3 ms·

I think you're greatly underselling the potential here. Stable Diffusion and Dall-e 2 can already make some legitimately great stuff, and they're going to keep

I think you're greatly underselling the potential here. Stable Diffusion and Dall-e 2 can already make some legitimately great stuff, and they're going to keep getting better. For example, here's some art from a modified Stable Diffusion model: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a I don't know how you can look at this and think, "ah yes, just some more generic junk."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
archibaldJ 4y ago
A class of things starts to become generic when they are predictable and summarizable by words to a degree where people can form mental representations of them to a higher accuracy. > here's some art from a modified Stable Diffusion model: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a The "fantasy girl" style of paintings has always looked generic to me (even back when it was painted by human artists). They are cute to look at, for sure. And so is looking at photographs of models, unless it is your friend and you miss her. Otherwise the story just ends there. I think in the end images are just story-telling devices. They are a means to an end. The nice thing of AI art is that it'll inspire more people to realize that. And the same goes with words and representations around us. What's important are not the words and representations, but the story they are telling, which in terms has physiological and emotional ramifications, and may provoke thoughts and feelings and actions, or the change of a habit, a new sentiment, a grain of salt, a breath of fresh air, etc. Those are what the human experience is about. And yet we always tend to focus too much at the finger pointing to the moon. I really hope that's the change AI would bring into this world. More awareness to the moon. And then there will be aspirations and new movements as we restructure soceties.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  More Stable Diffusion examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516
  - archibaldJ 4y ago
    This is crazy. I'm an an early DallE2 user. And looks like Stable Diffusion is much better than DallE2 (at least for these genres of gen)
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      Well keep in mind this is cherry picked, obviously. All the good stuff you see is. That said, yes, it's still very impressive.
- ImprobableTruth 4y ago
  The vast majority of commercial illustrations is just beautiful/cool looking characters or landscapes, focusing purely on looking pretty rather than some deep meaning behind it. I think it's totally understandable if you don't care about this kind of art and it losing value, but what you're really saying then is "The art apocalypse will happen and that's good". I share this opinion, but I can also definitely see why working artists don't like it!
  - archibaldJ 4y ago
    > The vast majority of commercial illustrations is just beautiful/cool looking characters or landscapes, focusing purely on looking pretty rather than some deep meaning behind it. Most commercial illustrations (esp commisioned by companies/institutions) are mostly created to evoke a longing for consummerism (eg lifestyle advertisments), and it is often mindless. People's interests are in the feeling they are promised the thing would give them, and often not the thing itself. Or, at worst, as a stress-coping mechanism that has direct and grim consequences. eg America's sugar addiction (which are implanted into the population at young age when they are most vulnerable.) These are not arts. They are Machiavellian traps for the mind. Arts, in the simplest defintions, are just things one makes to express a certain feeling/thought/sentiment/etc. A piece of art is good when it can connect/resonate with you. It's a human connection thing. Tech would be an enabler for more novelties. But the story has always been there. A story about mankind.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      Okay cool, but what we were talking about was the job market for artists, and that includes people making commercial "art", not just people making emotionally moving pieces to be hung up in art galleries. You seem to have completely missed the point of this discussion: > ShutterStock should be concerned, but artists and graphic designers don't need to worry. Just another tool. That's the thing I was disagreeing with, and they're obviously talking about artists in general, including commercial artists, not just ones who are engaged with the platonic ideal of art.
      - 4y ago
rikroots 4y ago
I may be an outlier here, but when I look at those images I can see that they're pretty but I'm not getting any sense of, well, character, backstory from them. Maybe when the AI used to create them learns to go back and add some characteristic imperfections into the final output it will help, but at the moment they push me just the wrong side of the Uncanny Valley - I wouldn't want to have these portraits hanging in my living room.
- Kiro 4y ago
  Are you saying you can see these were generated by an AI based on lack of character? Would you pass a blind test? More Stable Diffusion examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  The bar people are putting here on AI art seems kind of insane to me. Like, of the millions of working artists out there employed by various companies, what percentage of their output do you think meets this bar of "I wanna hang it up in my living room"? Maybe AI art won't be able to hit the bar of seriously moving people to feel deep emotions consistently, but what percentage of human-generated art manages to hit that?
- gitgud 4y ago
  > I wouldn't want to have these portraits hanging in my living room. There's a huge market of artwork that I don't like, that I would never hang up anywhere.... That's what this technology will compete with.
oldstrangers 4y ago
Yeah, that image is the very definition of generic. It looks great, but it's a soulless recreation of a popular art style I've seen a million times before. Hence, generic. It's the background noise of the art world.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

