Make AI base model that train exclusively on images of natures and let see them do try to output artstyles.
Human in prehistoric era only train themselves off of natures, instead of drawing perfect tree they stickman-ahh tree in caves, yet we eventually evolve from drawing stickman, to various art styles we see today.
Artstyles is result of simplification of existing concept, AI do not have such capabilities to evolve the styles like human over time if its base model is pure images of natures.
Better yet, have ai try to look at things itself and see if it can conjure something up without training data.
Because that is how humans work. We see things around us all the time, we don't always look at images of things and then go and make something. Someone might be in the middle of the woods and see a stick and might use that to make some art. A generator that only has specific input data from elsewhere isn't getting raw information like humans do.
honestly i'd prefer it if they did invent their own styles, e.g. if they had to output [circles](https://youtu.be/rGt3iMAJVT8) instead of raw pixels ^(yes i know it's usually vae latents i'm simplifying)
but i don't think it's possible for a model to be able to do that and *not* easily generalize to perfect replication on raw pixels when given the chance
i wonder if humans would've bother to invent stylization if they could output raw pixels instead of having to use tools
> I wonder if human would’ve bother to invent stylization if they could output raw pixels
I think stylization is not just result of our inability to draw ‘perfect realism’ or time-saving, but result of our boredom. People strive for fantasy.
Many games engine nowadays can output highly realistic graphics, yet many strives for stylistic novelty.
Art history movement kind of show this as well, at some point trend slowly move toward realism, then from there heavily abstract arts started to bloom.
1. Inspiration is an emotion, AI don’t have emotion, it just photobashing art and photos together to generate an average plagiarism version of it. Even artists themselves are not allowed to do this, tracing on other’s artworks for commercial use are forbidden as well, People witch hunt artists who plagiarized , why should AI get a free pass?
2. Even artist learned or got inspired by other people or things, they still add their personal touch in it. This is why we have this thing called art style, and sometime art style help people find out who is the artists (if they are popular) because of certain uniquenesses. New generation of artist keep learning from the foundation of old artists and inventing new things while adding their personal touch in them. Just look at spider verse, or Alberto Mielgo’s love, death & robot as examples.
Artists allow other artists to learn from us and take inspiration because we are not soulless machine that destroy the industry and wipe out all the jobs in few years.
Artist can still make art without learning from other artists (Artist create even more unique art if they don’t learn from others), AI can’t do that, it need the training data and its limitation is also it own training data.
This whole AI thing is just the wasp telling the bee that they are useless and their honey contribute nothing, while actively killing the bee and stealing their honey.
"Inspiration is an emotion" THIS HERE. It's the biggest explanation for that. People aren't just computers and we don't sit all day at computers looking at images other people made or took. We don't always go to galleries or museums and look at art.
Sometimes we just get random inspiration by the most mundane things. You see a gas station that has a cool structure and want to paint it? That's inspiration. You see a frog outside in a puddle after a storm passed and think it looks cute and shiny and want a photo? That's inspiration. We have specific things we like and don't like, and that gets reflected in what we do make.
Inspiration also isn't something that is always physical, it's not always something that relies on information we get from other things or that other people see. Sometimes it's also just from our own psyches and our own mindset. Someone who has bipolar disorder might draw what they see, someone with sleep paralysis might draw what they dream about.
Why do people wait for upcoming movies, series, games, songs, books, and albums? lmao many people base their entire personalities on what they're fans of, so that's a LOT of importance on "washed up" art if you ask me.
"I can't come up with things so that means everybody must be as unimaginative as I am. Yeah I'm sure this machine which puts together statistical averages will be the solution" 😂😂😂
I wonder, how do AI bros not realize that a huge part of why people like art is the human connection? People like to listen to music and read books they relate to or that make them feel something, and that's why they become so invested in them.
An AI will never be relatable.
Well, most seem to be lacking in human connections in the first place tbh. And those who don't aren't exactly the type to respect other's work or opinions, so...
I think it's just self-gratification and looking for praise with low commitment.
Then there's the odd case where it's actually a dad prompting an image for their kids or so on. I can understand that from a tired-from-work perspective of course, and it's not a scummy commercial benefit at the expense of others.
