I think this is completely missing the point when it’s talking about “the minutiae of art”. It’s making two claims at the same time: art is better when you suffer for it and the art is good whether or not you suffered. But none of that is relevant.
When Wyeth made Christina’s World, I don’t know if he suffered or not when painting that grass. What I do know is that he was a human with limited time and the fact that he spent so much of his time detailing every blade of grass means that he’s saying something. That The Oatmeal doesn’t draw backgrounds might be because he’s lazy, but he also doesn’t need them. These are choices we make to put effort in one part and ignore some other part.
AI doesn’t make choices. It doesn’t need to. A detailed background is exactly the same amount of work as a plain one. And so a generated picture has this evenly distributed level of detail, no focus at all. You don’t really know where to look, what’s important, what the picture is trying to say. Because it’s not saying anything. It isn’t a rat with a big butt, it’s just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.
it’s just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.
I’d like this on my tombstone
Visitor to your grave: “…I need more context.”
Your ghost: “It’s about AI art.”
Visitor: “…I still don’t get it.”
Ghost: “That’s because you’re a robot. Everybody’s just robots now. Us ghosts are all that’s left of humanity. All that you know is based on what we suffered to learn and create.”
Robot visitor: “…but why a rat with a big butt?”
Ghost: “Draw one, and reflect on the cloud of noise that you produce instead.”
Robot: *draws a rat with a big butt
Ghost: “…AI wasn’t as good back then. Fuck you.” *whisps away
I often hear AI enthusiasts say that AI democratized art. As if art weren’t already democratized. Most anyone can pick up a pen, draw, write, type, move a mouse, etc. What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill. Which is why when you find out a piece of art was made by inputting some short prompt into a generator, you become disappointed. Because it would be cool, if the person actually had the skill to draw that. Pushing a few buttons to get that, not so much.
Edit:spelling and spacing
yeah that’s like saying chatgpt democratized writing. no, you could always write. what’s changed is now you can pretend you write, without writing.
People confuse art and craft.
And people forget how many forms of art there are. If you can speak any language which if youre reading this you can then you can create art. Putting your feelings into words is art. The point of art is not to be good at it or to earn money with it. Its to express your feelings. Of course enabling people who express their feelings in a way that others like to earn money with it is a good thing but even that can be very restrictive. Look at all the twitter porn artists who really just want to create something else but need some sort of revenue stream.
I have always felt that I’m not good at art (the practice I did got me not very far), and I’ve recently had reason to make little collages. One thing that I’ve done is uploaded pictures to Canva and traced them so I had something resembling recognizable images (my dog, me in a kayak). I don’t think tracing is making an art, AI is definitely not making an art.
What makes you want to do art? I’m just curious, because I am also someone who has bounced off of attempting to learn to do art a bunch of times, and found tracing unfulfilling (I am abstaining from the question of whether tracing is art, but I do know it didn’t scratch the itch for me).
For my part, I ended up finding that crafts like embroidery or clothing making was the best way to channel my creative inclinations, but that’s mostly because I have the heart of a ruthless pragmatist and I like making useful things. What was it that caused you to attempt to learn?
I like and admire visual arts. I wanted to try to be able to do the thing. I have a strong imagination and extremely good visualization skills, so I wanted to be able to take things from my minds eye to reality.
I have found much of my art/creative outlet in dancing and crafting.
Tracing is absolutely art. You choose what to trace what parts of the image are important what to discard etc.
Tracing in itself is a craft. The choices you’re talking about cam be art, yes.
Makes me think of this 😂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMwhZryRUr4
What a beautiful read. I feel the same about AI art and I remember a longer talk I had with my tattoo artist: ‘I need the money so I will do AI based tattoos my clients bring to me. But they have no soul, no story, no individuality. They are not a part of you.’
I feel the same.
Also I like Oatmeal’s reference to Wabi Sabi: The perfection of imperfection in every piece of art.
