A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[Space]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is where you are wrong. It is the purest art.

I want to be able to create a movie or a video game simply by telling a computer exactly what I want to see and how I want it to work. And in this case, I would be the artist. The artist is the architect of the whole thing, not the monkey who draws the lines.

You need to move up one level of abstraction. Go from illustrator to art director.

I don't disagree and I understand your point. Coming up with the ideas, the vision, the concept is artistry in itself. Just doing what you're told by the vision creator is not being an artist. But lets not forget that it takes a highly skilled and talented monkey to be able to draw good lines. Ultimately there is no art without the line drawer, no matter whos coming up with the ideas.

Even though I am the monkey who draws the lines, I am also the art director because I come up with the ideas and concepts, even though I work with actual art directors at various publishers.

But I think we're moving away from my original concerns though. On a practical day-to-day basis, the freelance jobs that I do are simply at risk of being taken because my assumption and prediction is that it will be easier and cheaper and more convenient for an art director to generate a bunch of images and choose one that looks eye-catching and vaguely suits the article. What happens when 30, 40, 50% of my potential jobs are replaced by an AI art generator because its just more convenient and free to use. And if I can't get any work, or i'm getting such a reduced amount of work each month, is there any point in continuing? 

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, stock photos for articles will be replaced. The real question is why do you have such a limited definitom of art. That's like the bottom of the barrel of the art world.

Well firstly, i'm focusing primarily on editorial illustration in this thread because that's literally how I pay my bills, it's what I do for a job. And secondly, I think you're conflating editorial illustration with stock photos. They're two very different things, even though they're both used in similar contexts. I'm not really thinking about the future of stock imagery. Just searching for 'editorial illustration' on Pinterest will instantly highlight the difference between that and stock imagery, despite both being placed next to articles online or in magazines/newpapers etc. 

[The Mystical Man]

It's possible that AI will replace editorial illustration jobs, but not any time soon. To create a polished illustration we still need human beings who know what they're doing. Midjourney results look like photobashing; the results are not clean enough.

If you're successful with what you're doing, I suggest you keep doing it. But also start brainstorming ideas for how you could become indispensable even when AI starts replacing jobs: become an art director, consider getting into 3D art, or consider joining a company.

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[Flint]

11 hours ago, zurew said:

 

Credits of this image please ? It's stunning

[zurew]

5 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Lol, I am not.

Yes, you are, and you have a lot of seemingly unfounded assumptions about this topic. 

You assume, that an AI will need a human brain level complexity in order to be able to generate whatever art is in your mind. So far it seems that it can generate pretty stunning images and sometimes complex artworks without any need for human brain level complexity, so based on what it can do now, and how it is trained it seems more reasonable to assume that it will be able to produce whatever art a human can produce. 

5 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Garish and hideous and obscenely meaningless computer-generated nonsense with bright colors to lead people astray like sirens---is not art

This seems more like a rant than an argument. We could do a new kind of turing test here (just with images, where we test if you could tell whether the image/artwork was produced by a human or an AI).

Take a look at these (here you will find famous paintings expanded with DALL-E 2) 

https://80.lv/articles/famous-paintings-expanded-with-dall-e-2/

2 hours ago, Flint said:

Credits of this image please ? It's stunning

All credit goes to the AI. But on a serious note,unfortunately I don't know the credits,because i saved that image a long time ago.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by zurew

[AtheisticNonduality]

Quote

This seems more like a rant than an argument. We could do a new kind of turing test here (just with images, where we test if you could tell whether the image/artwork was produced by a human or an AI).

Take a look at these (here you will find famous paintings expanded with DALL-E 2) 

@zurew Oh no, right at the start it brightened and "improved" the Mona Lisa . . .

[Extreme Z7]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ideally an artist would never need to pick up a pencil, but just tell a computer what he wants to see.

Hmmm. . . I think at that point, entering singular text prompts would be inadequate and it would have to progress to just outright having conversations with the AI. Making the AI more of a person now than just a tool.

But wait. . . wouldn't that just make you more of a producer than an artist LOL?

Let's hope these AI don't rise up and demand worker's rights.

