Memes

is the accumulation of one's youtube feed truly the deepest gaze into the soul?

Something ive noticed about AI art is it enables people who see themselves as "idea guys" to pump out every thought they have, call it good enough, and display it proudly like they worked hard at it.

When you make art you take an idea and that idea is shaped by external factors. Your skill level, your medium, how you collaborate if you are, all of these things influence what you make and that influence in turn changes your ideas. You may have an idea of what you want to paint, and during the process of painting come to appreciate the beauty of texture, and the next painting seeks to explore not just your idea but what you can do with the medium. Artists usually seek to push themselves to learn and explore and have their art change them as much as they seek to create the art.

But an idea guy only has interest in the idea. He doesnt want to do the process, he has no desire to be changed by his work. He has an idea and he wants an end product, and AI allows him to bypass that pesky learning to draw/paint/create business. It removes limitations in medium and skill level and spits out something close enough to his idea that its serviceable.

And I think that, to me, really signifies how much the idea guy values ideas over everything else. It takes all the work out of creation, and the lack of craftsmanship in the ideas is very telling in the final product.

why don't we cut the middle man and just deal in prompts?

I actually closed my eyes and took a moment to prepare myself after reading the first sentence because I knew I was about to read the most brain-dead take imaginable.

AI art also helps keep starving artists unfed

Engagement farming? I refuse to believe the top person is for real

Also Youtube feed is the videos they haven't watched, so isn't in their mind (yet)

“From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine."

This is what traditional art reveals. And quite well.

Couple of years ago I was at a cannabis painting event (get stoned whilst painting), with my friend. I've got some experience drawing and sketching, very little with painting. My friend has very little experience in anything art related, yet whilst I was struggling to figure out what to paint he manages to make a lovely blend of colours and themes, in ways I never could. I was looking at it for a good while, and it had so many lovely elements. He kept thinking his wasn't good!

He would've never been able to make that with AI, it would have missed all that nuance.

If someone wants to know the weird shit people have on their minds you just have to find their social media timeline, especially Reddit, Tumblr or Fedi. Or, like, talk to them.

Given the flavour of weird shit in someone's head most AI wouldn't even slop anything like that. Like, I'm thinking of three shrimps having a raging threesome right now with Jim Carrey's head in the background watching one shrimp-dick explode. The AI would probably refuse or just make Carrey sit in front of a meal.

humans can come up with

Let me stop you right there. This is almost too absurd to be a Onion article...

the thing is, you give your thought to ai and ai generates what it thinks you mean through other peoples examples but you only have your idea of what you want. and you only have so many chances for ai to get it right

Seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI art is.

But real art is not being sold for plebs with the promise of sticking it to "millionaire" artists that are all "full of themselves".