[garygreen]

i think i'm kind of rooting for these tools to become sophisticated enough to be funny, but not sophisticated enough to replace journeyman artists. it would be rad if the end result was simply a tool to help augment an artist's brainstorming and rough-drafting.

[Pete Svarrior]

I really like GauGAN2 (and its descendant, Nvidia Canvas) for that kind of purpose.

http://gaugan.org/gaugan2/

Like, that's pretty damn cool. If you need a random backdrop for a larger art piece, you can now specify the rough shape of the scenery.

[BillO]

However, I still worry that this changes the threat model for potential artists. Currently, you'll either make it big or you'll live an OK life producing art for commercial use - the kind that doesn't appeal to "the real patrons", but which clearly has its place in the world.

If AI were to take that segment over, your threat model becomes "you'll either make it big, or, uh, enjoy wasting half of your life becoming an expert at something nobody wants". How many people are going to take that risk?

Certainly there will be that aspect, but I am not convinced it will happen quickly enough to have much of an impact.  The first to be impacted will be the kind of folks that draw roosters on Kellogg's boxes and camels on cigarette packages.  But even that will not happen overnight.  Companies, especially those of long standing, are reluctant to change what works.  There will be resistance from the public too.  All in all, I think the change will happen, but it will happen gradually enough for most people to adjust their career choices.

History has shown us this many times over.  Take the printing press as an example.  It eventually put a lot of potential transcribers out of work, and since monasteries were where most of this work occurred, took away a huge amount of their income.  However there was resistance.  Printed material was initially very expensive too albeit not as expensive as hand scribed material. and there were quality issues.  Add to that the very limited supply of and huge cost of printing presses and society had ample time to adjust.

[rooster]

If AI were to take that segment over, your threat model becomes "you'll either make it big, or, uh, enjoy wasting half of your life becoming an expert at something nobody wants". How many people are going to take that risk?

100%

It seems like a lot of people who are making the argument that AI art is not that big of a threat don't understand how most artists make a living. It is incredibly difficult to "make it big" as an artist. A lot of artists have a side job on top of creating. Most artists are not living comfortably on rich patrons or have the masses scrambling for their work. It's usually contract work for businesses or middle/lower class buyers and if AI art can match what some people are already making for much cheaper that's going to wipe out a lot of artists.

Companies, especially those of long standing, are reluctant to change what works.

Companies already don't want to pay artists and they're constantly looking to save a buck, so I believe it could change a lot faster than you think.

[BillO]

rooster, I'm in tune with your sentiment, but I do think you might be a bit of an idealist.

Do what you can to help out but progress will march on.

I watched a video a little while ago where the visuals, music and text were all created by AI.  It was, well, a little underwhelming.

I've been trying to find it again without success, but if I do I'll post it here.

Nonetheless, I'll take history's lesson and say we'll adapt.  Sure some will get offered a short stick (it has happened to me n my career) , but as a global society I'm confident we'll come out OK.

[Crudblud]

What I've learned from observing the latest in machine-generated music is that a machine can only (fail to) reproduce what already exists, it can't truly create anything new in the way that a human being can. What I've seen of DALL-E and other visual arts AIs is much the same, it can be prompted to create an amalgamation of known things, but it can't produce something unknown. Granted we live in an era in the arts where we are "out in the ocean", and there is no identifiable progress* as such other than technological. Perhaps progress in art is now, rather than new material, new efficiency in reproduction of old material, but nonetheless personal style remains unquantifiable.

*of course, progress can only be identified in retrospect

[xasop]

What I've learned from observing the latest in machine-generated music is that a machine can only (fail to) reproduce what already exists, it can't truly create anything new in the way that a human being can. What I've seen of DALL-E and other visual arts AIs is much the same, it can be prompted to create an amalgamation of known things, but it can't produce something unknown. Granted we live in an era in the arts where we are "out in the ocean", and there is no identifiable progress* as such other than technological. Perhaps progress in art is now, rather than new material, new efficiency in reproduction of old material, but nonetheless personal style remains unquantifiable.

The very concept of art being "new" is a human abstraction, and has to do with the expression of ideas rather than any concrete definition. All art is, after all, a combination of existing colours and shapes in some way. I don't think it makes any sense to say that an algorithm can't create new things because a computer simply isn't aware of that distinction.

What is probably going on is that, given that the vast majority of art in general is highly derivative, you are experiencing sampling bias due to the relatively small quantity of AI-generated art, and the fact that most people using it are just noodling around and not really trying to create anything groundbreaking.

[Crudblud]

I made a mistake in my first post by saying that a machine can't create anything new. What I meant to say is that a machine can't generate anything new, because creation is entirely beyond its capabilities. Sorry for muddling up the terminology.

What I've learned from observing the latest in machine-generated music is that a machine can only (fail to) reproduce what already exists, it can't truly create anything new in the way that a human being can. What I've seen of DALL-E and other visual arts AIs is much the same, it can be prompted to create an amalgamation of known things, but it can't produce something unknown. Granted we live in an era in the arts where we are "out in the ocean", and there is no identifiable progress* as such other than technological. Perhaps progress in art is now, rather than new material, new efficiency in reproduction of old material, but nonetheless personal style remains unquantifiable.

