#and when a human makes ai and that ai makes art

[ciceroprofacto]

actually insane take: "effort isn't important and that's why capitalism works"...my brother in christ. effort is always important and that's why capitalism doesn't work. the alienation of labor? the growing wealth disparity? you think this system just naturally works? have you been paying attention at all?

And to be clear- OP's response is perfect. "not everyone has the time or energy" could be completely true and that sucks for them. but, not having the energy to create art just means you don't create art. that's when you consume art. that's when you read and comment and make doodles of your favorite stories. if you don't have energy to create, you consume until you're feeling recharged and creative. this impulse to be a Creator and get attention is fucking poison. every fandom needs enthusiastic fans. what it doesn't need is monotonous artificial creators.

There's never an excuse for posting AI slop for attention. it's literally desecrating a space intended for pure, profitless human creativity.

just saw a fanfic on ao3 have a dedication for chatgpt... that section is meant for your horny perverted mutual who proofread your work, you violated sacred law and you will be torn apart and laid bare btw

[demadogs]

some of you need to hate ai way more than you currently do

[deoidesign]

I've been told my comic feels like it was written by AI.

I suppose I'm not trying to be groundbreaking. I'm not interested in pioneering genres. I'm not writing for the purpose of literary analysis.

But written by AI...?

I'm already someone who has my humanity questioned. My identity erased. My existence disrespected. It could be worse. Anything could be worse.

But AI?

I spend weeks writing single scenes, toiling over the implications of single lines. I have goals. My writing has intent.

If you cared to read deeper, perhaps you'd see the themes. Maybe then you'd see the value. If you tried to analyze it maybe you'd see something there.

Maybe you'd see me.

Someone told me my comic seemed like it was written by AI.

And my humanity was denied one step further in that my voice was not seen in the work I've poured years of my life into.

[sciderman]

How do you feel about the increase in really weird NSFW ads on here (advertising panels that look like sexual encounters, and AI art apps that pride themselves on porn) but will take down NSFW posts from their users, even if it isn't technically sexual.

i hate all social media and it's consistent prioritising the advertisers over the users and the internet simply was a better place before capitalism sunk its hooks into it

[canmom]

This an interesting angle. I've never been particularly taken with trying to determine True Art from False Art on the basis of specific qualities of the piece.

(I did ok-ish but not exceptionally on the AI art quiz, probably with a slight bias for misattributing human pieces as AI ones - like many other respondees, I found the Impressionist pieces hardest to distinguish, since they very much play to the AI's strengths.)

There are many different ways you could describe "art" as a human activity, I'm sure there's a post somewhere where I make a list, but a really big one is its communicative function - one purpose of art is to somehow pass on some aspect of our 'inner world' to another person, through a lossy and limited channel.

That a signal can be easily imitated doesn't mean it doesn't carry contextual information. For example, I could ask a yes/no question of enormous emotional importance - "should I take the shot", "has the baby been born", "will you go out with me", "am I a good girl" - and be answered with either "yes" or "no". It would be trivial to generate a machine which randomly substitutes for this communication - that's basically all a magic eight-ball is.

The amount of information that can be contained in an image of a given size and colour depth can also be calculated. For example, the number of fullscreen images that would fill my current monitor at 8 bits per channel would be 2^(3440 × 1440 × 24) ≈ 3 × 10^35788372 - about 15 megabytes uncompressed. It's a number that seems astronomically huge, though effectively the amount of information is much less than you'd calculate since all the likely pixels are correlated. The same goes for other art forms, like novels (encoded as, say, UTF-8 strings or PDFs) or pieces of music (encoded as sound files, MIDI, MuseScore files, etc.). The exact number is complicated, you end up getting into Kolmogorov complexity and shit like that, but the point is that it's finite.

If we want to claim that all the information about a human life that Hofstadter describes (grief, despair etc.) is in there somehow, we're claiming that this finitely many bits is adequate to capture all the nuances of a human life. I don't know that that's true!

This, however, doesn't really seem to align with how we interact with art. Human production and exchange of "art" is a social act - I would describe it as being continuous with "play". When we observe a piece, we are opening a communications channel - at least a one-way channel. The person on the other side sends some information into the channel, and we process it somehow.