At least by redrawing it, the tattoo artist is injecting (pun intended) some of the human skill and decision-making into it?
But, ugh! Who would get an AI tattoo?
And what’s the point? Let’s say I have an idea of a tattoo I want (Jack Sparrow, dressed in a McDonald’s uniform, fighting off a rabid poodle, in the style of Baroque painting), but I cannot draw. So I use AI to render it, how clever!
But wait - a tattoo artist will be physically drawing it anyway. They know how to develop concepts into sketches, don’t they?
Just get them to do it! Skip the pointless AI step!
I made a comment about a week ago about how copying people’s art is still art, and it was a bit of an aha moment as I pinpointed for myself a big part of why I find image generators and the like so soulless, inwardly echoing a lot of what Inman lays out here.
All human made art, from the worst to the best, embodies the effort of the artist. Their intent and their skill. Their attempt to make something, to communicate something. It has meaning. All generative art does is barf up random noise that looks like pictures. It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art. If humans ever end up creating actual artificial intelligence, then we can talk about machine made art. Until then, it’s hardly more than a printer in terms of artistic merit.
Sounds quite similar to Nick Cave’s letter on the topic, read here by Stephen Fry. (anyone feel free to reply with a piped link, for some reason it’s never worked for me)
I’ve been practicing at being a better writer, and one of the ways I’ve been doing that is by studying the writing that I personally really like. Often I can’t explain why I click so much with a particular style of writing, but by studying and attempting to learn how to copy the styles that I like, it feels like a step towards developing my own “voice” in writing.
A common adage around art (and other skilled endeavours) is that you need to know how to follow the rules before you can break them, after all. Copying is a useful stepping stone to something more. It’s always going to be tough to learn when your ambition is greater than your skill level, but there’s a quote from Ira Glass that I’ve found quite helpful:
“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know it’s normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take a while. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”
Agreed.
There was a good interview with Tim Minchin by the BBC where he said something similar to this & used the word intent.
I suppose the intent/communication/art comes from the person writing the prompt but those few words can only convey so much information. When the choice of medium & every line etc. involves millions of micro-decisions by the artist there is so much more information encoded. Even if its copy & pasted bits of memes.Is this the interview? https://files.catbox.moe/ddp6tp.mp4
Tim Minchin has always come across as a good egg to me. It’s nice to hear he’s of the same mind, and I particularly like the optimism he’s promoting in his predictions for artistry going forward.
No, I hadn’t seen that one, thanks!
Hah, sure thing. I suppose it’s a point he’s discussed a few times.
It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art.
I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have been before them. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.
The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai
But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.
the how is really quite irrelevant
That’s our point. The how is entirely relevant. It’s what makes art interesting and meaningful. Without the how and why, it’s just colors and noise.
it’s just colors and noise.
But that’s exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye…might as well just get it auto-generated.
That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.
I would honestly argue that the way an artist makes art is also completely irrelevant. The art is only meaningful in the way it’s perceived, how the artist physically makes it is of very little importance. The tools and materials are just a means to an end, it’s the finished product that inspires feelings and thoughts, not the process of how it came to be.
That’s like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.
Not really. It’s the equivalent of ordering a “build it yourself” sandwich where you specify type of bread and content, and having someone else make it. Yes you didn’t actually assemble the sandwich yourself, but who cares how that happened, you have the sandwich you wanted, it contains what you wanted, it tastes and looks like you intended.
I’m not arguing that people using AI generated images can call themselves artists, I’m arguing that AI generated can have a useful purpose replacing menial “art” work.
and having someone else make it.
No, having a soulless machine make it.
Then claiming that you made it yourself even though all you did was select a few things on a menu.
Oh my fucking god people…I didn’t say you could claim you made something when using AI generated images. I claimed it still makes sense for some things because they hold pretty much no artistic value when made by humans already (like icons, stock images and logos)
I’d argue that logos are a hugely expressive form. It’s just that 90% of them are basic ass shit tier stuff.
