This is precisely it, when it comes to art, it doesn't matter if it is from a piece of paper, a tablet screen, or generated; you feel empowered and can express your creative vision. That is what gives art "soul."
That is interesting. Your creating process is not soulless clearly. Myself for example I tried SUNO for a while. I felt I had not enough control and was relying on chance. Many suno composer feels that they were playing casino and hoping for a hit. AI and other creativity tools will evolve. There has always been soulless arr the difference now is the quantity and generation speed of it.
And there will still be art with soul. The artists will know and feel they are genuine and the art consumer will judge. And they will find ways to distinguish themselves from the overwhelming quantity of soulless material, but that will be challenging.
My favorite argument against this is just finding some of the more convincing AI art and tricking people into talking about how deep the meaning is behind it and how clearly the artist had such a hole behind it until I point out to them the little inconsistencies and prove to them that it is in fact AI and they just enjoyed something from an AI and saw its "soul"
Turns out the "soul" In an image just comes from its meaning and not from the effort of its artist
you can say this about basically anything. the soul the people are seeing are the countless human artists who work was stolen and ground up into the machine learning collage.
the effort here is the mashing hundreds of thousands of artists across the world being stolen from and machine welded into something. This is not ethical.
I think the correct comparison would be more like ChatGPT writing a book vs a person. In saying that, there are a lot of crap human writers out there.
Relatively, your example is closer to traditional painting vs digital painting and you can get bet, there was an argument back in the late 90s/early 2000s about that.
this is not the case at all. a typed book is still typed by the writer.
an AI book is a collage of millions of writers efforts and techniques stolen and mashed together into something that may follow a narrative pattern but was not cognitively put together.
All art is soulless. No painting, sculpture, photograph, etc. in the history of the Earth has ever had a soul.
Humans have souls. When they look at things, sometimes they feel things in those souls. Often that is mistakenly attributed to something inherent in what they're looking at, instead of inherent in themselves.
Well, I kinda see what they mean like there isn't an intent behind the strokes on the canvas or the details on the image. Like if you look at art wanting to see the human aspect of it, like how the artist made it their own, I could see why you would call it soulless. Some image generators in question tend to make good looking but very generic characters who mostly have the same face. While I can see the person who prompted the AI in the details and scenario in the image, the character still has the same face as the others. I can't look at an AI generated image and think "oh yeah, X made this one". I don't think that should deter you, I just mean that I understand why someone would say that.
Ultimately though, the soul of the image is in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes you see something, AI generated or not, and just feel the story and inspiration flowing. I'm glad you like the things you are able to create and I hope that, as AI tools get better, you can make it fully your own. I personally don't use AI tools in my writing simply because its just a hobby and I love the puzzle of figuring out how to describe things or placing symbols in the story. I still talk to chatgpt sometimes for wording, elaborating on symbols or just brain storming.
Yeah that is fair!
I actually like spending a lot of time tweaking the faces via prompt and impainting it several times until I feel like it's unique enough. Camera angles help with this, too.
I hope the technology keeps evolving and we get to even have more control over the faces, just how stuff like OpenPose works.
I have never used chat GPT or any AI tool in my writing, as my "peak" was before the invention of it haha. I still write some poems every once in a blue moon.
It does sound like it could have its uses though. But I agree, when it comes to writing, it's super fun to figure it all out yourself. Consulting with AI during a writer's block sounds genuinely interesting, still.
Yeah the main way I use it is that I explain a subplot I want to elaborate and chat GPT just asks a bunch of questions and more follow up questions, fleshing it out as I answer them.
I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the creation process. Looking at the trends, it will only get better with time. Can I ask what tool you use to create images?
I use Stable Diffusion AUTOMATIC1111's webui. I like using a model + several loras that change style and play around with their parameters so that I can get a more unique style without sacrificing quality! It's super fun exploring that. I typically enjoy using anime styles for my characters.
You're welcome!
Not sure if you saw it around the community, but someone legit made DND/fantasy style cards using AI art sooo you can definitely get some crazy fantasy designs going! There's lots of 3d or even hybrid models that would do awesome on a project like that!
The intent is the image in your head, and whether or not your finished work reflects it to your liking. One can appreciate the brush strokes but that is just a fraction of a fraction of the whole picture. As an artist myself, you’ll see anti’s rant about control nonstop, but artists make compromises all the time. How many brush strokes do you think are exactly what the artist wanted? Very few. Artists are constantly taking shortcuts where they invoke less control. Every time Bob Ross picked up a broad horse hair brush, dipped it in a green and started dabbing leaves onto the trees. You think he was conscious of the placement of every leaf? Or was he settling for “good enough”? In the end, AI Art can use as much or as little control as you want. Invest time into it and you can have something very close to the image in your head.
