its more like the pizza shop calling you out when you're cooking frozen pizza and calling yourself a chef
all power to you if you want to just consume slop, but dont complain when you turn around years later and the quality of everything across the board has gone even further to shit cos you were so happy you could type in words and see anything you wanted for all the 15 minutes of dopamine it gave you
even mediocre artists actually create art, which is something stable diffusion can't do and will never be able to do. You completely misunderstand what art is and its purpose. It's not just a nice looking picture or a meandering story. You understand art as a technical profession creating a product to sell, which is why you equate AI slop with art. Your earlier comment making a distinction between artists and "ordinary people" is completely wrong. The distinction between someone who's an artist and otherwise isn't technical proficiency or ability to make a picture. It's a deeper skill than that, the ability to be creative, to have perspective. It's an ability to communicate. AI can't communicate because it doesn't have a perspective, since it doesn't actually know anything.
they don't respect artists, they don't respect artistic labour but they so desperately need and want the fruits of said labour and so the only option left is to cheat and lie
hell, it's evident in the last sentence of their reply - that they see 'Artist' as a profession that is getting 'Obsoleted', as if the only reason art exists in the first place is because we as a society have been too archaic, and we would jump at the chance to drop the creative process in a heartbeat
complete and total alienation from creativity as a human experience
it's so bleak and I can't sympathize with their perspective at all. It's like the most they get out of art is to see a picture or a movie and say it looks cool. Purely superficial. They don't like art, they like decoration. They don't actually care about seeing a representation of another perspective. They don't care about themes, symbols, or what an artist is trying to communicate, nor do they even want to know.
its very evident from their other replies that their metric for 'good' art is 'is it beautiful?' and their definition of 'beauty', in turn, is simply 'does looking at this release dopamine or not'
yeah that's not the point of art nor what it is. What art looks like isn't connected to the quality of it. Go get some perspective by engaging with artists sometime. I'm out. You're not a serious person. See ya.
that doesn't answer my question though - what are you defining as a mediocre artist? or is anything that doesn't fit the 'hyper realistic AI' look count as mediocre?
there are lots of graphics designers making content for various advertisements, promotions, digitial animation, effects and the like. these are the first people to be replaced. that is what I mean.
How do you plan to tell stable diffusion things like "make the star a bit bigger" or "move the words slightly further to the left"? Have you ever actually used a graphic designer? You don't just ask them to make you a logo and they're done, there's a lot of back and forth between artist and client to reach the final product.
How will AI take over creative professions when it can't even perform rote professions? AI chatbots keep going rogue and lying to customers about company policies (and even the actual law), image generators can't get enough of illegal and violent imagery, facial recognition AI's keep identifying black people as all looking the same - in art the value of a peice is constrained by the meaning it has to people, so why do you think that LLMs and all the other predictive generators we laughably call intelligent will be able to create meaningful peices by putting together the most likely set of pixels?
I didn't ask when, I asked how. How is a prediction engine, that is something that guesses a likely output based on past information, going to display creativity?
I don't fucking care if it's on the moon, answer my question: by what mechanism will a machine learning model exhibit creativity? Like you understand my question, right - you know how "AI" works?
"Of course I know how AI works. I type 'Big titty tradwife submissive elf who looks like she loves me' into the the magic prompt box and then it gives me my BEAUTIFUL image"
So you don't know how AI works? And can I remind you that you literally haven't offered a single image as evidence, just vaguely told people to go look at websites? Even if you weren't avoiding my question, you do understand that you have to show specific examples to back your claims up?
its more like the pizza shop calling you out when you're cooking frozen pizza and calling yourself a chef
all power to you if you want to just consume slop, but dont complain when you turn around years later and the quality of everything across the board has gone even further to shit cos you were so happy you could type in words and see anything you wanted for all the 15 minutes of dopamine it gave you
Artist incomes are threatened by the rise of Generative models. Especially mediocre artists who Stable Diffusion have already surpassed.