AI has basically raised the level of “shit tier” pretty high. I sometimes go check out Hotone Audio’s Facebook page to see if there are new firmware updates for my device, but they mainly peddle pointless AI slop marketing images. I’m sure there are tons of companies like this.
It’s the literal example of the marketing person being able to churn out pictures without an artist being involved, and thus the output is a pile of crap even more vapid than stock photos.
The impact on livelihoods is important, but it’s ultimately unrelated to defining what art is. My consideration of art is not one born of fear of losing money, but purely out of appreciation for the craft. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest all the criticisms against generated art is solely borne of self-preservation.
In regards to corporate “art”, all the things you listed, even stock images, are certainly not the purest form of artistry, but they still have (or, at least had) intent suffusing their creation. I suppose the question then is - is there a noticeable difference between the two for corporations? Will a generated logo have the same impact as a purposefully crafted on does? In my experience, the generated products I’ve noticed feel distinctly hollow. While past corporate assets are typically hollow shells of real art, generated assets are even less. They’re a pure concentration of corporate greed and demand, without the “bothersome” human element. Maybe that won’t matter in their course of business, but I think it might. Time will tell.
I appreciate this bit out of context:
Also loved the shoutout to Allie Brosh!
“Yes, but I’ll be quick, I promise.”
Isn’t quick.
As a passable quality 3D artist who does it for a living I’ve found AI art (which can do 3D now to some degree) has kind of narrowed the scope for me. If you want generic Unreal style pseudo-realism or disney toon then AI can do that for you* I’ve had to focus much more on creating a unique style and also optimizing my work in ways that AI just doesn’t have the ability to do because they require longer chains of actual reasoning.
For AI in general I think this pattern holds, it can quickly create something generic and increasingly do it without extranious fingers but no matter how much you tweak a prompt its damn near impossible to get a specific idea into image form. Its like a hero shooter with skins VS actually creating your own character.
*Right now AI models use more tris to re-create the default blender cube than my entire lifetime portfolio but I’m assuming that can be resolved since we already have partially automated re-topology tools.
Thanks for sharing! I haven’t read much of the Oatmeal in quite a while but I’ve always liked their style and humor.
That was a beautiful read.
But do i find myself conflicted about dismissing it as a potential technical skill all together.
I have seen comfy-ui workflows that are build in a very complex way, some have the canvas devided in different zones, each having its own prompts. Some have no prompts and extract concepts like composition or color values from other files.
I compare these with collage-art which also exists from pre existing material to create something new.
Such tools take practice, there are choices to be made, there is a creative process but its mostly technological knowledge so if its about such it would be right to call it a technical skill.
The sad reality however, is how easy it is to remove parts of that complexity “because its to hard” and barebones it to simple prompt to output. At which point all technical skill fades and it becomes no different from the online generators you find.
I get what you’re saying.
I often find myself being the person in the room with the most knowledge about how Generative AI (and other machine learning) works, so I tend to be in the role of the person who answers questions from people who want to check whether their intuition is correct. Yesterday, when someone asked me whether LLMs have any potential uses, or whether the technology is fundamentally useless, and the way they phrased it allowed me to articulate something better than I had previously been able to.
The TL;DR was that I actually think that LLMs have a lot of promise as a technology, but not like this; the way they are being rolled out indiscriminately, even in domains where it would be completely inappropriate, is actually obstructive to properly researching and implementing these tools in a useful way. The problem at the core is that AI is only being shoved down our throats because powerful people want to make more money, at any cost — as long as they are not the ones bearing that cost. My view is that we won’t get to find out the true promise of the technology until we break apart the bullshit economics driving this hype machine.