Since it is a lossy channel with limited information, we must infer various things about the other mind on the opposite side of it. If I show you an artwork that I made, we might have a conversation about how I did it, why I made the choices I did. If I feel something looking at the work, I might imagine that you felt something similar, and designed the piece to evoke it intentionally (a guess that will often be wrong but sometimes still productive). I might also look at what specific choices you have made, compare them to the choices others have made in the same medium, etc etc.

We form these inferences on the basis of experience - the more you learn about making art, the more you learn to appreciate other peoples' art and vice versa. And we project these experiences, usually plausibly, onto other artists.

(Perhaps I am saying all art is in a sense performance art? Seems like a tasty soundbite, though I'm not fully sure I wanna commit to it.)

I'm not meaning to claim that a computer couldn't simulate this kind of 'how did you make it' interaction too. This line of argument was anticipated by Turing in his original 1950 paper on the 'imitation game' that someone links in the comments above, where he describes a poet undergoing a viva voce test interrogating their word choices, and argues that a computer might be programmed to give convincing answers to such a test. I imagine he's right - for a paper written in 1950 he makes some surprisingly sharp predictions for how future AIs might be made, such as the idea that an AI could be built to be 'educated' like a child. (He also thought the evidence for ESP is 'overwhelming', but hey, can't win 'em all).

A lot of the context around art would be quite easy to forge, had you a mind to. For example, suppose I go to a film screening, and someone is introduced as the director so we can all clap them. Did they really direct it? I don't know! You could totally send an actor. Less conspiratorially, if someone says they made an artistic choice for x or y reason, they could be lying about it, or misremembering, or most likely oversimplifying a complex and inscrutable process down to a simpler story.

At some point you have to take something like that on trust, or else simply accept that being lied to about it is part of the game you're there to play! (c.f. Oshi no Ko.)

Anyway, the sudden arrival of a new process that can produce, at least sometimes, near-indistinguishable output to various types of communication, throws a spanner in the process. If we're feeling uncharitable, we could call it something like a DDOS attack, stuffing the channels with spurious inputs that don't fit our design assumptions. I think that goes too far, though. AI gen doesn't preclude communication, but it does need we need to think differently about what is being communicated.[1]

So to consider that last question, if art is like a game, could you train an AI art to produce art that is meaningful to humans only by 'playing against' itself, like AlphaGo Zero? I don't think this is so likely. The rules of Go are strict and well-defined; the rules of what humans find meaningful are inseparable from the history of interacting with other humans, which is why art constantly evolves. Training an AI on existing human artworks is training it to compress and interpolate/extrapolate that dataset; training it to optimise for "making novel art that expresses something in a form that its interlocutor could understand" requires it to be interacting with someone.

You could imagine a training process with an "artist" AI and a "critic" AI (a sort of more sophisticated GAN, where the adversary is optimising not to distinguish human/AI art but to judge it on aesthetic grounds) - but how would you get the "critic" AI? Whose taste would it express?

Admittedly, the developers of image generators are constantly refining their models in response to users, so they are being optimised to appeal to someone, not just interpolate existing artworks. But I think it would be very hard to remove humans from the equation entirely. And the present means of providing feedback to the AI are very crude.

For an AI to learn from interacting with other AI (and the world), I feel like you'd need a whole new process that isn't about minimising loss against input-output pairs. Romantically, I imagine it would be closer to how humans learn from life, but I don't really know what will 'work' in the end.

below: some other remarks that were excised from the main post.

[1] We can view AI image gen as another channel for communication between humans, with its own set of inferences to make. If someone shows me a picture they've generated with AI, there's no point asking why they painted this bit that way, but I might approach them more as a curator and ask why they chose this generation over others, or how they went about prompting it.

The AI artists who go to the trouble of finetuning their models with LoRAs for a specific end goal, or using more involved processes with multiple stages of generation, probably have most to 'say', either through the work they generate or how they'd discuss it. (I find it very endearing when someone trains an AI to serve up a hyperspecific fetish.) And the more I know about how AI images are generated, the more I can probably have a productive conversation.

In this light, the "problem" of AI is mostly one of deception, insofar as it tries to look like something else and thereby tell a misleading story. That's probably a big reason why why it brings the rancour it does, although it doesn't explain all of it. It's not (usually) a forgery of a specific human's work, but it is designed to forge spurious communications in this channel in general, so the channel is 'noisier' - and this could be thought to undermine many of the contexts, i.e. the operating narratives and social games, which are why we exchange art in the first place. Over time, we'll presumably end up renegotiating the 'games', and spawning new ones, as humans always have.

