4 ms·

> burying the creatives among us in a pile of AI generated content. Isn't the creativity in what you put in the prompt? Isn't spending hundreds of hours manual

> burying the creatives among us in a pile of AI generated content. Isn't the creativity in what you put in the prompt? Isn't spending hundreds of hours manually creating and rigging models based on existing sketch the non-creative work that is being automated here?

hollowturtle 1y ago
How does a prompt describe creativity? It's a vision so far off that it's so frustrating because greater creativity came from limited tools, greater creativity came from imperfections, a different point of view, love, a slightly off touch of a painter or a guitar player, the wood of the instrument and the humidity affecting. I can go on and on, prompts are a reduction to the minimum term of everything you'd want to describe, no matter how much you can express via a prompt
- ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
  So deliberately writing a prompt that meticulously describes how a generated photo would look like isn't creative, but pushing a button for a machine to take the photo for you is??!! If anything, it's the way around! Of course that's not what I believe, but let's not limit the definition of what creativity based on historical limitations. Let's see what the new generation of artists and creators will use this new capability to mesmerize us!
  - hollowturtle 1y ago
    To answer your first question: carpe diem! And historical limitations? Go visit the Sistine Chapel, unmatched still today
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Your meticulous prompt is using the work of thousands of experts, and generating a mashup of what they did/their work/their commitment/their livelihood. Their placement of books. Their aesthetic. The collection of cool things to put into a scene to make it interesting. The lighting. Not yours. Not from you/not from the AI. None of it is yours/you/new/from the AI. It's ALL based underneath on someone else's work, someone else's life, someone else's heart and soul, and you are just taking it and saying 'look what I made'. The equivalent of a 4 year old being potty trained saying 'look I made a poop'. We celebrate it as a first step, not as the friggen end goal. The end goal is you making something uniquely you, based on your life experience, not on Bob the prop guys and Betty the set designer whose work/style you stole and didn't even have the decency to reference/thank. And your prompt won't ever change dramatically, because there isn't going to be much new truly creative seedcorn for AI to digest. Entertainment will literally go into limbo/Groundhog Day, just the same generative, derivative things/asthetics from the same AI dataset.
    - ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
      And that's exactly how your brain work. What you call "creativity" is nothing more than exactly that: mixing ideas and thoughts you were exposed to. We're all building on others' work. The only difference is that computers do it on a much larger scale. But it's the very same process.
      - renerick 1y ago
        This is completely absurd and reductive point of view, which I always assume is a cop out. Just because it's called "machine learning" doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with how human learning or human brain works, and it's certainly not "exactly how" or "very same". There's much more going on on in human creative process, aside from mere "mixing": personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances, etc. Computers are very good at mixing and combining, but this is not even close to what goes into actual creative process. I hate this argument
        jryle70 1y ago
        > personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances All of these are just human being exposed more to life and learning new skills, in other words -- having more data. LLM already learns those skills and encounters endless experience of people in its training data. > I hate this argument That's very subjective. You don't know how the brain works.
        hollowturtle 1y ago
        You seem to not fully understand the quote. LLMs learn patterns/noises from an existing output, these are not skills nor endless experience learned. It's like saying you learn how to make a cake by learning how it should look like not how it's composed. LLMs mock the studio ghibli style images, didn't invent the style or learned the endless experience the studio accumulated over the years. In fact it's a mocking of the images and it just looks horrible
  - hooverd 1y ago
    Eh, every AI "artist" want the cachet of being an artist without any of the effort, but they're competing with other AI "artists" so they have no choice but to unleash a firehose of content sludge onto the commons in a race to the bottom.
  - blargey 1y ago
    No, it isn’t, because the prompt doesn’t have a millionth of the information density of the output. Merely changing a seed number will provide endless different outputs from the same single prompt from the same model; rng.nextInt() deserves as much artist credit as the prompter.
- ehsankia 1y ago
  I agree that limitation does lead to some creativity, but I wouldn't say lack of limitation means no creativity. Saying prompts have no creativity is like saying books or scripts have no creativity compared to a movie. Not only that, these tools can actually take images and sketches. Imagine a world where you have a scene fully sketched out in your head (i.e. creativity), you have the script of what will happen, sketches of what the scene looks light, visual style, etc. You want to make that become reality. You could spend a ton of time and money, or you could describe it and provide sketches to an AI to make it come true. Yes, the limitations in the former can make you take creative shortcuts that could themselves be interesting, but the latter could be just as true to your original vision.
  - hollowturtle 1y ago
    Imagine a world where(spoiler alert you shouldn't it's already there) your vision is limited by yourself and a light technician gives a different point of view that you like, a punk pioneer in your team that is the computer graphics chief animator that gives life to your animatronics(jurassic park, and still unmatched today, cgi looks so fake and cheap). And yes you should spend a lot of time, not necessarily money, because art is time and something you have spent zero time in it its valued zero money
- jryle70 1y ago
  Huh? is poem not creative? If I write a poem and tell AI to create a painting that expresses that poem visually, is that not creative?
  - hollowturtle 1y ago
    Your hand that moves the brush on the painting will express more than thousand words, it's your hand, your movement, your actual emotions, your tools
  - jplusequalt 1y ago
    No it's not because you aren't creating the painting, the AI is. Having an idea is not sufficient to create art, you have to sit down and actually create it. If you hired a painter to create the work based off your poem, I'm not going to attribute that painters creation to you.

