Sadly, the majority of the images made with AI are nowhere near as wholesome as “girl with big boobs”. 😒
Why are the robots creating art? Why are the humans packing boxes?
Uh, efficiency? Ever fucking heard of it?
Besides, if the humans did too much art they might achieve consciousness and wonder why the gini coefficient is like 90 and the temperature never seems to drop below that anymore. No danger of that with robots. Best to keep the humans numb and broken and pissing in bottles.
Brave new World and 1984 combined in 2025 😃
Hey, dont forget every bacigalupi novel!
AI, much like the internet it has spawned and suckled from, is for porn.
I thought that was Jed Clampett for a second
This comic entertained me and did not kill me therefore it made me stronger.
Wait… It’s literally everything? I’ve been getting stronger every minute just by not dying?
The hell do people go to gyms for?!
That’s where their tren dealer hangs out
Yeah, what’s with 9 of 10 hentai having comically giant plump tits? Such a turn down for me.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Prompt AI to make small-titty gals yourself.
I like that the breasts are the turn down for you and not the cartoon
? Some Anime are better than most films.
I am unsure what that has to do with what I said.
I have absolutely no interest in seeing AI art. I want to see someone else’s perspective on the world, even if its poorly executed or plainly bad. Has a musician and composer, I get my highs from playing and creating music, it would lose all meaning if a computer would do it for me.
Okay but what if you were a deranged billionaire whose brain had been turned to mush by alienatiom from all labor physicality and social adaptation, whose entire existence consisted only of making demands of others and being told how good you are while your every desire was validated?
I bet your perspective on AI art would be different then, wouldnt it? Maybe the radical left should try having a little fucking empathy for once, getting on your knees, and dying for the momemtary amusement of your soup brained god kings while you valudate their beliefs and they giggle and clap? I bet you never even considered that, did you? Jerk.
To me, art must include a person’s perspective on the world. If a machine creates the exact same thing as a human, the human one would be called art, and the other a print.
When a human uses machines to create art (ex: techno music), it’s harder for me to recognize it as art, but it can still happen.
I’ve been listening to some older OSTs from one of the GitS shows, I really used to dig it in my youth. I got my hands on a higher fidelity version, some good bitrate vbr or flac, and I was listening with okayish headphones as opposed to callcenter quality headset. And goddamn it the sampling was so sloppy, it was really destroying the illusion of good music. I was unable to listen to that album ever since.
I’d like to see the boobs please.
Enable NSFW in your account settings.
There’s loads of boobs on Lemmy, just scroll
Yeah but not those boobs :(
Do they heave, though?
Yes
I don’t believe you.
Imitation*
To me, art should be the voice of a human hope and suffering unless…sigh…it’s boobies. Damn!
I absolutely love these.
“These”? You mean heaving breasts?
That too.
I didn’t read this comic, but the guy with the mustache is dressed like House and I felt like that was worth pointing out.
That’s because House is a poser fan of the guy with the moustache
Now that I’ve read the comic, I can safely say the guy with the mustache is House
I guess photography is just going “Camera, capture the perspective of the world for me”. There’s no human element in it at all, no choice, no subjectivity, just “Ask computer for thing, hit print, call it ‘my art’”. That’s a totally accurate depiction of what’s going on. Yup.
I’ve tried making AI art, and there was definitely skill involved. I understand why prompt engineering can be hard. Every word I added could have unpredictable effects, constrain the space of images that can be generated because of the correlations. Choosing between similes was important.
What I realised was that I was fighting against the model to put my intent in the art. The model was extrapolating things I didn’t want to put in the art based on popularity and trends, and I was having to find workarounds to actually make what I wanted.
A pencil will never inject intent I don’t want into my art. My hand might slip, I might get the proportions wrong. But I’ll never try to draw a criminal and accidentally draw a black person because my pencil was exposed to more black criminals than white.
There are AI artists who can put their intent into their art. But they’re 1% of the people making AI art. Most of the time, a majority of the intention comes from a computer copying trends. And that’s not art. In order to make art, actual meaningful art with these programs, you have to be an expert.
Any idiot with a pencil is an artist. The pencil only does what you tell it. You don’t have to work to make it yours.
Any idiot with a pencil is an artist. The pencil only does what you tell it. You don’t have to work to make it yours.
I don’t like that we’ve settled here in defense of “human art” because that’s simply not true. No one, in the course of human history, has ever sat behind some kid doodling stupid pictures and clapped for them unless it was their mom. It’s a trope that real human artists are generally ignored through their lifetimes. Let’s stop pretending we’re all patrons of the arts and love everything that comes out of a person with a paint brush.
That said, you’re totally right, there’s 99% of people who don’t do shit with AI art, and don’t know what to do with it. There’s still an infinite capacity for a thing that makes whatever you can imagine to actually make something useful, I do truly believe that. If you haven’t seen “great AI art” it’s probably because there hasn’t been a great AI artist yet. Likening it back to photography, which was mostly a carnival trick and a thing for bored rich people, it took a long time before anyone ever identified a photographer who they thought actually showed them something that showed their subjectivity. We’re in the “old people staring at a camera looking bored” phase of this.
