Full AI - The End of Humanity?

[GBO Possum]

Then there's John Oliver's take on the perils of "AI Slop"

LANGUAGE WARNING

(of course)

 

[Tired Tyres]

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thought I'd pull this discussion to this thread since it's derailing the other one.

Photoshop doesn't feel, doesn't suffer, doesn't hope. Pencils don't feel, don't suffer, don't hope. It's just a tool like any other.

Whilst I generally agree it's a tool, and am not necessarily anti-AI, it's not the same as Photoshop or Pencils. Photoshop and pencils don't contribute anything to a picture that you don't put in. Photoshop obviously now does add AI elements, but even going back nearly 30 years, filters that you were able to apply only modified what was there. The absolute lion's share of what's in an AI image isn't just drawn/painted by AI, it's added by AI based on probability.

I just asked AI "Make a nice picture"...

I'd say it's not actually not that nice, but everything there came entirely from the AI. At this point referring to AI as a tool in instances like this, is like calling your Domino's App a cooking utensil, because you use it, and then you have food...

 

[Meythia]

I'd say it's not actually not that nice,

I guess it depends on the context it has learned from you, or if it is a new instance of a chat, what is widely regarded as "default opinion".

I tried several times with a picture that shows OLED burn in.
In some cases it couldnt find it for quite a few prompts of hinting into that direction.
In other cases, where I opened the chat instance with gaming topics, it detected the error on the picture no problems.
So it is possible that AI interpretes a pricture in different ways, even guess-adding things that arent present or removing things that a human can see - and the prompt simply was "what do you see in this picture that shouldnt be there" with a result like that:

which I couldnt replicate on any further attempt.

 

[Lain]

Thought I'd pull this discussion to this thread since it's derailing the other one.



Whilst I generally agree it's a tool, and am not necessarily anti-AI, it's not the same as Photoshop or Pencils. Photoshop and pencils don't contribute anything to a picture that you don't put in. Photoshop obviously now does add AI elements, but even going back nearly 30 years, filters that you were able to apply only modified what was there. The absolute lion's share of what's in an AI image isn't just drawn/painted by AI, it's added by AI based on probability.

I just asked AI "Make a nice picture"...

View attachment 1461881

I'd say it's not actually not that nice, but everything there came entirely from the AI. At this point referring to AI as a tool in instances like this, is like calling your Domino's App a cooking utensil, because you use it, and then you have food...

True, it's a tool that can generate impressive-looking results with minimal effort or thought... and unsurprisingly will result in a a flood of low effort, low value slop from people who are too lazy to put in the work to seriously practice art.

That being said, it can be used in more involved ways than simply inputting a bit of text and getting out a pretty image. There are ways to direct image generators beyond just text if you want/need more authorial control over its output, you could make a rudimentary mock-up of the desired image in Blender for instance. And you could spend tons of time and effort iterating and modifying the image in post. So with the food/cooking analogy, I'd say it's more like top ramen. You can just do the bare minimum making it, and people often do... hell you can just eat it straight out of the package without cooking it, if you're feeling really lazy. But nothing's stopping you from putting some effort and creativity into gussying it up a bit and making it yours.

 

[Exorcet]

I just asked AI "Make a nice picture"...

...

I'd say it's not actually not that nice

Low effort isn't limited to AI. Yes you can tell AI to make something with no concept of what you're getting and take whatever is output, but you can also go into the process with a specific idea and try to get AI to make that. In the latter sense it functions more like a creative tool, or at least I'd say so.

On the technical side, text prompts are horribly limiting and I'm concerned about the concept of AI generation being tied to such simple input. When it comes to image generation for example, I think a proper AI tool should generate a 3D representation of the image and then give the user to ability to move individual elements of that 3D representation before converting back to a 2D image. That would allow for much finer control while still getting the benefits of quick output and having the option of using text for the initial starting point.

 

[Earth]

Low effort isn't limited to AI. Yes you can tell AI to make something with no concept of what you're getting and take whatever is output, but you can also go into the process with a specific idea and try to get AI to make that. In the latter sense it functions more like a creative tool, or at least I'd say so.

On the technical side, text prompts are horribly limiting and I'm concerned about the concept of AI generation being tied to such simple input. When it comes to image generation for example, I think a proper AI tool should generate a 3D representation of the image and then give the user to ability to move individual elements of that 3D representation before converting back to a 2D image. That would allow for much finer control while still getting the benefits of quick output and having the option of using text for the initial starting point.

Hopefully we get to that point

Right now, Openart allows you to pose characters in a scene using a 3D wireframe, but the image output is only 1 megapixel. Still early days. Midjourney allows you to use style reference now so you can keep a certain style through multiple images. Omni reference is just starting to appear across platforms, allowing you to keep consistent characters from one image to the next.