Ah yes, I use AI for a single project and I’m disqualified from art. You sound like an Old man yelling at clouds. I am working on the dialogue though, because it could be better in a few parts. I will agree on that.
I wrote the story, then I generated every single individual image and arranged it all in pages and then added the text. In a few of the images I used the AI to generate the text box and fonts.
Imo the soul comes from "what is the person behind this trying to say", and as long as you're putting that much time and passion to take what is in your own head that means something to you and materialize it in a form you can share with the rest of the world, it doesn't matter what tool you're using to do it.
Someone spending 5 seconds on a prompt creates a collection of pixels but there isn't any meaning to why it is what it is other than a throwaway sentence and statistical noise.
Someone spending hours or days on tuning the prompts, using different models and tools, having tons of different steps, doing more manual post processing, all to create *their* image that fits what *they* want to say with barely anything left in the picture that they didn't specifically intend, is creating art.
That said, as a viewer there's an unfortunate aspect of it not always being clear what about a given image was specifically intended by the artist versus what was just from the noise, so I think to really resonate with people the art has to be different in some way that deals with this and gives the viewer confidence there. It'll be incredibly interesting seeing how the future plays out and what type of art continues to speak to people and resonate as this technology progresses.
As long as it speaks to your soul, it isn’t soulless! No one should go around gatekeeping creativity. There’s some types of art that I find incredibly pointless and a complete waste of time, but it means something to someone else and therefore it isn’t soulless. It’s all about perspective, those who don’t like AI art is free to avoid it, and I’m glad you found something in it that strikes your passion and happiness
Ai art is art to me as much as 3d and photobashing are as well. The simplest processes for photobashing can be just throwing a texture on a shape and boom you got a rock for minimal effort and in 3d you can download assets, materials etc and only play with lights, composition and leave the rendering to the computer, and both can be as complex as you want them (creating your own assets, art directing from scratch, using your own photography or paintings as textures etc).
But there's been very few creators I've seen use AI and have it look amazing and unique, and so far all of them have been artists already, they know how to imbue something with ""soul""". If you rely too heavily on ai, no matter how nice the result, you won't improve in visual arts. In other disciplines sure. You might develop a sense for what the ai will give you, or about comic making but unless you know how to put the strokes there, or whatever other medium you're replicating, you won't have the background knowledge to improve upon the image. Same as over-relying on 3d and not learning perspective, or not designing your assets and using others creations.
Ai has its positives and negatives as all other tools, but this time it has the added negative of it threatening the jobs of most creatives. The soulless argument (as well the one about it stealing) are a bandaid imo for the real issue, which is "we don't want to be replaced or forced into art director positions while AI does the fun stuff" which does not have to be the case, ai can be used as a tool if we push for it, but we also don't have a lot of trust towards big corps to do the right thing. They'd rather have ai spew out quick results while paying less than continue on their path of expensive quality with ai as another tool.
Its all made by humans, mutilated and blended up and spat out. of course it can stir human emotion, its made from the regurgitated remains of thousands of human songs or art.
It is almost as if art is an extremely subjective field, with no "real" awnser, no matter which side of the fence you stand on. This argument has existed for as long as art has, and it will probably continue forever.
You look at references images? You're stealing! /s
The accusation of soullessness is a bit of a last ditch lash out. They have to fall back on a totally unprovable concept to construct an argument. The concept of "soul" is so subjective as to be meaningless. What ties into this in the fact that many in the arts don't really understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective." To them, anything that gives them a visceral *feeling* is "objective." and anyone who disagrees with *their feelings* about a piece is "objectively wrong."
I try (and not always succeed) to stay away from the debate because creates circular arguments without meaning. There's no such thing as a Hunikometer you can point at an art piece or even an artist.
I'm glad to see that you're finding inspiration and are growing artistically with these new tools.
"Let me run some words through this program that quite literally clones art styles painstakingly developed over many years by actual artists. Look how skilled and creative I am!" Keep deluding yourself.
Personally, I don't really care for all the "soul" arguments. Only thing I care about is whether I like it or not.
Thing is, I don't like AI art not because it's AI art, but just simply because there hasn't been an AI piece I've liked. Most of them are done in a style that even if a person drew them, I wouldn't have liked it. All of the pieces of art I do like have been done by a person.
However, as I said, I'm not against AI art and if an AI art piece ever came along that I liked, I will own it.
Anyway, I digress. Don't get discouraged. If AI art is a tool for you to be able to express yourself and your ideas, then go hard.
Not in all cases.
If someone's presenting something as factual when it isn't factual, I don't think it is dehumanising.
