A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[illusory]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Such nonsense.

It's a tool! Like any other tool in a master's toolbox.

Go play with your clip art generator.

I'm going to steal your content and rehash it and call myself a self improvement guru.

Imagine someone having this amazing portfolio of artwork on their website but then they can't sketch anything with pencil on paper to any decent ability. Imposter syndrome actualized.

Tracing is a tool, yet it is frowned upon, did you know most traditional art schools don't allow you to trace?

Even the best artist say you should only trace once your have mastered the ability to draw without tracing. Contemplate why the masters say that maybe?

Edited September 15, 2022 by illusory

[ZzzleepingBear]

12 hours ago, Girzo said:

It wasn't a counter-argument to what you said. Turn off the debate mode, please.  I have been supporting your argument. I have said the photography stuff applies if someone takes your position.

I assume we are on the forums and everyone has to have strong opinion and be cut-throat, otherwise we don't know who is who, where is up and where is down. 

Haha alright, fair enough

[ZzzleepingBear]

How AI artists will be demonstrating their skillsets as a AI-Master-artist..

[illusory]

@Leo Gura

PS. I do agree that AI can be used as a tool by established/skilled artist, for generating ideas, colour themes, inspiration.

None of that is my concern, or my argument.

People like you who have not taken years and training in this sector of digital painting or art, who think they are artist now because they have AI auto completeing artwork with mere words is the problem.

I think AI should take 95% of the credit and 5% credit for the word prompts the user has put in, that would be plenty generous enough.

If someone makes money from AI art, i personally feel that 95% of the profits should go to the AI and its creators, as they pretty much did most of the work. I think the AI creators are being too generous they should milk those usage policy to show who the real boss is.

Edited September 15, 2022 by illusory

[Danioover9000]

@ZzzleepingBear

8 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

How AI artists will be demonstrating their skillsets as a AI-Master-artist..

?

[Danioover9000]

@illusory

7 hours ago, illusory said:

@Leo Gura

PS. I do agree that AI can be used as a tool by established/skilled artist, for generating ideas, colour themes, inspiration.

None of that is my concern, or my argument.

People like you who have not taken years and training in this sector of digital painting or art, who think they are artist now because they have AI auto completeing artwork with mere words is the problem.

I think AI should take 95% of the credit and 5% credit for the word prompts the user has put in, that would be plenty generous enough.

If someone makes money from AI art, i personally feel that 95% of the profits should go to the AI and its creators, as they pretty much did most of the work. I think the AI creators are being too generous they should milk those usage policy to show who the real boss is.

   I think it's specifically who gets the credits, and as long as the images generated are properly credited to whoever made each image that was used in the program. That could mean thousands of artists, but that's only fair as the A.I didn't generate the images, but taken them from an open source of images. I'm more concerned if there's potential theft or copywrite issue with using samples of images.

[Danioover9000]

On 14/09/2022 at 8:33 PM, Scholar said:

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art, which could very well lead to a temporary degradation of the evolutionary process of art, because of how much time investment it takes to get to a point to evolve art, and because these AI's are not capable of generating genuinely novel styles in the way humans can.

 

Again, AI = Visualization, not Art Creation. There is a big difference and one should contemplate it. Just to understand how art evolves in fields like animation for example, I can recommend the book Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life.

   I like the contrasts and comparisons of the two quotes here.

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Such nonsense.

It's a tool! Like any other tool in a master's toolbox.

   I think we need to be more specific in what we mean as art. Me, and users here against over use of A.I image programs, firstly when I say 'art' I specifically mean, in this context, images that contain, symbolic and use marks from pencils, 2h up to 9b grade, colouring pencils either oil based or waxed based, ballpoint/rollerball/gel pens, black and coloured ink, fine liners from 0.005mm to 2.0mm. Soft and oil Pastels, black/white and coloured, brush pens to shaped markers. I expected, and artist, and also a drawer, to also be familiar with all the art fundamentals wether the experience ranges between months to years per area of drawing. That's the standard I have when someone says artist and has any identify to drawing, and because I love both the classical/orthodox forms of drawing, to the modern forms of drawing like digital art and animation, along with many drawing genres ranging from realistic to semi realistic, and like both the resulting image made and the slow to moderate pace of the draeing process. This is likely why I have an aversion to A.I generating images from simple prompts, as that cuts out radically the majority of the process of drawing an image up. I can see for the sake of convenience and utility, with someone whose not identified as an artist and whose role is different to a drawer, that is justifiable in thier eyes. But to my eyes, it's misuse and cope if you think you are drawing with merely prompting.

   Life has tradeoffs, art is no exception to this rule. There's more convenience but less joy, and more joy but less convenience.

21 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

Honestly, I don't think inputting a prompt and sifting through generated images makes one an artist anymore than google-searching two rabbits fucking makes you a biologist.