I agree that even today, it’s possible for the tools to be used in a way that’s empowering for the humans using them, but it seems like the people doing that are in the minority. It seems like it’s pretty hard for a tech layperson to do that kind of stuff, not least of all because most people struggle to discern the bullshit from the genuinely useful (and I don’t blame them for being overwhelmed). I don’t think the current environment is conducive towards people learning to build those kinds of workflows. I often use myself as a sort of anti-benchmark in areas like this, because I am an exceedingly stubborn person who likes to tinker, and if I find it exhausting to learn how to do, it seems unreasonable to expect the majority of people to be able to.
I like the comic’s example of Photoshop’s background remover, because I doubt I’d know as many people who make cool stuff in Photoshop without helpful bits of automation like that (“cool stuff” in this case often means amusing memes or jokes, but for many, that’s the starting point in continuing to grow). I’m all for increasing the accessibility of an endeavour. However, the positive arguments for Generative AI often feels like it’s actually reinforcing gatekeeping rather than actually increasing accessibility; it implicitly divides people into the static categories of Artist, and Non-Artist, and then argues that Generative AI is the only way for Non-Artists to make art. It seems to promote a sense of defeatism by suggesting that it’s not possible for a Non-Artist to ever gain worthwhile levels of skill. As someone who sits squarely in the grey area between “artist” and “non-artist”, this makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.
We are on the same base,
I actually had a friend who jokingly mocked me for liking ai because i was initially very exited ablut Dall-E and ChatGPT 3.5
Back then i could only see the potential that it continues to have. OpenAI appeared to have altruistic goals and was a non profit. Trojan horse it turned out to be.
Had to make pretty clear to my friend that “ yes, but not like this, everything but this” about the current slop situation.
I think there’s a stark difference between crafting your own comfyui workflow, getting the right nodes and control nets and checkpoints and whatever, tweaking it until you get what you want, and someone telling an AI “make me a picture/video of X.”
The least AI-looking AI art is the kind that someone took effort to make their own. Just like any other tool.
Unfortunately, gen AI is a tool that gives relatively good results without any skill at all. So most people won’t bother to do the work to make it their own.
I think that, like nearly everything in life, there is nuance to this. But at the same time, we aren’t ready for the nuance because we’re being drowned by slop and it’s horrible.
All of that’s great and everything, but at the end of the day all of the commercial VLM art generators are trained on stolen art. That includes most of the VLMs that comfyui uses as a backend. They have their own cloud service now, that ties in with all the usual suspects.
So even if it has some potentially genuine artistic uses I have zero interest in using a commercial entity in any way to ‘generate’ art that they’ve taken elements for from artwork they stole from real artists. Its amoral.
If it’s all running locally on open source VLMs trained only on public data, then maybe - but that’s what… a tiny, tiny fraction of AI art? In the meantime I’m happy to dismiss it altogether as Ai slop.
How is that any different from “stealing” art in a collage, though? While courts have disagreed on the subject (in particular there’s a big difference between visual collage and music sampling with the latter being very restricted) there is a clear argument to be made that collage is a fair use of the original works, because the result is completely different.
Sidestepping the debate about whether AI art is actually fair use, I do find the fair use doctrine an interesting lens to look at the wider issue — in particular, how deciding whether something is fair use is more complex than comparing a case to a straightforward checklist, but a fairly dynamic spectrum.
It’s possible that something could be:
- Highly transformative
- Takes from a published work that is primarily of a factual nature (such as a biography)
- Distributed to a different market than the original work but still not be considered fair use, if it had used the entirety of the base work without modification (in this case, the “highly transformative” would pertain to how the chunks of the base work are presented)
I’m no lawyer, but I find the theory behind fair use pretty interesting. In practice, it leaves a lot to be desired (the way that YouTube’s contentID infringes on what would almost certainly be fair use, because Google wants to avoid being taken to court by rights holders, so preempts the problem by being overly harsh to potential infringement). However, my broad point is that whether a court decides something is fair use relies on a holistic assessment that considers all four of pillars of fair use, including how strongly each apply.