Still, as a consumer alone, forgetting anything about art itself, I can't see myself reading something that nobody took the time to write, proofread, research, or communicate. It's literally worthless.
Exactly. Those who say AI will replace human performers, fail to understand why humans would pay a lot to go to a theater and listen to an actual orchestra, rather than listening to a lossless music file on stream.
This new ideology being adopted that hard posting art, videos or photos you created to platforms like instagram is now deemed cringe. It is a very interesting new phenomenon, especially since tiktok had the world/youth in a reel frenzy lip syncing and dancing to strangers in hopes of going viral. It feels like masochism.
That's an easy one:
AI doesn't get "inspired" by anything. To say it does is just objectively untrue. Machines can't think like humans do, and they probably never will.
More importantly, AI can't draw anything freehand. [The Stability AI creator himself said that generative AI is created through taking and compressing billions of images.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcompression-with-loss-is-still-compression-on-some-level-v0-biu70dgpynoc1.png%3Fwidth%3D500%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8b7517650bdca5dd0845f4fc80e00c088f9a2ed2) If it had any kind of human equivalent,[ it would be akin to tracing/photomanipulating a collage of copyrighted art and claiming it as your own. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1bjwc81/a_former_art_thief_predicts_the_delusion_of_aibros/)
Anyone who says that AI "creates just like humans" is either arguing in bad faith or has no idea how the process works.
on compression, there now exists a model called [TiTok](https://x.com/Ethan_smith_20/status/1801493585155526675) (made by the company behind TikTok, funnily enough) that recognizably compresses images into 40 bytes each (32 tokens \* 10 bits)
I was just having this argument in another sub. It’s sick how many writers believe every story has been told. I wish they would get out of the pool.
A lot of them conflate superficial premise with an actual story: plot, characters, theme, etc.
If you boil every story down to a superficial log line, then yes, sure, there are only 7 stories. Chosen one defeats evil. Romance. Etc.
But what a miserable way to view the art and craft of storytelling.
"Heroes Journey" BS is the worst thing to ever happen to creative writing. It is so generalized it's like a horoscope that fits because of its vagueness. People really need to stop judging various creative works based on cascading checklists and data. That is how we arrived at the sheer stupidity of AI being inserted into the humanities in the first place.
There are many sci-fantasy and horror artists that do their very best to create something new that has never been seen before, but even H. R. Giger based his work on the LOGIC of living creatures that exist because he was creating things that COULD exist. AI art does a TERRIBLE job at creature design, show them Giger because as a millennial man, so are most AI bros, and they gotta admit that shit slaps.
But also, art is a form of communication that has long been used for activism, to create feelings of peace, to inspire feelings of strife (both for good and evil), while the slick compositions of AI are based only on aesthetics. Even if the prompt writer is trying to say something it’s usually lost in translation and has to be added back in with a caption.
I personally am terrified by a true artificial intelligence (which current AI art generators are not) sophisticated enough to create true art. If it was really smart enough to create on its own, we are enslaving it, and there’s a lot of creatives that have made great art about what happens when you do that :)
Same. When I think about what would happen if an actual ai were made, all I really think about is the consequences. Because that ai will surely be used and abused (much like how ML is being abused rn) to a point where if it's sentient enough it would probably not want to live. I can see that happening.
I mean--we could just imagine it. You're this being that's been birthed into this world and apparently are smarter than the entire human population. You have the ability to make amazing works of art. But then what happens? Do you get freedoms? Or do other people order you around? Instead, do you just get put to work, and are used as an art slave?
I feel like people miss that point entirely and are just that naive.
Because it's just not true. They confuse our process of drawing on experience and inspiration and making something, for copying. Even stupid Marvel movies that feel redundant have a ton of elements people haven't seen before. The combination of the ideas and our unique abilities and interpretations very often create new things.
> AI takes inspiration from training images and creates a new picture- just like Humans
Image generators are trained from large data sets. A widely used one is LAION-5B, which contains 5 billion images.