Just my hot take.

 

[Danioover9000]

   This a pretty good video on A.I. programs:

 

[Leo Gura]

On 9/15/2022 at 0:01 AM, TheAlchemist said:

Ok got it, fair point. Creativity is making novel connections.

What about that which is the "first" thing imagined? Is there a mode of imagination that isn't inspired by anything?

"First" itself is imaginary. Imagination is eternal and endless, so it has no first.

On 9/15/2022 at 4:42 AM, Scholar said:

Sure it's a tool, but the unwise will use to the detriment of their own craft. Looking at the most recent thumbnail for your video as an example.

Sounds like you are just bitter and afraid.

Quote

It does seem like you are jumping onto it just for the sake of jumping onto it, rather than actually asking yourself whether it improved the quality of your art.

No, I jumped on it because for a long time I was looking for a way to generate unique and abstract images which cannot be found on any stock photo site. And I cannot afford to pay $1000 to an artist per thumbnail.

Quote

Yes, but human visual art is not inspired by mere visual information, and that's all the AI could possibly do. That's it biggest limitation, it has no unified, multidimensional, "self-aware" consciousness that is capable of understanding. It does not know what it is creating.

I'm sure you could make a neural network that can be fed input from music, film, games, books, and any other medium you can think of. But even if you couldn't, this art is no less art if it only comes from static image sources. An AI can hold a bigger diversity of images in its network than your brain can, therefore it can actually be more creative than you.

You are falling in the trap of double standards. You give your own neural network a free pass, but then nitpick the mechanics of non-biological neural networks.

Quote

The human mind is not a neural network, rather neural networks are part of it. Having a very reductionist view of creativity will of course make you think the AI is doing the same the human is doing, but that's simply not the case. It does seem to me like you have not contemplated this in depth.

Or maybe you haven't.

On 9/15/2022 at 4:56 AM, illusory said:

I'm going to steal your content and rehash it and call myself a self improvement guru.

That's what most of the self-help industry is.

Quote

Imagine someone having this amazing portfolio of artwork on their website but then they can't sketch anything with pencil on paper to any decent ability. Imposter syndrome actualized.

Imagine someone using a computer and not even knowing how to write assembly language? What an imposter! Computers should only be for programmers, not imposters like you.

Quote

Tracing is a tool, yet it is frowned upon, did you know most traditional art schools don't allow you to trace?

Even the best artist say you should only trace once your have mastered the ability to draw without tracing. Contemplate why the masters say that maybe?

You got your ego all wrapped up in this.

On 9/15/2022 at 7:10 AM, illusory said:

@Leo Gura

People like you who have not taken years and training in this sector of digital painting or art, who think they are artist now because they have AI auto completeing artwork with mere words is the problem.

I've always been an artist. Whether you consider me one is not my problem. My art speaks for itself.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sounds like you are just bitter and afraid.

I don't sound like anything, I think you just like the role of being the smartass teacher so you usually interpret what others write as uncharitably as possible so you can find in it something to criticize, at least on this forum I have noticed this a lot. You want to see me as bitter and afraid because you enjoy being a smartass Leo.

 

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I jumped on it because for a long time I was looking for a way to generate unique and abstract images which cannot be found on any stock photo site. And I cannot afford to pay $1000 to an artist per thumbnail.

But why? The images you picked are of far higher quality than this image you generated, nor is this one actually unique. Just look at it, it's not even coherent in terms of what it displays. Everyone and their mother will be using Ai for thumbnails and it's going to get old very quickly, whereas the images you usually choose I found had a certain design coherence and style that fit your brand and made it unique. I definitely think this was a downgrade not an upgrade. Especially Midjourney, I am not sure if you have worked enough with it to notice that it has a very specific style. And you can just immediately tell that it is a Midjourney image.

In my view the images you used before were perfectly fine. I would recommend using stable diffusion or some other AI though to avoid the obvious problem with the style recognition.

 

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm sure you could make a neural network that can be fed input from music, film, games, books, and any other medium you can think of. But even if you couldn't, this art is no less art if it only comes from static image sources. An AI can hold a bigger diversity of images in its network than your brain can, therefore it can actually be more creative than you.

You are falling in the trap of double standards. You give your own neural network a free pass, but then nitpick the mechanics of non-biological neural networks.

No I'm not, you are being uncharitable towards my position again. I don't think you have contemplated these topics deeply enough to even have a stance, you just want to sound provocative. It's like you are not even reading what I wrote.

You have a reductionist and unsophisticated notion of creativity in my opinion. But I doubt you are open to even have a serious conversation about this. Contemplate the difference between creativity and mind's eye activity/visualization.

