Ok, so the progress AI has done over the last year or so is absolutely astounding & I've felt very discouraged that people can whip out amazing 'art' in minutes with just a few prompts.
I saw one where a guy was asking AI to do an angry chipmunk (maybe you've seen it too). The AI kept saying it was as angry as it could make it and the guy kept challenging it, saying 'that sounds like a YOU problem.'
Then within minutes he had a dozen or so images of an increasingly angry and CRAZIER chipmunk that would take even the fastest artist weeks to do.
Then, the other night as I was painting away on a new image and it occurred to me how much I was enjoying the process. Yeah — sometimes getting over an issue is a pain — but the joy of painting (hmmm — where have I heard that before) is always outweighed by the process — ESPECIALLY as an image nears completion.
So I thought — 'yeah AI is going to be used more and more and make it harder for us working artists — but it will NEVER take away the natural urge we humanoids have to create.'
You can get far knowing how to fully utilize Ai but it still require to learn a tool it not like you get what you envision knowing nothing about the tool.Think of a baby can it describe it world right away?No.In a similar way you might think you know what you want but asking something is like being a toddler who need to learn how to arrange sound for someone else to interpert.You have to learn to describe often beyond what you would normally usually do .Some Ai are kinda good at interpreting context will other work better with keyword.
But it often take an iterative approch to get something that is true to a vision.It like tracing over something you did and take a new approch.
An amateur artist will certainly feel like he now as super human when he play around with the AI tool because it doesn't require you to have drawing capacity.
But yet he as no concept of mood or exaggeration etc art fundamental that ultimaltely result in better art.
I feel like it a tool that more or less help you figure out your color palette,the composition,proportion and other element.It a window into the possible.But where i think it fall short is telling a story.Personally i think it much better and suited for concept artist then illustrator just because of how complex the question of ''scrapping'' data is right now.
The thing is that Ai as no taste it cannot use it knowledge of something to understand it if i understand correctly. It make prediction base on repetition will associating keyword throught a process called denoising.
I still do enjoy the process and i know probably more then anyone around here the frustration that come with generating to much of those Ai generated image.
What is it about the process that is so therapeutic ? Color therapy? Doodling relaxation? Puzzle solving?Story making? World building?
We are creative creature we invented tool as way to survive.
I don't think you learned to love Ai nor did you stop worrying about Ai you learned how to value the process.After all you did not post anything you did with it for all i know not that this mean much maybe you do love it but it doesn't show yet.I think you admire it therefor
envy so it looking to obtain those quality but being discouraged because you understand the difference between you an the Ai.
Why should you feel discouraged by something that as not your quality.Does it rob you of something?What kind of insecurity does it create in you.Why is it something we compare were self to. I think those are more question we need to answers wereself to see tool as complementary not as something that replace us.
Personally i love playing around with idea but i don't find rendering material to be that fun i love to play around with an idea but ultimately i need to settle down because it necessary for project to go foward.
I see Ai like a search engine that combine idea.It complement my process it doesn't take me away from it.It make art more acessible it still doesn't have a mind of it own as of now...
But really the problem is that none artist don't care about the process or artist.What they care about is the legality and how to get around it.It there job to generate income.So it obvious that we make progress as human and that the consequence of that is that some job disappear.Did people stop building armor because it got out of fashion?Did people still buy armor to day?Yes they do.We just don't make them the same way or use them for the same purpose thing evolve.
Ai is concerning if you are trying to making a living out of art or if you don't like the idea of people making money out of your work or you don't like people using your work pure and simple.
The problem to me is that people make an opinion that is often from an outside perspective they never really tried it for themselve.So they are truely making an outsider opinion.
Hearing music is not the same thing as playing music and it would be reductive to assume you understand what the intrument can do with an outsider perspective.Just imagine the different style of music you can create a new genre with the help of someone who can play but that limiting.If your a kinesthetic person and never touch and instrument you are loosing part of the experience because it the physical process you enjoy.It why having an inside understand of a subject teach you about the process and the subtlety that rarely make it into conversation.
Quote: And that is: I think A.I. is a poison to the creative process. I think it makes your work worse and makes you less interesting and less employable. And that’s what I think is worth talking about today.
Quote: While style-chameleon artists were common in the era of in-house illustration departments at advertising firms, the current landscape rewards artists whose work is memorable and contributes something unique.
Which I thought was a great argument.
