https://twitter.com/RemitNotPaucity/status/15623190045631733...
https://twitter.com/wavefunk_/status/1562468847483244546
https://twitter.com/remi_molettee/status/1562440354955395084
https://twitter.com/pharmapsychotic/status/15625200064741007...
https://twitter.com/TomLikesRobots/status/156243596942050509...
Same here. Did you use my artworks while training your AI model? Cool, pay me licensing rights and residuals. No? Then remove them from your fancy art obfuscator filter.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/26/aphex-twin-kan...
Another painter would go for contextual and topical inference, specifically trying to understand why some techniques and painting styles garner a specific response. The AI goes for topological inference - there are no other informations beyond the painting data itself. It observes that some artists keep reusing the same colors and proportions and builds over the data by using very complicated parametric analysis. It's still mechanical reproduction, just extremely more complicated than in the past.
And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, mind you - going back to my previous musical comparison, Daft Punk built a career with a lo-fi version of this idea, but they never tried to pretend that Harder Better Faster Stronger isn't anything but an extremely, extremely clever flip of Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". And they paid both licensing and royalties for it.
There's this article "I Went Viral in the Bad Way" from a write from The Atlantic - https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/galaxy-brain/62fc502abcb.... He got criticized so hard for using an AI-generated in his newsletter instead of paying an artist to do the work. People's concerns are valid and real.
Yet, we can also imagine a future that "lower-level" artistic work can be achieved by AI, like blog article thumbnails, while higher-level artistic work will be done by artists, assisted by AI. Artists can get inspiration from AI artwork and reduce some tedious parts of their workflow.
I'm having a hard time seeing how increasingly better and freely available AI artwork doesn't just completely replace artists (and more generally how increasing AI capabilities don't just replace any career that does not involve some degree of skilled manual labor, at least until AIs get robust manual capabilities). In particular "higher-level artistic work" would seem to be that work which rises beyond what most artists do today. Prompt engineering is a far cry from making a painting oneself and there are likely many people who enjoy the latter who do not enjoy the former.
I agree that AI engines like DALL-E seem like a threat to many commercial artists, especially those whose name and personality are not closely associated with their works. Magazine illustrators are one example.
For some artists, though, the artist’s status as a human being with a unique identity is a big part of their appeal. That’s one reason why there’s such a huge price difference between, say, a painting believed to be by Van Gogh and a high-quality painting in Van Gogh’s style that is believed to be a forgery.
My daughter is a successful commercial artist, and I have been following the AI advances partly out of concern for her future. As it happens, she has been able to associate her name and personal identity even with her commercial works, and she is skilled at working closely with her clients to produce the kinds of illustrations they want. For the time being, at least, her business seems safe. I wouldn’t want to make a prediction about the long term, though.
Doesn't this just mean that her future former customers will add "in the style of [her name]" to their prompts?
I just tried several DALL-E prompts with “in the style of [my daughter’s name],” but the results looked nothing like her work. Maybe OpenAI hasn’t crawled her website [1] yet.
Also, her commercial work usually includes lettering in English (and sometimes in Japanese), and DALL-E is not able to produce words or sentences yet.
This is purely an issue of scaling and is no longer true. Other text-to-image AI have already gotten around that and produce accurate text. See e.g. https://imagen.research.google/
Even in that case, how would you decide which artists get the commission and which do not? They can't possibly track down authors of millions of artworks across the globe they scrapped when training the model. It seems to me that paying commissions to anyone would just mean that they acknowledge the questionable copyright status of the artworks produced by Dall-e.
And this is just the beginning. Illustrators are the low-hanging fruit, they have no unions to protect them, they were undervalued for ages even before the digital age.
Human made digital art will be competing with synthesis and generative processes for minimum pay, the regular Joe will have no doubt that the AI "Art" is better.
The main problem with this tech is that I have no clear answer of the question: Who benefits from this "advancement"? Artists? Or corporations?
To become a good artist, I have spent all my life practicing from anatomy through composition and color theory. Can you imagine the stupidity of my choice? Any schmuck with a computer and prompt collection will be a master of Arts soon.
The war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley has reached the new high. The "geniuses" which scraped all the stock websites and created this monstrosity, in my view, must be named "The Spirit Crushers" from now on.
But hey, it is too late. The genie is out of the bottle. So who is next?
I stopped my successful art career years ago over different reasons. But now I see my choice in a different light.
Why are they? Why are teachers, nurses, policemen, etcetera undervalued?
I think this is because these jobs don't scale. You won't be able to show progression through time where you churn out 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... artworks/week. Nor can a schoolteacher aspire to teach 30, 100, 300, 1000 kids a year.
Our economic system is addicted to growth. S&P 500 must increase 4% a year or we're all doomed.
The ridiculousness of this in a post-peak-everything world is glaringly obvious.
I'm sorry you chose a form of human expression that is incompatible with infinite exponential economic growth.
Top rate human generated art looks something like so: https://youtu.be/iKBs9l8jS6Q
which the AI generated models will lag for a while still.
When Sars2 come two and a half years ago (the end of 2019), I rearranged my whole life, restructured my company, moved to rural area. The whole world is changed, socially, economically and mentally. The same people who accused me of overreacting now have several vaccinations and track themselves regularly.
>I agree with Elon Musk that when we build A.I. without a kill switch, we are “summoning the demon” and that humans could end up, as Steve Wozniak said, as the family pets. (If we’re lucky.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/opinion/eric-schmidt-ai.h...
Hey Michelangelo, you are deadly slow, we will give you this speedup brush to meet the Quarterly Report requirements from the Pope. If you don't comply, the local bard will describe with words better than you.
From the comment section of your post:
> MAH1RO 2 weeks ago To be honest: This is the most DEPRESSING technology for my personal life. Yes, sure. AI will never be as 100% perfect as the absolute top-artists. But even just the 90% that the AI can produce are enough for most companies or whatever. So they can get cheap art and many "real" artists are going down - or are FORCED to use the AI too and just do the little polishing in the end to make a living. To me thats not what art is. I want to create art. Not let a program do 90% for me and then just optimize it a little.
And the other thing is: This programs use MILLIONS of artworks without consent. So everyone can nearly copy your art with an AI like this with just a few alterations. Yes, humans will always create art. But stuff like this lowers the value of "real" art and the time you invested in it so much, it breaks my heart...
1. Quickly create storyboards that convey the mood and style of the scenes 2. Sketch out rough ideas for characters, environments 3. Generate the in-between frames of animations
AI will be used as a tool, it's the artists job to judge the output, guide it, and tweak it as necessary. Just like a movie director. Except unlike directors who need an entire team of workers, AI will empower independent artists who will now be able to create entire animations on their own.
You don't have a job anymore. As a start, you will get less money. Why I have to pay you when GPT 3 can generate prompts for DALL-E?
Send your congratulations to the geniuses which in search of validation and budget optimization are bringing this revolution ahead. This thing proved for me that the UI design and design in general are the next target. I have transitioned to pure frontend development, and I am cool for the next three to six years. After this who knows.
On the artistic end. No more digital painting for me. I will use only analogue mediums, may be someone will pay for a human made picture on the wall....who knows.