7 ms·

It's funny because art was the activity humans were supposed to be engaged in after AI took over the work we didn't want to do, but it looks like it will be one

It's funny because art was the activity humans were supposed to be engaged in after AI took over the work we didn't want to do, but it looks like it will be one of the first things to fall to the machines.

t0bia_s 4y ago
You confusing art with images. Art is more deep than just digital generated image. Do you thing that AI generated images will be bough by collectors or published in art galleries?
- m00dy 4y ago
  why not ?
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    Well... If you are AI, then be my guest =D
    - m00dy 4y ago
      I might be paying for an AI generated art. Just keep the seed for yourself, you will have a unique art for yourself :)
- dougabug 4y ago
  It depends on who made it, and why.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  One of the biggest categories of digital art at the moment is algorithmically generated art. Of course, the “artist” wrote the algorithm, but I can easily imagine an AI putting together something similar.
  - nodogoto 4y ago
    These image-from-prompt generators are themselves just a particular type of generative art. I think it's obvious that the output of these AIs can be considered art. There is human input at multiple levels - the code, the artists whose works it was trained on, the researchers that scraped/pruned the training set, and ultimately the crafting of prompts by users to achieve a desired output. What is not obvious is: among those human inputs, which are actually responsible for imparting artistic value on the resultant image, and in what proportion.
- wds 4y ago
  Not to give credence to this space, but NFT art shows presenting Pixel Chill Monkey #9491 made with a coked-out doll dress-up game is a seemingly much lower bar
- masswerk 4y ago
  Get ready for all artwork being of one of a few standard styles.
- superzamp 4y ago
  Well if you can't tell, does it matter?
green_on_black 4y ago
I disagree. I believe that art is eternal, but we still fail to grasp what it means. I don't think art is limited to pretty pictures and poetic prose. For example, if a human laboriously produces a work that they could have simply asked an AI to produce, isn't that starkly superfluous? To me, a performance art.
dougabug 4y ago
But graphics, design, and special effects were some of the first areas heavily influenced by digital technology, so it’s not super surprising that AI is showing early signs of future impact in the visual arts. It’s becoming pretty clear that some people are much better at harnessing these emerging tools than others. Some people are already billing themselves as “AI artists,” and I predict that many will find success in this new art form.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  "AI artist" probably wouldn't be hired for specific tasks.
  - dougabug 4y ago
    It’s just a blob of paint until someone says (with conviction) that it’s “art.” Creating compelling results which connect with people requires practice, patience, the willingness and ability to explore, a whole lot of cherry picking. Iteration. There will have to be protections for content creators, which will have to evolve to accommodate AI’s increasing capabilities to mimic, some might say “steal,” the style and character of an artist’s work. It’s simpler in the case where the AI clearly imports entire assets from a single source, much harder when it almagamates tiny fragments of a large number of different artists’ works. Some kind of tax may be necessary to ensure that human creators of source materials are fairly compensated. Nothing happens without their work as the basis of creation.
    - quadcore 4y ago
      It’s just a blob of paint until someone says (with conviction) that it’s “art.” You perfectly know fine art isnt the issue here because its a small industry anyway and you guys arent investing dozens of billions to take over a niche industry. For those who dont know what we are really talking about here: it's the illustration and entertainment industry, which combined are probably well over a trillion dollar industry. Creating compelling results which connect with people requires practice, patience, the willingness and ability to explore, a whole lot of cherry picking. Iteration. It doesnt. And you know it. It only takes taste. Which is very easy for an AI to acquire with intelligent supervision. It will be way better than the 99 percentile of artists very quickly. The rest is monkey work and is worth nothing. There will have to be protections for content creators, which will have to evolve to accommodate AI’s increasing capabilities to mimic, some might say “steal,” the style and character of an artist’s work. It’s simpler in the case where the AI clearly imports entire assets from a single source, much harder when it almagamates tiny fragments of a large number of different artists’ works. Some kind of tax may be necessary to ensure that human creators of source materials are fairly compensated. Nothing happens without their work as the basis of creation. One of the first things I noticed on the SD website is the cleverness of the bullshit. With "ethic" and stuff everywhere. Did you wrote it? Are you CEO? There wont be taxes mate, there will be questions :)
bee_rider 4y ago
Painters had to change their business model when photography was invented, but they didn't vanish completely.
- awfulneutral 4y ago
  But at least photography created new roles for photographers. AI art promises to replace many creative roles for humans entirely, without creating any new roles.
  - dougabug 4y ago
    These AI art tools model distributions based on sample data. They don’t create the underlying distributions; they need to be given (many) samples from the source distributions. You need people even just to say if something is good or not. Standards will rise considerably as AI tools mature, and peoples’ skills with the new tools grow. Things get old real fast and people get bored quickly. Here’s a new role: creating trademarked artistic styles. People will become tired of what eventually becomes seen as a limited set of “AI styles,” which are actually distilled from the techniques of a relative handful of human artists. So they will seek out “Natural” artists who are able to create new artistic styles. Also, the Disneys and the mega-studios will need and want to create distinctive and commercially protectable visual styles. The legal framework and case law will have to be worked out. Think of it as “Look and Feel” on steroids. One thing’s for sure, it will create significant roles for creative IP lawyers.
    - awfulneutral 4y ago
      The examples you gave sound like they would only be for the top tier of today's artists though, or a small number of AI taste supervisors, not the general workforce. A company would need to hire far fewer people if all they need to do is feed a new style into the image generator occasionally. I also don't see that as a new role created by this technology, since people are already doing that - those are just a few people who might not get laid off. If standards rise considerably it could help, but I'm not really able to picture what that would look like, in a way that would mean more roles for people. Or if the tech gets stuck where it is now and never becomes truly useful, then I could see AI as just being another tool.
Melatonic 4y ago
Not at all - this is just another tool that artists will use.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  Agree. For me, as not very skilled artist (but still able to make living by creating art) it opening new layer to creative process. I can spend more time by thinking about content than just drawing or spending hours for researching specific images.
- awfulneutral 4y ago
  You might be right (at least until the AI improves a bit), but even so it promises to make artists more productive to the point that we will need far fewer of them. Unless we are able to scale up the amount of art we need by a huge amount.
dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
It's not that simple. The current generation wave of so called "AI tools" such as GPT-, DALL-E and the rest generate fantastic results because* someone did the enormous work of scraping a huge amount of someone else's work (texts, images). Of course you'd argue humans do the same: they absorb a huge number of inputs and generate content based on that. However, there is something else in automated solutions like this one that places tools like Copilot on the verge of more or less sophisticated plagiarism. And when you look closer at the images, you discover oddities just like in the faces of AI-generated people. Real art, on the other hand, is all about innovation and exploration. That's one of the reasons there are fewer and fewer traditional paintings in modern art museums. The current generation of AI is still very much a copycat, not a creator. I believe this might change, but we'd need a complete paradigm shift for that - ML is almost useless as the core of such solution, as much as generative art algorithms.
navjack27 4y ago
Seems like humans are still actively engaged in it. Just place a color blob here and a different color blob here assign those color blobs with different tasks and tell the AI to fill in those blobs with different descriptions.

