I look at these works of art created by artificial intelligence and I think: yes, it’s beautiful, yes, it’s good, but… What’s the point? Where’s the story, where’s the work, if everything is so simple, then what’s the point? It’s no better than a store where you come and buy, although no, you come, take everything you need for free and leave. I don’t see any value in it, it’s just boring.
You must log in or register to comment.
the point it the output, there is no need for a greater purpose in the output let alone a “story”. also most art stores I’ve seen have idiotic restrictions on usage or stupidly high prices
Well, that’s your opinion, I accept it of course, but… Okay, to hell with it, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
I’m an artist. I don’t like AI art, I don’t use Ai in any capacity. Could the tech.be used by the right hands to create a legitimate work of art? Sure . an incredibly select few(Not in a “generate this image” type of way, but I can see how one could make an argument for something conceptual and interesting done with the tech)
But the wider picture is that it will steal work from most of the skilled artist workforce, we are not able to compete whith the scale of ai output; and not everyone is suited for the independent artist life, because it’s fucking hard. Also the visual literacy of the average person will go further down the drain, and It’s already very poor, AI will kill a lot of future potential artists… this is not even touching the effects this technology has in other areas of our lives.
Ai exists to make the average person more stupid, more reliant in the corpos, more isolated in their own bubble. It makes me despair, but also fuels me to keep doing art, even if it is only for myself. I will not let them take the only thing I’m good at away from me.
I’m also an artist and I can see some use for AI, but I don’t use it to make any actual art. I use it to bolster up my weaker areas, which is basically all the admin stuff - marketing plans, budgets, setting prices, all the paperwork crap essentially. Which then frees me up to spend more time doing actual creative things.
Well, I think writers will be the next ones to have problems. Although no, they are already slowly starting to have problems.
I just think theses people(who use AI to make “art”) does not have enough courage and perfectionism to get into drawing.
“Why bother putting hours in drawing learning, if the magical AI can draw the meme I ask it instantly?”
“Why bother buying a telescope and putting hours in astronomy theory if you can see better space images for free on internet?”
“Why bother doing a marathon, if i can just take my car and go there faster?”
For everything, you need to invest enough of your time in it so start liking it. The majority of people only have a few hobbies.
They see art as a way to be popular for the nerds who are skilled enough to draw. They see astronomy as a way to be popular for the nerds who learned astrophotography. They see sport as a way to be popular for the nerds who are fit enough to run.
For them, one thing that seemed innaccessible, became accessible with AI. I know it’s sad, but theses people don’t care if something has a soul or not. They just want their eye-appealing ghibli portrait.
Here’s a good blog article that better conveys my point of view.
I see AI art as essentially like a commission. As in, before AI if you couldn’t draw something, you’d commission someone who could draw it to make it for you. Then you’d own that piece of art, but you didn’t create it. You described what you wanted to someone else and they created it. Same deal with AI except instead of a person it’s, as I heard someone describe it recently, a magic 8-ball with infinite answers and some math to nudge it in the right direction lol.
Anyway, I read the article or whatever it’s called in full and what can I say a human is like a train rushing into the abyss.
For example, there used to be independent artisans who had their own shops selling food and even weapons. But over time, the Industrial Revolution happened, and now everyone could do what the artisans did, but faster and easier. As a result, yes, the artisans died out as a species, and now it’s the turn of creative professions that somehow still exist. As a result, life will become even more boring than before, even emptier, progress seems to kill the value of a person and does not always help him.
It will become boring if you think that nothing can be done. Even if creating isn’t a profession anymore (as in doing comissions or paid media like someone else said), the simple fact of drawing to show your love to something, to give a visual representation of your thoughts, it will never dissapear. Everyone seems hopeless, by the fact that they are all trapped in the social media loop. Life seem empty and boring if your only source of entertainment come from media consumption (which is the case for a lot from the rat race unfortunately)
But we will find a way out, and creativity will always matter. Maybe not for the next decades, but someday it will. Trust me ;)
I consider myself an artist. I work with sound and image. AI productions are beautiful and good because they are based on the work of artists who create beauty and goodness. The day AI finishes killing the artists it draws inspiration from, and has no one’s work left to feed its algorithms, art will be dead. This is what those who promote AI as it is today are fostering. This is just my opinion and reflects only my views.
Nope, it reflects my views as well! :)
/thread
Well in that case the AI might start going into private chats with the surviving authors and continue learning lol that would be funny.
AI art -
For someone who creates art - AI art is meaningless because art really is about how the process of creating art itself makes us feel, how each brush stroke fills us with joy as the whole picture comes together more beautiful than we imagined. Even in misery and failure, it really was about the experience and living through those moments.
For someone who just appreciates art - AI art is soulless because there is nothing authentic about it, nothing relevant or connecting you to any story or person. I can’t imagine anyone even putting AI art on their walls.
For someone who previously had poor access to artistic expression simply because they lacked the artistic skills - AI allows them to express themselves freely unlike ever before. For advertisers and slop generators - they were gonna automate it anyways, it’s still a useful tool to create digital campaigns if you’re into that, but with all the slop out there, AI will only accelerate humanity’s move away from attention economy to sustainable economy.Well yes, I understand you, I think I just have nothing more to say, everything is sad.
What’s the point? Where’s the story, where’s the work, if everything is so simple, then what’s the point?