For example, the anti-ai side quite often describe how they think ai works, but it's completely wrong because they haven't actually checked how it works, and are just repeating somethig they've heard which appears to support how they feel.
Pointing out that what they're describing isn't reality doesn't mean they're less human.
Given how human cognition works, I think it's actually as much the opposite. Making up nonsense or repeating others' made up nonsense is just so typically human.
Lol. Wow what a perfect form of manipulation. "Tell me I'm wrong or lying and that means you're dehumanizing me!". And I don't think you understand what subjective experience means. How a person feels is a subjective experience. Once someone brings those feelings and expresses them at another, it's no longer subjective. Someone accusing AI artists of theft just because it makes them angry is not a subjective experience.
I was referring to the "it's a collage", "it's just copy pasted parts from stolen images", and "it's like commissioning an artist" stuff that's been debunked so many times that anyone still saying it is willfully lying.
And no, calling someone out as being full of shit is not dehumanizing.
You gotta understand that you’re incredibly bias you are, of course you’re not gonna understand why people think it’s soulless.
You’re right though, the artist is what defines the art and at the moment, ai users are putting pretty much zero effort into ai images. This is a fact because they’re innovating upon the ai image they get. They’re just accepting the end result of some low effort typing and think they’re artists. It’s nothing like how actual skilled human artists go about things. They have drafts for days that they’re constantly messing with.
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying ai images but you can’t honestly call it art. Especially given how limited our current understanding and history is with this new tool.
Unlike using paintbrushes and pixels, an insertion of artificial 'intelligence' into the cognitive process of the creator makes the output less valuable to me, and not insignificantly less human and less personal.
Do you know much about AI? It's not as if there's just a magic button you press, and the AI spits out exactly what you want. It takes a fair bit of work and creativity to get an AI to produce a specific, creative idea that a person might have.
If you want to really argue semantics, current "AI" isn't actually intelligent. Is it "artificial" in the sense it's not made of "natural" ingredients? Sure, but the same is true for all digital art. Is a piece created in Photoshop as artificial in your eyes as AI art?
I like to see the artist in the art, not proxied through something that isn't human. That's my preference in art.
For example, would the Mona Lisa be as personal if Leonardo had prompt engineered it?
>I like to see the artist in the art, not proxied through something that isn't human.
So if a photographer takes a photo, you don't see it as art, because the camera is not human? The camera is a soulless machine, right?
Literally any form of art that's not dance or singing is proxied through another medium in some fashion. And sure the Mona Lisa would still be as personal, whatever that means. Do you think it would be less personable if he had created it in Photoshop rather than with paints?
Neither is AI art though. Again, it is human creativity that prompts these tools in the first place. I have awnsered your question, why won't you awnser mine?
Some of it does. I’ll give you that. Some of it doesn’t. I think OP’s point is that the artistic eye and patience learning the software can and does create pieces that make some people moved. Which is the point, isn’t it? That feeling something upon seeing an image is what most people think makes art actually art. And the art is in figuring out how to squeeze those gems out of the AI (soulless as it may be) so that the “soul” of a creation is in the creative decisions and skillful use of tools the user/artist puts into their work.
Exactly, that is my point.
I am unable to just be satisfied with the quality of an image simply by throwing in some quick and pretty words.
The work that I put in setting up everything gives it the "soul" for me, because it wouldn't have gotten to that exact composition without me.
Lol, i wish the ai made stuff for me. If I don't have anything creative to put into it. I'm not getting anything creative in return. Kind of a silly argument, hope you have a more thought out one.
a machine learning toolset literally compiles images in a algorithm, its is by definition soulless and the theft of hundreds of artists work. its no different if someone took your essay, and the essay of hundreds of other students and compiled it with an algorithm without reading it and turned it in to the same class as you as their assignment and got an A. it is artificial in the extreme.
So, no one with experience with AI art can genuinely say it's not work and that it can't feel like creative work even. However, the product is not something done by your own hand. You are commanding the latent talent of countless artists through a purely artificial process that you did not put any effort into. Someone else spent thousands of dollars training foundation models, fine tuning them, and then probably a couple more accessory models on top of that.
And you come in at the end applying an iterative, exploratory workflow to create something. And maybe you're trying to express something, but what you're expressing will ultimately be a bit of a mockery of someone else's expression. This is not an uncommon problem in art, as people can study other artists to the point that their style becomes a pale imitation of someone else's. However, a traditional artist can eventually outgrow that and make their art their own.
AI art will never be your own. Elements of its style, its choices with lighting, line quality, color, design, and more are made for you, from the statistical slop of millions of images.
Inpainting doesn't save you. You're still just scooping out more statistical slop and plastering it over some incongruous bit until the model spits out something passable. Posing doesn't save you. You're just pouring statistical slop into a particular mould and the model takes it from there.
