I got tired of trying to get a good generation without that thing. I could remove it manually, but then that defeats the purpose of showcasing the AI I think. That was the best iteration of like 20 or so attempts I think.
1 Like
Thank god I dont work in art field or I would be scared for my job.
Whoa yeah that wigglytuff looks so good! Going to have to save that one!
I’m just disgusted. The fact that people in computing and engineering are designing things like this just betrays their lacking of understanding of the purpose and meaning of art. This shouldn’t ever be developed. It is part of the ever-continuing path towards automating everything to where artists will be replaced, and everything will be shrouded in sameness. It is obviously a tool that the money people are salivating at utilizing for their investments. It may be “cool” for your innocent pleasure, but that’s not what these technologies are developed for.
The future is so bleak.
6 Likes
Man, that Nidoking one is almost seemless! The Primeape…not so much. I patiently wait to see all of the other ones extended.
In my opinion, there might be a lot more nuance to it than that ya? There was already a discussion about human emotion and soul which the artist puts in while creating the art. However, I feel the beauty of the art lies in the eyes of the beholder. Is it so bad that an AI generated image stirred some kind of emotion in me? made me think about the art and what was depicted. AI can be very well used as great assisting tools by artists who can mix them with their own creativity and imagination and gives you leverage to stretch that imagination.
I agree to this. I think there is a high chance, if not already happening that these tools can be used by NFT / Crypto bros to further their schemes.
There should be a lot of credit given to human ingenuity to persist and adapt to technology. Whenever new technology is developed, there are some jobs that fundamentally change. Like painters when photography was developed or bespoke tailors when mass off the rack clothing came in. Ikea is a cheaper option to custom furniture made by excellent craftsmen.
Traditional art will never be replaced. Artists make art because they enjoy the journey and the process of it. They enjoy making, trying, failing and learning. The feeling of emotion and accomplishment it gives them while creating.
Cheers!
2 Likes
With any AI art, it can be amazing but I also think that one has to use it responsibly to not trample over the artist and the creative process as a whole. Its easy to take 2 clicks and spend 30 minutes to get a thousand iterations to choose the best of something based on hours and hours of work. Its easy to lose the respect for the creative process.
I think that it should be treated as an unlicensed novelty but never paid for. Its fine if you want to share or sell extended art frames but if you are using ai generation then it should be free. Ive been seeing more and more extended art shared on reddit as people are really into it and are willing to pay for them but its already starting to attract spam and laziness for a quick buck.
3 Likes
Frame expansion like this is that it is certainly very successful technology, but as stunning as it can be to see an expanded frame appear before our very eyes I think the artifice of it is going to become more apparent with time.
In the case of a photograph, AI cannot create the content that was legitimately out of frame at that moment. Photography is an art of image capture, not image generation. AI can expand that image artificially, producing an image that did not exist, and this is not going to suffice for photography.
In the case of artwork, there is legitimately nothing outside the bounds of the established frame. An artist has already set the boundary of what they want to depict and they have chosen what to create and not create in that space. AI can, again, expand that frame artificially but there is nothing actually out there. It is cool that a computer can produce an image that expands the field of view, but that content is not part of the image.
This kind of tool obviously has the most potential for graphic design, just as photoshop did before, where the artistic expression is more heavily predicated on artifice to begin with. This will make graphic design cheaper, faster, and easier, and that’s certainly threatening to graphic designers. But while photoshop allowed “anyone” to edit photos on a level never-before seen, it is still graphic designers who use it most effectively and it is still the basis for a lot of people’s jobs. I hope with time this is going to be true with AI as well.
But as far as the creation of actual art goes - a computer generated image cannot provide what a photograph provides, which is fundamentally a representation of something real. And for the illustrative arts, AI is limited to extrapolation from a data set.
There is an Irish fairy tale about a bagpipe player who was contracted by fairies to play music at one of their banquets. While he was there, he saw fairies playing music perfectly and beautifully, but they could only play the same two songs over and over again. Fairies were capable of flawless recreation of anything they’d heard before, but were incapable of producing anything original. He had to play new music for them so they could learn new songs, and while they played “better” than he did they could never create music like he could.
This is a very old folktale and it demonstrates to me that humans value and have always valued our capacity to create, not nearly recreate. AI is like fairies that may be perfectly able to produce something based on its data set, but the creative limits here are going to prevent AI from ever replacing human creativity.
I do think AI is here to stay and is going to be part of our lives. As others have said, a future where humans are forced to do all the hard labor and service work while robots get to do all of our art is far bleaker than any dystopia science fiction has ever imagined. But I think the longevity and function of how this technology is used is going to really depend on people’s response to it, not just now but over time. Corporations might always be racing to the bottom to eliminate the human element, but humans are not. No space that values artistic expression is going to stop doing so, I don’t think.
3 Likes
It is true that tradition art (oil painting etc.) will not be replaced in the future but people who work in graphic design with photoshop or what ever design software with art degree will most likely be replaced in some time near future and AI generated ads, movie posters and so on and so forth will take over because it is simply cheaper to let AI do it’s magic rather than pay for someone to do it.
Also very much a true but for some people art is day job. You develop your artistic skills over the years, find your own individual style and learn from the masters who came before you. AI art is force learned those things with art that real artists have done and it’s not uncommon that some art styles that are being AI generated are ripped from artists that have not given permission to use their art for AI learning.
That being said AI art can be great if its used responsible but what I’ve personally seen is that people rip art styles with no regards to the real artist that actually made it.
Also digital art is big business so in the future news like this Art Made by AI Wins Fine Arts Competition - Impakter will be more common and I wouldn’t be surprised when ever TPCI hosts next art competition that someone tries to win it with AI generated stuff.
