05-21-2022, 02:08 AM
Those are good points, Darktiste.
I was thinking more about this topic the other day. Not very hard, but more than usual. Most art that is professionally produced is so stifled and derivative that it might as well have been produced by artificial intelligence. The same is true of modern popular music and even literature. We can thank risk-averse executives and the collectivist nature of modern organizations (in order words, THE MAN) for this. Professional artists working in movies and games often seem a bit depressed because of the robotic nature of what they're asked to produce, usually with a hell of a lot of 3D and photobashing. There aren't any tentpoles like the original Star Wars which was obviously dominated by an almost singular artistic vision (Ralph McQuarrie's, in this case).
So AI art that is 100% derivative and produced in a few seconds fits right into this part of the art world. But it's still iffy when it comes to rendering humans and animals, unless it produces something VERY similar to an existing man-made image. Renderings of natural landscapes and buildings are also often iffy, but this is less noticeable. It often produces images that just don't make physical sense (for a lot of examples of this, see art produced with Midjourney, which is already flooding social media despite only being in closed beta). An AI just can't "care" about these things in the way humans do, and it never will unless there is such a fundamental advancement in AI that it literally becomes conscious.
It will most likely improve in this area, maybe by a lot, but the big question is: will it get good enough for furries to visualize their fursonas with? Will a hand-made, individualized rendering of some guy's one-winged sparklewolf by someone like Reykat or Miles-DF remain something valued, maybe even seen as a marker of great taste and discernment? As Joseph wrote, markets for artisanal, hand-made products persist to some extent, even after a century of cheap mass production. AI art lacks everything that is valued in the most lasting and widely-loved works of art, except for usually giving the impression of virtuoso skill.
There is even apparently still an audience for human chess tournaments despite the fact that robots can play it better (albeit not because of anything resembling human-like intelligence). People can naturally detect the lack of emotional or philosophical significance in something that was generated by a computer, and often have an unhappy sense of being tricked if they happen to like something that was computer-generated but presented as man-made. Though the computer program itself is obviously an impressive human achievement. So I don't know what's gonna happen here, but it will be interesting to watch.
I am curious to read other people's thoughts if anyone feels like slapping the keyboard.
I was thinking more about this topic the other day. Not very hard, but more than usual. Most art that is professionally produced is so stifled and derivative that it might as well have been produced by artificial intelligence. The same is true of modern popular music and even literature. We can thank risk-averse executives and the collectivist nature of modern organizations (in order words, THE MAN) for this. Professional artists working in movies and games often seem a bit depressed because of the robotic nature of what they're asked to produce, usually with a hell of a lot of 3D and photobashing. There aren't any tentpoles like the original Star Wars which was obviously dominated by an almost singular artistic vision (Ralph McQuarrie's, in this case).
So AI art that is 100% derivative and produced in a few seconds fits right into this part of the art world. But it's still iffy when it comes to rendering humans and animals, unless it produces something VERY similar to an existing man-made image. Renderings of natural landscapes and buildings are also often iffy, but this is less noticeable. It often produces images that just don't make physical sense (for a lot of examples of this, see art produced with Midjourney, which is already flooding social media despite only being in closed beta). An AI just can't "care" about these things in the way humans do, and it never will unless there is such a fundamental advancement in AI that it literally becomes conscious.
It will most likely improve in this area, maybe by a lot, but the big question is: will it get good enough for furries to visualize their fursonas with? Will a hand-made, individualized rendering of some guy's one-winged sparklewolf by someone like Reykat or Miles-DF remain something valued, maybe even seen as a marker of great taste and discernment? As Joseph wrote, markets for artisanal, hand-made products persist to some extent, even after a century of cheap mass production. AI art lacks everything that is valued in the most lasting and widely-loved works of art, except for usually giving the impression of virtuoso skill.
There is even apparently still an audience for human chess tournaments despite the fact that robots can play it better (albeit not because of anything resembling human-like intelligence). People can naturally detect the lack of emotional or philosophical significance in something that was generated by a computer, and often have an unhappy sense of being tricked if they happen to like something that was computer-generated but presented as man-made. Though the computer program itself is obviously an impressive human achievement. So I don't know what's gonna happen here, but it will be interesting to watch.
I am curious to read other people's thoughts if anyone feels like slapping the keyboard.