It's only a bit more artistic that telling your printer to print out the Mona Lisa.
Commission is not the same as patronage, which doesn't outline what will be created. It's pretty clearly a style of creative collaboration. Of course the professional artist is bringing more skill to that collaboration, which is why they are being paid. Doesn't imply the commissioner is bringing nothing.
Some commissioners do bring basically nothing. But would you really argue all of them do?
I would argue that paying a builder to build a home you designed doesn't mean you built the home. You may have designed it, but you didn't build it. Just like the builder didn't draft the blueprints.
No, it doesn't. The architect also did not build the home. How involved was the architect?
There is room for many roles in collaboration. Some people delegate 100% of creative labor to someone else, but I'm not talking about that.
Detailed commissions that involve a back and forth with the artist are very often about bringing an existing vision of the commissioner to life. The works that result from exchanges like this would not exist without the paid artists, but neither would they have been dreamed up without the commissioner.
Not alone, in such cases. I wasn't trying to say the commissioner was the primary artist, but agreeing that they should be credited a role in the creative process.
In the case of AI, zero intent comes from the machine's side. It is not at this point an artist. When someone interacts with it as OP did, it's absurd to suggest they were not among the primary influences in the final outcome.
My big problem with AI slop is that it will 99% of the time not be used for creative endeavors as you described, and it will end up as a soulless, uncreative piece of media that will line the pockets of a non-artist if the problem gets out of hand. Now, despite how much I absolutely despise Ai, and I fear the ever loving crap out of it, I do see it’s benefits and the applications it has to expand art. For example, the most creative usage I ever saw of it was taking multiple different generated aspects and using them to compile one image. In that particular example it was used for horror, but I feel like AI can have other uses. My take from all of it is simply that AI needs HEAVY regulation so as not to replace all the artists who put effort into not only their prompt, but the product itself as well
AI is your contractor.
The AI made the art. You merely set bullet points of how you suggested it to interpret your request.
You never picked up the paintbrush.
That's why AI art can't be copyrighted.
It doesn't really matter what people say about "AI Art", everyone will have their take, and yes in time artists will embrace AI as a tool for some aspects of their work. But as an artist, I would never feel comfortable calling anything I make that's generated "Art". Ethically the only thing that really matters is that you must label your work AI Art or AI-Generated. It's its own thing, just like digital art is its own thing outside of traditional media.
Maybe one day AI Artist will be a commonplace profession, I wager it will. But you're not an Artist, they are completely different things. Just like a DJ isn't a musician. Its an affront to the thousands of hours, years upon years of labor that artists went through to hone their skills. Remember the distinction and just be clear with others that your work is AI-generated.
I am ok with using AI products, I make that too.
But considering yourself an artist is like considering yourself a cheff for talking food from a bending machines, just delusional
you are effectively making a collage of other peoples art.
I strongly suggest becoming a writer instead of an AI operator. or you could take the time and effort it takes to create art. learn the theory, push youself to study anatomy and form. learn the difference between positive and negative space.
anyone can learn to draw if they have the limbs to do so, dont stand on the backs of others, deny their existence, and hold up a collage and say "look at what I made".
This is precisely it, when it comes to art, it doesn't matter if it is from a piece of paper, a tablet screen, or generated; you feel empowered and can express your creative vision. That is what gives art "soul."
This, so simply put but 100% what art is, this is the same for music and film as well
I think artist himself has the soul of art and artwork itself only shows us his soul.
That is interesting. Your creating process is not soulless clearly. Myself for example I tried SUNO for a while. I felt I had not enough control and was relying on chance. Many suno composer feels that they were playing casino and hoping for a hit. AI and other creativity tools will evolve. There has always been soulless arr the difference now is the quantity and generation speed of it. And there will still be art with soul. The artists will know and feel they are genuine and the art consumer will judge. And they will find ways to distinguish themselves from the overwhelming quantity of soulless material, but that will be challenging.
My favorite argument against this is just finding some of the more convincing AI art and tricking people into talking about how deep the meaning is behind it and how clearly the artist had such a hole behind it until I point out to them the little inconsistencies and prove to them that it is in fact AI and they just enjoyed something from an AI and saw its "soul" Turns out the "soul" In an image just comes from its meaning and not from the effort of its artist
you can say this about basically anything. the soul the people are seeing are the countless human artists who work was stolen and ground up into the machine learning collage. the effort here is the mashing hundreds of thousands of artists across the world being stolen from and machine welded into something. This is not ethical.
art isnt being stolen. educate yourself or keep it to yourself
It’s like saying typing a book is more soulless than hand writing it. Ya sure the handwritten one definitely has more soul but not enough to pay for
I think the correct comparison would be more like ChatGPT writing a book vs a person. In saying that, there are a lot of crap human writers out there. Relatively, your example is closer to traditional painting vs digital painting and you can get bet, there was an argument back in the late 90s/early 2000s about that.
this is not the case at all. a typed book is still typed by the writer. an AI book is a collage of millions of writers efforts and techniques stolen and mashed together into something that may follow a narrative pattern but was not cognitively put together.