t0bia_s 4y ago

You confusing art with images. Art is more deep than just digital generated image. Do you thing that AI generated images will be bough by collectors or published in art galleries?

m00dy 4y ago
why not ?
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  Well... If you are AI, then be my guest =D
  - m00dy 4y ago
    I might be paying for an AI generated art. Just keep the seed for yourself, you will have a unique art for yourself :)
dougabug 4y ago
It depends on who made it, and why.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
One of the biggest categories of digital art at the moment is algorithmically generated art. Of course, the “artist” wrote the algorithm, but I can easily imagine an AI putting together something similar.
- nodogoto 4y ago
  These image-from-prompt generators are themselves just a particular type of generative art. I think it's obvious that the output of these AIs can be considered art. There is human input at multiple levels - the code, the artists whose works it was trained on, the researchers that scraped/pruned the training set, and ultimately the crafting of prompts by users to achieve a desired output. What is not obvious is: among those human inputs, which are actually responsible for imparting artistic value on the resultant image, and in what proportion.
wds 4y ago
Not to give credence to this space, but NFT art shows presenting Pixel Chill Monkey #9491 made with a coked-out doll dress-up game is a seemingly much lower bar
masswerk 4y ago
Get ready for all artwork being of one of a few standard styles.
superzamp 4y ago
Well if you can't tell, does it matter?

green_on_black 4y ago

I disagree. I believe that art is eternal, but we still fail to grasp what it means. I don't think art is limited to pretty pictures and poetic prose. For example, if a human laboriously produces a work that they could have simply asked an AI to produce, isn't that starkly superfluous? To me, a performance art.

dougabug 4y ago

But graphics, design, and special effects were some of the first areas heavily influenced by digital technology, so it’s not super surprising that AI is showing early signs of future impact in the visual arts. It’s becoming pretty clear that some people are much better at harnessing these emerging tools than others. Some people are already billing themselves as “AI artists,” and I predict that many will find success in this new art form.