[ValiantSalvatore]

Do any of you guys go regularly to museums and enjoy art? I wondered how an expert artist would buy any of these, it's basically just porn imo. Without a story line and context. When I see all of this digital art you can still edit them after the fact, that they have been created, I am pretty sure there will be tools for that, considering creating logos/symbols/art for games etc.

Sometimes the biggest mistake from an artist or so might make the painting seem very good, yet sort of still apprecating the limits of what the human can draw I dunno I've been to a couple of art exhibitions in major places in the art world and I know someone personally who is a professional succesful painter drawing with Andy Warholes techniques, not speaking to him, yet knowing him, it's a massive threat to skill itself imo.

I just don't think skill can so easily outsource itself as well as the greed sort of for the tool, there are already codeless enviroments with U.I generative tools, that created a new emerging demand and market with U.I researchers/ HCI and the likes of this is basically the same issue of something creative being outsourced to a new toolbox.

I just think more lightly about this topic and it will be a toolbox, when used with caution and I doubt most people are that wise and intelligent lol. I am pretty sure someone will abuse it and people will learn and set a constraint like in any enviroment...

Edited September 2, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Space]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Are those images definitely AI-generated? The shapes and edges seem very well defined and 'finished' which is unusual for AI art. I can't see any of the usual distortions or small errors that are common in most AI work either.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Space

[OnePointTwo]

You have to watch this: Your Art Skill May Not Matter Soon (And What To Do About It)

Your mind will try to emotionally block out what he is saying (all of the most liked comments are people that completely missed the message, don't read them). I know I would feel the same if someone told me AI would replace software developers. Just listen. Get a big glass of water, sit in a bright area and listen to what he is saying.

Okay, watched it? Did it make you feel sick or hopeful? If anything, you are lucky, because you will be one of the first people to adapt to the world of AI. You should know that something big is approaching. Artificial general intelligence.

Once AGI arrives, life will completely change. It will feel like Pandora's box has been opened. We will wonder how life was ever as simple as it is now. Cherish every day.

[zurew]

@Space Yeah, they are AI generated, but they were generated in a separate way and then a guy connected them together.

Quote

I generated a series of smaller images with DALL·E (with each subsequent image having part of the context from the previous images) and then joined them together via separate tooling.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/u872dz/using_dalle_2_to_imagine_what_weirdness/

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, Space said:

What happens when 30, 40, 50% of my potential jobs are replaced by an AI art generator because its just more convenient and free to use.

Find a more intelligent way of creating art than being a line-monkey.

Rather than being afraid of technology, learn to adopt it quickly and leverage it to do new cutting-edge things which previous artists couldn't dream of. Art must evolve like everything else.

Rather than clinging to being an illustrator, turn yourself into an art director. You'll generate way more value for the world.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Hmmm. . . I think at that point, entering singular text prompts would be inadequate and it would have to progress to just outright having conversations with the AI.

Of course. That's exactly what we need and where this is going.

To truly create the kind of useful art that we need, AI will need to be given highly details specifications, just like you'd give a human illustrator when hiring him for a job.

I want to be able to write a 10-page document explaining exactly the kind of art I need. And then I want to be able to tell it to make fine tweaks until it matches what I want perfectly.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Yeah Yeah]

@Space Yes, you will be replaced and you have likely wasted years - All for what? Years spent with the sweats and deliberate deisre to achieve what? I've studied these topics for myself, and I guarantee you will be replaced - All your artwork will dwindle in comparison to myself typing in a few words to desribe a piece of art I then receive instantaniously

Now I will also point out, that your desire to make art is to impress people like myself - I mean, so long as you enjoy this experience of creating your own masterpieces in the quiet sector of your organism living ebnvironment - Does it matter if you die, with the likeliness of people like myself who may never come across your art? So long as you're in the moment EXPERIENCING this expression of art, which AI yet is unaware about, then the time you spend arting has a blessing of infinite and mysterious value - Unless you need to feel validated with likes, followers, fame, success, and so forth before your death or the rise of AI; well you're distracted, therefore wasting your time instead of being a real experiencing human enjoying the evolution of creating art - Perhaps you get the point I'm attempting to expand upon,

Edited September 2, 2022 by Yeah Yeah

[MarkKol]

I heard that A.I. is is winning art competitions 

Let us reflect on the fact how everyone used to say mechanical low wage jobs would be automated first and creative fields would be left to humans. But here we are 

[The Mystical Man]

Some of the results are amazing: https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/

[OnePointTwo]

17 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

Some of the results are amazing: https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/

It's eye candy, but not art! Actually I take that back, it is art in a way.

