6 ms·

Delighted to see it. Fuck AI art.

schleck8 3y ago
It's the way forward though. AI won't stop like this, psychotherapy will be next in the coming years (look at Pi, it has a therapy mode now even). Just accept that AI will affect all aspects of life in 10 years
- timdiggerm 3y ago
  "forward" towards what?
  - schleck8 3y ago
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forward https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forward
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Making it easier to execute on creative ideas
  - natch 3y ago
    Toward the future and whatever it holds, is the usual meaning of that phrase. I think their point might be that we need to figure out how we live in a future with AI in it. Trying to deny AI with tools like this is not going to work.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    Towards one man game devs being able to execute their vision, to middle class families being able to afford custom bespoke art, artists being able to greatly accelerate their workflows, etc. You know, technological progress. We don't stop it when it affects accountants, delivery drivers, programmers, etc. Art should be no different.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Towards the end of uppity creative types (software developers included) getting paid for their work
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > AI will affect all aspects of life in 10 years This is good peak of inflated expectations material [1]. LLMs will wholly transform some industries. Others will be virtually unchanged. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Yeah, well, fuck Photoshop too. And video editors. Jerks are going to find dumb, lazy, malicious ways to abuse good tools, like they always do, though diffusion does have an conspicuously low effort barrier. Another HN user summarized my thoughts on this better than I possibly could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37978805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37978805
- Devasta 3y ago
  Artists are still able to produce art with or without photoshop. Without their LLMs and the stolen art within, the best an AI "artist" can do is to scrawl "Tracer Overwatch big boobs not ugly trending on artstation" into a page.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    > Artists are still able to produce art with or without photoshop And that's was some actual AI artists do too. Its massively turbocharging stuff thats they can do in an illustrator or photo editor, but just takes forever. The tooling around diffusion is a deep rabbit hole, and requires some skill to use. There's an important distinction between that kind of artist and the "AI users" flooding the internet. They are more akin to dank meme makers using Photoshop.
    - numpad0 3y ago
      Not sure if that's happening at scale. AI-photobashing were and are attempted, but it seems AI always tries to undo changes so to bring deviations down to optically correct median form(as AI understands it), including all artist intentions. This applies to overall composition of the art as well. Being forced into an "average" grade sounds okay, but rather, I think, what is happening is that a new baseline for minimum meaningful art was created, and at the same time, new definition for value of art is being established as errors from that baseline. And I'm not sure those are good things.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    AlphaGo was trained on millions of professional Go matches. AlphaGo Zero trained purely by playing itself, with no exposure whatsoever to human play; it ended up being easier to train and much stronger. I'm not saying that we will soon have a state-of-the-art image generation model that relies on self training, supervised learning or adversarial learning rather than a scraped data set, but I think it's a highly likely outcome within the next few years. Anyone making the argument that AI art is just copying might be in for a rude awakening. If that comes to pass, will you eagerly embrace AI art?
echelon 3y ago
That's like saying "fuck computers" because they automate typists, elevator operators, and Rolodex company salespeople. To quote an artist that I know, "artists already steal. They're the masters at it." Stealing inspiration and style is how artists learn. It just takes time. They're angry that the time investment is going to zero. And also that their examples are what are being used, despite the fact that other human artists are doing that already. I'm not sure we should defend any difficulty or complexity. Even that of our own careers. We'd still be churning our own butter if we were afraid of automation. And what time would that leave us with?
jwells89 3y ago
There might be an ethical space in which AI imagery can exist, but consent is a direly needed component. The typical argument against this is that human artists and ML models learn the same way, but the problem is that there's a fundamental difference: humans produce art by abstracting the concepts (think directional lighting, the kinematics of skeletal creatures, color theory, or physics of cloth) from the pieces they've studied and combining that with what they've learned from observing the world around them and by producing original art. This is why a human artist can produce competent art after studying only a handful of art pieces and gain most of their skill through practice. By contrast, ML models do not learn by producing and have no way to directly observe the world. They don't abstract concepts, they "learn" by memorizing huge numbers of pre-existing images, and they produce images by patching together tiny bits and pieces of of those memorized images. Where the human artist can function on little to no input, an ML model cannot, and so it's only fair that human artists have the choice to not have their works included in training datasets because if there is no feedstock of art there is no AI generated imagery.
jdietrich 3y ago
The middle class are starting to experience what the working class have spent the last two centuries enduring. You're a skilled artisan with years of training and experience? Tough luck, we've got a machine that can do your job better, faster or at least cheaper. I have a clog you can throw into a loom if it'll make you feel better, but there's no stopping AI art.

