• @_ed@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    re: feeding and artists work to generate imitations - If ai contains copyrighted work in it’s process the work should remain with the originial artist regardless of what is output.

  • dinomug
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    The same thing happened when the switch was made from conventional animation to computer generated animation or digital drawing instead of pen and paper. None of these advances “killed” the above, traditional means are still used. All this is more than a complement to what already exists, in my humble opinion, instead of arguing about this type of thing, the big companies and production studios should focus on improving the working and living conditions of the people who dedicated to working in this sector.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I see AI art generation being akin to photography. A photographer doesn’t create the scene, they merely have an eye for capturing it. It could be argued that someone using an AI model to produce a picture they find interesting is essentially doing the same task.

    I do see this becoming a tool for artists as well. For example, it’s possible to give stable diffusion a sketch and have it fill in details in the sketch using prompts. This saves a lot of manual work for the artist. The artist can quickly sketch out the initial scene this way and then build on it.

    AI generation can also be used as a prompt for ideas where you’d generate a bunch of pictures and then use them as inspiration for a picture of your own.

    As I see it, the real question is what role we think mechanical skill plays in creation of art. Modern tools like Krita make it much easier for artists to produce intricate details and effects than a traditional medium. For example, it takes far more skill to paint with oil on canvas than to produce digital art using Krita. Does it mean that a picture painted using digital tools somehow lesser or is it the vision of the artist that ultimately matters. And if we agree that it comes down to the vision and the ideas or feelings the artists aims to convey then the medium used to express that should not matter.

    Furthermore, the observer imparts their own meaning on the art. When I look at a picture, it’s either meaningful to me or not. It hardly matters whether it was produced by an algorithm or by a person. In most cases I have no idea what the artist was thinking when they painted a picture, so any meaning I ascribe to it comes solely from me.

    • As I see it, the real question is what role we think mechanical skill plays in creation of art.

      From what i noticed, art critics generally disdain realism in painting often going as far as “what is the point of painting photo since you can just make a photo” so i guess they shouldn’t complain about AI being used as tool, but i feel they will do it anyway.

        • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah i read something along those lines, invention of photography and especially simplifying the equipment can potentially make everyone a realist painter (still the differences in skill are noticeable as every fan of photography would tell you), so i just see AI as next stage of making potentially anyone into artist. I always thought the technical skills are the biggest obstacle, as i have pretty vivid imagination but next to no skill to express it.

          *Fuck the critics though, my favourite painters are still Ilya Repin, Jan Matejko and Jacques-Louis David.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Yeah completely agree with that. The whole gatekeeping around what constitutes “real art” is pure nonsense in my opinion. Any tool that helps people express themselves is a net positive. And I’ve personally been having a ton of fun playing with stable diffusion. I find it’s particularly good at doing abstract style, and in a lot of cases it really does look like it could’ve been painted by somebody. A few nice results I got recently:

  • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It seems it is advancing in very quick pace. Not so long ago AI could only create something that could be named “art” only by someone highly in abstract, and what would be in next few years?

    • poVoqOP
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Why stupid? There is some genuinely nice stuff you can do with it. I am personally looking forward to the stable diffusion integration with Krita.