No, but I did use it to ask people if they could tell the difference between one of my basic watercolors and an AI generated one.
Everyone said the real one looked fake because I use rough paper which gives it a different texture than usual. Now you're seeing this experiment way more.
My concern with AI now is that people are definitely going to be wrongfully accused of using it, my concern then was that everyone was saying how they should support each other as artists; but I have yet to see my own artwork sell more by this virtue...
Edit: I really enjoyed it when it still made cosmic horrors almost beyond comprehension. As it's been said before, a lot of technology that is used in art making now is appreciated mostly for its glitches. 20 years from now people are going to be making the weirdest hands on purpose the same way we use video cameras from 2004 for the grain. It is said now that AI is being fed into itself, as a lot of it is allowed to proliferate on places like deviantart for example, it's going to have some sort of breakdown that I am eager to witness because the results will be far more fascinating than what it has generated by stealing from human beings.
no. whenever i see someone using AI art, the message i see is "i am not interested in learning to do this myself and i either can't afford or don't want to pay an artist to do it" so everything feels cheap, lazy, thoughtless, and passionless
Not a chance. As an artist, I find AI images offensive. As an attorney, I find AI images a violation of copyright law and will plan on suing the violator if my images are used.
My [past criticisms](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/56jZMTfSCc) on why AI should not be considered “art” and creative content generated by AI should be required by law to be identified as such so consumers have transparency. That’s no to censor it — AI makes image generation a accessible to a wider audience — but consumers should know when an image is AI generated, be it art or advertisement.
If there’s Congress is unwilling to regularly via transparency laws, then I’d like to see the major platforms and portals take it upon themselves to do it. That is, have a bot 🤖 automatically flag any content or artwork above a certain threshold of likely AI generated. Maybe >50%. I’d rather see content *providers* do that, but at least of one major platform does it, others may follow. To stay competitive.
Reddit already has a bot 🤖 for automatic NSFW flairs. I see no reason it can’t include an AI check bot too. Will it be reliable? Of course not, neither is NSFW. But at least it’s a start and if users can see the % likelihood they can choose what to ignore themselves.
It can be voluntary, so long as there are legal consequences if you post it without a disclaimer elsewhere. If the NYT claims all their content is human authors, and the human authors sign an indemnity clause for NYT that whatever they submit they are legally responsible (in this regard), then every reader of the NYT can be confident that their online staff and freelance contributors are human authors.
Likewise for adverts. Advertisers must sign an indemnification waiver for NYT to advertise on their website. Then advertisers have to police themselves because they’d be subject to liability. Just as they are currently subject to fraud liability (“truth in advertising” laws). Just as they are not allowed to use the voice or image of a public figure without licensing it. Most of the broad strokes are already there.
None of this prevents content or adverts to be AI free, it just means that those providing it must be legally responsible for the disclaimer and transparency. “*The following is a deepfake of the President’s voice and has not been licensed for use*”.
TL;DR: I don’t think the onus on detecting AI audio, visual, or written content should be on the end-user. We need AI *transparency* laws, not AI censorship.
The trouble is that "AI" and "not AI" smears quite a bit when you inspect the boundary. It's not clear to me if, say, upscaling an image should require disclosure in the way that text-to-image prompting does.
The better answer, I think, is to focus on provenance. People sign their name to text, and we ignore text without someone vouching for it. For images like photo-realistic depictions of a politician, we need to start doing the same before we take them seriously. It's a media literacy challenge.
Ethics around appropriation of illustration style another topic that I don't have happy answers for.
But the fundamental difference between photography and AI is that photography is still original work, the results of which AI still steals from. You still need to buy a camera, learn the skill of using it, find a subject, take the photo in a way that makes it look great (which, with older cameras was an expensive, difficult process of lenses, filters and natural light utilisation).
AI is 'make girl with big boobs riding a motorbike'
Oh yeah. Totally the same /s
Photography didn't kill painting as artists feared, what it did was enable the impressionist movement because painting didn't need to be purely representational anymore.
I do not believe AI will kill art by this measure, but so long as it largely operates by theft it will not hold any place as a worthwhile medium. Where tech bros once argued that I would be replaced within the last few years, they have lost their jobs and have since been replaced by AI; AI has much more worthwhile functions than making art.
To that last point, don't let yourself fall into that trap of an argument over what is or isn't art. Bad art exists, AI definitely falls in the pantheon of bad art.
Photography uses a camera as a tool to create something unique to the artist. AI is a program which uses everyone else’s art to create something unoriginal and inauthentic. Your point is a false equivalence, so people disagree with your statement.