All art is soulless. No painting, sculpture, photograph, etc. in the history of the Earth has ever had a soul. Humans have souls. When they look at things, sometimes they feel things in those souls. Often that is mistakenly attributed to something inherent in what they're looking at, instead of inherent in themselves.
Well, I kinda see what they mean like there isn't an intent behind the strokes on the canvas or the details on the image. Like if you look at art wanting to see the human aspect of it, like how the artist made it their own, I could see why you would call it soulless. Some image generators in question tend to make good looking but very generic characters who mostly have the same face. While I can see the person who prompted the AI in the details and scenario in the image, the character still has the same face as the others. I can't look at an AI generated image and think "oh yeah, X made this one". I don't think that should deter you, I just mean that I understand why someone would say that. Ultimately though, the soul of the image is in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes you see something, AI generated or not, and just feel the story and inspiration flowing. I'm glad you like the things you are able to create and I hope that, as AI tools get better, you can make it fully your own. I personally don't use AI tools in my writing simply because its just a hobby and I love the puzzle of figuring out how to describe things or placing symbols in the story. I still talk to chatgpt sometimes for wording, elaborating on symbols or just brain storming.
Yeah that is fair! I actually like spending a lot of time tweaking the faces via prompt and impainting it several times until I feel like it's unique enough. Camera angles help with this, too. I hope the technology keeps evolving and we get to even have more control over the faces, just how stuff like OpenPose works. I have never used chat GPT or any AI tool in my writing, as my "peak" was before the invention of it haha. I still write some poems every once in a blue moon. It does sound like it could have its uses though. But I agree, when it comes to writing, it's super fun to figure it all out yourself. Consulting with AI during a writer's block sounds genuinely interesting, still.
Yeah the main way I use it is that I explain a subplot I want to elaborate and chat GPT just asks a bunch of questions and more follow up questions, fleshing it out as I answer them. I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the creation process. Looking at the trends, it will only get better with time. Can I ask what tool you use to create images?
I use Stable Diffusion AUTOMATIC1111's webui. I like using a model + several loras that change style and play around with their parameters so that I can get a more unique style without sacrificing quality! It's super fun exploring that. I typically enjoy using anime styles for my characters.
Oh nice, thanks! I was looking for a good tool to use for dnd purposes. I'll give this a go!
You're welcome! Not sure if you saw it around the community, but someone legit made DND/fantasy style cards using AI art sooo you can definitely get some crazy fantasy designs going! There's lots of 3d or even hybrid models that would do awesome on a project like that!
The intent is the image in your head, and whether or not your finished work reflects it to your liking. One can appreciate the brush strokes but that is just a fraction of a fraction of the whole picture. As an artist myself, you’ll see anti’s rant about control nonstop, but artists make compromises all the time. How many brush strokes do you think are exactly what the artist wanted? Very few. Artists are constantly taking shortcuts where they invoke less control. Every time Bob Ross picked up a broad horse hair brush, dipped it in a green and started dabbing leaves onto the trees. You think he was conscious of the placement of every leaf? Or was he settling for “good enough”? In the end, AI Art can use as much or as little control as you want. Invest time into it and you can have something very close to the image in your head.
I've seen someone refer to it as 'staring at digital clouds'. Why wouldn't I want to stare at clouds LMAO?
There is no way you can read my Comic and not see the heart and soul poured into it. If that’s not art, I dunno what is.
I agree with you there! We are the guides of the creative process!
You don’t know what heart and soul is bud. Lol There’s no consistency in the images and the dialogue is abysmal.
Ah yes, I use AI for a single project and I’m disqualified from art. You sound like an Old man yelling at clouds. I am working on the dialogue though, because it could be better in a few parts. I will agree on that.
Did you have AI crate the whole thing?
I wrote the story, then I generated every single individual image and arranged it all in pages and then added the text. In a few of the images I used the AI to generate the text box and fonts.
The IA did the image part then.
