with Damien Hurst’s or Anthony Gormley’s use of assistants to create the pieces as instructed by the artists. Duchamp’s urinal isn’t brilliant because the urinal was difficult to acquire or to make, but because it expresses so much and asks so many questions.
- randomsearch 5y ago
  Conceptual art is not about the artefact that comprises the work, but the conversation that artefact creates with the viewer. If you put both in front of someone with no idea about conceptual art, there’s a real chance you might be right. If they happen not to “get” the work or understand the context or just know enough about conceptual art, then a viewer might easily miss the point. But a computer could not have conceived Duchamp’s urinal, not with our current technology. You’re probably going to need AGI for that (which I’m certain will arrive eventually).

andreyk 5y ago

I would caution that artwork is only 'solved' with relatively simple text prompts. To create a novel painting with a precise mix of elements that would take a paragraph or more to explain is still tough, though DALL-E 2 does seem like a big step towards that.

nahuel0x 5y ago
Also note you can make an image out of many spatially localized prompts combined, in an iterative IA-human process.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Sam seems to be demoing something fairly close on twitter. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511724264629678084 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511724264629678084 The solar powered ship with a propeller sailing under the golden gate bridge during sunset with dolphins jumping around was pretty impressive. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511731259319349251 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1511731259319349251 I think it's only missing the dolphins.
- drusepth 5y ago
  It should be noted that most "AI-generated" images shared (Sam's included here) are typically just a first pass, whereas most recent models also include some kind of inpainting method, where you can then mask off various parts of an image and continue to edit those specific areas until the whole image is what you're looking for. This process makes it feel a lot more like a "tool" used by artists than a simple magic box that just gives you an "art piece" and you're done. As a tool, this could be used by an artist to continue working on that image until it's exactly what the artist (or the comissioner) is looking for: masking off the water to actually add dolphins, masking off the ship to redraw it, retoning the sky for a more aesthetically-pleasing sunset, adding other objects to specific locations in the scene, etc. Here's one example of how these composite prompts + masking can make more specific images here: https://twitter.com/jmhessel/status/1511757848442654721 https://twitter.com/jmhessel/status/1511757848442654721