t0bia_s 4y ago
"AI artist" probably wouldn't be hired for specific tasks.
- dougabug 4y ago
  It’s just a blob of paint until someone says (with conviction) that it’s “art.” Creating compelling results which connect with people requires practice, patience, the willingness and ability to explore, a whole lot of cherry picking. Iteration. There will have to be protections for content creators, which will have to evolve to accommodate AI’s increasing capabilities to mimic, some might say “steal,” the style and character of an artist’s work. It’s simpler in the case where the AI clearly imports entire assets from a single source, much harder when it almagamates tiny fragments of a large number of different artists’ works. Some kind of tax may be necessary to ensure that human creators of source materials are fairly compensated. Nothing happens without their work as the basis of creation.
  - quadcore 4y ago
    It’s just a blob of paint until someone says (with conviction) that it’s “art.” You perfectly know fine art isnt the issue here because its a small industry anyway and you guys arent investing dozens of billions to take over a niche industry. For those who dont know what we are really talking about here: it's the illustration and entertainment industry, which combined are probably well over a trillion dollar industry. Creating compelling results which connect with people requires practice, patience, the willingness and ability to explore, a whole lot of cherry picking. Iteration. It doesnt. And you know it. It only takes taste. Which is very easy for an AI to acquire with intelligent supervision. It will be way better than the 99 percentile of artists very quickly. The rest is monkey work and is worth nothing. There will have to be protections for content creators, which will have to evolve to accommodate AI’s increasing capabilities to mimic, some might say “steal,” the style and character of an artist’s work. It’s simpler in the case where the AI clearly imports entire assets from a single source, much harder when it almagamates tiny fragments of a large number of different artists’ works. Some kind of tax may be necessary to ensure that human creators of source materials are fairly compensated. Nothing happens without their work as the basis of creation. One of the first things I noticed on the SD website is the cleverness of the bullshit. With "ethic" and stuff everywhere. Did you wrote it? Are you CEO? There wont be taxes mate, there will be questions :)

bee_rider 4y ago

Painters had to change their business model when photography was invented, but they didn't vanish completely.

awfulneutral 4y ago
But at least photography created new roles for photographers. AI art promises to replace many creative roles for humans entirely, without creating any new roles.
- dougabug 4y ago
  These AI art tools model distributions based on sample data. They don’t create the underlying distributions; they need to be given (many) samples from the source distributions. You need people even just to say if something is good or not. Standards will rise considerably as AI tools mature, and peoples’ skills with the new tools grow. Things get old real fast and people get bored quickly. Here’s a new role: creating trademarked artistic styles. People will become tired of what eventually becomes seen as a limited set of “AI styles,” which are actually distilled from the techniques of a relative handful of human artists. So they will seek out “Natural” artists who are able to create new artistic styles. Also, the Disneys and the mega-studios will need and want to create distinctive and commercially protectable visual styles. The legal framework and case law will have to be worked out. Think of it as “Look and Feel” on steroids. One thing’s for sure, it will create significant roles for creative IP lawyers.
  - awfulneutral 4y ago
    The examples you gave sound like they would only be for the top tier of today's artists though, or a small number of AI taste supervisors, not the general workforce. A company would need to hire far fewer people if all they need to do is feed a new style into the image generator occasionally. I also don't see that as a new role created by this technology, since people are already doing that - those are just a few people who might not get laid off. If standards rise considerably it could help, but I'm not really able to picture what that would look like, in a way that would mean more roles for people. Or if the tech gets stuck where it is now and never becomes truly useful, then I could see AI as just being another tool.

Melatonic 4y ago

Not at all - this is just another tool that artists will use.

t0bia_s 4y ago
Agree. For me, as not very skilled artist (but still able to make living by creating art) it opening new layer to creative process. I can spend more time by thinking about content than just drawing or spending hours for researching specific images.
awfulneutral 4y ago
You might be right (at least until the AI improves a bit), but even so it promises to make artists more productive to the point that we will need far fewer of them. Unless we are able to scale up the amount of art we need by a huge amount.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago

It's not that simple. The current generation wave of so called "AI tools" such as GPT-, DALL-E and the rest generate fantastic results because* someone did the enormous work of scraping a huge amount of someone else's work (texts, images). Of course you'd argue humans do the same: they absorb a huge number of inputs and generate content based on that. However, there is something else in automated solutions like this one that places tools like Copilot on the verge of more or less sophisticated plagiarism. And when you look closer at the images, you discover oddities just like in the faces of AI-generated people. Real art, on the other hand, is all about innovation and exploration. That's one of the reasons there are fewer and fewer traditional paintings in modern art museums. The current generation of AI is still very much a copycat, not a creator. I believe this might change, but we'd need a complete paradigm shift for that - ML is almost useless as the core of such solution, as much as generative art algorithms.

navjack27 4y ago

Seems like humans are still actively engaged in it. Just place a color blob here and a different color blob here assign those color blobs with different tasks and tell the AI to fill in those blobs with different descriptions.