At first it was a normal reading voice, but the time I got to the end it was definitely syndrome

I heard it in his voice before I even read “Syndrome”. Idk, maybe I saw the name and my subconscious recognized it before I was aware of reading it, but it fits him too well

Except corporate art also has human elements behind it that change. Look at global village coffeehouse vs alegria. Having ai churn out all clip art and corporate art will make it stagnate and become even more soulless.

I love your take. And extrapolating from it a bit, a lot of what we consider ‘artists’ weren’t really making ‘art’, as you define it. They were (and mostly still are) drawing/painting, etc pictures as a means to an end. For money; and now they are mad or worried or scared (with reason) about losing their livelihood. Because a cheaper, not necessarily better but certainly with a better cost/benefit ratio, comes along.

I have a different take.

AI today is basically a mechanical school. AI students are trained to give a specific answer. This is at the heart of how all machine learning works, including generative AI. Even image generators do this.

“Here’s a million examples of what the pixelated representation of a hand looks like; now go and make a derivative copy.”

This is fine for objective facts, like physics and history. It is useless for art.

Merely drawing a hand is not art, it’s an objective truth (do typical humans have 5 or 6 fingers?). But art school is not about objective truths. Art school teaches creativity. Specifically challenging ideas and expression.

AIs can’t fundamentally challenge ideas and express themselves because they lack personal experience, personality and individuality.

Society at large has been fooled into thinking that speech (LLM) and other generative AI lead to AGI. But the reality is that these models have more in common with encyclopedias and stock image libraries than intelligence.

Technically, so did Syndrome.

Ask me how I know you’re not in the world of art.

I don’t know any AI artists (as in someone who prompts a model and then calls the result a work of art), although most traditional artists i know have come to incorporate AI one way or another in their process.

You don’t really hear about it because it’s all intermediate material used during the production phase. For example, as a hobbyist writer, one thing i struggle with is writing action scenes cause i don’t have visual memory and i tend to forget a lot about continuity and “spatial realism” (“this guy starts in this corner of the room so there’s no way he could grab that object at that point”, shit like that). With AI I can generate some kind of “story board” of my scene, which helps me write it much better. It’s just laid out visually in front of me and i catch a lot more details.

Sometimes when i’m toying with an idea i’ll also have a model generate a few variations on it, with different points of view, writing style, focus etc… Even if the writing is mediocre, it gives me a really good idea of how each version could pan out, and whether an angle works or not. I’ll then select the angle that works best and rewrite it entirely from scratch.

There’s nothing innovative about it, people have been using assistants to avoid tedious work forever. It’s just that before AI you had to, you know, be rich and able to actually pay for the labor.

I’m curious how you feel about something like this https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/19d8uwo/inpainting_is_a_powerful_tool_project_time_lapse/

I disagree with Art having to have a process. Couldn’t absence of any process be a process. AI is a tool, just like an iPad.
Is a McDonald’s commercial art? Usually no but could it be yes.
I’m conflicted, I appreciate what AI can do. But using AI in any means to advance capitalism disgusts me.
Technology hasn’t improved my life in a long time, it’s only bought another yacht for some rich asshole.

One of my favourite small indie bands trained and used AI to make music videos for their most recent album. They were very upfront about it basically saying it was the only way they could have made the type of video they wanted as they simply wouldn’t have had the resources to do it another way.

I still don’t like AI art and I don’t feel great about it but this is the closest to a legitimate application of AI art I’ve come across.

I think I’ve encountered one person that could reasonably be said to be using AI generators to make art, in that a discord server I’m in used to have a guy that made something of a hobby out of trying to get chatbots and coding AIs to make “shaders” (I don’t know exactly what this implies, since what he posted weren’t recognizable as shaded images but some kind of abstract patterns or shapes). He was always talking about tweaking some technical aspects of various models, that I didn’t really get the terminology of to understand, and seemed to spend a lot of time messing around with them to only occasionally get something he found interesting enough to share. It wasn’t how people typically use “AI art” generators though, for sure.

I am art.

Dude, 90% of genius level mathematics from a few decades ago can be replaced with Wolfram Alpha. Does that make the mathematicians from the past “no mathmaticians to begin with”? Nah.

I’m all for technological advancements and the distribution of art creation, but you have to acknowledge the fact that the current AI image and video generation models are built on theft.

When I told an anti-AI artist I was a photographer the other day, she told me maybe somebody I would learn to draw like a “real” artist, when I would understand how bad AI was.