5 ms·

I'm surprised how very little this forum and the public in general knows or understands about the current capabilities and availability to these ai art generato

I'm surprised how very little this forum and the public in general knows or understands about the current capabilities and availability to these ai art generators. You have midjourney.com beta.dreamstudio.ai craiyon.com (real quick version no fuss, low quality) creator.nightcafe.studio and those are just some of the entry-level ones. I make ai art all day long! Check out my media feed on twitter @Sheilaaliens

lm28469 4y ago
> I make ai art all day long! I feel like this is the epitome of modern "content creation" Typing a few sentences into a software you barely understand, said software shits 15 jpegs out, 2 are good, "hey I make art". What a sad state of affair, tech is consuming everything and people are cheering, one more step on the path to being complete useless key pressers.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  I’m not crazy about the tone you’re striking, but the bit about “software you barely understand” does ring true. Lots of folks who think hitting play in a notebook makes them some sort of AI-art-engineer these days. On the other hand, the whole point of automating creation is that you don’t need to understand the underlying mechanisms.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    It's division of labour. The toolmaker has a different set of skills to the user of the tools.
    - leetrout 4y ago
      Somewhat related, that made me think if pioneers, settlers and town planners https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planners-wardley-9dcd3709cde7 https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planne...
    - lm28469 4y ago
      The user, me included, has less and less knowledge and skills though. When your tool becomes a megacorp owned subscription based service you barely understand is it really a tool ? It doesn't produce art in the way a brush and paint produce art, you barely have any control on what it does, you just become an image filter, you press a few keys, look at the image for 5 seconds and decide if it triggers the right part of your brain or not It's not so different from the artist shitting on canvas, but at least he had the creativity to do something new and daring. The end result might be called art but the whole process is completely devoid of what makes art "art"
      - psyc 4y ago
        I can sort of see the "barely understand" part being relevant if I squint. Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood.
        lm28469 4y ago
        > Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood. Owning the tool vs being owned by the tool, yadda yadda..
        psyc 4y ago
        Oh ok. That makes some sense.
      - IanCal 4y ago
        > you barely have any control on what it does, You have quite a lot of control from style and colour to composition by feeding in initial images. You can do this iteratively, selecting parts you want to keep and others you want to adjust. Photography hasn't killed art, yet you can describe it as "point at something and press a button". Sure you'll get something out of it, and it might be alright. But the great outputs take more work and care, just like with the air art now.
    - dumpsterlid 4y ago
      Time spent designing a tool is time spent not using the tool to make art and honestly the types of brains that are good at designing art tools... often have very formulaic and structurally rigid ways of thinking about creating art (they tend to use tools for what they are intended for which almost no breakthrough in art has happened from). It is a good thing if artists can uses tools without having to understand the nitty gritty.
- IanCal 4y ago
  Photography is well known to have killed art. Press a button on a box you barely understand and the camera shits out a pic. "Hey I make art". What a sad state of affair, tech is consuming everything and people are cheering, one more step on the path to being complete useless key pressers.
  - vagabund 4y ago
    Also true
  - dumpsterlid 4y ago
    Photography didn't replace drawing and painting. Also if you are doing something interesting with digital photography it is definitely not just pressing a button.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      Exactly, this won't replace all other forms of art and if you're doing the "just press the button" equivalent you won't get things that are that great. At worst the complaint seems to be "with care you can more easily create good art" which is a very odd complaint.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    You still have to decide what you take a pic of, that's the artistic part. You have to chose a subject, lights, &c. it's still incredibly more complex than "hey google draw me a horse with a tuxedo" You can tell that right away seeing how many camera users never produce anything of quality. A 6 years old can press the button of a camera but no 6 years old will produce meaningful work. In the case of Ai art tools you just need some basic english skills
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >You still have to decide what you take a pic of, that's the artistic part. You still have to select the 2 AI jpegs out of the 15, that's the artistic part.
    - 4y ago
- smusamashah 4y ago
  > software shits 15 jpegs out, 2 are good Not really. This very much depends on the prompt. Just look at these, made these yesterday in a batch run. Same prompts, different seeds. This all what it made on seed it chose. https://imgur.com/a/NGSvK48 https://imgur.com/a/NGSvK48
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  It's only sad if you think art or humans sacrificing their time has some kind of fundamental moral value rather than being just another type of product. As a materialist I don't really subscribe to that. I see work as a negative thing that society progresses to reduce. The keypressing is clearly, objectively, not useless. It is useful, just less costly and more accessible to way more people. I'm generally happy with this.

lm28469 4y ago

> I make ai art all day long! I feel like this is the epitome of modern "content creation" Typing a few sentences into a software you barely understand, said software shits 15 jpegs out, 2 are good, "hey I make art". What a sad state of affair, tech is consuming everything and people are cheering, one more step on the path to being complete useless key pressers.