I’m not a good artist. If I could commission someone to make art for me I would. The reality is if we restrict art sources to human artists in absolutely all cases, nothing much will get done. There’s so much demand and not enough supply. I will commission someone if I intend to distribute work. If the point is to give the viewer a rough idea i.e. an unfinished product, I will not hesitate to use AI as one of my many tools available to get my point across.
I understand you, but I know that AI is a tool that they are going to use to control, not to help people… But yes, you can use it, but I’ll tell you this: if there is too much art, so much so that no one will pay for it, won’t everything turn into a living garbage dump?
Corporate-owned AI (or anything corporate, really) will be used to control sooner or later. As such, I’m not a fan of those, and I agree with your concerns here. I like community-based and local LLMs, on the other hand.
if there is too much art, so much so that no one will pay for it, won’t everything turn into a living garbage dump? Chances are, if you ask most people in your immediate area, they’d prefer human-made art if they can find someone and can pay for their services. For me, AI art is a result of a “creative demand overflow”, for lack of a better term, because not enough human artists are there to do everything.
You’ll find someone willing to pay to differentiate themselves from the sameness of mass-produced AI art.
Agree with the sentiment, as someone who dabbles in worldbuilding. Sometimes, I’d like a picture that doesn’t readily exist to accompany the text, so I get Stable Diffusion to generate one on my machine. A picture is worth a thousand words, and even if the audience is just myself, it gets the point across much better than anything I could draw myself. While I would like to work on my art skills or pay for commissions, it would starve me of the spare time and resources that allow me to worldbuild in the first place.
Yes, now it may seem good, but because of this there may be gigantic competition, because of which it will be mainly large companies that will earn money, and not indie authors.
Do you mean that if AI art has improved sufficiently, people will pay the companies behind the image generator models rather than individual artists? Elaborate if I didn’t understand that correctly.
No, to be honest, I’m not very good at explaining, and I’m not a native speaker, so I’ll say this: let’s say we have an average market trader, he lives a quiet life and is happy that there is an alternative to a factory or a construction site. And then a boom is built, a store where everything is cheaper, and gradually our trader’s clients no longer come and he can no longer support his business. As a result, he is in despair because he does not have enough money even for the most basic necessities, and he has no one to borrow from, and in the end he has to go to a construction site or even worse.
I see. Companies behind the AI models won’t see any of my money since I insist on free and self-hostable options and I’d opt for commissions from human artists if I need something better than my computer can generate. But not everyone will be like that and I understand where your concern comes from.
Well, I guess you’re right.
if we restrict art sources to human artists
That worked five years ago. Why wouldn’t it work now?
That worked five years ago. Why wouldn’t it work now?
If “worked” mean “I just don’t bother because I can’t draw and I don’t have money, so I’ll keep my ideas in my head”, sure.
I’m pretty sure AI art will cost more and more money to users in the coming years
local models only cost electricity and aren’t hiding usage costs
deleted by creator
Dude, it seems you hit the target right on target, and in a weak spot too.
The point is that it’s marketing for ai companies in general and they can sell them to Hollywood
People said the same thing when Daft Punk went on stage just pressing buttons, and more broadly about all digital art.
This is fundamentally different, though. I remember when some reactionaries thought digital instruments somehow invalidated the work. But Daft Punk were still people. They took human ideas and transformed them into reality, creating something new. Buttons and knobs can be instruments in the hands of an artist. With AI, it is the plagiarism engine that is doing the creation. Tape two AIs together and they can create “art” all day. None of it will be anything more than a sad imitation of what humans made.
Well, to be honest, I think digital art is, how can I say it, too shiny and pretty or something like that… So it seems dead, although the old digital art seemed to have a soul. I can answer you exactly like this, I think you will understand.
A long time ago, stuff like complex videogames would have been impossible for even large groups of people to make. Every new tool increases productivity and enables bigger creations.
I said this in another thread, but i think that a lot of the value of art comes from the effort. That’s why people get so upset about some modern and postmodern art that looks ‘easy’.
Many things that we do are only worthwhile because of the difficulty. If you just want to put a ball in a hole, you can walk over and drop it in with your hand. Add clubs, sand and water traps, and terrain - now you have a game.
i think that a lot of the value of art comes from the effort.
Many things that we do are only worthwhile because of the difficulty.
I think this is one of the biggest disconnects between people who create art and people who don’t (me). I don’t understand this sentiment at all. I don’t care how much effort a piece of art took or what the process was, I care about the output. But I know lots of people who create art and this stuff about the process and difficulty really seems to matter to them. Which is fine, they are entitled to like what they like, but I just don’t get it.
I don’t like AI art because it steals from artists and looks like crap, but the fact that it’s easy doesn’t matter to me.
I wonder if this is part of the disconnect between artists and AI boosters (I am neither).
There is a limit, of course. If someone paints a huge mural with a single hair brush, it doesn’t automatically make it better than a 2-minute sketch by a master. Aesthetics are huge, and so is creativity.
The effort involved is also sometimes behind-the-scenes: for the 2min sketch, the master prepared by honing their art for thousands of hours.
I agree with you that AI images often lack aesthetics, and i believe they necessarily lack creativity. Prompts can be inventive, but not creative - when you write a clever prompt, the result is still a surprise to the user. Creativity is the realization of an inner vision unique to the artist.
But i still think the effort is important to the value of the piece. If Michaelangelo had a scanner and a 3d printer, he could have produced a plastic David in a couple of days. I don’t believe, though, that the detail he achieved would be as impressive if it weren’t cut from a chunk of stone.
Here you are right, if there is no value, then everything becomes empty and, moreover, turns into a dump in the case of AI.
