AI art is crazy - give me some random UFC keywords and see what it spits out

Alan Belcher's Johnny Cash tattoo

blank_tradingcard.jpg
 
Jackonfire said:
You keep mentioning randomness as if that hasn't always been a valid method of creation. The cut up technique with writing. The drip/splatter method with painting. Improv with acting. All sorts of examples of using randomness as a creative method.

And this AI generated art isn't even random. It relies on prompts.
Click to expand...
Randomness from prompts is still random, it's like a random generator.

Those aren't random, they just may seem random to you. Most have a technique with their drip and splatter. Improv isn't random, they just create dialogue on the spot. It isn't random words put together trying to replicate a sentence. That's what AI art is. AI art will just be what it is - a fad. It will replace digital artist because the AI and programming will be able to do what digital artists do without the need of the human artist. They will not be able to replicate medium artist at all though. Plus no one is going to be hanging up AI ART in the future in musuems or having them in their art collections.

The reason art pieces are collectible is because of the actual real artists. Their collection of art, their different styles of art during the times of their lives. AI ART isn't an actual artist, it's a computer program. There's no substance to it, there's no rhyme or reason in anything it's doing. There's no deeper meaning. That's why it has no collector value. Maybe the very first AI ART piece ever made would hold some value just because it's the first of it's kind. But you aren't going to be plugging in random words and pictures into the program and expect it to give you anything that is going to be worth anything in the future as an art collection.

Digital art in general isn't really going to be huge in the future like that. Since it's easy to just replicate the image and print it out. You can't do that with physical work. That's why physical art will always hold more value because it's actually tangible and you can't just simply copy and paste or save it and print it out with an HD printer.
 
FIghtxIQ said:
Randomness from prompts is still random, it's like a random generator.

Those aren't random, they just may seem random to you. Most have a technique with their drip and splatter. Improv isn't random, they just create dialogue on the spot. It isn't random words put together trying to replicate a sentence. That's what AI art is. AI art will just be what it is - a fad. It will replace digital artist because the AI and programming will be able to do what digital artists do without the need of the human artist. They will not be able to replicate medium artist at all though. Plus no one is going to be hanging up AI ART in the future in musuems or having them in their art collections.

The reason art pieces are collectible is because of the actual real artists. Their collection of art, their different styles of art during the times of their lives. AI ART isn't an actual artist, it's a computer program. There's no substance to it, there's no rhyme or reason in anything it's doing. There's no deeper meaning. That's why it has no collector value. Maybe the very first AI ART piece ever made would hold some value just because it's the first of it's kind. But you aren't going to be plugging in random words and pictures into the program and expect it to give you anything that is going to be worth anything in the future as an art collection.
Click to expand...
While agree with you for the most part I believe modern art has become so Elitist and detached from society that there is space for AI becoming collectible. You’ve probably read about the art competition in the states that won the prize recently. Interesting article if you haven’t read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/learning/are-ai-generated-pictures-art.html
 
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP said:
How can that software suck so much at facial expression and general facial features?
Click to expand...

It's actually quite interesting. Beyond the broad schematics of facial features, the relational aspects of faces has proven very difficult for AI research historically, though there are now significant improvements and breakthroughs. The accuracy of facial recognition AI is now very high. Really, human intuition obscures a lot of interesting questions which are taken for granted but are of philosophical interest in cognitive science, and of direct consequence when considering design implementation in AI.

To give you an analogy about some of these difficulties, think about this comparison. You issue instructions to a human who has never seen a mouse before for recognizing one. You could describe its tail, size, ears, and describe a "type" of mouse that could be "tokenized" in the sense that it could be recognized because it relies on schematic features.

Now, think about describing a human friend of yours who to someone who doesn't know them. We are describing a "token" rather than a "type". Instruction for identification is now much more difficult. We cannot use hair or eye color, and It is really rather difficult for a human to give specific instructions. You can begin to imagine how difficult it might be to identify this character at an airport with instructions like "straight nose, round eyes, pointy chin".

We take for granted there is a "gestalt" effect, if you like, once we see someone's face that will then allow this to reference to a past human. But for an AI, a "face" is something far more abstract, only a collection of ridges and planes, that eventually must create an emergent phenomenon as a facial feature.

There is somehow an abyss of specificity between the schematic and embodied that becomes evident here, very difficult to render realistically unless the neural network is vastly powerful, trained on huge data-sets. Even then, you can see there are interesting conceptual problems that arise that must be considered before simply throwing huge computing power and large data sets at the problem.
 
Last edited:
jooohnmatrix said:
While agree with you for the most part I believe modern art has become so Elitist and detached from society that there is space for AI becoming collectible. You’ve probably read about the art competition in the states that won the prize recently. Interesting article if you haven’t read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/learning/are-ai-generated-pictures-art.html
Click to expand...
Yeah I heard about it. Did they know the piece was created by AI? I think that would make a difference. I think the guy just placed his art in the competition without saying it was AI art. So reality would be that it isn't his art because it's the computer programs art. I'm sure some of it will have value for collectible reasons. Like maybe that art piece would be collectible because of the backstory of it winning the competition so it would be different than the other AI art because of those variables and backstory. Just like the very first AI art would be a collectible too. Also whatever the first ones they made into an NFT probably would be collectibles too. But overall you aren't going to have many AI art as collectibles and most will just be made for fun and others will be used for business/advertising/promotion. Just cutting out the real human digital artists in the process since the program/programming/AI will be doing their work for them instead at a much faster turn-around rate. It would also be able to make many different versions to choose from as well. So that's the real affect I see AI art having on the digital art industry.

Elitist will always be into art and collect them. It's rich in history and high in value. It's also another asset for them that holds monetary value.
 
FIghtxIQ said:
Randomness from prompts is still random, it's like a random generator.

Those aren't random, they just may seem random to you. Most have a technique with their drip and splatter. Improv isn't random, they just create dialogue on the spot. It isn't random words put together trying to replicate a sentence. That's what AI art is. AI art will just be what it is - a fad. It will replace digital artist because the AI and programming will be able to do what digital artists do without the need of the human artist. They will not be able to replicate medium artist at all though. Plus no one is going to be hanging up AI ART in the future in musuems or having them in their art collections.

The reason art pieces are collectible is because of the actual real artists. Their collection of art, their different styles of art during the times of their lives. AI ART isn't an actual artist, it's a computer program. There's no substance to it, there's no rhyme or reason in anything it's doing. There's no deeper meaning. That's why it has no collector value. Maybe the very first AI ART piece ever made would hold some value just because it's the first of it's kind. But you aren't going to be plugging in random words and pictures into the program and expect it to give you anything that is going to be worth anything in the future as an art collection.

Digital art in general isn't really going to be huge in the future like that. Since it's easy to just replicate the image and print it out. You can't do that with physical work. That's why physical art will always hold more value because it's actually tangible and you can't just simply copy and paste or save it and print it out with an HD printer.
Click to expand...
I'd bet my bank account we will have ai art hung up in galleries.
 
Bear pig man. Oh wait. It'll probably just draw Gonzaga.

Never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FilipEmoFights
I’ve discovered the answer to lay and pray, and cage and stage/wallnstall
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Typrune Goatley
Typrune Goatley

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,228
Messages
57,976,086
Members
175,889
Latest member
MEthzale

Share this page

Back
Top