ShamelessC 4y ago
I’m not crazy about the tone you’re striking, but the bit about “software you barely understand” does ring true. Lots of folks who think hitting play in a notebook makes them some sort of AI-art-engineer these days. On the other hand, the whole point of automating creation is that you don’t need to understand the underlying mechanisms.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  It's division of labour. The toolmaker has a different set of skills to the user of the tools.
  - leetrout 4y ago
    Somewhat related, that made me think if pioneers, settlers and town planners https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planners-wardley-9dcd3709cde7 https://medium.com/org-hacking/pioneers-settlers-town-planne...
  - lm28469 4y ago
    The user, me included, has less and less knowledge and skills though. When your tool becomes a megacorp owned subscription based service you barely understand is it really a tool ? It doesn't produce art in the way a brush and paint produce art, you barely have any control on what it does, you just become an image filter, you press a few keys, look at the image for 5 seconds and decide if it triggers the right part of your brain or not It's not so different from the artist shitting on canvas, but at least he had the creativity to do something new and daring. The end result might be called art but the whole process is completely devoid of what makes art "art"
    - psyc 4y ago
      I can sort of see the "barely understand" part being relevant if I squint. Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > Really don't know how "megacorp subscription" relates to a tool's toolhood. Owning the tool vs being owned by the tool, yadda yadda..
        psyc 4y ago
        Oh ok. That makes some sense.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      > you barely have any control on what it does, You have quite a lot of control from style and colour to composition by feeding in initial images. You can do this iteratively, selecting parts you want to keep and others you want to adjust. Photography hasn't killed art, yet you can describe it as "point at something and press a button". Sure you'll get something out of it, and it might be alright. But the great outputs take more work and care, just like with the air art now.
  - dumpsterlid 4y ago
    Time spent designing a tool is time spent not using the tool to make art and honestly the types of brains that are good at designing art tools... often have very formulaic and structurally rigid ways of thinking about creating art (they tend to use tools for what they are intended for which almost no breakthrough in art has happened from). It is a good thing if artists can uses tools without having to understand the nitty gritty.
IanCal 4y ago
Photography is well known to have killed art. Press a button on a box you barely understand and the camera shits out a pic. "Hey I make art". What a sad state of affair, tech is consuming everything and people are cheering, one more step on the path to being complete useless key pressers.
- vagabund 4y ago
  Also true
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  Photography didn't replace drawing and painting. Also if you are doing something interesting with digital photography it is definitely not just pressing a button.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    Exactly, this won't replace all other forms of art and if you're doing the "just press the button" equivalent you won't get things that are that great. At worst the complaint seems to be "with care you can more easily create good art" which is a very odd complaint.
- lm28469 4y ago
  You still have to decide what you take a pic of, that's the artistic part. You have to chose a subject, lights, &c. it's still incredibly more complex than "hey google draw me a horse with a tuxedo" You can tell that right away seeing how many camera users never produce anything of quality. A 6 years old can press the button of a camera but no 6 years old will produce meaningful work. In the case of Ai art tools you just need some basic english skills
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >You still have to decide what you take a pic of, that's the artistic part. You still have to select the 2 AI jpegs out of the 15, that's the artistic part.
  - 4y ago
smusamashah 4y ago
> software shits 15 jpegs out, 2 are good Not really. This very much depends on the prompt. Just look at these, made these yesterday in a batch run. Same prompts, different seeds. This all what it made on seed it chose. https://imgur.com/a/NGSvK48 https://imgur.com/a/NGSvK48
KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
It's only sad if you think art or humans sacrificing their time has some kind of fundamental moral value rather than being just another type of product. As a materialist I don't really subscribe to that. I see work as a negative thing that society progresses to reduce. The keypressing is clearly, objectively, not useless. It is useful, just less costly and more accessible to way more people. I'm generally happy with this.