In regards to:
“A.I. is a tool”
Quote: It has become standard to describe A.I. as a tool. I argue that this framing is incorrect. It does not aid in the completion of a task. It completes the task for you.
I think the conclusion is important:
Quote:If there is a button one can push that spits out images and it is available to everybody, why on earth would any creative professional push that button? Clients don’t need to hire you to push it. They can do that themselves. The central lie behind these programs is that they are meant for artists. They’re not. We don’t need them and using them only hurts us. What our clients really need from us is what the A.I. button cannot and never will be able to give: a human expression in all its flawed, beautiful glory.
Quote: It complement my process it doesn't take me away from it.
The problem with is whole article is he believe pressing a button make magic as i previously said it not the case. He seem to believe you achieve something finish when it not the case. He discard the idea that it a tool because he think it magic and will give you flawlessly result whatever you ask everytime which is not the case.For an illustrator perspective it probably make more sense because they loose there style for a concept artist i think as he say we are more chameleon we design to fit a niche if your freelance you make a living by having a individual recognisable signature so i suspect he an illustrator and i know he was a freelance so i see the angle of the argument he make
Overall he way to emotional about the whole issue and it understanble when you don't want to encourage something that ultimately you see as a possible career ending.
Surely you loose some individuality when the ai spew something out but you are still imputing your personality inside the promp making process and it ridicule to suggest it not a creative process.No body describe the same tree the same way.
The thing is ai is dry it can't pick up your subtility you taste you have to inject it and it not going to spew it out with ''individuality''.Subtility your not even aware cannot be translated but yet they are in your subconcious that why when you create thing emerge from unspected abstract connection that are not necessarly pick up when thing are done.
What a client want he does not know it not a matter of if it human or not.He know it when he see it.He pressing a button that hire someone because he doesn't know and is result would be far off because he doesn,t have the experience to use the Ai tool.He also doesn't know how to press the button.In all case we are the button with or without Ai.Because in the end the result is what he see not who did it.But the question is what is lost.
If he knew what he wanted and knew how to do it... he would do it... ai exist... why did he not do it?Why have all artist not been replace by now?They are not chasing were personality they are chasing after a vision the illusion of what we offer.
They don't care if it human or Ai what matter is that they like what they see and can pass it down to an audience who will receive it positively may it be human or Ai made.
The problem of commercial art is that it not very creative because it try to replicate previous sucess sacrificing innovation in the decision making process it also try to appeal to a large audience which make it hard to go outside convention.
Innovation is expensive and risky and require people that don't deal in the generic which mean they are hard to come by and they are also not afraid to challenge the norm when everything combine sucessfully it will massively pay off.
Some of us a guilty of trying out AI, at least in the beginning I know I dabbled with a few apps but once it became obvious just where it was leading and what it was costing us - as an artist my position became clear. People who are still 'testing', 'trialing' or 'experimenting' with Plagiarist software with conscious avoidance have no integrity as an Artist. If someone chooses to accept what the software has been built upon and continues to be used for, they need to check their priorities.
There are people who tried the Professional Art route, and yet when floundered use AI as a fallback plan. I see this as no less than hypocritic. This may be called Innovation as it's 'New', but it's not an Improvement. I don't give a shit about commercial art, it's besides the point. As an artist in an artist space, AI has no place. Tracing is a 'tool', but AI Generative Imaging is not being used as a 'tool', it's being marketed as a means of production, ignoring the expense.
Perhaps the issue is Art is an emotional media and some people just struggle perceive it.
It's a carousel of Red Flags to me, supporting Plagiarist Software. Even if people are covering their arses by saying "Well, there's no going back now, better get used to it", it still doesn't have a place here. In Art Spaces.
We will war it out with commercial clients, one battle at a time.
I’m not sure if people realise that when using a.i. they are training it and improving it. You ultimately have a whole community of people perfecting a.i. as free labor for people who’ll end up selling for exorbitant amount of profit. I was trying to find a video about it I watched but I can’t seem to find it anymore. It explained the whole process pretty well.
Quote: Overall he way to emotional about the whole issue and it understanble when you don't want to encourage something that ultimately you see as a possible career ending.
I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t be upset at having their career threatened. I know I would be. I find his reaction healthier and more rational than artist praising a.i. That’s a lot harder for me to understand. Clapping their hands and patting a.i. on the back as their future replacement is hard to witness.
Quote: Surely you loose some individuality when the ai spew something out but you are still imputing your personality inside the promp making process and it ridicule to suggest it not a creative process.No body describe the same tree the same way.