Also, ponder this: If you give these neural networks only photos, will they ever be capable of generating something like a Disney cartoon style, by giving it some sort of prompt? Why are humans capable of evolving from realistic images towards abstract style's like a Disney style? There are clear answers to these questions, and if you contemplate this you will realize what the differences are. It fundamentally has to do with consciousness.

 

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Or maybe you haven't.

I have, your notions of art and creativity however are reductionist and one-dimensional.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

14 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't sound like anything, I think you just like the role of being the smartass teacher so you usually interpret what others write as uncharitably as possible so you can find in it something to criticize, at least on this forum I have noticed this a lot. You want to see me as bitter and afraid because you enjoy being a smartass Leo.

 

But why? The images you picked are of far higher quality than this image you generated, nor is this one actually unique. Just look at it, it's not even coherent in terms of what it displays. Everyone and their mother will be using Ai for thumbnails and it's going to get old very quickly, whereas the images you usually choose I found had a certain design coherence and style that fit your brand and made it unique. I definitely think this was a downgrade not an upgrade. Especially Midjourney, I am not sure if you have worked enough with it to notice that it has a very specific style. And you can just immediately tell that it is a Midjourney image.

In my view the images you used before were perfectly fine. I would recommend using stable diffusion or some other AI though to avoid the obvious problem with the style recognition.

 

No I'm not, you are being uncharitable towards my position again. I don't think you have contemplated these topics deeply enough to even have a stance, you just want to sound provocative. It's like you are not even reading what I wrote.

You have a reductionist and unsophisticated notion of creativity in my opinion. But I doubt you are open to even have a serious conversation about this. Contemplate the difference between creativity and mind's eye activity/visualization.

Also, ponder this: If you give these neural networks only photos, will they ever be capable of generating something like a Disney cartoon style, by giving it some sort of prompt? Why are humans capable of evolving from realistic images towards abstract style's like a Disney style? There are clear answers to these questions, and if you contemplate this you will realize what the differences are. It fundamentally has to do with consciousness.

 

I have, your notions of art and creativity however are reductionist and one-dimensional.

 

 

   At this point, we need to give this technology a few more years to see how it might impact graphic designer careers, and whether these increases laziness to draw stuff.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Also, ponder this: If you give these neural networks only photos, will they ever be capable of generating something like a Disney cartoon style, by giving it some sort of prompt? Why are humans capable of evolving from realistic images towards abstract style's like a Disney style? There are clear answers to these questions...

Give it some time and they will be able to.

The technology just came online this year and you're already demonizing it without giving it a chance.

It's as if a child brought you his painting and you told him, "This isn't real art. You just copied some stuff from a photograph and it's nothing as creative as Disney. Get out of here you hack."

The clear answer is that human artists are still way more complex and better trained than AI. For now.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Leo Gura

[TimStr]

Here are some more interesting points:

1) Computer generated art existed for years. Don’t you guys remember google deep dream? The only thing is, that this technologies became way easier to access to non programmers this year because of advanced language models that can interpret human language and translate them into code. 

2) There will still be artists and there will still be art. Heck, your artwork could even be to create another artist, like Mario Klingemann did with Botto.

https://www.botto.com/

Botto is a non human artist (or just a program, if you don’t give credit to non human beings) that creates AI generated artworks based on feedback of a human community. It mints the most upvoted ones as NFT and sells them online to finance its server and infrastructure costs. 

Also, Check this article:

https://www.stirworld.com/see-features-german-artist-mario-klingemann-on-his-creation-botto-an-nft-revolution

[TimStr]

And there is also Av3ry.

Av3ry is an AI musician. She has generated over 10.000 songs so far. She renders images of herself to her instagram. And you can chat with her on telegram. 

 

[TimStr]

The point is personification. What is the standard you use to credit personhood or beinghood to something?

Actually, little children do this all the time. They treat their plushies or their toys just like other people. One of the functional definitions of „child“ is „one that attibutes beingness/personhood to all humans and nonhuman objects alike, without any bias“. At some point, we unlearn this.

It actually has to be unlearned for the social matrix to emerge. Some humans unlearn this to a point where they don’t even credit personhood to other humans (e.g. slaves).

[Danioover9000]

   Play around with them if you want, but I am not going anywhere near these programs, the thought of my catalogue of images I've spent work in being used without my knowledge is enough. Any artist, especial those who draw and create images, with high self-respect would not stoop that low, sorry.

[mmKay]

Fucking nuts

 

 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Give it some time and they will be able to.

The technology just came online this year and you're already demonizing it without giving it a chance.

It's as if a child brought you his painting and you told him, "This isn't real art. You just copied some stuff from a photograph and it's nothing as creative as Disney. Get out of here you hack."

The clear answer is that human artists are still way more complex and better trained than AI. For now.

I am not demonizing it at all, I am giving it a chance. But understanding the technology for what it is, is important.

