3 ms·

I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat.

by squigz 2y ago

b112 2y ago
I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat. You cannot find any group, where "all" is true in such context. There's always an element of outlier. That said, you're not really an artist if you direct someone else to paint. Imagine a scenario where you sit back, and ask someone to paint an oil painting for you. During the event, you sit in an easy chair, watch them with easel and brush, and provide direction "I want clouds", "I want a dark background". The person does so. You're not the artist. All this AI blather is the same. At best, you're a fashion designer. Arranging things in a pleasant way.
- squigz 2y ago
  One could say much the same thing about photographers, or digital artists. They don't use paint, or sculpt marble, so they're not real artists.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Who talked about "real" here? Photographers do manipulate cameras, and rework afterwise the images to develop. Digital artists do manipulate digital tools. Their output is a large function of their informed input, experience, taste, knowledge, practice and intention, using their own specific tools in their own way. Same with developers: the result is a function of their input (architecture, code, etc.). Garbage in, garbage out. With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. If you're the director of a movie, or of a photo shoot, you're the director. Not the photographer, not the set painter, not the carpenter, not the light, etc. If you're the producer, you're not the artist (unless you _also_ act as an artist in the production). Do you feel the difference?
    - luckylion 2y ago
      > With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. With photographers, the output is part function of the (very small) orientation of the camera and pressing the button, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) technical marvel that are modern cameras, part randomness. Let's be realistic here. Without the manufactured cameras, 99.9% of photographers wouldn't be photographers, only the 10 people who'd want it enough to build their own cameras, and they wouldn't have much appeal beyond a curiosity because their cameras would suck.
      - Juliate 2y ago
        Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _static_. They don't dynamically, randomly change the input. Generative AI are not _static_. They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others.
        luckylion 2y ago
        > Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others. Cameras do feed on all the research of previous cameras though. The photos don't matter to the Camera. The Camera manufacturers are geniuses, the photographers are users. It's really not far off from AI, especially when the cameras do so much, and then there's the software-tools afterwards etc etc. Yeah, yeah, everybody wants to feel special and artsy and all that and looks down on the new people who aren't even real artists. But most people really shouldn't.
stafferxrr 2y ago
Of course not. People who are actually creative will use new tools creatively. Adobe AI tools are pretty shit though if you want to use them to do something creative. Shockingly bad really. They are probably good if you want to add a few elements to an instagram photo but terrible for actual digital art.
Suppafly 2y ago
>I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat. Agreed, the ones I know in real life are excited by these tools and have been using them.
- squigz 2y ago
  Well no, those aren't actually artists, because they clearly don't understand what art is. (/s)

I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat.

by squigz 2y ago

I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat.

b112 2y ago

I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat. You cannot find any group, where "all" is true in such context. There's always an element of outlier. That said, you're not really an artist if you direct someone else to paint. Imagine a scenario where you sit back, and ask someone to paint an oil painting for you. During the event, you sit in an easy chair, watch them with easel and brush, and provide direction "I want clouds", "I want a dark background". The person does so. You're not the artist. All this AI blather is the same. At best, you're a fashion designer. Arranging things in a pleasant way.

squigz 2y ago
One could say much the same thing about photographers, or digital artists. They don't use paint, or sculpt marble, so they're not real artists.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Who talked about "real" here? Photographers do manipulate cameras, and rework afterwise the images to develop. Digital artists do manipulate digital tools. Their output is a large function of their informed input, experience, taste, knowledge, practice and intention, using their own specific tools in their own way. Same with developers: the result is a function of their input (architecture, code, etc.). Garbage in, garbage out. With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. If you're the director of a movie, or of a photo shoot, you're the director. Not the photographer, not the set painter, not the carpenter, not the light, etc. If you're the producer, you're not the artist (unless you _also_ act as an artist in the production). Do you feel the difference?
  - luckylion 2y ago
    > With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. With photographers, the output is part function of the (very small) orientation of the camera and pressing the button, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) technical marvel that are modern cameras, part randomness. Let's be realistic here. Without the manufactured cameras, 99.9% of photographers wouldn't be photographers, only the 10 people who'd want it enough to build their own cameras, and they wouldn't have much appeal beyond a curiosity because their cameras would suck.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _static_. They don't dynamically, randomly change the input. Generative AI are not _static_. They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others.
      - luckylion 2y ago
        > Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed on all the previous photographies taken by others. Cameras do feed on all the research of previous cameras though. The photos don't matter to the Camera. The Camera manufacturers are geniuses, the photographers are users. It's really not far off from AI, especially when the cameras do so much, and then there's the software-tools afterwards etc etc. Yeah, yeah, everybody wants to feel special and artsy and all that and looks down on the new people who aren't even real artists. But most people really shouldn't.

stafferxrr 2y ago

Of course not. People who are actually creative will use new tools creatively. Adobe AI tools are pretty shit though if you want to use them to do something creative. Shockingly bad really. They are probably good if you want to add a few elements to an instagram photo but terrible for actual digital art.

Suppafly 2y ago

>I don't think all artists are treating this tool as such an existential threat. Agreed, the ones I know in real life are excited by these tools and have been using them.

squigz 2y ago
Well no, those aren't actually artists, because they clearly don't understand what art is. (/s)