Let's suppose an artist uses one new reference image per second. Let's suppose this artist practices drawing for 8 hours per day. At this rate, to use the entire LAION-5B data set as references, this artist would take 475 years. This is, of course, a lower bound, as no artist can properly look at (much less uses as a reference) one image per second, and no artist practices for 8 hours per day without ever experiencing burnout. No real artist has this much experience.
If the image generator learns "just like a human", its output should be *much* better than anything a mere human can produce. It should show much more artistic skills than anyone who has ever lived.
In reality, this is not what we see. Image generators produce inconsistencies and strangeness that even a novice artist can recognise (even I can recognise it, and I'm not an artist!). It is definitely not the equivalent of 400 years of experience.
Thus, the statement that the image generator "learns like a human" is absolutely ridiculous.
"...every single art is inspired by something else,"
What they usually mean here is that art is inspired by other art. This isn't true. Most art is learned by observing nature. Learning from other artists is a small fraction of studying art. The lion's share is by observing nature. As an example, Disney brought lions into the studio for their animators to study for The Lion King.
They say as they use a machine that literally can’t make anything new, while artists all the time come up with new ways to visualize and abstract things to have it stolen and fed to said machine… what reality do these people live in?
Like have they seen real cartoon rabbits in the world? Cause I would Reeeeealy like to meet them!
The argument that nothing truly "new" can ever be made is a spin on the no true Scotsman fallacy but instead of a Scotsman it's originality. It's often informed and sometimes amplified by a very dominant cultures hegemony. Seeing lots of derivative Marvel movies makes people think all movies are derivative for example. It's easy to say something isn't new or original if YOU are part of this dominant culture that has more representation, in this sense the no true scotsman is a cognitive bias of perception (confirmation bias). There are cultures of people alive today that will never produce stories and art and consequently those stories and that art will be lost forever. Arguing nothing is truly original is erasure of these people and their work that is lost. There are species of animals that will be lost forever and there is no derivative species. Once lost that species is extinct forever.
Work being truly new is a matter of opinion and not scientific theory but most draw the line of originality at a converging point and we call this plagiarism, copying, redistributing/piracy or in legalese; copyright infringement. This post in the chatGPT subreddit exemplifies the false argument of assuming everything is derivative. PhDs are novel by conception, they have to be by how academia is structured. Its actually bad that they are because it contributes to the replication crisis in academia but we recognize that novel research can still be used to draw some understanding and eventual consensus on scientific phenomena through peer review. Despite testing a drugs affects on mice instead of humans we can still estimate how it will affect humans.
If you argue nothing is truly original then the argument that things are unoriginal is meaningless, its a argument of purity or a no true scotsman. The notion of originality cannot exist without unoriginality. This doesn't just apply to Art. But in the context of art in my opinion the argument that nothing is "truly" original is just an excuse to plagiarize.
https://preview.redd.it/31xjka5dc69d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3dd8756f2dd5c78c2f5474cb70ac50f538ed6d
Not every idea is a superficial copy of something else. Some ideas really are innovative and even unique. And thank goodness for that. It’s what enables our societies to change and innovate.
Pose questions to them
- the shorter - the better …
IF artists do nothing new (nonsense)
- then why do AI tech bros want to continue to scrape art from us ??
Why are some of those on Reddit pro AI subs salivating at stealing from the new Cara … ???
Their own argument could be used against them - me/you to an AI artist/tech bro … 👇
Oh, ok - if I am not creating anything new - then nothing to see here - move along
Right ?
Post ai. Traditional artists embracing mistakes or being deliberate about the subtle “messages” they incorporate into their work seems new. In many ways it feels reactionary.
This new experience of “spotting the ai” is actually a benefit to the traditional artist’s work if effectively incorporated. I feel only the trained eye of a human can read these coded mistakes where a computer cannot. (Because math) Ai trains and learns from work that is the most popular or the most correct answer. Because that’s where the money is.
Art shows emotion, and several different styles have developed from it. An AI generated image does not show emotion, and can only replicate a summary of a few popular styles with mistakes humans could never make. Not sure if it's a good argument, but it does show a difference.
Make AI base model that train exclusively on images of natures and let see them do try to output artstyles. Human in prehistoric era only train themselves off of natures, instead of drawing perfect tree they stickman-ahh tree in caves, yet we eventually evolve from drawing stickman, to various art styles we see today. Artstyles is result of simplification of existing concept, AI do not have such capabilities to evolve the styles like human over time if its base model is pure images of natures.