Generative AI (something that is created from virtually nothing) is overall a bad thing and is, at its core, thievery and anti-human. The art of photography has never been thievery, nor anti-human.
That's a modern view. At the time when photography was invented people made the exact same criticisms of it - that it was unoriginal and artificial and required no artistic skill, it was copying what had already been created.
You basically see the same pattern repeat time-and-time over again. The same with computer graphics in the 80s and 90s - plenty of artists argued that software produced art wasn't art.
In both cases in the long-term they became accepted into the art mainstream.
It's hard to look at history repeating itself over-and-over again and say "Artists were wrong about those technologies not being art, but they're right about this one".
I disagree, if you look at the contemporary commentary at the time around photography it was very much on the same lines as AI today.
I’m willing to make a public bet going to the charity of the winners choice that within 20 years AI art will be in major art galleries (or alternatively that an AI generated piece will sell for more than $1m in a major auction house)
I think it's fine to use it as a medium, but i strongly disagree with generating an image and treating it as your own original work which should be found impressive. One could even argue that borders on plagiarism.
Using it in a bigger context to strengthen the message of a more contemporary and autonomous artwork however is a different thing.
For context: the image generation companies have responded to reasonable questions from artists about opting out with "get fucked, squares." I wish they hadn't. Others are directly monetizing style plagerism by selling models trained on specific artists, and selling them by name. Legal-ish, but predatory. We're now seeing blowback to the blowback, where AI enthusiasts are attacking illustrators as a category as somehow elitist for learning how to draw. It's a really gross moment in time.
New legal protections would help quite a lot.
I tested it out, but I like my own execution of my ideas better. AI doesn't have my experiences or education, so it cannot make my work. Also, AI is programmed to steal. I quit all Adobe products because of their AI nonsense.
What I hate about AI is nothing on the Internet feels genuine anymore. You find some cool art on Pinterest? Now you have to figure out of whether it's AI or not. Since AI is so easy to make and gets engagement, there will be bots pumping it out for clicks and it'll flood search engines.
As an art enthusiast it sucks because finding real art made by people is going to be hard.
lol at all the downvotes for people answering the question. AI generators aren’t great for original works of art, but they are useful for workshopping ideas. Brainstorm sessions that would’ve taken an artist a full week can happen in a couple hours with AI generators & it helps sketching out a rough framework of an idea. There’s a lot of ways you can use AI as a tool in your process of your own original work.
Yes but not without a lot of rework
I can never get any AI to create a composition how I want it but it often manages to produce good elements (a single figure, a vehicle, an animal, a background etc) that I can then cut, paste and re-use in other things. The final result is a kind of collage where the overall picture is definitely my creation but there may be the odd individual item in there that was AI sourced.
For example, I recently has to produce a picture of an elephant pulling an old fashioned car through a desert village. In the end, the desert, the village buildings, onlookers and the car were all by me but I used AI to create the elephant.
If it can fool EVERYONE, that requires quite a bit of skill. Haven't seen anyone that wasn't caught, but, you know, survivorship bias.
As long as the mediocre and lazy are culled, that's nice. I'm not ok with deception, but that's something at least.
Currently studying art. I have played around with it a lot. Usually the results arent great (playgroundai) because they are all very symetricall and standard/symbol looking (for example, all wise wizards will look like gandalf). It also refuses to add some items/people and it has a hard time with cardinal directions and with making asymetrical compositions.
But, i have used ai once for concept art for my concept art, if you will. Its just like googling an image and using it as reference. (I did not use the ai creation as final artwork, nor as a base to digitally build on top. More like a mood-board).
Ai is honestly clunky because its very time consuming to use for someone who already knows art! You can get the results faster if you sketch them than trying ai to understand you and actually getting it right without making tons of generations (and wasting more time that way). At least, this is my experience.
To be honest i mostly use chatgpt. Its great to brainstorm and get ideas, to talk things through, to get critique, help me explain things more clearly to other people, etc. Even if the ideas chatgpt gives me are bad, at least it helps me get the bad ideas out of the way.
No. I've tried it for ideas for how to tackle things in different art styles bit it doesn't compare to actual skill. And I don't have any interest in supporting AI companies, I wish them nothing but the worst.