Advanced inpainting allows you to redo small portions of the image, when early image generators required you to generate an entirely new image to change something like poorly rendered hands

I'm on the broad spectrum of what can and can't be considered art. If someone goes outside, finds a leaf laying around that they like, takes it and frames it, then they've made art, even though they had zero involvement in the creation of the leaf. Prompting is more involvement then that, and editing goes even further. Intent and control isn't always as important to me as it is to others for something to be considered art

Its kind of like how my friend doesn't listen to any electronic music at all. If it's not played with a real instrument, he's not interested. That's fine, but I think electronic musicians are musicians and are being creative

 

[MatskiMonk]

Low effort isn't limited to AI. Yes you can tell AI to make something with no concept of what you're getting and take whatever is output, but you can also go into the process with a specific idea and try to get AI to make that. In the latter sense it functions more like a creative tool, or at least I'd say so.

True, it's a tool that can generate impressive-looking results with minimal effort or thought... and unsurprisingly will result in a a flood of low effort, low value slop from people who are too lazy to put in the work to seriously practice art.

That being said, it can be used in more involved ways than simply inputting a bit of text and getting out a pretty image. There are ways to direct image generators beyond just text if you want/need more authorial control over its output, you could make a rudimentary mock-up of the desired image in Blender for instance. And you could spend tons of time and effort iterating and modifying the image in post. So with the food/cooking analogy, I'd say it's more like top ramen. You can just do the bare minimum making it, and people often do... hell you can just eat it straight out of the package without cooking it, if you're feeling really lazy. But nothing's stopping you from putting some effort and creativity into gussying it up a bit and making it yours.

It's not so much a question of being low effort, that was a deliberately low effort in order to show that even if the picture is 1% prompt, you you still get a 100% image, with the other 99% contributed by the AI. That's relevant to the original point being made that AI is a tool, and therefore comparable to a pencil or to photoshop - and further if it's no different to a pencil then it doesn't matter that it doesn't have the 'human' element that's important in art - because neither do other artistic tools.

I wouldn't argue that using AI is not a learnable skill, it is... some people can get more out of it than others. I'm not arguing that it isn't a tool.. that's how I view it... and certainly combining it with other tools, such as blender, really helps to push what's possible and in itself is a skill. But, it's a tool that stretches well beyond being a simple tool, or a labour saving tool. It's generally making a step that the user cannot make themselves, it's therefore having it's own input into what is created. I would therefore be far harsher on judging it's use, and the output than anything else.

I would argue that because AI can/does contribute so much to an image, it does matter that the AI is not in itself 'creative' - or at least it does matter if the human element of art is important.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm on the broad spectrum of what can and can't be considered art. If someone goes outside, finds a leaf laying around that they like, takes it and frames it, then they've made art, even though they had zero involvement in the creation of the leaf.

If that person made art, do you consider them an artitst?

 

[UKMikey]

 

[UKMikey]

"There's not a shred of evidence on the internet that this band has ever existed": This apparently AI-generated artist is racking up hundreds of thousands of Spotify streams

The Velvet Sundown has no online footprint, a suspiciously artificial artist image and a ChatGPT-generated biography - but somehow has almost 350,000 monthly listeners

www.musicradar.com

 

[Earth]

If that person made art, do you consider them an artitst?

You mean like a different piece of art or the framed leaf? Artist is such a broad term. For that moment, they are an artist, because they are expressing their artistic side

 

[Meythia]

It's generally making a step that the user cannot make themselves, it's therefore having it's own input into what is created.

As I said above, no 2 prompts will create the same picture, so it is nothing but randomness that will have a certian likelyness to what was initially intended.
I wouldnt call it art, if it istn compatible to 100% with what I have imagined when it was created on my input.

I am drawing it? 100%
I am picking a leave? 100%
I am creating a 3d model for any purpose? 100%

I am asking a tool that creates an image out of what it expects me to mean? nah, no art.

 

[Lain]

It's not so much a question of being low effort, that was a deliberately low effort in order to show that even if the picture is 1% prompt, you you still get a 100% image, with the other 99% contributed by the AI. That's relevant to the original point being made that AI is a tool, and therefore comparable to a pencil or to photoshop - and further if it's no different to a pencil then it doesn't matter that it doesn't have the 'human' element that's important in art - because neither do other artistic tools.

I wouldn't argue that using AI is not a learnable skill, it is... some people can get more out of it than others. I'm not arguing that it isn't a tool.. that's how I view it... and certainly combining it with other tools, such as blender, really helps to push what's possible and in itself is a skill. But, it's a tool that stretches well beyond being a simple tool, or a labour saving tool. It's generally making a step that the user cannot make themselves, it's therefore having it's own input into what is created. I would therefore be far harsher on judging it's use, and the output than anything else.

I would argue that because AI can/does contribute so much to an image, it does matter that the AI is not in itself 'creative' - or at least it does matter if the human element of art is important.

Then maybe an apt point of comparison is photography, in which the photographer likely didn't make everything (or, often the case, anything) within their frame. They might've put a great deal of care into the lighting, composition, etc... or they might not have. It's possible to just wantonly shoot candid photos without such a high degree of care. If they take such a rapid fire approach and manage to snag a few undeniably great shots, is it not real art because all they did was press the shutter button?

Ultimately I think what matters first and foremost, even more so than the artist's creative intention and how much effort they might or might not've put into any particular piece of art, is what other people get out of it. And if people can get anything out of it, and I do think we can get something out of just about anything, then I think it can be called art. Even if a "soulless" AI spat it out and decided far more of the details than the human "creator" in the process did.