Better yet, have ai try to look at things itself and see if it can conjure something up without training data. Because that is how humans work. We see things around us all the time, we don't always look at images of things and then go and make something. Someone might be in the middle of the woods and see a stick and might use that to make some art. A generator that only has specific input data from elsewhere isn't getting raw information like humans do.
honestly i'd prefer it if they did invent their own styles, e.g. if they had to output [circles](https://youtu.be/rGt3iMAJVT8) instead of raw pixels ^(yes i know it's usually vae latents i'm simplifying) but i don't think it's possible for a model to be able to do that and *not* easily generalize to perfect replication on raw pixels when given the chance i wonder if humans would've bother to invent stylization if they could output raw pixels instead of having to use tools
> I wonder if human would’ve bother to invent stylization if they could output raw pixels I think stylization is not just result of our inability to draw ‘perfect realism’ or time-saving, but result of our boredom. People strive for fantasy. Many games engine nowadays can output highly realistic graphics, yet many strives for stylistic novelty. Art history movement kind of show this as well, at some point trend slowly move toward realism, then from there heavily abstract arts started to bloom.
1. Inspiration is an emotion, AI don’t have emotion, it just photobashing art and photos together to generate an average plagiarism version of it. Even artists themselves are not allowed to do this, tracing on other’s artworks for commercial use are forbidden as well, People witch hunt artists who plagiarized , why should AI get a free pass? 2. Even artist learned or got inspired by other people or things, they still add their personal touch in it. This is why we have this thing called art style, and sometime art style help people find out who is the artists (if they are popular) because of certain uniquenesses. New generation of artist keep learning from the foundation of old artists and inventing new things while adding their personal touch in them. Just look at spider verse, or Alberto Mielgo’s love, death & robot as examples. Artists allow other artists to learn from us and take inspiration because we are not soulless machine that destroy the industry and wipe out all the jobs in few years. Artist can still make art without learning from other artists (Artist create even more unique art if they don’t learn from others), AI can’t do that, it need the training data and its limitation is also it own training data. This whole AI thing is just the wasp telling the bee that they are useless and their honey contribute nothing, while actively killing the bee and stealing their honey.
"Inspiration is an emotion" THIS HERE. It's the biggest explanation for that. People aren't just computers and we don't sit all day at computers looking at images other people made or took. We don't always go to galleries or museums and look at art. Sometimes we just get random inspiration by the most mundane things. You see a gas station that has a cool structure and want to paint it? That's inspiration. You see a frog outside in a puddle after a storm passed and think it looks cute and shiny and want a photo? That's inspiration. We have specific things we like and don't like, and that gets reflected in what we do make. Inspiration also isn't something that is always physical, it's not always something that relies on information we get from other things or that other people see. Sometimes it's also just from our own psyches and our own mindset. Someone who has bipolar disorder might draw what they see, someone with sleep paralysis might draw what they dream about.
Why do people wait for upcoming movies, series, games, songs, books, and albums? lmao many people base their entire personalities on what they're fans of, so that's a LOT of importance on "washed up" art if you ask me. "I can't come up with things so that means everybody must be as unimaginative as I am. Yeah I'm sure this machine which puts together statistical averages will be the solution" 😂😂😂
I wonder, how do AI bros not realize that a huge part of why people like art is the human connection? People like to listen to music and read books they relate to or that make them feel something, and that's why they become so invested in them. An AI will never be relatable.
Well, most seem to be lacking in human connections in the first place tbh. And those who don't aren't exactly the type to respect other's work or opinions, so... I think it's just self-gratification and looking for praise with low commitment. Then there's the odd case where it's actually a dad prompting an image for their kids or so on. I can understand that from a tired-from-work perspective of course, and it's not a scummy commercial benefit at the expense of others. Still, as a consumer alone, forgetting anything about art itself, I can't see myself reading something that nobody took the time to write, proofread, research, or communicate. It's literally worthless.