Technology changes the world and obsoletes some professions. It has been like this for ever. Artists are not any different.
even mediocre artists actually create art, which is something stable diffusion can't do and will never be able to do. You completely misunderstand what art is and its purpose. It's not just a nice looking picture or a meandering story. You understand art as a technical profession creating a product to sell, which is why you equate AI slop with art. Your earlier comment making a distinction between artists and "ordinary people" is completely wrong. The distinction between someone who's an artist and otherwise isn't technical proficiency or ability to make a picture. It's a deeper skill than that, the ability to be creative, to have perspective. It's an ability to communicate. AI can't communicate because it doesn't have a perspective, since it doesn't actually know anything.
this is what it always comes down to
they don't respect artists, they don't respect artistic labour but they so desperately need and want the fruits of said labour and so the only option left is to cheat and lie
hell, it's evident in the last sentence of their reply - that they see 'Artist' as a profession that is getting 'Obsoleted', as if the only reason art exists in the first place is because we as a society have been too archaic, and we would jump at the chance to drop the creative process in a heartbeat
complete and total alienation from creativity as a human experience
it's so bleak and I can't sympathize with their perspective at all. It's like the most they get out of art is to see a picture or a movie and say it looks cool. Purely superficial. They don't like art, they like decoration. They don't actually care about seeing a representation of another perspective. They don't care about themes, symbols, or what an artist is trying to communicate, nor do they even want to know.
its very evident from their other replies that their metric for 'good' art is 'is it beautiful?' and their definition of 'beauty', in turn, is simply 'does looking at this release dopamine or not'
deeply unserious person
yet AI produces beautiful images.
This is not any different from the invention of paint or coloured glass improving quality of art.
yeah that's not the point of art nor what it is. What art looks like isn't connected to the quality of it. Go get some perspective by engaging with artists sometime. I'm out. You're not a serious person. See ya.
people want quality. why would anyone pay for low quality art?
The measure of art is not the sale you absolute dingus. What a sad, soulless prespective
genuinely curious what you mean by 'mediocre artists' and the idea that Stable Diffusion has 'surpassed' them
do you have any examples? or is this just a vibes thing?
take a look at civitai: https://civitai.com/images
there are some amazing gems there.
that doesn't answer my question though - what are you defining as a mediocre artist? or is anything that doesn't fit the 'hyper realistic AI' look count as mediocre?
there are lots of graphics designers making content for various advertisements, promotions, digitial animation, effects and the like. these are the first people to be replaced. that is what I mean.
again, its just very clear you have no clue what graphic design involves, let alone anything else to do with the creative process
art really is just 'pretty picture' innit
why would someone pay for a graphics designer when Stable Diffusion can do the same?
How do you plan to tell stable diffusion things like "make the star a bit bigger" or "move the words slightly further to the left"? Have you ever actually used a graphic designer? You don't just ask them to make you a logo and they're done, there's a lot of back and forth between artist and client to reach the final product.
How will AI take over creative professions when it can't even perform rote professions? AI chatbots keep going rogue and lying to customers about company policies (and even the actual law), image generators can't get enough of illegal and violent imagery, facial recognition AI's keep identifying black people as all looking the same - in art the value of a peice is constrained by the meaning it has to people, so why do you think that LLMs and all the other predictive generators we laughably call intelligent will be able to create meaningful peices by putting together the most likely set of pixels?
they are improving vey fast.
I didn't ask when, I asked how. How is a prediction engine, that is something that guesses a likely output based on past information, going to display creativity?
The results speak for themselves. There is amazing AI generated content out there.
I don't fucking care if it's on the moon, answer my question: by what mechanism will a machine learning model exhibit creativity? Like you understand my question, right - you know how "AI" works?
"Of course I know how AI works. I type 'Big titty tradwife submissive elf who looks like she loves me' into the the magic prompt box and then it gives me my BEAUTIFUL image"
You can't convince people that something does not exist, if they can see it with their own eyes.
So you don't know how AI works? And can I remind you that you literally haven't offered a single image as evidence, just vaguely told people to go look at websites? Even if you weren't avoiding my question, you do understand that you have to show specific examples to back your claims up?