I mean, if describing a tree for you is a creative process, sure, I suppose it is. The thing is, the visual representation of a tree by two different artists involves a whole lot more than just being able to describe it with words, as I’m sure you’re aware.
Quote: The thing is ai is dry it can't pick up your subtility you taste you have to inject it and it not going to spew it out with ''individuality''.Subtility your not even aware cannot be translated but yet they are in your subconcious that why when you create thing emerge from unspected abstract connection that are not necessarly pick up when thing are done.
I don’t understand this paragraph.
Quote: What a client want he does not know it not a matter of if it human or not.He know it when he see it.He pressing a button that hire someone because he doesn't know and is result would be far off because he doesn,t have the experience to use the Ai tool.He also doesn't know how to press the button.In all case we are the button with or without Ai.Because in the end the result is what he see not who did it.But the question is what is lost.
I’ll try to understand this one as it seems less abstract.
“He (a.i.?) doesn’t know what a human wants.”
I’m unsure what you’re getting at.
“He knows it when he sees it”
Ok I think you mean a client doesn’t know what he wants and that he’ll only realise it when he sees what a.i. provided.
Actually, I don’t understand the rest either, despite trying. Maybe using Google Translator would help as I’d like to understand your point and but it’s really hard to understand what you’re saying here. Or write in your native language and I’ll copy/paste in a translator myself. You’re using a lot of pronouns and it’s difficult to know what which one refers to. I think you’re saying non-artist customers need a.i. prompters in some way.
This was also explained in the video I watched. Now they need people because a.i. is still in its infancy. When the process has been streamlined (and it will be with legions of people training it), I assure you they’ll handle process themselves at the press of a button. They won’t need a.i. prompters to do it for them. A.i. prompters are very, very temporary and will be flushed out once they’ve stopped being useful at training the a.i. And those a.i. prompters will then wish they’d have been honing their skills and developing their unique style instead of typing keywords.
Quote: If he knew what he wanted and knew how to do it... he would do it... ai exist... why did he not do it?Why have all artist not been replace by now?They are not chasing were personality they are chasing after a vision the illusion of what we offer.
This is explained above. Because the process still needs to be streamlined. They (artists) are being replaced. Seek and ye shall find. It’s only anecdotal but plenty of people in the industry have mentioned how less people are being hired in the field because of a.i. This will be a progressive process, a (somewhat) slow erosion happening over time.
Quote: They don't care if it human or Ai what matter is that they like what they see and can pass it down to an audience who will receive it positively may it be human or Ai made.
Ah yes! The good old “the end justifies the mean”, humanity’s most destructive ideology which has led to countless abuse and tragedies. “Nobody cares how something is made as long as it’s being made” I assure you some people do. I do. When I compare one of Joseph’s drawing from his life drawing, the way it was made by hand makes it worthwhile to me. The same drawing stolen from a.i. doesn’t. I’d hang something on my wall done by hand, I’d trash something made with a.i.
Crunch is something that’s becoming more and more known in sfx or video games. Some people don’t care that the people working on the sfx are working hundreds of hours and are getting burned out. It’s the end that matters, right? Who cares about these guys. Well, some people do, apparently. My point is that how something is made should matter. That’s why Ethics exist. Otherwise people would just focus on reaching their goal by being awful to others as long as they reach said goal.
If your argument is that people don’t care about how something is made (which hopefully it isn’t) and you think it’s something that people believe in general, it’d say it’s more telling of your personal values (or lack thereof). If I misunderstood, then disregard what I said. Believe it or not, I see this very often, it’s a recurrent thing: “As long as I get what I want, I don’t care who suffers because of it.”
AI makes me feel like, just by looking at it, that it's not healthy for me. It's inevitable that I will come across it, but I want to expose myself as little as possible to the pollution. I want to preserve myself and dedicate myself even more to the path I have already chosen. It took me awhile to bounce back and reach this conclusion. Does anyone else oddly feel more determined to be an artist (no AI) because of AI?
Hi Daggers. After I posted this I overlooked checking in on it and am VERY pleased to see the discussion here and especially that almost all of you have come to the same conclusions I have about AI.
To clarify my title comes from a twist on the old movie How I Stopped Worrying And Learned to Love The Bomb an absurd dark comedy about the total destruction of the world with nuclear bombs.
