The gutting of the humanities and other things generally written off as "frivolous" kind of terrified me. There's something that feels distinctly wrong about these attempts at destroying and anyone that even might turn an introspective gaze on society itself. Like they don't want anything that might foster self-awareness accessible to the layman.
Tech bros are idiots who greatly overestimate their own intelligence .
An art major's half asleep doodles can receive copyright protection whereas an image created by a million dollar supercomputer running the most sophisticated AI model possible cannot.
Extremely rare artist x lawyer crossover to dunk on the AI bros.
Some bad course cope right here don't let the philosophy grads see this
Matthew Dow Smith, whomever the fuck that is, has a sophisticated delusion about what's actually going on and he's incorporated it into his persecution complex. Not impressed.
Most of Arts will be automated away. Stable Diffusion is just the beginning.
Right, the only value and purpose of arts and literature, it's creation and enjoyment, is to make a product to sell or consume a story. What a foolish opinion.
Stable Diffusion is open source and free to be used by anyone. A lot of people have used it for creation and enjoyment. It cuts artists out of the loop and enables a lot of ordinary people to create art. I see this as a huge win.
enables a lot of ordinary people to create art.
Exactly the type of fucking idiot that's never created art in their life.
"Art is paintings of horses"-ass motherfucker.
The reason you can't make art isn't because you're bad at drawing or painting and need AI to help you, it's because you don't have the creativity to overcome those limitations. No matter what words you put into stable diffusion, you will only create pictures, not art - there's no meaning underlying the piece, you just typed "t-rex with massive tits" and called the output art because you can't tell the difference.its not even that they don't have the creativity - its that people have been so poisoned by commodity capitalism that they feel like their art 'doesn't count' unless it looks like 'real art' that can make money
people are so isolated from the creative process that they think they can dump it entirely, as if all it is is just knowing how to scribble on a page
Well, people like what comes out of Stable Diffusion. Which is perfectly fine.
This is like the pizza shop complaining that I'm cooking at home.
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.
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.
Creating an AI UX Researcher who finds pain points based on 18 finger models
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?
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?
I don't understand your problem. There are mountains of images and videos in many online communities. CivitAI is probabl the biggest. There are even several ones in lemmy. Take your pick.
All those mountains of images and you can't even link a single one and explain what about it shows creativity.
Anyway, you can't be so stupid as to not know what my problem is, I've spelt it out specifically in every single comment: My problem is that you won't give an answer to my question (as a reminder, that question is "how will an AI show creativity?"). Use your words to provide an explanation, backed up with specific linked images to demonstrate it. Stop saying "uhhh i saw it on ebaumsworld" when you're asked for an actual explanation articulated through language.
you're just obsessed. AI works, creates lovely images, and nothing you say can change the facts of the world.
join us in the stable diffusion communities if you want to learn more: stable_diffusion_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com stable_diffusion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
And still you avoid the question, because you have no idea about art or machine learning. You just think the patterns are pretty.
Wait you think this is a good thing?
You think it's a good thing that people will be even more unable to express themselves in our capitalist hell scape?
You REALLY don't see how this will bring on yet more horrors?
Quite the opposite. AI allows people to express themselves in interesting ways. There are communities of people online sharing beautiful images and videos they created with Stable Diffusion. Why is that bad?
THAT isn't bad. But you are incredibly naive if you think that's where this will stay in this hell world of ours, if you think it will simply be a nice tool to allow greater access to creative expression
It cuts out the middlemen, which is usually good. People don't need to pay an artist to make something, they can just make one themselves using AI.
the middle men
Describing normal working artists this way is weird as fuck, you have such a warped conception of reality
I agree. Anyway look at this cool picture I just made using AI.
I would like you to know that if you say this, or other things you said in this thread to my face, I would punch the smug out of you.
Remember this post in a few years when your billion dollar theft machines have shut down for being huge wastes of money and effort and the few survivors, if any, have been sectioned off into expensive subscription models that you are priced out of because they need to make the literal billions of dollars it costs to make and run them back at some point.
This is the same-ass bubble as NFTs and crypto and it will also die.
If AI becomes responsible for producing Disney musicals, then they probably won't have any gay-coded characters anymore. What about Scar? What about Ursula? What about Gaston? What about Shang??
We need human artists because humans are capable of sneaking content that is actually societally beneficial into what would otherwise be soulless corporate products.
AI art tools democratize art by empowering those who weren't born with the affinity, talent or privilege to become artists themselves. They allow regular people the freedom of expression in new dimensions. They are amazing.
They are not made to replace human art. They are made to supplement it. The "artists" who feel threatened and offended at its existence are probably not very good at their art.
I mean they're kind of succeeding; with AI art, people no longer have to settle with Picasso looking artwork.
yeah instead I have to settle for the two genres of mangled 18 fingered Lovecraft monster or Dreamworks style anime girl. cool
No, it uses appropriate coordinating conjunctions. A run on sentence isn't just one that's long.