AI trained off of artist’s works is different to making collage of art because of the scale of the scraping — a huge amount of copyrighted work has been used, and entire works of art were used, even if the processing of them were considered to be transformative (let’s say for the sake of argument that we are saying that training an AI is highly transformative). The pillar that AI runs up against the most though is “the effect of the use upon the potential market”. AI has already had a huge impact on the market for artistic works, and it is having a hugely negative impact on people’s ability to make a living through their art (or other creative endeavours, like writing). What’s more, the companies who are pushing AI are making inordinate amounts of revenue, which makes the whole thing feel especially egregious.
We can draw on the ideas of fair use to understand why so many people feel that AI training is “stealing” art whilst being okay with collage. In particular, it’s useful to ask what the point of fair use is? Why have a fair use exemption to copyright at all? The reason is because one of the purposes of copyright is meant to be to encourage people to make more creative works — if you’re unable to make any money from your efforts because you’re competing with people selling your own work faster than you can, then you’re pretty strongly disincentivised to make anything at all. Fair use is a pragmatic exemption carved out because of the recognition that if copyright is overly restrictive, then it will end up making it disproportionately hard to make new stuff. Fair use is as nebulously defined as it is because it is, in theory, guided by the principle of upholding the spirit of copyright.
Now, I’m not arguing that training an AI (or generating AI art) isn’t fair use — I don’t feel equipped to answer that particular question. As a layperson, it seems like current copyright laws aren’t really working in this digital age we find ourselves in, even before we consider AI. Though perhaps it’s silly to blame computers for this, when copyright wasn’t really helping individual artists much even before computers became commonplace. Some argue that we need new copyright laws to protect against AI, but Cory Doctorow makes a compelling argument about how this will just end up biting artists in the ass even worse than the AI. Copyright probably isn’t the right lever to pull to solve this particular problem, but it’s still a useful thing to consider if we want to understand the shape of the whole problem.
As I see it, copyright exists because we, as a society, said we wanted to encourage people to make stuff, because that enriches society. However, that goal was in tension with the realities of living under capitalism, so we tried to resolve that through copyright laws. Copyright presented new problems, which led to the fair use doctrine, which comes with problems of its own, with or without AI. The reason people consider AI training to be stealing is because they understand AI as a dire threat to the production of creative works, and they attempt to articulate this through the familiar language of copyright. However, that’s a poor framework for addressing the problem that AI art poses though. We would be better to strip this down to the ethical core of it so we can see the actual tension that people are responding to.
Maybe we need a more radical approach to this problem. One interesting suggestion that I’ve seen is that we should scrap copyright entirely and implement a generous universal basic income (UBI) (and other social safety nets). If creatives were free to make things without worrying about fulfilling basic living needs, it would make the problem of AI scraping far lower stakes for individual creatives. One problem with this is that most people would prefer to earn more than what even a generous UBI would provide, so would probably still feel cheated by Generative AI. However, the argument is that GenerativeAI cannot compare to human artists when it comes to producing novel or distinctive art, so the most reliable wa**y to obtain meaningful art would be to give financial support to the artists (especially if an individual is after something of a particular style). I’m not sure how viable this approach would be in practice, but I think that discussing more radical ideas like this is useful in figuring what the heck to do.
I completely agree on pretty much the whole sweep of this. AI just exposes another way in which copyright law is insufficient for the digital age.
On a personal note, a couple of years ago I tried to use chatgpt to write a story. It was shit so I wrote my own. I’ve taken up drawing again and want to properly learn digital painting.
In my mind, AI doesn’t threaten any of this because the enjoyment I get from these things doesn’t depend on selling what I do. Artists have been stereotypically starving for a long time because the innate human desire to create exceeds the desire of people to pay.
Allowing people to satisfy that desire without literally starving should be a societal goal.
Collage art retains the original components of the art, adding layers the viewer can explore and seek the source of, if desired.