Don't read this next line if you haven't seen the movie yet because it contains a SPOILER:
As the US and USSR begin releasing their arsenals of massive bombs that will ultimately destroy everyone — all the main characters are all still worried about mundane things like their cherished positions and ranks, and gaming each other's countries etc.
-------------------------
I see the AI revolution in the same way — it will ultimately destroy much of the market for trained artists. When agencies and publishers can hire interns to create with a few lines and prompts AI for images — most will never hire senior artists again or severely limit those positions. There go jobs people have worked a lifetime for.
------------------------
I found that crazy AI thang where the guy was challenging to make crazier and crazier images. You can see how simple the prompts were — so this idea that it takes some kind of skill to make an AI image is intellectually dishonest or uninformed IMO.
This one is from someone who claims to just be experimenting with AI after seeing the above images:
Found the following on ArtStation under AI images - I admit these MAY have required more understanding of the software but these completely blew me away.
Note the hands — and it seems they've pretty much solved that problem AI had for a while with hands.
There are a lot more but I'll just post one more
This guy simply asked Copilot to create mythological creatures - That simple prompt gave him TWELVE IN TOTAL
There's a museum now that can turn simple drawings into animated animals and incorporate them into an interactive real-time video.
------------------------
Anyway, my original thought about this topic is that real artists will continue to create because that's what we do.
It's hard enough to scratch out a living with art otherwise — but AI will just make it even harder — and once I accepted (and others of you have as well) that all true artists will just continue making art no matter what AI does to the market.
What Ai job are being taken away is what does not require design for example making very basic template style mobile game no body play.What you see here is whatever you accept but it an other thing to move the ai into the vision of what you have in mind.Yes it does mindblowing art but it an other thing to create a universe that respect an artstyle the problem is still that you need to kick the ai cane down the road to get the result you want not everyone is a good ai prompter and there is job that no body think exist that might come out of this that people want it or not.
I recommend watching Design Cinema - Episode 110 - What AI Cannot Do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI atleast this insight knowledge of someone who as contact and been working in the video game industry for a long time.
The hamster one is honestly pretty funny. It's kinda cool to see how far something can be pushed as well. I don't quite understand why DALLE protests so much at pushing the image further, like is it programmed to do that? And why?
AI has changed quite a bit since we first started talking about it. Like you said, Jephyr, it's pretty much solved the hands problem and can easily create some quite amazing images. I tried it recently with a graphic design, put my design in to see if it could polish or improve it. What it spit out was not a usable product at all, like it wasn't what I needed. but stylistically it looked cool and pushed the design in interesting ways. It kind of lit a fire under me to make some tough changes to my work, because you know I can't let a computer show me up that easily! So in that sense, maybe it's useful in some capacity?
I do still think it tends to have an AI 'look' though, which I, and many people are kind of getting sick of already. It's creepy and uncanny. It just feels cheap even though the rendering is technically advanced, but that can be solved by giving it more style related prompts it seems. I don't really know, I do still hate it, but it hasn't made me want to just throw up my hands and give up as much as I thought it would. I kind of just keep truckin'. When I'm painting I don't really think too often, wow AI could probably just render this in like 2 seconds. I only think about that when doing busy work that isn't very artistic anyway.
I'm also kind of smug to see google's AI search engine thingy being widely criticized for being wrong. Obvoiusly a very different case from AI generated art, but it does go to show you shouldn't rely too much on these types of tools.
Quote: I recommend watching Design Cinema - Episode 110 - What AI Cannot Do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI atleast this insight knowledge of someone who as contact and been working in the video game industry for a long time.
Another perspective:
Quote: In an annual State of the Game Industry survey conducted by the Game Developers Conference (GDC) for 2024, over 3,000 game developers – ranging from independent developers to those working at larger AAA development studios – were asked whether they were concerned about the lack of ethics in using generative AI in the gaming industry. Of the roughly 3,000 developers surveyed, 84% expressed concern about AI in this facet.
It seems like it *is* a concern for the vast majority of people in the video game industry.
Same article:
Quote: One of the biggest concerns in the gaming industry, apart from AI, has been the massive wave of layoffs. Last year was widely viewed as one of the biggest years in gaming history with Baldur’s Gate 3, Hi-Fi Rush, Starfield, Spider-man 2, Lies of P, Final Fantasy XVI, Street Fighter VI, Alan Wake 2, Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and Armored Core 6, among many other games released in 2023. However, the year was also notable for the number of developers laid off. 2023 saw a staggering 10,000 developers laid off, with January 2024 already reaching half of last year’s layoff totals.
