8 ms·
>This is one of the most important moments in all of art history. I agree, but not for the reasons you imply. It will force real artists to differentiate thems
by daenz 4y ago
>This is one of the most important moments in all of art history.
I agree, but not for the reasons you imply. It will force real artists to differentiate themselves from AI, since the line is now sufficiently blurred. It's probably the death of an era of digital art as we know it.
- quadcore 4y agoWait here, this shit hasnt hit France yet :) Those models are trained on artists work and put those same artists out of work. When people will register I dont think this is gonna fly.
- ben_w 4y ago> Wait here, this shit hasnt hit France yet. What is special about France in this case?
- vintermann 4y agoLabour protections/willingness to strike, I suspect they mean. But I don't buy it. I've seen far too many people who "should" be worried about this technology instead be absolutely in love with it. Case in point, the comic artist Jens K (who, f.d, I support on Patreon): https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1560360657148682242 https://twitter.com/jenskstyve/status/1560360657148682242
- gjsman-1000 4y agoMaybe this will signal a return to "real" non-digital artwork and methods...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wwwtyro 4y agoYeah, the fact that these models are necessarily based on existing works leaves me hopeful that humans will remain the leaders in this space for the time being.
- BobbyJo 4y agoHumans are trained on other humans' work as well though. Is there a type of ideological or aesthetic exploration that can't be expressed as part of an AI model?
- soulofmischief 4y agoHuman works are needed to create the initial datasets, but an increasing amount of models use generative feedback loops to create more training data. This layer can easily introduce novel styles and concepts without further human input. The time is coming where we will need to, as patrons, reevaluate our relationships with art. I fear art is returning to a patronage model, at least for now, as certainly an industry which already massively exploits digital artists will be more than happy to replace them with 25% worse performing AI for 100% less cost.
- quadcore 4y agoThe generated pictures that are posted in the blog post are superior than the average artist work. Which isnt surprising, AI corrects "human mistake" (e.g. composition, colors, contrasts, lines, etc) easily.
- archagon 4y agoWhy would people want to consume art that says nothing and means nothing? While this technology is fascinating, it produces the visual equivalent of muzak, and will continue to do so in perpetuity without the ability to reason.
- jmfldn 4y agoThat's the problem for me too. This tech is cool for games, stock images etc but for actual art it's pretty meaningless. The artist's experience, biography and relationship with the world and how that feeds into their work is the WHOLE point for me. I want to engage, via any real artistic product, with a lived human experience. Human consciousness in other words. To me this technology is very clever but it's meaningless as far as real art goes, or it's a sideshow at best. Perhaps best case, it can augment a human artistic practice.
- telesilla 4y agoDid we say the same in the 80s when audio sampling became a thing? We accepted it (after obligatory legal battles) and moved on, giving rise to the Creative Commons.
- derac 4y agoMaking art is already not making much money for the vast majority of producers (outside of 3d modeling). There really aren't very many jobs in making art. I'd reckon most people are artists because they love doing it.
- cshenton 4y agoThis is completely wrong, the digital art industry is enormous and, mind you, pretty uniformly pissed off that this model has been trained off of their non public-domain work.
- astrange 4y agoThey're mostly posting incorrect claims like "all it does it make collages out of other people's art" though. It doesn't do that; the model stores about 1 byte per original image it's seen.
- trention 4y agoThink of that 1 byte as a hyper-compressed essence of knowledge necessary to make said collage. Then it will be correct. Those models would not exist without the labor of the artist community - which in this case was used without consent and without pay.
- incrudible 4y agoThese models would exist, just without painterly style. Most of the training data is photos of real things, a lot of which is stock photography that has been ripped off much in the same way like those artists. It is a challenge to copyright law, but if artists are allowed learn by looking at other peoples work, why treat an AI differently?
- trention 4y agoBecause the AI is not a person and there is no reason to treat it like one, including by allowing it to "learn by looking at other peoples work".