generated stuff
no longer holding the thread title hostage
Re: generated art
You said "they just took it", and I don't think you were talking about the robots there.
So who just took it, and why do you think they were not allowed to do that? This is not at all obvious to me. Why would they need the artist's permission to have a machine look at the art? The artist put it on the internet, machines look at it all the time there!
So who just took it, and why do you think they were not allowed to do that? This is not at all obvious to me. Why would they need the artist's permission to have a machine look at the art? The artist put it on the internet, machines look at it all the time there!
-
- Adding Machine
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Feb 05, 2019
Re: generated art
i think you are reading things into my post that i didn't attempt to put in my post
i am interested in what factors might make it okay vs not okay to train an art-making entity on a corpus of art
Re: generated art
as the great philosopher cosecant once saidHyphen-ated wrote: i think you are reading things into my post that i didn't attempt to put in my post
you compared the ai's learning art to that of an actual artist. i think maybe a good reason to not feed art to an ai is that an artist can't produce art on a website in a click of a button.
another good reason might be that the machine can mimic styles very closely, and is totally intended if you include the artist tag, which people do and is a key aspect in producing good stuff. in such a circumstance i think it might be good to ask the creators of said art style what they think of that
it is kind of interesting, though. like it's def kind of agreed upon that you can ape another artist's style. it's practically expected for starting beginner artists. there's some grey area there like copying an artist's style and stuff for monetary / attention purposes instead of just getting good at art or appreciating that artist. but then we take this thing that's kind of an unspoken agreed upon thing and then say yeah that also extends to whatever the fuck i want even though we would obviously get the artists permission if asked being polite for the first thing and no for the second thing, for most artists, not all
Re: generated art
but on another hand,
Re: generated art
It's not an unspoken agreed upon thing! It's spoken, and written!
It doesn't particularly matter if an artist is okay or not with other people copying his style. Style is not considered intellectual property. Anyone can copy a style, for any reason.Dave Grossman Designs v. Bortin wrote:For example, Picasso may be entitled to a copyright on his portrait of three women painted in his Cubist motif. Any artist, however, may paint a picture of any subject in the Cubist motif, including a portrait of three women, and not violate Picasso's copyright so long as the second artist does not substantially copy Picasso's specific expression of his idea.
Re: generated art
this is the perspective of a touristAshenai wrote:It's not an unspoken agreed upon thing! It's spoken, and written!
It doesn't particularly matter if an artist is okay or not with other people copying his style. Style is not considered intellectual property. Anyone can copy a style, for any reason.
and in the words of the great philosopher shatner / ben folds
-
- .
How'd you know that loving kittens is my one defining trait? - Posts: 11770
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Re: generated art
https://podcast.ai/
all sorts of this is very obviously generated but it's also insane
this is joe rogan interviewing steve jobs, apparently fully fabricated by ai. i think the content is trained on transcripts of the joe rogan podcast, and of jobs' biography + recordings of him
the actual content goes repeats itself a bit at times early on, but feels like a legit interview for a lot of it. jobs voice is very clearly mostly coming from his presentations and so it comes off very clearly generated, he's not talking at all how you'd expect him to in an interview
this stuff makes me think about keeping a much bigger digital footprint of myself actually. like voice or video diary entries. imagine being able to interview a deepfake of yourself trained on 20 year old video diary entries
all sorts of this is very obviously generated but it's also insane
this is joe rogan interviewing steve jobs, apparently fully fabricated by ai. i think the content is trained on transcripts of the joe rogan podcast, and of jobs' biography + recordings of him
the actual content goes repeats itself a bit at times early on, but feels like a legit interview for a lot of it. jobs voice is very clearly mostly coming from his presentations and so it comes off very clearly generated, he's not talking at all how you'd expect him to in an interview
this stuff makes me think about keeping a much bigger digital footprint of myself actually. like voice or video diary entries. imagine being able to interview a deepfake of yourself trained on 20 year old video diary entries
wow, [you]. that all sounds terrible. i hope it gets better for you
Re: generated art
Doesn't photoshop et al have a crapload of AI assisted tools at this stage? Like, smaller-scale tools that came long before that super cool video up the thread.
It seems pretty clear here the shift is "non-artists may be able to make stuff now!" and not anything to do with the involvement of technology in the process.
It also really sucks that NFT nonsense came along at the perfect time to give artists a great angle to call all this "techbro shit".
It seems pretty clear here the shift is "non-artists may be able to make stuff now!" and not anything to do with the involvement of technology in the process.
