It’s so strange to see folks randomly adopt this hardcore grindset mentality when AI is mentioned.
At this particular moment, for this particular task I am not seeking to improve my skills
OH, Well I guess you’ve never cared about a thing in your life and you want robots to take all your joy and fuck your wife??
That’s fair, even while typing it, the point felt shaky. I still think there are pieces of art that fail to have intentionality or design, but I would still call them art. I could carelessly scribble on a page to pass time in a meeting and I think that would still qualify as art, even if absent conscious meaning or design.
May point was more against the process than Pollock specifically because I think much of the high art world is shaped by folks in power over anything else. I agree that folks are too quick to dismiss his work, and I completely believe it is art. I don’t think it’s random, and looking at his work you can see intentionality. I think I bring it up more to show the broad spectrum of art. Similarly, I think it’s completely valid to sign a urinal and call it art. Even if you have no sway over the structure of the porcelain beyond picking what toilet you think works best. A curation I would argue is equally valid when selecting what pieces of AI work best fit what one is going for.
I will concede that the process of interacting with the generation machine to produce something is a creative one, I just don’t think it’s anywhere near what a lot of proponents claim it be.
I guess I don’t know what proponents claim the level of creativity is, but I also think that critics don’t realize the level of depth many of the folks that use AI go to for what people assume was a few tries at a prompt. I think this gets back to the original counter point above. Trying to make something similar to what folks show off, or trying to realize a vision with AI tools is harder than many realize. And I think without having worked with them too much, it can be easy to not see the intentionality that went into AI work, in the same way it can be easy to assume Pollock is random splatters. Now I will clarify again, I don’t hold it in that high of regard or say that it’s comparable to Pollock or any other painters really. More my point is to show that the specifics can be lost, particularly because AI does so much spectacle.
I’ve used Suno, and my lasting impression of it is that it was fun, sometimes really funny, and overall kind of soul sucking. As a musician, there were essentially no times that I felt anything produced there was mine. It was just novelty. Some of it sounded really cool, but none of it was an expression of me or what I was really looking for.
I think that it’s totally valid, and I don’t really think I take any ownership with AI work, I just enjoy it for what it is. Personally I use it as a DM in various ways, so maybe it doesn’t rub me as wrong because it is a smaller piece of everything else, rather than standalone art.
Sorry, I thought all that was going to be just two paragraphs.
I know the feeling lol
Yeah I largely agree, the fact that it is replacing humans is rough and really speaks to such a depressing view of art in our society. Even before AI, the commercialization of art was hugely detrimental, and really sucks the soul out of much of what it touches. The fact that AI attacks the starting footholds for artists to find any money at all in the industry is particularly upsetting.
All that being saying, I guess I would still push back a little bit on the idea that it can’t be art when generated in it’s entirety. I would argue that while yes it does have less intentionality, even at the most base level of a prompt and picking your favorite generation, is enough to qualify it as art. I may be a bit of an absolutist in this regard, but I justify it by pointing to things like splatter or fluid acrylic painting. Where the exact lines of intentionality is hard to draw. All of that to say I don’t think there is much value in drawing a strict line that excludes AI work from art just because the discrepancy between choice of the artist and the choices on show is so vast.
you can put the exact same prompt into the stable diffusion and not get the same image each time
My understanding is that if you have the exact same model, prompt, and everything else, if you use the same seed, you will get the exact same image output. That and that they called it a counter point, I took it to mean they were talking about the skill in the layers of different tools folks will use to get what they are hoping for. Because, a little to your further point, there are folks that get very into it and have like 30 different fine tuned loras or whatever to finesse every finer point of the image.
Images would not exist without the photographer choosing to make them.
At the risk of getting a little philosophically wanky about it, I guess I would argue the same for AI images. Like what exists is a nebulous connections of weights and nodes trained off stolen art that only connect in certain ways because of a given seed and prompt. Does a hypothetical random image of a muppets version of Kermit the frog as Darth Vader ‘exist’ without the high, half baked, prompt from someone using a free trial of midjourney?
Even without those elements though, those images would not exist without the effort, intention, and presence of the photographer.
I completely agree, and I think my point more was that with photography, you don’t “make” the landscape or architecture you’re capturing, but you make the image in the end.
Contrast that with AI art. The only intention you have is your prompt and choice of model. I would argue the fact that ai prompters need to “get close to” what they want their piece to say, rather than making the piece say what they want it to say, shows how starved for meaning the products are.
I will say, I respect photography more, and so much of what AI generates is soulless slop. I think that ultimately my push back is on the folks that argue that it can’t be art. And just as there is intentionality in choosing what photos you don’t take for photography, there is non-zero intentionality in generating 30 loose candidates, 50 fine tuned candidates, and 3 final images with stable diffusion.
Sorry if this comment is scattered, I’ve restarted my reply like three times trying to sort out what I even think lol.
I don’t think their point was just that it’s impossible to reproduce, more that there is skill, knowledge and choice put into getting close to the intended idea when working with AI output.
With that I think your point breaks down when you compare it with something like photography. Often you aren’t ‘making’ the images that you capture, but there is skill and artistry in the choices that capture the moment or picture you want. Obviously there is more control in photography, and I would disagree with anyone that uses AI and claims the same level of artistry of photography. But ultimately I think the lines around art are so blurry in general, it seems incorrect to me to do decidedly exclude AI generated images.
I don’t know I’ve ever heard someone say “ethical polyamory”. Not sure if that’s a regional thing, but for folks learning, I’ve usually heard just polyamorous or poly.
What gross things to say.
I didn’t comment about her body in that comment.
Ah so when you replied to someone commenting on her body and face saying that you would “still” have sex with her after drinking, that was a comment on her deep and rich personality? Just because you didn’t literally mention her body in it doesn’t make the comment not about her body, and I think you know that.
with caveats … in front of the right crowd.
Maybe a public forum with a person you don’t know is not the right place to make those.
I’ve been to a lot of kink parties and drag shows.
No one is impressed by “I have a black friend”, stop using is as justification.
Cis-het peeps don’t have a monopoly on catty coments.
No one said they did, and if you want to get into the weeds of this, folks that are also subjugated under patriarchy share a kinship and an understanding of the contexts and ways ‘catty’ comments should be made. Maybe going to a couple drag shows doesn’t give you the proper context to understand what justifies a ‘catty’ comment. Maybe a random internet commenter saying they “still would” doesn’t come off as a clever fun sassy razzing all the drag queens do. Maybe instead it sounds like basement dweller saying “she’s not hot like the chicks I jerk off to, but I guess I would still fuck her”.
I did make a deleted comment referring to her Botox or plastic surgery and that I considered it a red flag. I find uncanny valley plastic surgery profoundly unattractive. I don’t remember exactly what I said. It was flippant and arguably objectification.
Wow, I am so proud of you for realizing how wildly disgusting this comment is before leaving it up for too long. I would suggest you grow as a person and have that realization when you think it, and guide yourself away from being a creep.
From my view, the shirt with a funny sexual statement invites other sexual statements.
It doesn’t. Stop.
Which one was yours? Looks like the mods agree it wasn’t conducive to the environment they want.
Would you proudly tell the women and enbies in your life about the comment on a woman’s body you left on the internet? And ultimately even if, in the context of a friendship, and the folks you associate with, this would be taken well, don’t you think it’s worth listening when people say you’re being creepy and off putting?
I write code at my job, and it makes me faster at writing code.