The very concept of art being "new" is a human abstraction, and has to do with the expression of ideas rather than any concrete definition. All art is, after all, a combination of existing colours and shapes in some way. I don't think it makes any sense to say that an algorithm can't create new things because a computer simply isn't aware of that distinction.

What is probably going on is that, given that the vast majority of art in general is highly derivative, you are experiencing sampling bias due to the relatively small quantity of AI-generated art, and the fact that most people using it are just noodling around and not really trying to create anything groundbreaking.

Of course all art is a combination of existing colours and shapes, but a machine can only reproduce existing combinations, while a human has the potential, not the innate ability, but the potential to combine existing things in new ways. A human being has experiences through which they form perspective, and from the application of that perspective comes style, that is a way of seeing and combining things which cannot be completely but is at least partially unique and potentially significantly so. A machine has no experiences, no perspective, and cannot develop style; it cannot think and it cannot create; it may be programmed in a unique way, but that is an act of human creation. The creative element of machine-generated art comes, as you pointed out (see my emphasis above), from the user who devises the prompt.

[BillO]

Couldn't find the other one I mentioned but came across this one while I was looking.  Skip ahead to 7:50

[juner]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvmvqm/an-ai-generated-artwork-won-first-place-at-a-state-fair-fine-arts-competition-and-artists-are-pissed

oh deer

[rooster]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvmvqm/an-ai-generated-artwork-won-first-place-at-a-state-fair-fine-arts-competition-and-artists-are-pissed

oh deer

I almost posted that but I'm an "idealist" or whatever.

I can get where some people are coming from in saying it's a new tool to use and we just have to deal with it. Which ultimately I know will be the case as we're always moving forward. But it still seems not gr8 that someone who has no ability to paint or do line-art for themselves can feed prompts into something, curate it, spruce it up, and then call it their own.

[BillO]

Yeah, its bound to happen.

However ..

.. he won in the digital art category ..

I'm still not convinced we all need to run for the hills screaming tough.

[rooster]

.. he won in the digital art category ..

I'm still not convinced we all need to run for the hills screaming tough.

Ah yes, good thing it wasn't a medium that a lot of artists work in.

[Rushy]

First they came for the artists, and I did nothing, because artists deserve it, lmao, owned.

[Pete Svarrior]

BillO, out of curiosity, what do you think "digital art" entails?

[BillO]

BillO, out of curiosity, what do you think "digital art" entails?

Art created digitally, e.g. with the aid of a computing device.

You really think I'm an idiot, eh Pete?

I was just noting they did not try to get it by as something else.

Also, the article was not clear on whether or not it was disclosed as being an AI creation before it was evaluated.  That would be interesting to know.

[Pete Svarrior]

You really think I'm an idiot, eh Pete?

Not an idiot per se, but I have a sneaking suspicion you've never produced a digital painting, and that you don't understand the work that ordinarily goes into it. It's the only way you could make this comment:

However ..

.. he won in the digital art category ..

I'm still not convinced we all need to run for the hills screaming tough.

and think that it somehow diminished the issue. You're clearly dismissive of the form, and it is my opinion that it's rooted in inexperience.

Also, the article was not clear on whether or not it was disclosed as being an AI creation before it was evaluated.  That would be interesting to know.

He did not: https://boingboing.net/2022/08/31/jason-allen-takes-1st-place-in-digital-category-at-colorado-state-fair-with-ai-generated-content.html

[markjo]

Meh.  If they can teach a pig to make award winning art, then why not an AI?
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/pot-bellied-pigcasso/

[BillO]

Not an idiot per se,

Ahhh .. thanks .. maybe?

but I have a sneaking suspicion you've never produced a digital painting,

True.

and that you don't understand the work that ordinarily goes into it.

Not quite.  While not very involved in visual art I have decent experience in producing digital music.  I do have an appreciation of the amount of work required to produce artistic works from that perspective.  Please keep in mind there are two main aspects to digitally produce music.  Live performance is not what I'm talking about, but rather music composed using a computer.

It's the only way you could make this comment:

However ..

.. he won in the digital art category ..

I'm still not convinced we all need to run for the hills screaming tough.

I'll have to disagree here.  I assume you've read my previous comments on this.

and think that it somehow diminished the issue. You're clearly dismissive of the form, and it is my opinion that it's rooted in inexperience.

No, I'm not dismissive of the form at all (I guess you did not read my previous comments).  I am also not diminishing the issue either.  I'm facing facts.

Actually I'm quite amazed at all the younger people's reactions.  I'm the old guy here and have, on this very site, been accused of being stodgy and set in my ways.  Apparently though it seems I'm the only one looking down the road.  Change is nigh.  It's gong to happen.  Saying that is not diminishing the issue, it's facing it.  I have personally been put out of work due to technological progress.  Instead of crying about it I made changes and got on with life.  Just like people have been doing for millennia.

He did not: https://boingboing.net/2022/08/31/jason-allen-takes-1st-place-in-digital-category-at-colorado-state-fair-with-ai-generated-content.html

Thanks for posting that.  Having an AI category would be appropriate going forward.

[rooster]

Literally no one is saying this change is not going to happen.