It also really sucks that NFT nonsense came along at the perfect time to give artists a great angle to call all this "techbro shit".
Re: generated art
photoshop is an interesting thing to have / if it does have a crapload of ai stuff, because it's so fucking obtuse and difficult to use that only artists are using it anyway. probably fine if all of the tools are in their hands
really makes this whole thing seem as though it's like us vs artists. us vs a lot of things. man, fuck people who enjoy things, create communities, move said thing forward, spend years of their lives working in and honing a craft / skill. who do those people think they are
really makes this whole thing seem as though it's like us vs artists. us vs a lot of things. man, fuck people who enjoy things, create communities, move said thing forward, spend years of their lives working in and honing a craft / skill. who do those people think they are
Re: generated art
NFTs were a thing where your average person was like "okay so why the fuck would I want these", and then the two possible answers were "vague technobabble no one cared about" or "to get rich bro, they keep going up!" And answer 2 was interesting, but then they stopped going up, so now they don't really have a use case.Magical wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:59 am Doesn't photoshop et al have a crapload of AI assisted tools at this stage? Like, smaller-scale tools that came long before that super cool video up the thread.
It seems pretty clear here the shift is "non-artists may be able to make stuff now!" and not anything to do with the involvement of technology in the process.
It also really sucks that NFT nonsense came along at the perfect time to give artists a great angle to call all this "techbro shit".
AI-generated art isn't like that. The use case is free art, delivered in seconds or minutes! Everyone understands free art, and a lot of people want free art!
Basically, people care about tech when it makes their life better, and unlike NFTs, it is super easy to see how AI art can make your life better. And that's before you get into the actual artists also realizing that they can now make art much easier, with AI help.
Re: generated art
That's what I'm saying, one is clearly much more useful than the other but I have seen a lot of artists leaning on NFTs to also bat away the AI-generated art phenomenon.Ashenai wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:09 am NFTs were a thing where your average person was like "okay so why the fuck would I want these", and then the two possible answers were "vague technobabble no one cared about" or "to get rich bro, they keep going up!" And answer 2 was interesting, but then they stopped going up, so now they don't really have a use case.
AI-generated art isn't like that. The use case is free art, delivered in seconds or minutes! Everyone understands free art, and a lot of people want free art!
Basically, people care about tech when it makes their life better, and unlike NFTs, it is super easy to see how AI art can make your life better. And that's before you get into the actual artists also realizing that they can now make art much easier, with AI help.
I would argue the people making it "us vs them" are the people doing the gatekeeping, thoreally makes this whole thing seem as though it's like us vs artists. us vs a lot of things. man, fuck people who enjoy things, create communities, move said thing forward, spend years of their lives working in and honing a craft / skill. who do those people think they are
Re: generated art
nfts were already a thing before the nft craze and it's actually kind of reasonable and sort of neat to own something like a michael jordan dunk animation. not really any different than owning a like trading card or whatever. it's unfortunate that the whole thing got as shitty as it did because there's actually a lot of interesting instances in which nfts could be goodAshenai wrote:
NFTs were a thing where your average person was like "okay so why the fuck would I want these", and then the two possible answers were "vague technobabble no one cared about" or "to get rich bro, they keep going up!" And answer 2 was interesting, but then they stopped going up, so now they don't really have a use case.
like it was super cool to see the people who became iconic memes actually capitalizing on that and getting a bit of money from that versus like i can haz cheesburgers being valued at millions of dollars
Re: generated art
That's all still gonna exist. You can still do art, you can still teach others art, you can still have artist communities. That's not what the problem is. Artists are mad not because of extremely weak legal arguments of plagiarism, but because they're scared their job will become obsolete. Yeah, join the club!Luna wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:05 am photoshop is an interesting thing to have / if it does have a crapload of ai stuff, because it's so fucking obtuse and difficult to use that only artists are using it anyway. probably fine if all of the tools are in their hands
really makes this whole thing seem as though it's like us vs artists. us vs a lot of things. man, fuck people who enjoy things, create communities, move said thing forward, spend years of their lives working in and honing a craft / skill. who do those people think they are
Every time this happens (technology making certain jobs obsolete), it's bad for the people who had those jobs, but extremely good for everyone else. I bet messengers (guys who rode on horseback real fast to deliver messages) were very mad when the telegraph was invented. But everyone else was pretty happy that now they could send messages to their loved ones much faster, without having to give it to horse guy. Then things kind of worked out and turns out fast communication opened up a bunch of new jobs. But "messenger" is no longer a job, and never will be again. You still have people who enjoy horseback riding though! You still have horse riding communities!