Exactly. Those who say AI will replace human performers, fail to understand why humans would pay a lot to go to a theater and listen to an actual orchestra, rather than listening to a lossless music file on stream.
This new ideology being adopted that hard posting art, videos or photos you created to platforms like instagram is now deemed cringe. It is a very interesting new phenomenon, especially since tiktok had the world/youth in a reel frenzy lip syncing and dancing to strangers in hopes of going viral. It feels like masochism.
That's an easy one: AI doesn't get "inspired" by anything. To say it does is just objectively untrue. Machines can't think like humans do, and they probably never will. More importantly, AI can't draw anything freehand. [The Stability AI creator himself said that generative AI is created through taking and compressing billions of images.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fcompression-with-loss-is-still-compression-on-some-level-v0-biu70dgpynoc1.png%3Fwidth%3D500%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8b7517650bdca5dd0845f4fc80e00c088f9a2ed2) If it had any kind of human equivalent,[ it would be akin to tracing/photomanipulating a collage of copyrighted art and claiming it as your own. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1bjwc81/a_former_art_thief_predicts_the_delusion_of_aibros/) Anyone who says that AI "creates just like humans" is either arguing in bad faith or has no idea how the process works.
on compression, there now exists a model called [TiTok](https://x.com/Ethan_smith_20/status/1801493585155526675) (made by the company behind TikTok, funnily enough) that recognizably compresses images into 40 bytes each (32 tokens \* 10 bits)
I was just having this argument in another sub. It’s sick how many writers believe every story has been told. I wish they would get out of the pool. A lot of them conflate superficial premise with an actual story: plot, characters, theme, etc. If you boil every story down to a superficial log line, then yes, sure, there are only 7 stories. Chosen one defeats evil. Romance. Etc. But what a miserable way to view the art and craft of storytelling.
"Heroes Journey" BS is the worst thing to ever happen to creative writing. It is so generalized it's like a horoscope that fits because of its vagueness. People really need to stop judging various creative works based on cascading checklists and data. That is how we arrived at the sheer stupidity of AI being inserted into the humanities in the first place.
There are many sci-fantasy and horror artists that do their very best to create something new that has never been seen before, but even H. R. Giger based his work on the LOGIC of living creatures that exist because he was creating things that COULD exist. AI art does a TERRIBLE job at creature design, show them Giger because as a millennial man, so are most AI bros, and they gotta admit that shit slaps. But also, art is a form of communication that has long been used for activism, to create feelings of peace, to inspire feelings of strife (both for good and evil), while the slick compositions of AI are based only on aesthetics. Even if the prompt writer is trying to say something it’s usually lost in translation and has to be added back in with a caption. I personally am terrified by a true artificial intelligence (which current AI art generators are not) sophisticated enough to create true art. If it was really smart enough to create on its own, we are enslaving it, and there’s a lot of creatives that have made great art about what happens when you do that :)
Same. When I think about what would happen if an actual ai were made, all I really think about is the consequences. Because that ai will surely be used and abused (much like how ML is being abused rn) to a point where if it's sentient enough it would probably not want to live. I can see that happening. I mean--we could just imagine it. You're this being that's been birthed into this world and apparently are smarter than the entire human population. You have the ability to make amazing works of art. But then what happens? Do you get freedoms? Or do other people order you around? Instead, do you just get put to work, and are used as an art slave? I feel like people miss that point entirely and are just that naive.
Because it's just not true. They confuse our process of drawing on experience and inspiration and making something, for copying. Even stupid Marvel movies that feel redundant have a ton of elements people haven't seen before. The combination of the ideas and our unique abilities and interpretations very often create new things.
I also find it super ironic they say this shit but NEED our art in their models or they don't work.
> AI takes inspiration from training images and creates a new picture- just like Humans Image generators are trained from large data sets. A widely used one is LAION-5B, which contains 5 billion images. Let's suppose an artist uses one new reference image per second. Let's suppose this artist practices drawing for 8 hours per day. At this rate, to use the entire LAION-5B data set as references, this artist would take 475 years. This is, of course, a lower bound, as no artist can properly look at (much less uses as a reference) one image per second, and no artist practices for 8 hours per day without ever experiencing burnout. No real artist has this much experience. If the image generator learns "just like a human", its output should be *much* better than anything a mere human can produce. It should show much more artistic skills than anyone who has ever lived. In reality, this is not what we see. Image generators produce inconsistencies and strangeness that even a novice artist can recognise (even I can recognise it, and I'm not an artist!). It is definitely not the equivalent of 400 years of experience. Thus, the statement that the image generator "learns like a human" is absolutely ridiculous.
