4 ms·
> pretty much any image that can be imagined is now trivial to produce What? That's not true at all! If you're talking about "art", most artists are fussy and
by exodust 4y ago
> pretty much any image that can be imagined is now trivial to produce
What? That's not true at all!
If you're talking about "art", most artists are fussy and want things exactly right. They will spend a long time tweaking the image, or combining different images, painting, processing, pixel-pushing to get the thing they imagined.
If you're talking about some random need for an image of a "horse with metal legs", and settle for whatever the AI spits out, and then call that "my valuable art", that's different.
- antibasilisk 4y agoThere is plenty of ability to tweak AI images, I don't understand this objection.
- exodust 4y agoYou claim "all digital art is worthless because it can all be tweaked into existence in under a minute". If that were true, I could show you any piece of digital art, be it 2D or 3D rendered, and you should have no trouble making an identical copy in under a minute using only diffusion models and tweaking! That is an impossible task, I promise. I'm enjoying stable diffusion as a fun playground and rendering engine. But it can't magically produce the exact picture in my mind. Even simple things like "hero tree in dark misty forest, old swing hanging from large twisted branch, path extending into gloom". The AI will produce a nice image, but not the one in my mind. The image in my mind is important for style or composition reasons relative to the whole work. Artists rarely think in terms of isolated one-hit-wonders, they are producing work with important and meaningful connected threads and detailed elements.