VLMs on the other hand intentionally obscure the original works by sending them through filters and computer vision transformations to make the original work difficult to backtrace. This is no accident, its designed obfuscation.
The difference is intent - VLMs literally steal copies of art to generate their work for cynical tech bros. Classical collages take existing art and show it in a new light, with no intent to pass off the original source materials as their own creations.
The original developers of Stable Diffusion and similar models made absolutely no secret about the source data they used. Where are you getting this idea that they “intentionally obscure the original works… to make [them] difficult to backtrace.”? How would an image generation model even work in a way that made the original works obvious?
Literally steal
Copying digital art wasn’t “literally stealing” when the MPAA was suing Napster and it isn’t today.
For cynical tech bros
Stable Diffusion was originally developed by academics working at a University.
Your whole reply is pretending to know intent where none exists, so if that’s the only difference you can find between collage and AI art, it’s not good enough.
Stable Diffusion? The same Stable Diffusion sued by Getty Images which claims they used 12 million of their images without permission? Ah yes very non-secretive very moral. And what of industry titans DALL-E and Midjourney? Both have had multiple examples of artists original art being spat out by their models, simply by finessing the prompts - proving they used particular artists copyright art without those artists permission or knowledge.
Stable Diffusion also was from its inception in the hands of tech bros, funded and built with the help of a $3 billion dollar AI company (Runway AI), and itself owned by Stability AI, a made for profit company presently valued at $1 billion and now has James Cameron on its board. The students who worked on a prior model (Latent Diffusion) were hired for the Stable Diffusion project, that is all.
I don’t care to drag the discussion into your opinion of whether artists have any ownership of their art the second after they post it on the internet - for me it’s good enough that artists themselves assign licences for their work (CC, CC BY-SA, ©, etc) - and if a billion dollar company is taking their work without permission (as in the © example) to profit off it - that’s stealing according to the artists intent by their own statement.
If they’re taking CC BY-SA and failing to attribute it, then they are also breaking licencing and abusing content for their profit. An VLM could easily add attributes to images to assign source data used in the output - weird none of them want to.
In other words, I’ll continue to treat AI art as the amoral slop it is. You are of course welcome to have a different opinion, I don’t really care if mine is ‘good enough’ for you.
Stable Diffusion? The same Stable Diffusion sued by Getty Images which claims they used 12 million of their images without permission? Ah yes very non-secretive very moral. And what of industry titans DALL-E and Midjourney? Both have had multiple examples of artists original art being spat out by their models, simply by finessing the prompts - proving they used particular artists copyright art without those artists permission or knowledge.
Getting sued means Getty images disagrees that the use of the images was legal, not that it was secret, nor that it was moral. Getty images are included in the LAION-5b dataset that Stability AI publicly stated they used to create Stable Diffusion. So it’s not “intentionally obscuring” as you claimed.
I don’t care to drag the discussion into your opinion of whether artists have any ownership of their art the second after they post it on the internet - for me it’s good enough that artists themselves assign licences for their work (CC, CC BY-SA, ©, etc) - and if a billion dollar company is taking their work without permission (as in the © example) to profit off it - that’s stealing according to the artists intent by their own statement.
Copying is not theft, no matter how many words you want to write about it. You can steal a painting by taking it off the wall. You can’t steal a JPG by right-clicking it and selecting “Copy Image”. That’s fundamentally different.
An VLM could easily add attributes to images to assign source data used in the output
Oh yeah? Easily? What attribution should a model trained purely on LAION-5b add to an output image if prompted with “photograph of a cat”?
In other words, I’ll continue to treat AI art as the amoral slop it is. You are of course welcome to have a different opinion, I don’t really care if mine is ‘good enough’ for you.
You can do whatever you want (within usual rules) in your personal life, but you chose to enter into a discussion.