Edited September 2, 2022 by OnePointTwo

[ZzzleepingBear]

What if the market becomes flooded with AI art from simple to medium long prompts, then there would be a growing desire to stand out from the popular crowd that would require longer and more complex prompts to generate more complex images. Maybe it becomes like crypto mining where the equations get's longer and longer for each coin with a rising cost for every newly produced coin.

I wouldn't be surprised if people eventually get bored or too used to see images of cute animals posing in different clothing, or hot babes in less and less clothing, until the point that maybe the same category of pictures takes a new turn for a more interesting perspective than what has previously flooded the market from it's popularity.

The promts needed for the best images will probably be many pages long in a near future, and the working load for the AI may go from 30 sec for a cool 8k images with some details, to proffesional studios who render super advanced and specific images that require many hours to render in and put togheter. And all the promts that the AI require, may take even more hours to experiment with, inorder to get different unique promt formulas that hasn't already been overused . A image alchemy lab in other words. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by ZzzleepingBear

[MarkKol]

 

 

Perhaps you're making yourself believe that Art itself is going to die, which it obviously will not.

Shoe making has been automated a long ass time ago with A.I and yet there are still hand made products out there, many which are higher quality than their A.I made counterparts

Be better than A.I, don't discard it. You should defintently use it, work with it. It's not your enemy, It's your friend

I actually see these A.I picture generators as a good thing, especially when it becomes capable of video animation, but that will just push the standard higher 

 

https://youtu.be/yJhuoCHTctM 

Innovation my friend, sometimes it a bitch. But it won't kill your purpose unless you refuse to use it and work alongside it 

 

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

5 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

Do any of you guys go regularly to museums and enjoy art? I wondered how an expert artist would buy any of these, it's basically just porn imo. 

Exactly.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Find a more intelligent way of creating art than being a line-monkey.

The problem is that most people here are assuming the AI will be a more intelligent line-monkey than a genuine artist's brain and fingers. It will not. Actual aesthetic intelligence (knowing what to create based on its effects you can detect), cognitive intelligence (handling its complexity), and kinesthetic intelligence (the movements, visual precisions and processing of dimensionality, carrying out the aesthetic and cognitive demands exactly rather than relying on a one-dimensional, unintelligent, low-consciousness idiocy to carry out things inexactly) will not be developed to a human degree in these machines. They only can copy a dissociated fragment of the human system, so the results will also be dissociated and fragmented in terms of quality; and they will be merely quantitative presets.

To properly replicate a genuine artist, the AI would need to mimic not inexactly but exactly all of the lower human elements sensations, impulses, emotions in addition to what it already has, which is a small amount of symbolic information. It would also need higher consciousness; it would also need actual intelligence. All of that is impossible to replicate artificially at this time or in any nascent one. So the idea of AH, IT'S DEVELOPING SO FAST IT HAS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING is nonsense and overexcitation.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

To properly replicate a genuine artist, the AI would need to mimic not inexactly but exactly all of the lower human elements sensations, impulses, emotions in addition to what it already has, which is a small amount of symbolic information. It would also need higher consciousness; it would also need actual intelligence. All of that is impossible to replicate artificially at this time or in any nascent one. So the idea of AH, IT'S DEVELOPING SO FAST IT HAS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING is nonsense and overexcitation.

Why is that? It can just simulate these functions in real time. Just like a minecraft world doesnt need to compute the whole world, but only the part you currently see. If an AI is given the command to produce some Micelangeloesque painting, it doesnt need to create or conceptualize the whole thing at a time, it only needs to incrementally get there from some kind of mental model (which, it gets exponentially better at, the more training data it has). I dont think there is consensus on the argument, that AI actually needs to be intelligent, to surpass humans in its capabilities. AI can fake superhuman levels of intelligence, without actually being intelligent, in the strict sense. IDK if this is actually accurate, but thats how I understand it at least.