It's the way forward though. AI won't stop like this, psychotherapy will be next in the coming years (look at Pi, it has a therapy mode now even). Just accept that AI will affect all aspects of life in 10 years

timdiggerm 3y ago
"forward" towards what?
- schleck8 3y ago
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forward https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forward
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Making it easier to execute on creative ideas
- natch 3y ago
  Toward the future and whatever it holds, is the usual meaning of that phrase. I think their point might be that we need to figure out how we live in a future with AI in it. Trying to deny AI with tools like this is not going to work.
- Auracle 3y ago
  Towards one man game devs being able to execute their vision, to middle class families being able to afford custom bespoke art, artists being able to greatly accelerate their workflows, etc. You know, technological progress. We don't stop it when it affects accountants, delivery drivers, programmers, etc. Art should be no different.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Towards the end of uppity creative types (software developers included) getting paid for their work
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> AI will affect all aspects of life in 10 years This is good peak of inflated expectations material [1]. LLMs will wholly transform some industries. Others will be virtually unchanged. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Yeah, well, fuck Photoshop too. And video editors. Jerks are going to find dumb, lazy, malicious ways to abuse good tools, like they always do, though diffusion does have an conspicuously low effort barrier. Another HN user summarized my thoughts on this better than I possibly could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37978805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37978805

Devasta 3y ago
Artists are still able to produce art with or without photoshop. Without their LLMs and the stolen art within, the best an AI "artist" can do is to scrawl "Tracer Overwatch big boobs not ugly trending on artstation" into a page.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > Artists are still able to produce art with or without photoshop And that's was some actual AI artists do too. Its massively turbocharging stuff thats they can do in an illustrator or photo editor, but just takes forever. The tooling around diffusion is a deep rabbit hole, and requires some skill to use. There's an important distinction between that kind of artist and the "AI users" flooding the internet. They are more akin to dank meme makers using Photoshop.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    Not sure if that's happening at scale. AI-photobashing were and are attempted, but it seems AI always tries to undo changes so to bring deviations down to optically correct median form(as AI understands it), including all artist intentions. This applies to overall composition of the art as well. Being forced into an "average" grade sounds okay, but rather, I think, what is happening is that a new baseline for minimum meaningful art was created, and at the same time, new definition for value of art is being established as errors from that baseline. And I'm not sure those are good things.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  AlphaGo was trained on millions of professional Go matches. AlphaGo Zero trained purely by playing itself, with no exposure whatsoever to human play; it ended up being easier to train and much stronger. I'm not saying that we will soon have a state-of-the-art image generation model that relies on self training, supervised learning or adversarial learning rather than a scraped data set, but I think it's a highly likely outcome within the next few years. Anyone making the argument that AI art is just copying might be in for a rude awakening. If that comes to pass, will you eagerly embrace AI art?

echelon 3y ago

That's like saying "fuck computers" because they automate typists, elevator operators, and Rolodex company salespeople. To quote an artist that I know, "artists already steal. They're the masters at it." Stealing inspiration and style is how artists learn. It just takes time. They're angry that the time investment is going to zero. And also that their examples are what are being used, despite the fact that other human artists are doing that already. I'm not sure we should defend any difficulty or complexity. Even that of our own careers. We'd still be churning our own butter if we were afraid of automation. And what time would that leave us with?

jwells89 3y ago

There might be an ethical space in which AI imagery can exist, but consent is a direly needed component. The typical argument against this is that human artists and ML models learn the same way, but the problem is that there's a fundamental difference: humans produce art by abstracting the concepts (think directional lighting, the kinematics of skeletal creatures, color theory, or physics of cloth) from the pieces they've studied and combining that with what they've learned from observing the world around them and by producing original art. This is why a human artist can produce competent art after studying only a handful of art pieces and gain most of their skill through practice. By contrast, ML models do not learn by producing and have no way to directly observe the world. They don't abstract concepts, they "learn" by memorizing huge numbers of pre-existing images, and they produce images by patching together tiny bits and pieces of of those memorized images. Where the human artist can function on little to no input, an ML model cannot, and so it's only fair that human artists have the choice to not have their works included in training datasets because if there is no feedstock of art there is no AI generated imagery.

jdietrich 3y ago

The middle class are starting to experience what the working class have spent the last two centuries enduring. You're a skilled artisan with years of training and experience? Tough luck, we've got a machine that can do your job better, faster or at least cheaper. I have a clog you can throw into a loom if it'll make you feel better, but there's no stopping AI art.