From that discussion it’s clear that your position is rooted in bias not knowledge. That’s why you can’t point out substantial differences between AI-generated images and other techniques which re-use existing imagery, why you make up intentions and can’t back them up, and why you prefer to dismiss academics as “tech bros” instead of engaging on facts.
only a note: LLMs are for text
Thanks. I edited
If you download a checkpoint from non trustworthy sources definitely and that is the majority of people, but also the majority that does not use the technical tools that deep nor cares about actual art (mostly porn if the largest distributor of models civitai is a reference).
The technical tool that allow actual creativity is called comfyui, and this is open source. I have yet to see anything that is even comparable. Other creative tools (like the krita plugin) use it as a backend.
I am willing to believe that someone with a soul for art and complex flows would also make their own models, which naturally allows much more creativity and is not that hard to do.
“not that hard to do”
Eh, I’m not so sure on that. I often find myself tripping up on the xkcd Average Familiarity problem, so I worry that this assumption is inadvertently a bit gatekeepy.
It’s the unfortunate reality that modern tech makes it pretty hard for a person to learn the kind of skills necessary to be able to customise one’s own tools. As a chronic tinkerer, I find it easy to underestimate how overwhelming it must feel for people who want to learn but have only ever learned to interface with tech as a “user”. That kind of background means that it requires a pretty high level of curiosity and drive to learn, and that’s a pretty high bar to overcome. I don’t know how techy you consider yourself to be, but I’d wager that anyone who cares about whether something is open source is closer to a techy person than the average person.
I should nuance,
For a person who already actively uses comfyui, knows how the different nodes work,
Makes complex flows with them,
Making their own checkpoints is not a big step up.
I have not gotten to this level myself yet, i am still learning how to properly using different and custom nodes, and yes
In the mean time yes, i experiment with public models that use stolen artwork. But i am not posting any of the results, its pure personal use practice.
I have already seen some stuff about making your own models/checkpoints, if i ever get happy enough with my skills to post it as art then having my own feels like a must. The main reason i haven’t is cause it does take a lot of time to prepare the training data.
People that don’t use their models while calling themselves artist are cheating themselves most of all.
I was kinda against their argument at first, then I was with them and continued reading. But then they went into all sorts of detail, weighing pros and cons etc., and after reading more than half I evtl. gave up.
It seems all “why AI is bad” articles seem to go this way.
It seems all “why AI is bad” articles unwillingly even support the hype.
Fuck AI “art”, it’s not art you morons, it’s automation, which takes away real people’s jobs. The current implementations made by greedy companies also very obviously steal. 'nuff said.
I know that art is an art of it’s own and a way to express human creativity.
However people also complained once the loom was invented. It took lots of jobs.
The job argument is usually a stupid one.
The lack of creativity and quality is of course a much better argument against AI art.
The job argument is usually a stupid one.
The what? It’s the only one that objectively makes sense.
Ok imagine this:
You are an construction worker. The job is hard but the pay is okay.
Now robots replace your job slowly. They are cheaper and more accurate.
You can now:
-
Complain about the robots stealing your job
-
Be happy that you don’t have to do the hard work anymore.
Many people will go for 1. But the actual issue is that the social security net isn’t existent or so weak that no job means no food.
That is not the fault of technology though.
Remember that when you vote and when politicians want to cut costs by reducing payments for the unemployed.
Option 2 is soulless.
Option 3. Destroy the capitalists owned robots and bring the robots under the control of the working class.
Option 3 still ends up with robots and no-one doing the jobs that the robots replaced.
Robots aren’t the problem.
Option 3 would be a weird way of communism. Which still enforces my point. The reason why you fear for job safety is not the fault of technology.
Option 3 is also what the historical Luddites wanted. They liked technology when it benefitted them, not when it was used to exploit them.