And of course, the issue of provenance and plagiarism in art - particularly when prestige and money get involved - long predates AI and is full of all sorts of bizarre contortions when you look at it closely.

More intriguing is whether there is some possibility for "real communication" between humans and AIs - that is, could there be an AI output that does respect the 'rules of the game' in some way. This is harder to imagine! Like, if you ask why we aren't solipsists, we could point to how much we resemble other humans and say, all things considered, seems very unlikely we aren't the same type of entity. But I only know 'what it's like to be' a human. Conversely, while I know a reasonable amount about how AIs work, the attention mechanism and latent-space vectors and so on (thanks 3blue1brown), the analogy isn't so clear anymore, so I don't even know how I'd determine whether there even is a 'what is it like to be' under all the 'noise' of communications aggressively optimised to fit the patterns of something a human might say. If there is, it's probably very alien to all of my experience.

Ironically I feel like the current model of 'AI', which teaches us to regard any generated output with suspicion of having 'nothing behind it', would make it harder for any 'real', agentive, subjective-experience-having AI to make itself known to us. But perhaps it's good that we're forced to sharpen our criteria of what we're looking for out of these things.

Anyway, all of this is probably just idle imaginings, because nobody can figure out how to make anything like enough money to justify the exorbitant costs of training and operating AIs, so at some point this whole speculative bubble will go up in smoke and whatever AIs continue to be in use will likely remain about as good as they are today, or stupider - at least until the next 'AI summer' when a new paradigm emerges.

Thinking about that that "slop accelerationism" post, and also Scott's AI art Turing test.

I also hope AI text- and image-generation will help shake us loose from cheap bad art. For example, the fact that you can now generate perfectly rendered anime girls at the click of button kindof suggests that there was never much content in those drawings. Though maybe we didn't really need AI for that insight? It feels very similar to that shift in fashion that rejected Bouguereau-style laboriously-rendered pretty girls in favor of more sketchy brush work.

But will we really be so lucky that only things that we already suspected was slop will prove valueless?

As usual with AI, Douglas Hofstadter already thought about this a long time ago, in an essay from 2001. Back in 1979 he had written

Will a computer program ever write beautiful music? Speculation: Yes, but not soon. Music is a language of emotions, and until programs have emotions as complex as ours, there is no way a program will write anything beautiful. There can be "forgeries"—shallow imitations of the syntax of earlier music—but despite what one might think at first, there is much more to musical expression than can be captured in syntactical rules. There will be no new kinds of beauty turned up for a long time by computer music-composing programs. Let me carry this thought a little further. To think—and I have heard this suggested—that we might soon be able to command a preprogrammed mass-produced mail-order twenty-dollar desk-model "music box" to bring forth from its sterile [sic!] circuitry pieces which Chopin or Bach might have written had they lived longer is a grotesque and shameful misestimation of the depth of the human spirit. A "program" which could produce music as they did would have to wander around the world on its own, fighting its way through the maze of life and feeling every moment of it. It would have to understand the joy and loneliness of a chilly night wind, the longing for a cherished hand, the inaccessibility of a distant town, the heartbreak and regeneration after a human death. It would have to have known resignation and world-weariness, grief and despair, determination and victory, piety and awe. In it would have had to commingle such opposites as hope and fear, anguish and jubilation, serenity and suspense. Part and parcel of it would have to be a sense of grace, humor, rhythm, a sense of the unexpected and of course an exquisite awareness of the magic of fresh creation. Therein, and therein only, lie the sources of meaning in music.

I think this is helpful in pinning down what we would have liked to be true. Because in 1995, somebody wrote a program that generates music by applying simple syntactic rules to combine patterns from existing pieces, and it sounded really good! (In fact, it passed a kind of AI turing test.) Oops!

The worry, then, is that we just found out that the computer has as complex emotions as us, and they aren't complex at all. It would be like adversarial examples for humans: the noise-like pattern added to the panda doesn't "represent" a gibbon, it's an artifact of the particular weights and topology of the image recognizer, and the resulting classification doesn't "mean" anything. Similarly, Arnulf Rainer wrote that when he reworked Wine-Crucifix, "the quality and truth of the picture only grew as it became darker and darker"—doesn't this sound a bit like gradient descent? Did he stumble on a pattern that triggers our "truth" detector, even though the pattern is merely a shallow stimulus made of copies of religious iconography that we imprinted on as kids?