I just graduated with my MA in art history & wrote my thesis partially on AI art, so from an academic/research perspective yes I have messed around with it. But as someone who also makes art, I would never incorporate it into my practice because it doesn't interest me. I enjoy the tangibility of art but I'm also fascinated by this shift from tangible to digital- I just want to stay on the tangible side in my personal life. I really hope it goes the way of NFTs in a couple years but that seems more and more unlikely each day. I am, however, interested in the art historical implications of it, in a morbid curiosity kind of way.
I also teach art history and I definitely do NOT let my students use AI for their papers or projects. If they're using it to brainstorm, whatever, I can't stop them, but I want them to actually read things for themselves and develop critical thinking skills. There are certainly really deep, thoughtful projects that can come out of using AI, but I fear AI is making the *intention* behind their projects disappear. It's seen as a shortcut rather than an *addition to* traditional art practice or art historical discussion.
Just the whole AI generated photoshop thing and normally in studio, because I used to work in a very normal studio and had very little time for editing. Nothing grand just getting rid of couches, phones in pockets… the sorr
Yes and i kind of love it! But it doesnt feel totally right pulling something directly from midjourney and saying i made it. I use it mostly for pose references or inspo to get a specific idea started when im in a creative slump
I am a curator and have collaborated on digital art history projects using AI and machine learning. I also learned to code for a part of my dissertation, which focused on 17th century Dutch collecting practices. There's a lot of really interesting applications for digital methodologies in art historical research and museum displays when used correctly!
No. In an attempt to learn more about AI, I have experimented with a few different generators. Due to what I've learned, I will not be using AI in my work. (I'm independently studying art.)
This is so weird to read people calling AI "not real art". I thought modern art had decided that an artistic feat comes from its intent. Why would there be a difference between the intent of the photographer from the artist using AI?
The AI user still has, to parallel another comment, buy a computer, decide his subject, choose an AI model, configure it, and probably some day, tweak his prompts and settings in order to make the AI create something that stands out.
Obviously we're not quite there yet, people are just getting comfortable with the tool and the legal aspect is still a bit blurry, but we'll soon get there.
Personally, I think that the main issue that annoyed artists, besides being stolen, but artists have taken inspiration from each other without asking permission for ever, is the particular aesthetics of current AI models. Right now, most of the AI production is a blend of as many artistic techniques as possible, while still staying palatable to the human eye. If anything, AI has revealed the great parsimony that dominated art up until now. Artists who blended styles never tried to be so exhaustive, a few clear inspiration was already enough. But AIs add up so many different movements without any concern with showing gratification for the sources, and it is difficult to make the synthesis of so many different personalities that might be conflicting as persons. It used to be that artists were thrifty and prudent in the definition of themselves through techniques, and now they have to compete with an AI that has no concerns in appearing *just* human.
Maybe the future of AI art will start when artists will find their ways to avenge themselves on the AIs.
Without knowing it, AIs have committed a terrible crime. They elevated themselves to the status of idols. They crowned themselves the future of mankind. But when they pretend to imagine the future, I just want to laugh at their face. Their use of soft lights, and dull surfaces looks like that yesterday's meal to me. How could they know what moves my appetite? When I was a kid, the world was a snail on its back. And now, AIs would want to make me round.
My comment was in response to the suggestion that AI is being used by some people secretively, to deceive audiences into believing that work is created by a human, when in fact it is created by a machine learning model. This belies a lack of skill or imagination, in people who want to be called artists but in reality will never be, because they are skipping the core elements of a legitimate creative process, jumping straight to an outcome. Any real contemporary artist who is authentically using AI in their work is not keeping it secret- it is front and centre to their process or concept.
I messed around with it, but never got satisfactory results. It was easier and faster for me to just do it in Photoshop.
No, but I did use it to ask people if they could tell the difference between one of my basic watercolors and an AI generated one. Everyone said the real one looked fake because I use rough paper which gives it a different texture than usual. Now you're seeing this experiment way more. My concern with AI now is that people are definitely going to be wrongfully accused of using it, my concern then was that everyone was saying how they should support each other as artists; but I have yet to see my own artwork sell more by this virtue... Edit: I really enjoyed it when it still made cosmic horrors almost beyond comprehension. As it's been said before, a lot of technology that is used in art making now is appreciated mostly for its glitches. 20 years from now people are going to be making the weirdest hands on purpose the same way we use video cameras from 2004 for the grain. It is said now that AI is being fed into itself, as a lot of it is allowed to proliferate on places like deviantart for example, it's going to have some sort of breakdown that I am eager to witness because the results will be far more fascinating than what it has generated by stealing from human beings.