3 Likes
Did you ask the original artist Hyogonosuke who put his talent, time and energy into the original images permission before doing this? 
Even worse that you fed the greedy beast that is Adobe.
3 Likes
if you’re a freelance designer, you’re not using IP to begin with. this will impact photographers as well. it is much more powerful than previously imagined.
here is a reference of one of the new tools, will absolutely take work from photographers
https://twitter.com/heyBarsee/status/1662113184675758080?s=20
1 Like
Yep. Wake me up when they start compensating the artists.
And for anyone who wants to make the disingenuous comparison that ‘every artist is inspired by other artists before them, should they pay them’, don’t.
How many hours/days/years does it take to develop your style or incorporate others’ into your own work? How many of these AI generated ‘work’ can be pumped out in seconds?
Maybe tech bros could focus on using technology for the good of society instead of just finding ways to enrich themselves at its expense.
3 Likes
It can copy the backgrounds to an extent but if you try that with the pokemon themselves you won’t get anything good. It also can’t discern what looks good and what doesn’t, it just generates randomly and it’s up to the person using it to decide, however most people “prompting” now aren’t artists so they don’t have the “eye” that artists do.
That said, I don’t trust most people to know if what they’re looking at is “good art” or “bad art”.
3 Likes
If I like it it’s good, if I don’t, it’s bad
Here’s everything I’ve generated with AI so far that I like: coop-ai.artstation.com
5 Likes
That’s exactly the problem and why AI use in art will most likely will be mass-accepted. Most people can’t tell actual skilled (good) artwork from poorly executed amateur work (bad) and / or they don’t care.
1 Like
Saw this yesterday and it gave me a good chuckle about this current trend, but it does echo your sentiments….
3 Likes
I just kinda find the notion of AI art to be disgraceful to what makes art so special in the first place. I also think it fits perfectly in the impatience of the modern day; people want to just skip through the process of creation, right to the end product. Art is expression that is fundamentally human. There is meaning in the dedication, passion and skill in art. AI art feels like stealing that away from someone else. You’re taking their hard work and using it to modify their creation beyond the parameters of what they wanted to create.
Of all the mundane things that we could’ve worked to automate, why go for one of the special things like art? It reminds me of the clip of Hayao Miyazaki talking about AI Hayao Miyazaki's thoughts on an artificial intelligence - YouTube
5 Likes
My thoughts are torn. On one hand I get the emotional argument. On the other hand, it feels like what people were probably saying about manuscript copying when the printing press was invented.
10 Likes
There’s nuance to everything. But this is a principle, and principles are quite simple. It is crossing a line and most people don’t realize the implications when it starts off small. The beauty of art does lie in the eyes of the beholder. But AI generated imagery isn’t art. It is imagery. It isn’t a knock on people who might enjoy it, but don’t go calling it art. That right is reserved for humans who create art. AI could be used as a tool, and perhaps it would start off that way, but it will not end that way. And besides, it soils the discipline. It isn’t really your art at that point is it? It isn’t art by mrbubbles then, is it? No, it’s half art by mrbubbles and half imagery generated by AI. Don’t you see how it unbecomes your creation at that point? It isn’t even entirely your work? What is so impressive about your favorite artists’ works? There was a human, like you, behind it. It is fully their expression, their passion. It was not muddied by effortless and cheap filling done by AI. Or heaven forbid (and give it time, I assure you this is imminent), the entirety of it.
I’m not referring to these little people. Money people is my way of saying those who have power and decision making that impact your life in a monumental way, on a daily basis. These are corporate leaders, these are big investors, these are big institutions and those who control them and control nearly everything we do as a society. And boy are those roles ever increasing to alarming expansion.
My biggest issue lies here. When people fail to see what is happening. This is like nothing that has come before. This is not automation of a specific type of craft, or a trade. This isn’t efficiency. This beginning phase of development we are seeing is the beginning of threatening art’s sanctity as a whole. Before, machines were actual assistance into optimizing the production of something humans designed. Clothing, text, imagery, all of it. Humans design it, machines print it. This is the first time in history where we are actually talking about that stage before production, the creative element. The act of creating the art itself. The former was a natural progression which did uproot jobs throughout history, but created other jobs in its wake. The latter is something different entirely.
This is about monetization and excluding artists from it. This is yet again about wealth consolidation and another method of peeling back layers of artists’ control over what happens in the corporate world. Just as artists are giving pushback to consolidation of development, distribution, and ownership over movies/television (writer’s strike right now example), how do the corporations view these people? With contempt. Even though the artists made them all their money. Their natural response is to lean into other options. If they could, they would love to see AI idea creation or even writing entirely to slowly but surely limit artists control or participation.
I dislike the response that people will always enjoy traditional art (will you be able to tell?) and artists will always make said art. That is another case of people not seeing the bigger picture. This is about a looming change in balance between artists and money people which has always existed as a natural struggle that will soon be unprecedentedly imbalanced. And even on the smaller scale, this just simply means art’s purity as a human endeavor being diluted more and more with time, to the point, as I already said, of it not meaning the same thing anymore. What’s the good in looking at “pretty” imagery on its own? It has always meant what it has because your fellow humans created it.
@needszeebs once again love the Miyazaki reference. Love how he specifically used the word disgust haha. But you see the look on those people’s faces? They aren’t artists. They just have this blank expression, they clearly have no comprehension of what it means to create, only to consume. Perfect reference for the topic. Bravo.
9 Likes
Appropriate for the new 2020 zard.
I would be happy with AI being used to generate backgrounds like this. This is probably a disservice towards abstract artists. I love that stuff, and there is value in humans doing that, but in terms of AI like this being used in a slimy way, I’d rather it be with abstract stuff than to fake things that look like real life.
3 Likes