I’m not saying an idiot with a pencil will produce good art, or art that’s worth anyone else’s time. But they will always have the potential to draw something worth their own time. Anyone can engage in a worthwhile artistic endeavour using a pencil. It’s not about quality, or originality, or theming. It’s about intention. Any idiot can communicate what their own ideas with a pencil, on some level.
For example, take Adolf Hitler. He was a terrible artist. He had no understanding of proportion. His paintings don’t make logical sense. And you know what? That suits the man. Hitler was an idiot who couldn’t make logical sense of the world. His paintings reflect his terrible mind. There is that much value in them as an endeavour of self-expression. I can look at a painting by Hitler and say “that’s a Hitler”.
I can also look at an AI generated image by Highborn Flunky and say “that’s a Flunky”, but Flunky is a good artist. Hitler is not. That’s the difference I’m talking about. A painting reflects your soul even if you suck.
The difference between a camera and Stable Diffusion is that a camera makes it hard to convey artistic intent, while Stable Diffusion adds artistic intent that isn’t yours. Making art with a camera is hard, but anyone can know it when they see it. Making art with Stable Diffusion is an endeavour complicated by the fact that the AI is using mass manufactured intent to pass of intentless creations as art. If you fail to convey your intent with a prompt, you don’t get a dull scene, you get trendy bullshit.
And people are way more offended by being shown trendy bullshit by bad artists than boring scenes.
Yeah fair enough, I don’t disagree with you. I think for AI artists of the future it’ll be more about them asserting their subjectivity through the lens of each model (if that’s possible). Sort of in the same way that each camera has a character to it that is palpable across multiple people.
For example, take Adolf Hitler. He was a terrible artist. He had no understanding of proportion. His paintings don’t make logical sense. And you know what? That suits the man. Hitler was an idiot who couldn’t make logical sense of the world. His paintings reflect his terrible mind. There is that much value in them as an endeavour of self-expression. I can look at a painting by Hitler and say “that’s a Hitler”.
But I do disagree with this, though. Hitler may have been a terrible artist but he might be an equivalent artist in skill level to any number of other humans who might or might not have a “logical sense of the world”, “no understanding of proportion” etc. I don’t think Hitler’s art is good enough to even be able to tell anything about him other than that he doesn’t have an original voice yet.
I don’t think most (any?) AI artists have an original voice yet. Can they make one, even though the instrument makes most of (much of?) the music? I’m not bearish on the idea that humans can use this tool to make something useful I guess.
Oh, they can make something useful. I can watch Flunky make images with two very different checkpoints, and they have the same artistic style. And the breasts are enormous and heaving. It’s good for gooning to.
I just don’t believe we should have to put up with 99 average AI art users for every Highborn Flunky. I’m willing to give up gooning to Flunky pieces if it means I don’t have to see those awful sepia comics with the dot eyes on Lemmy.
And I’m concerned by men like Sam Altman and Elon Musk. I’m concerned by the energy cost of training, the economic costs to artists, and the effect on average people’s creativity. I would be willing to ban AI art in order to solve those issues. If 99% of humans can’t be responsible with the technology, then we shouldn’t have it. I feel the same way about automobiles, nuclear bombs, tanks, and plastic packaging.
Sure but it gets back to “Nobody wants to see anyone’s shit art”. No one wants to see anyone’s shit photos either. If it didn’t take like 5 minutes for a photo I bet most early photos would have been of tits, too. It doesn’t mean the tech can’t have a purpose and couldn’t be used in a flourishing, artistic way. It just means we need to do what we’ve always done and tell people with bad art to fuck off. :)
Humanity is too ignorant to recognise bad AI art on sight, every time. The trends are only easy to see in mass aggregate. That’s why individual action can’t stop it. We need aggregate action. We need to ban AI art.
I wonder if people like you all bitched about brushes when they were invented
Pretty telling that 70% of the posts are about tit jokes
I think you need a little bit more exercise before competing in mental gymnastics.
I think you need to get some unique insults instead of just repeating whatever hurts you worst
what, in your opinion, is the best piece of AI art?
Disingenuous question, deliberately baiting. There isn’t even a touch of curiosity in your question.
AI art has barely been around half a decade and you are expecting genre defining works? I’m sure that all of those old stupid silent films about trains just crossing bridges or a guy walking a horse were supposed to be fine art created within years of the medium arising?
Every single day I am confronted by the fact that most of humanity are just soundbite regurgitation machines clamoring for the attention their parents never gave them.
half a decade
so was Dada, Painters Eleven, the Woodland School, Bauhaus, Fauvism, Pointillism, Die Brüke, Cubism, Vhkutemas…
And yes, you can absolutely point to your favorite fin de ciele film making, Edward Muybridge (I know he fucked with the spelling of his name a lot) persists in modern culture for a reason.
I accept I’m begging the question but for good reason and to make a point.
I’ve got some but they do include giant heaving breasts
Tit jokes are the epitome of art, so it checks out.