One attempt to recover is to say Chopin really did write music based on the experience of fighting through the maze of life, and it's just that philistine consumers can't tell the difference between the real and the counterfeit. But this is not very helpful, it means that we were fooling ourselves, and the meaning that we imagined never existed.

More promising, maybe the program is a "plagiarism machine", which just copies the hard-won grief, despair, world-weariness &c that Chopin recorded? On it's own it's not impressive that a program can output an image indistinguishable from Gauguin's, I can write such a program in a single line:

print("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gauguin,Paul-Still_Life_with_Profile_of_Laval-_Google_Art_Project.jpg")

I think this is the conclusion that Hofstadter leans towards: the value of Chopin and the other composers was to discover the "template" that can then be instantiated to make many beautiful music pieces. Kind of ironically, this seems to push us back to some very turn-of-the-20th-century notion of avant-garde art. Each particular painting that (say) Monet executed is of low value, and the actual valuable thing is the novel art style...

That view isn't falsified yet, but it feels precarious. You could have said that AlphaGo was merely a plagiarism machine that selected good moves from historical human games, except then AlphaGo Zero proved that the humans were superfluous after all. Surely a couple of years from now somebody might train an image model on a set of photographs and movies excluding paintings, and it might reinvent impressionism from first principles, and then where will we be? Better start prepare a fallback-philosophy now.

[irradiatedsnakes]

i miss ai image generators that suck. i want old artbreeder back so i can make flesh computers again. i want to tell the computer to make something that is 50% website and 50% swimming cap to get the Meat World back

[blujayonthewing]

when you put aside all the ethical issues, I'd respect AI art a lot more if the people making it were actually leaning into the bizarre dreamlike output instead of breathlessly insisting that it looks SO good SO realistic and it's gonna REVOLUTIONIZE ART, BRO and trying to use it to make Normal Children's Books and Normal Marketable Advertising Art

[icewindandboringhorror]

examining a seemingly normal image only to slowly realize the clear signs of AI generated art.... i know what you are... you cannot hide your true nature from me... go back where you came from... out of my sight with haste, wretched and vile husk

[mr-magoriums-im-sorry-emporium]

on one hand, nobody is entitled to ai generated art because their disability prevents them from making it, because As It Stands Now, ai models are built off stolen artwork. there is not a SINGLE (publicly available at least) ai model trained off art that was willingly given to the model by the artist, and using the current models only helps exasperate this problem

on the other hand going "well i/this famous artist was disabled and THEY figured out how to make art, so its condescending to say that some disabled people CANT make art, and if ur disabled just figure it out :)" is the kind of rhetoric that time and time again hurts disabled people wrt the "well if THEY can do it, so can YOU" false dichotomy and really should not be used to make your point

& i say this as a disabled artist who absolutely does not like ai art, ESPECIALLY used in a commercial sphere. on paper it would be a fun Fucking Around Machine (esp if there was a bot trained on consentually aquired art) but capitalism requires every last scrap of revenue be squeezed out of anything like blood from a stone so we cant just have a fun thing to have a fun thing and we have shit things like it being a threat to peoples' liveliehoods and training it to mimic dead artists. and we cant really have the fun part without feeding into the bad part. what im saying is its a shame also maybe bootstrap theory is not good

[kraniumet]

i think image gen can be used like any other artistic tool but I don't really think the big commerical proponents of "ai" are advertising it as a tool, they're adertising it as a solution. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that image generation is exactly like "using photoshop/taking a photograph" because of some generalized "those were also criticized at their conception for being new and scary and disruptive" soundbite. they were not even really criticized for the same reasons. find a better argument.

[toytulini]

the challenge of i should commission art of my ocs. would love to commission like, siiyr or bokrae, maybe krachyn or jula. siiyr or bokrae would make the most sense, maybe krachyn. i think theyre the ones with the most detailed notes on their anatomy

but also

oh god i cannot subject another artist to the anatomical war crimes i committed in making these ocs

[xray-vex]

here are some of my really general a/i predictions, re: art --

techbro types who want to generate bullshit as a get rich quick scheme will saturate the market and nobody will want their worthless shit, they'll get bored and move onto the next get-rich-quick trend. remember nfts? lol

people who got into a/i because they thought it was a legit way to make art will get bored of it because it won't challenge them to do anything & it will not be gratifying in the long term - those types will either: 1.) quit or 2.) start making actual art

people who buy art will get sick of looking at a/i generated shit that essentially all looks the same. real artists making real art will get more interest again because it will seem new and exciting.