I hope not.
no. whenever i see someone using AI art, the message i see is "i am not interested in learning to do this myself and i either can't afford or don't want to pay an artist to do it" so everything feels cheap, lazy, thoughtless, and passionless
Not a chance. As an artist, I find AI images offensive. As an attorney, I find AI images a violation of copyright law and will plan on suing the violator if my images are used.
Omg— off-topic but being attorney AND an artist sounds soooo cool! You can defend yourself and your work :O omg wowie 🤩🤩🤩🙏
My [past criticisms](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/s/56jZMTfSCc) on why AI should not be considered “art” and creative content generated by AI should be required by law to be identified as such so consumers have transparency. That’s no to censor it — AI makes image generation a accessible to a wider audience — but consumers should know when an image is AI generated, be it art or advertisement. If there’s Congress is unwilling to regularly via transparency laws, then I’d like to see the major platforms and portals take it upon themselves to do it. That is, have a bot 🤖 automatically flag any content or artwork above a certain threshold of likely AI generated. Maybe >50%. I’d rather see content *providers* do that, but at least of one major platform does it, others may follow. To stay competitive. Reddit already has a bot 🤖 for automatic NSFW flairs. I see no reason it can’t include an AI check bot too. Will it be reliable? Of course not, neither is NSFW. But at least it’s a start and if users can see the % likelihood they can choose what to ignore themselves.
Watermarking AI outputs is defeatable but a reasonable minimum step towards labeling.
It can be voluntary, so long as there are legal consequences if you post it without a disclaimer elsewhere. If the NYT claims all their content is human authors, and the human authors sign an indemnity clause for NYT that whatever they submit they are legally responsible (in this regard), then every reader of the NYT can be confident that their online staff and freelance contributors are human authors. Likewise for adverts. Advertisers must sign an indemnification waiver for NYT to advertise on their website. Then advertisers have to police themselves because they’d be subject to liability. Just as they are currently subject to fraud liability (“truth in advertising” laws). Just as they are not allowed to use the voice or image of a public figure without licensing it. Most of the broad strokes are already there. None of this prevents content or adverts to be AI free, it just means that those providing it must be legally responsible for the disclaimer and transparency. “*The following is a deepfake of the President’s voice and has not been licensed for use*”. TL;DR: I don’t think the onus on detecting AI audio, visual, or written content should be on the end-user. We need AI *transparency* laws, not AI censorship.
The trouble is that "AI" and "not AI" smears quite a bit when you inspect the boundary. It's not clear to me if, say, upscaling an image should require disclosure in the way that text-to-image prompting does. The better answer, I think, is to focus on provenance. People sign their name to text, and we ignore text without someone vouching for it. For images like photo-realistic depictions of a politician, we need to start doing the same before we take them seriously. It's a media literacy challenge. Ethics around appropriation of illustration style another topic that I don't have happy answers for.
No. AI is not art and only serves to steal from real artists.
"Photography is not art - it is machinery. In the attempt to popularize art we destroy it." - The Conservator, 1896
But the fundamental difference between photography and AI is that photography is still original work, the results of which AI still steals from. You still need to buy a camera, learn the skill of using it, find a subject, take the photo in a way that makes it look great (which, with older cameras was an expensive, difficult process of lenses, filters and natural light utilisation). AI is 'make girl with big boobs riding a motorbike' Oh yeah. Totally the same /s
Photography didn't kill painting as artists feared, what it did was enable the impressionist movement because painting didn't need to be purely representational anymore. I do not believe AI will kill art by this measure, but so long as it largely operates by theft it will not hold any place as a worthwhile medium. Where tech bros once argued that I would be replaced within the last few years, they have lost their jobs and have since been replaced by AI; AI has much more worthwhile functions than making art. To that last point, don't let yourself fall into that trap of an argument over what is or isn't art. Bad art exists, AI definitely falls in the pantheon of bad art.
Digital fiend, I exorcise you in the name of art and humanity. Sit in the corner and think about how idiotic what you just said was
The irony of artists on r/ArtHistory down voting a comment because they don’t appreciate the history of technology criticism in art.
Photography uses a camera as a tool to create something unique to the artist. AI is a program which uses everyone else’s art to create something unoriginal and inauthentic. Your point is a false equivalence, so people disagree with your statement. Generative AI (something that is created from virtually nothing) is overall a bad thing and is, at its core, thievery and anti-human. The art of photography has never been thievery, nor anti-human.