My point is that if you were to engage and contemplate this topic more seriously, I think you would realize that the AI's are not doing what humans do during creativity, it's not the same process. They are doing something akin to what the human brain uses during visualization, mind's eye activity and dreaming (altho still far less sophisticated and lacking in coherence because of the inherent limitation of the physical hardware of computers).

The AI will never understand what it is creating, that's simply not what the AI is doing.

 

While it may appear that when the human says "2+2=4" in his mind is the same as what the calculator does when you type in that equation, it is not the same at all. And because the processes used are not the same, is the precise reason why the calculator is so much more efficient at what it is doing. Because the human is not doing the same, the result merely is the same.

I don't know how you are not seeing this with the amount of consciousness work you did, but the reason why the AI will not be able to do the same thing as humans is because it has no unified, multidimensional consciousness. And it's not because the software lacks, but because the nature of the computer in it's physical manifestation is fundamentally different from the brain.

Here is a good article:

https://www.unite.ai/is-dall-e-2-just-gluing-things-together-without-understanding-their-relationships/

It cannot understand relationships, because relationships are an aspect of perception. The AI does not perceive, it simply ruins a physical process.

 

The AI is not merely lacking in complexity or training, the AI is not at all. And that's why it is not capable of understanding what an apple is, what a hand is, what a human is, what anything is. All it does is fart out images based on intuitive visualization. It will never know what it is creating, and that is why this is fundamentally different from human creativity.

The irony here is that, even though a 4 year olds drawing will be far less sophisticated than what an AI would create, the child's art would be the result of perception, not computation.

 

I can see a cat once, and if I perceived it correctly, I will be able to understand all it's components visually speaking. An AI will never understand what a cat is, all it does is create shapes that look like millions of images it was fed with the tag "cat". The AI will make mistakes that no 4 year old would ever make, like attach to a cat 2 tails, give it 5 legs and so forth, after having been fed millions of images of cats. This does not happen when humans create images, even if the images they create are far less sophisticated. This is because the human creates from true perception, from actual understanding. The human actually knows why 2+2 is 4, the calculator does not. All it does is display the results, which then are interpreted by humans. The human will immediately know when the calculator is wrong, when it says 2+2=5, and the same way, the human immediately knows what about these images is flawed, whereas the AI has no way of ever possibly knowing that, because it has no knowledge.

 

 

Another limitation is that the AI has no spatial perception. It could not possibly know what a cat is, because a cat is a 3 dimensional entity. All the AI can do is generate 2d images, being fed flat images. This is why AI's often lack coherence when object disappear behind other objects. They could not possibly know what is behind an object, because all that exists to the AI is a flat space. Well, all of that presuming the AI was actually conscious, which it is not.

 

 

My stance is that the human brain is not merely more sophisticated than a computer, it is pulling from completely different natural forces, inaccessible to computers in the way they exist today. The brain functions as one unity, feeding multiple dimensions of existence into one field of awareness. What forces are at work behind this are probably so foreign to us that we might have to invent entirely new scientific disciplines to investigate them. It's not merely physics, and one day we will realize this, and by that time, all technology that will exist today will seem like stone age technology. We will not merely make better computers, we will create something completely beyond computers. Computers in contrast will look like abacuses, and technology will look more like organic matter than contemporary computers.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Scholar

[illusory]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Imagine someone using a computer and not even knowing how to write assembly language? What an imposter! Computers should only be for programmers, not imposters like you.

Except when you use a computer and art software the canvas is blank, its just a digital version of a blank canvas. You don't offload EVERYTHING to an AI to create artwork for you. You simply not getting this.

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You got your ego all wrapped up in this

Don't bring up strawman ego debates.

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I've always been an artist. Whether you consider me one is not my problem. My art speaks for itself.

I don't care if you consider your video's art, it's no different than someone taking a dump in a toilet and calling it art, im not going to debate your loose term of "art". I don't mean contemporary art either where someone sticks a banana to a wall (that goes back to a turd in a bowl being art).

When i say ART i mean traditonal art, as in drawings, paintings, sculpture, which can all be done in a digital medium.

AI art is mimicking drawings and paintings and doing all the work. It is not some other field of art, like contemporary art.

You are not an artist in that sense,

If you think you're an artist in that sense for making an AI do all the work for you, whilst you can't sketch to any acceptable professional level, you should really, really stop being disrespectful to real artists.

You're also being a hypocrite, I remember you've bashed on people in your previous videos for trying to mimic your videos in the past.

Edited September 17, 2022 by illusory

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, illusory said:

Except when you use a computer and art software the canvas is blank, its just a digital version of a blank canvas. You don't offload EVERYTHING to an AI to create artwork for you. You simply not getting this.

Why should you be allowed to use a computer AT ALL, since you are not a programmer? What right do you have?

I am done debating you guys on art.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Leo Gura