/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact

>>1551
How?

>>1552
Art is inherently human. The creators of that technological abomination aspire to mimic first and then to claim they can replace man with it.
Fake and gay.

>>1553
AIs, like all other technology, are merely tools. They won't replace humans, but artists may use them to generate concept art or for other practical purposes.
People used to think acrylic paint was abominable because it did away with the need for artists to harvest the materials of their paints from nature. Technology changes, and so does art.

>>1553
>claim they can replace man
It'll streamline the art process at most. Artists benefit more than anyone.
The only "artists" who'll be replaced by automation are talentless hacks who's only skills are sliding a pencil across paper. While painting, writing and use of artistic elements (lighting, color, symbolism, emotionally evocative imagery, etc) can be mastered by machines through formula and algorithms, actual creative vision and abstract thought can still only be done by humans, because the creative aspect art is subjective, rather than objective.
Just look at the images above. They make great use of all the elements of art, and the images themselves are beautiful and evocative, but they're not really saying anything. The machine was able to algorithmically generate images that illicit responses from humans, but the machine itself had nothing to say, so it's just uncanny nonsense when you examine it closely.

That being said, these AI generated artworks are fun to look at, and I had a laugh reading AI generated greentexts. I think AI images and text have great potential for entertainment and shitposting. The automation enables people without the skills to draw to generate images based on their artistic visions, and that's pretty cool.

>>1556
>It'll streamline the art process at most. Artists benefit more than anyone.
It stands to how the technology evolves. The better it gets, the lower the demand for artists will be.

>>1574
It shifts art from those with training and time spent to art that is 'directed'.
With the way that's available it'll be possible to have distinct 'assests' within a work that is seperate form the artwork as a whole.
The demand for art would remain the same, artists in the traditional sense might be niche. Which could lead to high arts.
Those with that skill set might be pushed to where programs lack at that point in time. Such as animations.

>>1574
>The better it gets, the lower the demand for artists will be.
Absurd. Art is an expression of the soul, not a traded commodity, except perhaps the usual merchants.

>>1578
>not a traded commodity
It is absolutely a commodity. It's a skilled practice that people pay money for.
If you want art of your pony OC, you either learn to draw or hire an artist to draw it for you, which is a service you pay for based on the skills of the craftsman and the market price of the commission.

>>1578
That argument does have value. But like, I still need to make a living, mate. Either pay, or wait for cortana to replace me.

>>1579
>It is absolutely a commodity.
As I said... the usual merchant. When are art and money are mixed, corruption ensues.
>skills of the craftsman
That's not art.

>>1580
Any artist driven by money is not giving the best of himself, but the best to please a customer.

>>1581
>>1582
I was talking about jobs in jeopardy. If you want to place another goalpost, that's fine by me.

>>1583
>jobs in jeopardy
If the production depends on a monetary reward, can be that output be called art? Many will say yes, but I prefer to look it down as an impure art.

>>1584
Okay, but what about all those artists who draw for a living? Is their art not art?
What about all of the art that was requested or commissioned by paying customers (a large amount of pony art) is that not art?

Whatever you want to label it, art or not art, there's a market element to this trade, and technology has serious potential to change it, just like it changed the animation industry.

Picasso self-portrait redrawn by an AI.

>>1586
>Picasso self-portrait
Absolutely degenerate.

>>1585
>there's a market element to this trade, and technology has serious potential to change it,
It reminds me of uncle Ted.

>>1581
>the usual merchant
That's bullshit. Not all paid art is Jewish.
You don't think any of the commissioned pony content that has been produced over the past decade was legitimate? None of it was art, because it was done for money?
Even the great renaissance artist: Donatello, Raphael, Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci; all of them worked for commission. They created legendary works of art that took time and skill not just because they wanted to, but because someone else requested and financed their work. They had to study anatomy without textbooks, harvest and mix the materials for their paints, and research artistic elements to do so, and for that they were paid hefty sums of money. Today, we don't need to do those things because technology lets us use search engines to find images and we can just go to the store and buy paint, but it's still paid commissions for a skilled job.

>>1589
Okay, I concede. Not all art made for money is bad.

https://twitter.com/images_ai/status/1566894893854752770

^ This thread can also be an example of some of the limitations of AI. AI works to meet expectations given a prompt, but it can't fully comprehend creative vision.

>>1594
The right hand has only 4 fingers.

>>1598
It also sucks.

AI Movie poster

>>1623
>>1624
These look great.

>>1625
Ikr. So real!

>>1626
I feel like the AI is decent at pseudo-impressionism. It's able to evoke the momentary effects of light and color in a way that takes contemporary artists a while to master completely.
I feel this this could be a really useful tool for artists in the future.

>>1627
>I feel this this could be a really useful tool for artists in the future.
You mean to attempt to replace them.

>>1628
It'll only replace shitty artists who's only skill is sliding pencils across paper.
Real artists will exploit these tools in their artisanal process to create amazing new works never before possible.
It'll be like the transition from traditional art to digital art. The tools/media change, but artists still use them.

>try generating pokemon
>get ugly shit
>try making better versions
>turns out tons of youtubers have done this
Oh

>>1631
Which system are you using? The publicly available ones have limited capacity.

>>1630
Except digital art didn't drew itself.

>>1632
I don't know if this is the right one but it's what I used https://huggingface.co/spaces/dalle-mini/dalle-mini

>>1633
I don't think this is going to "replace" anyone. It's just a tool.

Looks like Stable Diffusion is a promising image AI
https://github.com/Maks-s/sd-akashic
Install Guide: https://rentry.org/voldy

Link to install guide taken from 4chan /g/ thread https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/88539579

>>1635
It remains to be seen. It may as well be on its infancy right now.

>>1637
Well, I would be impressed if it actually ever manages to replace artists entirely. The AI is not that advanced yet. The creative process still needs human input.

Played a bit with Stable Diffusion.
I think it lacks a good training set for ponies. But it still manages to make some resemblance from keywords like "twilight sparkle" and "mlp".