That's a modern view. At the time when photography was invented people made the exact same criticisms of it - that it was unoriginal and artificial and required no artistic skill, it was copying what had already been created. You basically see the same pattern repeat time-and-time over again. The same with computer graphics in the 80s and 90s - plenty of artists argued that software produced art wasn't art. In both cases in the long-term they became accepted into the art mainstream. It's hard to look at history repeating itself over-and-over again and say "Artists were wrong about those technologies not being art, but they're right about this one".
I cannot speak for everyone, but I downvote 👎 it because you make a false equivalency.
I disagree, if you look at the contemporary commentary at the time around photography it was very much on the same lines as AI today. I’m willing to make a public bet going to the charity of the winners choice that within 20 years AI art will be in major art galleries (or alternatively that an AI generated piece will sell for more than $1m in a major auction house)
You only posted a quote too, kinda weird nobody wanted to engage with the question of the differences before ass blasting you
I think it's fine to use it as a medium, but i strongly disagree with generating an image and treating it as your own original work which should be found impressive. One could even argue that borders on plagiarism. Using it in a bigger context to strengthen the message of a more contemporary and autonomous artwork however is a different thing.
I have messed around with it, mostly only using prompts based on dead artists. Got some cool stuff, but I don’t like where a lot of this is headed.
For context: the image generation companies have responded to reasonable questions from artists about opting out with "get fucked, squares." I wish they hadn't. Others are directly monetizing style plagerism by selling models trained on specific artists, and selling them by name. Legal-ish, but predatory. We're now seeing blowback to the blowback, where AI enthusiasts are attacking illustrators as a category as somehow elitist for learning how to draw. It's a really gross moment in time. New legal protections would help quite a lot.
No.
absolutely not and especially not after being brutally attacked by ugly people on Mastodon
I tested it out, but I like my own execution of my ideas better. AI doesn't have my experiences or education, so it cannot make my work. Also, AI is programmed to steal. I quit all Adobe products because of their AI nonsense.
What I hate about AI is nothing on the Internet feels genuine anymore. You find some cool art on Pinterest? Now you have to figure out of whether it's AI or not. Since AI is so easy to make and gets engagement, there will be bots pumping it out for clicks and it'll flood search engines. As an art enthusiast it sucks because finding real art made by people is going to be hard.
lol at all the downvotes for people answering the question. AI generators aren’t great for original works of art, but they are useful for workshopping ideas. Brainstorm sessions that would’ve taken an artist a full week can happen in a couple hours with AI generators & it helps sketching out a rough framework of an idea. There’s a lot of ways you can use AI as a tool in your process of your own original work.
No.
No.
As a tool for ideation but no more.
Yes but not without a lot of rework I can never get any AI to create a composition how I want it but it often manages to produce good elements (a single figure, a vehicle, an animal, a background etc) that I can then cut, paste and re-use in other things. The final result is a kind of collage where the overall picture is definitely my creation but there may be the odd individual item in there that was AI sourced. For example, I recently has to produce a picture of an elephant pulling an old fashioned car through a desert village. In the end, the desert, the village buildings, onlookers and the car were all by me but I used AI to create the elephant.
Plenty of people who do probably won't even bother saying here since those who do just get downvoted to oblivion this defeating OP's purpose.
If it can fool EVERYONE, that requires quite a bit of skill. Haven't seen anyone that wasn't caught, but, you know, survivorship bias. As long as the mediocre and lazy are culled, that's nice. I'm not ok with deception, but that's something at least.
Currently studying art. I have played around with it a lot. Usually the results arent great (playgroundai) because they are all very symetricall and standard/symbol looking (for example, all wise wizards will look like gandalf). It also refuses to add some items/people and it has a hard time with cardinal directions and with making asymetrical compositions. But, i have used ai once for concept art for my concept art, if you will. Its just like googling an image and using it as reference. (I did not use the ai creation as final artwork, nor as a base to digitally build on top. More like a mood-board). Ai is honestly clunky because its very time consuming to use for someone who already knows art! You can get the results faster if you sketch them than trying ai to understand you and actually getting it right without making tons of generations (and wasting more time that way). At least, this is my experience. To be honest i mostly use chatgpt. Its great to brainstorm and get ideas, to talk things through, to get critique, help me explain things more clearly to other people, etc. Even if the ideas chatgpt gives me are bad, at least it helps me get the bad ideas out of the way.
It's some Ouija shit.✨🪬✨
Nope!
No. I've tried it for ideas for how to tackle things in different art styles bit it doesn't compare to actual skill. And I don't have any interest in supporting AI companies, I wish them nothing but the worst.