Re: generated art
artists are mad because people are using their art, and they're also mad because the things are copying the style of their art. artists can be fickle, but a lot of these guys don't even like reposts and explicitly state as much on wherever theyre posting their artAshenai wrote:
That's all still gonna exist. You can still do art, you can still teach others art, you can still have artist communities. That's not what the problem is. Artists are mad not because of extremely weak legal arguments of plagiarism, but because they're scared their job will become obsolete. Yeah, join the club!
Every time this happens (technology making certain jobs obsolete), it's bad for the people who had those jobs, but extremely good for everyone else. I bet messengers (guys who rode on horseback real fast to deliver messages) were very mad when the telegraph was invented. But everyone else was pretty happy that now they could send messages to their loved ones much faster, without having to give it to horse guy. Then things kind of worked out and turns out fast communication opened up a bunch of new jobs. But "messenger" is no longer a job, and never will be again. You still have people who enjoy horseback riding though! You still have horse riding communities!
Re: generated art
another problem is that we're intruding onto the artist's space, and a lot of people are doing so not respectfully but with open fucking hostility towards artists:
oh well this is a vocal minority. gesturing to literally everything that has been made mainstream in the last twenty years
oh well this is a vocal minority. gesturing to literally everything that has been made mainstream in the last twenty years
Re: generated art
A lot of the mad people are artists or artist-hopefuls who are currently drawing things not of a quality level to even go in the training sets, though, as awful as it is to put so bluntly.Luna wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:19 am artists are mad because people are using their art, and they're also mad because the things are copying the style of their art. artists can be fickle, but a lot of these guys don't even like reposts and explicitly state as much on wherever theyre posting their art
You're not wrong about how artist culture is (as someone who fell down the DeviantArt drama rabbithole I know all about kids trying to cancel each other for tracing), but Ashenai's describing a very real thing (and did it really eloquently too~)
Re: generated art
Magical wrote: sounds very us vs them to me
Re: generated art
if we were actually in said communities we'd maybe be looking at towards respected members of those communities, instead of like guys from deviantart or shitty western artists or whatever. but i guess because we're not in those communities and so are unable to do so it's just a lot of noise, and we can put weight towards whatever section of noise we want that would best support what we wanted. like say shitty western artists that no one really cares aboutMagical wrote: A lot of the mad people are artists or artist-hopefuls who are currently drawing things not of a quality level to even go in the training sets, though, as awful as it is to put so bluntly.
You're not wrong about how artist culture is (as someone who fell down the DeviantArt drama rabbithole I know all about kids trying to cancel each other for tracing), but Ashenai's describing a very real thing (and did it really eloquently too~)
and it's unfortunate that we can't actually get like, y'know, the well's already been poisoned.
Re: generated art
I saw a novel AI generated fic on AO3 recently.
Didn't read it, Naruto sucks
Didn't read it, Naruto sucks
Re: generated art
This guy gets it. Look at what he made, with AI! That could never have happened without AI (it's not really possible for a human to make that). It also couldn't have happened without a human artist! I can't make something like that, even with access to Midjourney etc!
The future of art is going to be artists using AI in brilliant and creative ways like this, and I'm pretty excited.
Re: generated art
Don't really get this because in the English speaking community those often are the respected members of the community
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: generated art
i was at the museum of modern art a while ago and the main thing i noticed was that as soon as artists no longer needed any particular technical skill it all went to shit
Re: generated art
ashenai animation has existed for a hundred yearsAshenai wrote:That could never have happened without AI (it's not really possible for a human to make that)
Re: generated art
magical don't tell me that you're into western artMagical wrote: Don't really get this because in the English speaking community those often are the respected members of the community
Re: generated art
As a general rule no, my point is that I've seen enough drama where someone with average at best art ability has 10,000+ followers and wields considerable clout (then jealous others with similar level of art ability try to cancel them for dumb reasons). The people who commandeer respect in communities that are overwhelmingly online, and skew younger in age when people still have time and dreams, are not likely to be the best representitives.
Re: generated art
ashenai i am not trying to be a dick with my posts towards you or anything since i quite like you but you're killing meAshenai wrote:
Not with the entire image (including background) changing every frame. Not with quality like that.
Re: generated art
You don't have to censor yourself, I can take it!