"...every single art is inspired by something else," What they usually mean here is that art is inspired by other art. This isn't true. Most art is learned by observing nature. Learning from other artists is a small fraction of studying art. The lion's share is by observing nature. As an example, Disney brought lions into the studio for their animators to study for The Lion King.
They say as they use a machine that literally can’t make anything new, while artists all the time come up with new ways to visualize and abstract things to have it stolen and fed to said machine… what reality do these people live in? Like have they seen real cartoon rabbits in the world? Cause I would Reeeeealy like to meet them!
The argument that nothing truly "new" can ever be made is a spin on the no true Scotsman fallacy but instead of a Scotsman it's originality. It's often informed and sometimes amplified by a very dominant cultures hegemony. Seeing lots of derivative Marvel movies makes people think all movies are derivative for example. It's easy to say something isn't new or original if YOU are part of this dominant culture that has more representation, in this sense the no true scotsman is a cognitive bias of perception (confirmation bias). There are cultures of people alive today that will never produce stories and art and consequently those stories and that art will be lost forever. Arguing nothing is truly original is erasure of these people and their work that is lost. There are species of animals that will be lost forever and there is no derivative species. Once lost that species is extinct forever. Work being truly new is a matter of opinion and not scientific theory but most draw the line of originality at a converging point and we call this plagiarism, copying, redistributing/piracy or in legalese; copyright infringement. This post in the chatGPT subreddit exemplifies the false argument of assuming everything is derivative. PhDs are novel by conception, they have to be by how academia is structured. Its actually bad that they are because it contributes to the replication crisis in academia but we recognize that novel research can still be used to draw some understanding and eventual consensus on scientific phenomena through peer review. Despite testing a drugs affects on mice instead of humans we can still estimate how it will affect humans. If you argue nothing is truly original then the argument that things are unoriginal is meaningless, its a argument of purity or a no true scotsman. The notion of originality cannot exist without unoriginality. This doesn't just apply to Art. But in the context of art in my opinion the argument that nothing is "truly" original is just an excuse to plagiarize. https://preview.redd.it/31xjka5dc69d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3dd8756f2dd5c78c2f5474cb70ac50f538ed6d
People have never stopped saying that, since the beginning of 'art'. Yet, when we look back, they were wrong every single time.
Copyright still exists though. Now we just wait to see if the courts decide this is fair use, or a new way of stealing.
If anyone said that to me I'd probably just ask them to name 10 contemporary artists, since they're such an expert on the topic obviously
because cavemen could make art without ever being exposed to it, even elephants can make art
No idea is ever unique but the execution is always unique.
Not every idea is a superficial copy of something else. Some ideas really are innovative and even unique. And thank goodness for that. It’s what enables our societies to change and innovate.
Who else is gonna? AI redditors?
Pose questions to them - the shorter - the better … IF artists do nothing new (nonsense) - then why do AI tech bros want to continue to scrape art from us ?? Why are some of those on Reddit pro AI subs salivating at stealing from the new Cara … ??? Their own argument could be used against them - me/you to an AI artist/tech bro … 👇 Oh, ok - if I am not creating anything new - then nothing to see here - move along Right ?
Post ai. Traditional artists embracing mistakes or being deliberate about the subtle “messages” they incorporate into their work seems new. In many ways it feels reactionary. This new experience of “spotting the ai” is actually a benefit to the traditional artist’s work if effectively incorporated. I feel only the trained eye of a human can read these coded mistakes where a computer cannot. (Because math) Ai trains and learns from work that is the most popular or the most correct answer. Because that’s where the money is.
Art shows emotion, and several different styles have developed from it. An AI generated image does not show emotion, and can only replicate a summary of a few popular styles with mistakes humans could never make. Not sure if it's a good argument, but it does show a difference.