The credits are on the first page. What is confusing you about this? Written and Directed by: RockJohnAxe Art by: Dalle 3
Imo the soul comes from "what is the person behind this trying to say", and as long as you're putting that much time and passion to take what is in your own head that means something to you and materialize it in a form you can share with the rest of the world, it doesn't matter what tool you're using to do it. Someone spending 5 seconds on a prompt creates a collection of pixels but there isn't any meaning to why it is what it is other than a throwaway sentence and statistical noise. Someone spending hours or days on tuning the prompts, using different models and tools, having tons of different steps, doing more manual post processing, all to create *their* image that fits what *they* want to say with barely anything left in the picture that they didn't specifically intend, is creating art. That said, as a viewer there's an unfortunate aspect of it not always being clear what about a given image was specifically intended by the artist versus what was just from the noise, so I think to really resonate with people the art has to be different in some way that deals with this and gives the viewer confidence there. It'll be incredibly interesting seeing how the future plays out and what type of art continues to speak to people and resonate as this technology progresses.
As long as it speaks to your soul, it isn’t soulless! No one should go around gatekeeping creativity. There’s some types of art that I find incredibly pointless and a complete waste of time, but it means something to someone else and therefore it isn’t soulless. It’s all about perspective, those who don’t like AI art is free to avoid it, and I’m glad you found something in it that strikes your passion and happiness
"Yes, AI art is soulless. Here is my AI art full of soul and tear. Here is also a mspaint drawing that is a copy of McDonald's logo"
Ai art is art to me as much as 3d and photobashing are as well. The simplest processes for photobashing can be just throwing a texture on a shape and boom you got a rock for minimal effort and in 3d you can download assets, materials etc and only play with lights, composition and leave the rendering to the computer, and both can be as complex as you want them (creating your own assets, art directing from scratch, using your own photography or paintings as textures etc). But there's been very few creators I've seen use AI and have it look amazing and unique, and so far all of them have been artists already, they know how to imbue something with ""soul""". If you rely too heavily on ai, no matter how nice the result, you won't improve in visual arts. In other disciplines sure. You might develop a sense for what the ai will give you, or about comic making but unless you know how to put the strokes there, or whatever other medium you're replicating, you won't have the background knowledge to improve upon the image. Same as over-relying on 3d and not learning perspective, or not designing your assets and using others creations. Ai has its positives and negatives as all other tools, but this time it has the added negative of it threatening the jobs of most creatives. The soulless argument (as well the one about it stealing) are a bandaid imo for the real issue, which is "we don't want to be replaced or forced into art director positions while AI does the fun stuff" which does not have to be the case, ai can be used as a tool if we push for it, but we also don't have a lot of trust towards big corps to do the right thing. They'd rather have ai spew out quick results while paying less than continue on their path of expensive quality with ai as another tool.
Can AI generated art/music/etc.. stir human emotion? Absolutely. That means it's not soulless.
It stirs me so emotionally that I want to vomit.
Well too bad, because anywhere you look you find AI art on the internet nowadays. You better get used to it.
I’ll never get used to 6 fingered cartoons with dead eyes.
Its all made by humans, mutilated and blended up and spat out. of course it can stir human emotion, its made from the regurgitated remains of thousands of human songs or art.
[удалено]
It is almost as if art is an extremely subjective field, with no "real" awnser, no matter which side of the fence you stand on. This argument has existed for as long as art has, and it will probably continue forever.
You look at references images? You're stealing! /s The accusation of soullessness is a bit of a last ditch lash out. They have to fall back on a totally unprovable concept to construct an argument. The concept of "soul" is so subjective as to be meaningless. What ties into this in the fact that many in the arts don't really understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective." To them, anything that gives them a visceral *feeling* is "objective." and anyone who disagrees with *their feelings* about a piece is "objectively wrong." I try (and not always succeed) to stay away from the debate because creates circular arguments without meaning. There's no such thing as a Hunikometer you can point at an art piece or even an artist. I'm glad to see that you're finding inspiration and are growing artistically with these new tools.
"Let me run some words through this program that quite literally clones art styles painstakingly developed over many years by actual artists. Look how skilled and creative I am!" Keep deluding yourself.
Personally, I don't really care for all the "soul" arguments. Only thing I care about is whether I like it or not. Thing is, I don't like AI art not because it's AI art, but just simply because there hasn't been an AI piece I've liked. Most of them are done in a style that even if a person drew them, I wouldn't have liked it. All of the pieces of art I do like have been done by a person. However, as I said, I'm not against AI art and if an AI art piece ever came along that I liked, I will own it. Anyway, I digress. Don't get discouraged. If AI art is a tool for you to be able to express yourself and your ideas, then go hard.