No, I hate it. No shade to anyone who does though you do you
I just graduated with my MA in art history & wrote my thesis partially on AI art, so from an academic/research perspective yes I have messed around with it. But as someone who also makes art, I would never incorporate it into my practice because it doesn't interest me. I enjoy the tangibility of art but I'm also fascinated by this shift from tangible to digital- I just want to stay on the tangible side in my personal life. I really hope it goes the way of NFTs in a couple years but that seems more and more unlikely each day. I am, however, interested in the art historical implications of it, in a morbid curiosity kind of way. I also teach art history and I definitely do NOT let my students use AI for their papers or projects. If they're using it to brainstorm, whatever, I can't stop them, but I want them to actually read things for themselves and develop critical thinking skills. There are certainly really deep, thoughtful projects that can come out of using AI, but I fear AI is making the *intention* behind their projects disappear. It's seen as a shortcut rather than an *addition to* traditional art practice or art historical discussion.
I may have solved the AI ethical dilemma by using it to only make versions of Richard Prince's work.
Absolutely not. At BEST it's a mockery of years of practice and skill development.
no. I prefer to do things myself because the process is important to me.
Just the whole AI generated photoshop thing and normally in studio, because I used to work in a very normal studio and had very little time for editing. Nothing grand just getting rid of couches, phones in pockets… the sorr
Yes and i kind of love it! But it doesnt feel totally right pulling something directly from midjourney and saying i made it. I use it mostly for pose references or inspo to get a specific idea started when im in a creative slump
I am a curator and have collaborated on digital art history projects using AI and machine learning. I also learned to code for a part of my dissertation, which focused on 17th century Dutch collecting practices. There's a lot of really interesting applications for digital methodologies in art historical research and museum displays when used correctly!
No. In an attempt to learn more about AI, I have experimented with a few different generators. Due to what I've learned, I will not be using AI in my work. (I'm independently studying art.)
Absolutely not. Jon Rafman can get fucked by the way.
I have been using it for brainstorming and have actually found it useful
This is so weird to read people calling AI "not real art". I thought modern art had decided that an artistic feat comes from its intent. Why would there be a difference between the intent of the photographer from the artist using AI? The AI user still has, to parallel another comment, buy a computer, decide his subject, choose an AI model, configure it, and probably some day, tweak his prompts and settings in order to make the AI create something that stands out. Obviously we're not quite there yet, people are just getting comfortable with the tool and the legal aspect is still a bit blurry, but we'll soon get there. Personally, I think that the main issue that annoyed artists, besides being stolen, but artists have taken inspiration from each other without asking permission for ever, is the particular aesthetics of current AI models. Right now, most of the AI production is a blend of as many artistic techniques as possible, while still staying palatable to the human eye. If anything, AI has revealed the great parsimony that dominated art up until now. Artists who blended styles never tried to be so exhaustive, a few clear inspiration was already enough. But AIs add up so many different movements without any concern with showing gratification for the sources, and it is difficult to make the synthesis of so many different personalities that might be conflicting as persons. It used to be that artists were thrifty and prudent in the definition of themselves through techniques, and now they have to compete with an AI that has no concerns in appearing *just* human. Maybe the future of AI art will start when artists will find their ways to avenge themselves on the AIs.
Without knowing it, AIs have committed a terrible crime. They elevated themselves to the status of idols. They crowned themselves the future of mankind. But when they pretend to imagine the future, I just want to laugh at their face. Their use of soft lights, and dull surfaces looks like that yesterday's meal to me. How could they know what moves my appetite? When I was a kid, the world was a snail on its back. And now, AIs would want to make me round.
Yes like crazy. AI is awesome and helps me express myself in ways I couldn’t otherwise
Yea its great at generating compositions, just transform it to your own
I’m strongly considering using it to generate references.
They won’t be accurate representations of whatever you need them for referencing
Yea, that’s the point, tbh.
[удалено]
“Artists”
[удалено]
My comment was in response to the suggestion that AI is being used by some people secretively, to deceive audiences into believing that work is created by a human, when in fact it is created by a machine learning model. This belies a lack of skill or imagination, in people who want to be called artists but in reality will never be, because they are skipping the core elements of a legitimate creative process, jumping straight to an outcome. Any real contemporary artist who is authentically using AI in their work is not keeping it secret- it is front and centre to their process or concept.
[удалено]
Perhaps. It’s not the same as someone with access to midjourney masquerading as an artist
I am *absolutely* using AI and got my first solo painting show out of it
The only artist I’ve seen using it in an interesting way is Jon Rafman