same thing with films & stuff too. i definitely think that various actors & creators guilds & other creative industry unions should do everything they can to protect their art & craft against being outsourced to a/i, but i do think that people who watch films will get sick of a/i in films the same way people got weary of CGI overuse in films. a/i in film might not go away completely, but audiences will absolutely be drawn to films that don't use a/i.

i think the basic gist of what i'm trying to say is that human beings need actual art, and the vast majority of people don't fully, actively realize how interwoven art is to literally everything in their lives. on some level they must know, because when it's missing, they miss it. they seek it out. art in general is important to the fabric of society: storytelling, entertainment, community, emotional fulfillment, etc. and people want something real, tangible. they want something created by humans.

****this is why, i'm guessing, that fan art & fan fiction are so popular. most people who create those sort of works are doing them for the actual love of what they're making. and then those works create community. humans have been sitting in groups to tell each other stories and to express themselves visually & dance together with music forever. for literally ever. all of human history. literally all. art is the fucking foundation of society, civilization, human evolution. to make art & to experience art, to some degree, on some level(s). non-negotiable. essential as food and water. i'm dead serious.

a couple of examples of similar times that tech threatened to make the "real thing" obsolete, but failed to do so:

e-readers were supposedly going to make print books obsolete -- they didn't.

streaming music services helped usher in a renewed desire for physical media again.

for awhile, both of those things did kill a lot of brick & mortar music/book stores, but there has been a bit of a resurgence and lots of small businesses.

and no, things will never go back to the way they were, but things would have changed regardless, capitalism being what it is.

it would be nice tho, wouldn't it, if digital tech presented augmentations to our need to have art in our lives constantly, instead of threatening to replace them completely?

i'm just going on pure vibes here & from what i know about art & being an artist for 35+ yrs, some tech & aesthetics philosophy, and from having worked in retail books & music/dvd sales many moons ago. so i could be completely full of shit here.

but i do have some hope that things re: a/i will get better for people -- for real, working artists & authors & musicians & performers & creators. humans need art the way they need food and water. this has always been true for the entirety of human existence.

i'm just sort of in my thoughts & feelings about art tonight and felt like rambling about it.

now i'm gonna make more tea.

[pacificcoceann]

InkTober (OC edition) Day 6!

Forgot i had tumblr when i made this yesterday so here it is a day late!!

Inktober featuring my OCs Ian(left) and Erik(right)! Stay tuned to see more of their story in the future. I might make a series of short comics to showcase their lore and such, just have to get the motivation and time :)

It’s the 6th prompt but it was my first day doing this lol

The prompt list if anyone’s interested in making their own <3

[vt-scribbles]

Something seriously lacking in my art is the ability to tell a story in a single illustration.

I've gotten so used to drawing my characters standing around doing random things that I've never practiced telling a full tale/putting implications into my pieces that require more thinking/looking.

It also comes from a lower amount of details in my works by default [since I like to get pieces done fast], but I'm tired of using that as an excuse.

[dustofthedailylife]

Just went to read a fic during my dinner break and for some reason, I thought the wording sounded like AI.

With the increase in AI-generated content, I went and threw it into GPTZero (AI-detection tool) and...

I'm well aware it's not a 100% proof but still... I'm so disappointed.

I tried some things and it seems to be fairly accurate from what I can tell. I quickly had chat GPT generate a text for the bg-story of my OC (did it for test purposes and did not save it because lol) and it showed it as AI and then I yeeted my latest Alhaitham fic in there and it says human 👇🏻

It's not 100% proof but what GPTZero says is fairly accurate from what I can tell.

AI fic "authors" are already among us. And I'm frustrated as hell about it. Like... why do we as fanfic authors even put in the effort anymore? ._.

Edit: Because it was a good input from someone: these tools are not 100% accurate or proof like I said. Don't go and accuse someone directly of AI generating or publicly expose them! (It's also why I didn't name drop or show the fic). Albeit... It's a fact that there are people who "write" their fics with AI ._.

[panicbones]

ive been reading books with AI characters in it and i keep finding again and again that nobody does it like murderbot. also why are ppl so desperate to put the ship AI in a body bro the purpose youve defeated it BOO