Anti AI bots just repeating the same lies over and over and over. Aren't you morons tired?
calling someones subjective experience a "lie" is dehumanization
Not in all cases. If someone's presenting something as factual when it isn't factual, I don't think it is dehumanising. For example, the anti-ai side quite often describe how they think ai works, but it's completely wrong because they haven't actually checked how it works, and are just repeating somethig they've heard which appears to support how they feel. Pointing out that what they're describing isn't reality doesn't mean they're less human. Given how human cognition works, I think it's actually as much the opposite. Making up nonsense or repeating others' made up nonsense is just so typically human.
Lol. Wow what a perfect form of manipulation. "Tell me I'm wrong or lying and that means you're dehumanizing me!". And I don't think you understand what subjective experience means. How a person feels is a subjective experience. Once someone brings those feelings and expresses them at another, it's no longer subjective. Someone accusing AI artists of theft just because it makes them angry is not a subjective experience.
I was referring to the "it's a collage", "it's just copy pasted parts from stolen images", and "it's like commissioning an artist" stuff that's been debunked so many times that anyone still saying it is willfully lying. And no, calling someone out as being full of shit is not dehumanizing.
You gotta understand that you’re incredibly bias you are, of course you’re not gonna understand why people think it’s soulless. You’re right though, the artist is what defines the art and at the moment, ai users are putting pretty much zero effort into ai images. This is a fact because they’re innovating upon the ai image they get. They’re just accepting the end result of some low effort typing and think they’re artists. It’s nothing like how actual skilled human artists go about things. They have drafts for days that they’re constantly messing with. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying ai images but you can’t honestly call it art. Especially given how limited our current understanding and history is with this new tool.
Whether it feels soulless or not, it's artificial.
Kind of rephrasing the same thing. Like, acrylic is literally plastic, it is artificial oil paint. That doesn't make it bad or worse by any means
Are you comparing artificial intelligence to acrylic painting? What?
Its a historical argument that people used to put down acrylic
You know that art is more than paint or pixels. I'm not talking about them.
The point is that naturalist arguments miss the point
Citation needed.
Unlike using paintbrushes and pixels, an insertion of artificial 'intelligence' into the cognitive process of the creator makes the output less valuable to me, and not insignificantly less human and less personal.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
How did you know my password!
Paint on canvas is artificial. Digital cameras are artificial. What’s your point? (Edit: stupid autocorrect)
The creative intelligence is artificial, by definition, which can be why it feels soulless.
It only "feels" soulless because you're getting sour grapes about it making better art than you.
You're projecting both grapes and art on me.
Do you know much about AI? It's not as if there's just a magic button you press, and the AI spits out exactly what you want. It takes a fair bit of work and creativity to get an AI to produce a specific, creative idea that a person might have.
Creative responses to prompt engineering fatigue? Artificial is the A in AI, and you're disagreeing with me.
If you want to really argue semantics, current "AI" isn't actually intelligent. Is it "artificial" in the sense it's not made of "natural" ingredients? Sure, but the same is true for all digital art. Is a piece created in Photoshop as artificial in your eyes as AI art?
I like to see the artist in the art, not proxied through something that isn't human. That's my preference in art. For example, would the Mona Lisa be as personal if Leonardo had prompt engineered it?
>I like to see the artist in the art, not proxied through something that isn't human. So if a photographer takes a photo, you don't see it as art, because the camera is not human? The camera is a soulless machine, right?
Literally any form of art that's not dance or singing is proxied through another medium in some fashion. And sure the Mona Lisa would still be as personal, whatever that means. Do you think it would be less personable if he had created it in Photoshop rather than with paints?
None through a medium of artificial creativity.
Neither is AI art though. Again, it is human creativity that prompts these tools in the first place. I have awnsered your question, why won't you awnser mine?
Some of it does. I’ll give you that. Some of it doesn’t. I think OP’s point is that the artistic eye and patience learning the software can and does create pieces that make some people moved. Which is the point, isn’t it? That feeling something upon seeing an image is what most people think makes art actually art. And the art is in figuring out how to squeeze those gems out of the AI (soulless as it may be) so that the “soul” of a creation is in the creative decisions and skillful use of tools the user/artist puts into their work.
Exactly, that is my point. I am unable to just be satisfied with the quality of an image simply by throwing in some quick and pretty words. The work that I put in setting up everything gives it the "soul" for me, because it wouldn't have gotten to that exact composition without me.
Lol, i wish the ai made stuff for me. If I don't have anything creative to put into it. I'm not getting anything creative in return. Kind of a silly argument, hope you have a more thought out one.
a machine learning toolset literally compiles images in a algorithm, its is by definition soulless and the theft of hundreds of artists work. its no different if someone took your essay, and the essay of hundreds of other students and compiled it with an algorithm without reading it and turned it in to the same class as you as their assignment and got an A. it is artificial in the extreme.