hollowturtle 1y ago

How does a prompt describe creativity? It's a vision so far off that it's so frustrating because greater creativity came from limited tools, greater creativity came from imperfections, a different point of view, love, a slightly off touch of a painter or a guitar player, the wood of the instrument and the humidity affecting. I can go on and on, prompts are a reduction to the minimum term of everything you'd want to describe, no matter how much you can express via a prompt

ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
So deliberately writing a prompt that meticulously describes how a generated photo would look like isn't creative, but pushing a button for a machine to take the photo for you is??!! If anything, it's the way around! Of course that's not what I believe, but let's not limit the definition of what creativity based on historical limitations. Let's see what the new generation of artists and creators will use this new capability to mesmerize us!
- hollowturtle 1y ago
  To answer your first question: carpe diem! And historical limitations? Go visit the Sistine Chapel, unmatched still today
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Your meticulous prompt is using the work of thousands of experts, and generating a mashup of what they did/their work/their commitment/their livelihood. Their placement of books. Their aesthetic. The collection of cool things to put into a scene to make it interesting. The lighting. Not yours. Not from you/not from the AI. None of it is yours/you/new/from the AI. It's ALL based underneath on someone else's work, someone else's life, someone else's heart and soul, and you are just taking it and saying 'look what I made'. The equivalent of a 4 year old being potty trained saying 'look I made a poop'. We celebrate it as a first step, not as the friggen end goal. The end goal is you making something uniquely you, based on your life experience, not on Bob the prop guys and Betty the set designer whose work/style you stole and didn't even have the decency to reference/thank. And your prompt won't ever change dramatically, because there isn't going to be much new truly creative seedcorn for AI to digest. Entertainment will literally go into limbo/Groundhog Day, just the same generative, derivative things/asthetics from the same AI dataset.
  - ahmedfromtunis 1y ago
    And that's exactly how your brain work. What you call "creativity" is nothing more than exactly that: mixing ideas and thoughts you were exposed to. We're all building on others' work. The only difference is that computers do it on a much larger scale. But it's the very same process.
    - renerick 1y ago
      This is completely absurd and reductive point of view, which I always assume is a cop out. Just because it's called "machine learning" doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with how human learning or human brain works, and it's certainly not "exactly how" or "very same". There's much more going on on in human creative process, aside from mere "mixing": personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances, etc. Computers are very good at mixing and combining, but this is not even close to what goes into actual creative process. I hate this argument
      - jryle70 1y ago
        > personal experience, understanding of the creative process, technique and style development, subtext, hidden ideas and nuances All of these are just human being exposed more to life and learning new skills, in other words -- having more data. LLM already learns those skills and encounters endless experience of people in its training data. > I hate this argument That's very subjective. You don't know how the brain works.
        hollowturtle 1y ago
        You seem to not fully understand the quote. LLMs learn patterns/noises from an existing output, these are not skills nor endless experience learned. It's like saying you learn how to make a cake by learning how it should look like not how it's composed. LLMs mock the studio ghibli style images, didn't invent the style or learned the endless experience the studio accumulated over the years. In fact it's a mocking of the images and it just looks horrible
- hooverd 1y ago
  Eh, every AI "artist" want the cachet of being an artist without any of the effort, but they're competing with other AI "artists" so they have no choice but to unleash a firehose of content sludge onto the commons in a race to the bottom.
- blargey 1y ago
  No, it isn’t, because the prompt doesn’t have a millionth of the information density of the output. Merely changing a seed number will provide endless different outputs from the same single prompt from the same model; rng.nextInt() deserves as much artist credit as the prompter.
ehsankia 1y ago
I agree that limitation does lead to some creativity, but I wouldn't say lack of limitation means no creativity. Saying prompts have no creativity is like saying books or scripts have no creativity compared to a movie. Not only that, these tools can actually take images and sketches. Imagine a world where you have a scene fully sketched out in your head (i.e. creativity), you have the script of what will happen, sketches of what the scene looks light, visual style, etc. You want to make that become reality. You could spend a ton of time and money, or you could describe it and provide sketches to an AI to make it come true. Yes, the limitations in the former can make you take creative shortcuts that could themselves be interesting, but the latter could be just as true to your original vision.
- hollowturtle 1y ago
  Imagine a world where(spoiler alert you shouldn't it's already there) your vision is limited by yourself and a light technician gives a different point of view that you like, a punk pioneer in your team that is the computer graphics chief animator that gives life to your animatronics(jurassic park, and still unmatched today, cgi looks so fake and cheap). And yes you should spend a lot of time, not necessarily money, because art is time and something you have spent zero time in it its valued zero money
jryle70 1y ago
Huh? is poem not creative? If I write a poem and tell AI to create a painting that expresses that poem visually, is that not creative?
- hollowturtle 1y ago
  Your hand that moves the brush on the painting will express more than thousand words, it's your hand, your movement, your actual emotions, your tools
- jplusequalt 1y ago
  No it's not because you aren't creating the painting, the AI is. Having an idea is not sufficient to create art, you have to sit down and actually create it. If you hired a painter to create the work based off your poem, I'm not going to attribute that painters creation to you.