archibaldJ 4y ago

A class of things starts to become generic when they are predictable and summarizable by words to a degree where people can form mental representations of them to a higher accuracy. > here's some art from a modified Stable Diffusion model: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a The "fantasy girl" style of paintings has always looked generic to me (even back when it was painted by human artists). They are cute to look at, for sure. And so is looking at photographs of models, unless it is your friend and you miss her. Otherwise the story just ends there. I think in the end images are just story-telling devices. They are a means to an end. The nice thing of AI art is that it'll inspire more people to realize that. And the same goes with words and representations around us. What's important are not the words and representations, but the story they are telling, which in terms has physiological and emotional ramifications, and may provoke thoughts and feelings and actions, or the change of a habit, a new sentiment, a grain of salt, a breath of fresh air, etc. Those are what the human experience is about. And yet we always tend to focus too much at the finger pointing to the moon. I really hope that's the change AI would bring into this world. More awareness to the moon. And then there will be aspirations and new movements as we restructure soceties.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
More Stable Diffusion examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516
- archibaldJ 4y ago
  This is crazy. I'm an an early DallE2 user. And looks like Stable Diffusion is much better than DallE2 (at least for these genres of gen)
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    Well keep in mind this is cherry picked, obviously. All the good stuff you see is. That said, yes, it's still very impressive.
ImprobableTruth 4y ago
The vast majority of commercial illustrations is just beautiful/cool looking characters or landscapes, focusing purely on looking pretty rather than some deep meaning behind it. I think it's totally understandable if you don't care about this kind of art and it losing value, but what you're really saying then is "The art apocalypse will happen and that's good". I share this opinion, but I can also definitely see why working artists don't like it!
- archibaldJ 4y ago
  > The vast majority of commercial illustrations is just beautiful/cool looking characters or landscapes, focusing purely on looking pretty rather than some deep meaning behind it. Most commercial illustrations (esp commisioned by companies/institutions) are mostly created to evoke a longing for consummerism (eg lifestyle advertisments), and it is often mindless. People's interests are in the feeling they are promised the thing would give them, and often not the thing itself. Or, at worst, as a stress-coping mechanism that has direct and grim consequences. eg America's sugar addiction (which are implanted into the population at young age when they are most vulnerable.) These are not arts. They are Machiavellian traps for the mind. Arts, in the simplest defintions, are just things one makes to express a certain feeling/thought/sentiment/etc. A piece of art is good when it can connect/resonate with you. It's a human connection thing. Tech would be an enabler for more novelties. But the story has always been there. A story about mankind.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    Okay cool, but what we were talking about was the job market for artists, and that includes people making commercial "art", not just people making emotionally moving pieces to be hung up in art galleries. You seem to have completely missed the point of this discussion: > ShutterStock should be concerned, but artists and graphic designers don't need to worry. Just another tool. That's the thing I was disagreeing with, and they're obviously talking about artists in general, including commercial artists, not just ones who are engaged with the platonic ideal of art.
    - 4y ago

rikroots 4y ago

I may be an outlier here, but when I look at those images I can see that they're pretty but I'm not getting any sense of, well, character, backstory from them. Maybe when the AI used to create them learns to go back and add some characteristic imperfections into the final output it will help, but at the moment they push me just the wrong side of the Uncanny Valley - I wouldn't want to have these portraits hanging in my living room.

Kiro 4y ago
Are you saying you can see these were generated by an AI based on lack of character? Would you pass a blind test? More Stable Diffusion examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516
TulliusCicero 4y ago
The bar people are putting here on AI art seems kind of insane to me. Like, of the millions of working artists out there employed by various companies, what percentage of their output do you think meets this bar of "I wanna hang it up in my living room"? Maybe AI art won't be able to hit the bar of seriously moving people to feel deep emotions consistently, but what percentage of human-generated art manages to hit that?
gitgud 4y ago
> I wouldn't want to have these portraits hanging in my living room. There's a huge market of artwork that I don't like, that I would never hang up anywhere.... That's what this technology will compete with.

oldstrangers 4y ago

Yeah, that image is the very definition of generic. It looks great, but it's a soulless recreation of a popular art style I've seen a million times before. Hence, generic. It's the background noise of the art world.