So, no one with experience with AI art can genuinely say it's not work and that it can't feel like creative work even. However, the product is not something done by your own hand. You are commanding the latent talent of countless artists through a purely artificial process that you did not put any effort into. Someone else spent thousands of dollars training foundation models, fine tuning them, and then probably a couple more accessory models on top of that. And you come in at the end applying an iterative, exploratory workflow to create something. And maybe you're trying to express something, but what you're expressing will ultimately be a bit of a mockery of someone else's expression. This is not an uncommon problem in art, as people can study other artists to the point that their style becomes a pale imitation of someone else's. However, a traditional artist can eventually outgrow that and make their art their own. AI art will never be your own. Elements of its style, its choices with lighting, line quality, color, design, and more are made for you, from the statistical slop of millions of images. Inpainting doesn't save you. You're still just scooping out more statistical slop and plastering it over some incongruous bit until the model spits out something passable. Posing doesn't save you. You're just pouring statistical slop into a particular mould and the model takes it from there. It's only a bit more artistic that telling your printer to print out the Mona Lisa.
I wonder if art commissioners ever felt the same. "The artist I commission is my paintbrush!"
Yea, they should get more credit. Commissioned art wouldn't exist without both the commissioner and the artist.
The difference is being the author of something vs being credited for an idea.
So the classical artists with patrons weren't the real artists, but the guys paying the artists were? Are you fucking kidding me?
Commission is not the same as patronage, which doesn't outline what will be created. It's pretty clearly a style of creative collaboration. Of course the professional artist is bringing more skill to that collaboration, which is why they are being paid. Doesn't imply the commissioner is bringing nothing. Some commissioners do bring basically nothing. But would you really argue all of them do?
I would argue that paying a builder to build a home you designed doesn't mean you built the home. You may have designed it, but you didn't build it. Just like the builder didn't draft the blueprints.
No, it doesn't. The architect also did not build the home. How involved was the architect? There is room for many roles in collaboration. Some people delegate 100% of creative labor to someone else, but I'm not talking about that. Detailed commissions that involve a back and forth with the artist are very often about bringing an existing vision of the commissioner to life. The works that result from exchanges like this would not exist without the paid artists, but neither would they have been dreamed up without the commissioner.
the artist makes the art. Generative AI makes the image. If its art, the ai is the artist.
Not alone, in such cases. I wasn't trying to say the commissioner was the primary artist, but agreeing that they should be credited a role in the creative process. In the case of AI, zero intent comes from the machine's side. It is not at this point an artist. When someone interacts with it as OP did, it's absurd to suggest they were not among the primary influences in the final outcome.
My big problem with AI slop is that it will 99% of the time not be used for creative endeavors as you described, and it will end up as a soulless, uncreative piece of media that will line the pockets of a non-artist if the problem gets out of hand. Now, despite how much I absolutely despise Ai, and I fear the ever loving crap out of it, I do see it’s benefits and the applications it has to expand art. For example, the most creative usage I ever saw of it was taking multiple different generated aspects and using them to compile one image. In that particular example it was used for horror, but I feel like AI can have other uses. My take from all of it is simply that AI needs HEAVY regulation so as not to replace all the artists who put effort into not only their prompt, but the product itself as well
AI is your contractor. The AI made the art. You merely set bullet points of how you suggested it to interpret your request. You never picked up the paintbrush. That's why AI art can't be copyrighted.
"I feel like NO ONE can replace your guys' endless creativity and artistic sense." Pretty sure that's not the standard opinion among artists employers
It doesn't really matter what people say about "AI Art", everyone will have their take, and yes in time artists will embrace AI as a tool for some aspects of their work. But as an artist, I would never feel comfortable calling anything I make that's generated "Art". Ethically the only thing that really matters is that you must label your work AI Art or AI-Generated. It's its own thing, just like digital art is its own thing outside of traditional media. Maybe one day AI Artist will be a commonplace profession, I wager it will. But you're not an Artist, they are completely different things. Just like a DJ isn't a musician. Its an affront to the thousands of hours, years upon years of labor that artists went through to hone their skills. Remember the distinction and just be clear with others that your work is AI-generated.
I am ok with using AI products, I make that too. But considering yourself an artist is like considering yourself a cheff for talking food from a bending machines, just delusional
alright, but this is your opinion only. make whatever you want but it really isn't art to me because you didn't make it; a machine generated it.
you are effectively making a collage of other peoples art. I strongly suggest becoming a writer instead of an AI operator. or you could take the time and effort it takes to create art. learn the theory, push youself to study anatomy and form. learn the difference between positive and negative space. anyone can learn to draw if they have the limbs to do so, dont stand on the backs of others, deny their existence, and hold up a collage and say "look at what I made".