-
I liked it, personally. I’ve read plenty of AI bad articles, and I too am burnt out on them. However, what I really appreciated about this was that it felt less like a tirade against AI art and more like a love letter to art and the humans that create it. As I was approaching the ending of the comic, for example, when the argument had been made, and the artist was just making their closing words, I was struck by the simple beauty of the art. It was less the shapes and the colours themselves that I found beautiful, but the sense that I could practically feel the artist straining against the pixels in his desperation to make something that he found beautiful — after all, what would be the point if he couldn’t live up to his own argument?
I don’t know how far you got through, but I’d encourage you to consider taking another look at it. It’s not going to make any arguments you’ve not heard before, but if you’re anything like me, you might appreciate it from the angle of a passionate artist striving to make something meaningful in defiance of AI. I always find my spirits bolstered by work like this because whilst we’re not going to be able to draw our way out of this AI-slop hellscape, it does feel important to keep reminding ourselves of what we’re fighting for.
I want to touch on how he mentions hitting the button to automatically make music on a Casio keyboard.
I fully realize I’m being reductive to the point of being offensive but that’s not my intent and I preemptively apologize, when I say: that’s at least in part, the very first seed to becoming a professional DJ. That’s not nothing.
Using AI to generate images can be the same thing if it’s extrapolated out into complexity and layered nuance. It might not make you an artist exactly, in the same way that a DJ might not be a musician but it IS a skillset that potentially has value.
And even if you think I’m totally off-base in saying so? I liked pretending with the little automatic music button on the keyboard.
I think pushing the button on a Casio keyboard is more akin to tracing your favorite comics panel than using an LLM image generator.
I mean…I liked doing that too. DIY Spider man coloring book pages.
Are you speaking from experience? 'Cause that’s not even vaguely related to how any of the DJs I know (including a couple of professionals) got started. The prime motive for most DJs is sharing cool music, and Casio keyboards don’t do that…
If I recall correctly it was a part of how Feel Good Inc. was made. That is tangential at best, I realize, but still a fun story.
Oh yeah, I saw that a while back. Hilarious! Also kind of unusual (though lots of people have used smaller samples from toys and instruments)
No. Not from experience at all. I saw a small documentary once saying DJs remixed and sometimes create almost entirely new music and that they used computer based audio tools to do so. I’m probably thinking of a different profession. My ignorance, sorry.
All good, was just wondering.
I do DJ (non-professionally). I generally think there are two skills with DJing:
- Taste, library management and music choice, which is not a technical skill, but does take a bit of effort in preparing for a set
- Actual technical mixing skills, which many DJs (including me) barely have, but some take to a level that is on basically a form of musicianship.
I don’t think AI can really help you do either… but I guess it could make a mixed set and you could pretend to play it, like a Casio keyboard
I forgot how loooong Oatmeal cartoons are. I don’t think I have made it to the end of one in years.
Wanna go ride a bicycle?
This was a great read! As someone who was initially excited about the possibilities of AI art, it’s been hit or miss with me.
I’ve come to realise over time that I like the connection that art offers. The little moment of ‘I wonder what the artist was thinking when they imagined this and what experiences did someone have to get to a place where they could visualize and create this?’
And I think that’s what missing with AI art. Sure, it can enable someone like me who has no skill with drawing to create something but it doesn’t get to the point of putting my actual imagination down. The repeated tries can only get to point of ‘close enough’.
For me, looking at a piece and then learning it’s AI art is basically realizing that I’m looking at a computer generated imitation of someone’s imagination. Except the imitation was created by describing the art instead of the imitator ever looking at it. An connection I could have felt with original human is watered down as to be non-existent.
I watched a short saying you might be an art director, at best, but not really an artist. Because you have the vision but you’re only telling someone (something) to materialize it. I was kind of happy with that.
Vision is a strong word. I think it’s a vague idea in most cases
That was excellent. Thanks for sharing… although I’m more into pottery, I’m sure some soulless shithead will want to “democratize” it with a janky robot hand controlled by a dumb algo.
I mean, there are already better ways to automate pottery, like moulding.