Also, to consider:
Quote: In a 2024 New Year’s letter to the industry and shareholders, Square Enix president and representative director Takashi Kiryu wrote that Square Enix’s development studios would be “aggressive in applying AI… to both our content development and our publishing functions.” Kiryu’s New Year’s letter was met with global condemnation by both game developers and the wider gaming community.
Quote: NKU students have been especially vocal about the use of AI in game development. Caleb Fidler expressed that the likely reason why corporate heads are pushing AI in game development is to provide a “path of lower overhead” when it comes to reducing budgets on development.
Quote: While it’s true that AI will help more people make video games, it could also lead to a huge glut in the market, and that has caused some problems for the games industry in the past. With AI assistance, it will become even easier for low-effort developers to churn out low-quality, low-price games as a quick scam. This has already been an issue in previous years, with 2017 seeing Valve remove 173 asset flip games from the storefront as reported by Gamesindustry.biz.
A good example of A.I. content dump is those Panasonic 70 videos previously discussed in this thread. Low effort content shat out for public consumption at an alarming rate by untalented, uncreative people for a quick buck. A.I. content devalues everything it touches.
Be wary of A.I. prompters trying to downplay their A.I. overlords. They’re setting up their side of the board.
I agree it is changing fast Joseph. I saw recently that the recent movie Civil War had used AI images to promote the film and was busted when people found buildings and landmarks that were out of place. So obviously parts of Hollywood have gone all in on AI — and in turn —there went jobs that would traditionally go to art directors, photographers and artists. Harrumph!
True also about the 'hands' thing. It's gotten so much better in such a short time it's amazing.
Zizka- Thanks for all the info. I'll attach some links below where people are using AI to make AMAZING films.
A comment under one was that they wanted to watch an whole movie based on it (the World War II re-imagined).
----------------------
So the original intent of this thread was to acknowledge the AI MONSTER that's being brought into the world — while still going to that 'personal well' that made us want to create art in the first place.
--------------------------
I had some down time recently and found a site with links to free AI tools and tried out several (with apologies to RP for 'training' them). I didn't note which AI tool is which but Dalle was one for sure.
I've posted some of them below.
This is the first one I did imagining a children's book author contacting me for some illustrations. You can see how simple the prompt was.
I went to another AI tool and this one produced a better result IMO.
So imagining that the author was telling a story about cats I did a few more that rendered in mere minutes that would have taken me weeks to perfect.
Later I started tinkering around with some more serious ideas and realizing the more I included about the style I was looking for the better the result.
This came back after a simple prompt (see the image title). I know that CG and myself love to mine this style and AI rendered it in seconds.
And a couple more using a John Waterhouse prompt for a young maiden.
I did a bunch in less than an hour (maybe more like 30 minutes) and I was getting better about knowing how to ask AI to give me what I wanted.'
Even a typo still produced a pretty good image.
Ok, so you get the idea.
---------------------------
I watched a video the other night and although I hate commercials in them — I watched the entire ad about an AI tool that can create complete videos WITH narration (ie an old English gent) using simple prompts.
The sample end result was professional and amazing!
---------------------------
Here are the links to the amazing AI projects people are doing. They're on 9GAG which can get pretty spicy and the comments can be vulgar and rude — so please be forewarned if you check then out:
As a final thought I'll add an anecdote. Many years ago a family member was buying a first computer and was trying to decide between a 750M or 1G hard-drive.
A guy who went on to work in IT for the huge companies said emphatically, "You will never need more than a 750M HD."
Occasionally through the years I've given him a hard time about that — but the point is that even an 'expert' in the field had no idea where things would end up with computing.
I think the same is true with AI. It is only in it's infancy — but has already made astounding 'progress'.
I think most stuff has be said already but heres my conclusion:
The ai trend sucks hard, it will take tons of important jobs in the art field
and the wrong people will make money with it.
Only thing that gave me peace was to accept it and push harder on my own art.
Also being aware that some people will feel like "art rockstars" who are using mainly
ai in their art / creative career & journey are going to get a reality check when a colleague
of a studio invites them for a studio drawing session or a friend asks them
for a quick sketch of a portrait during a bar night out.
Just like most people dont really like the art director in a studio
who cant hold a pencil or draw or design anything.
Im sure no one is going to like the "AI prompter" either.
I doubt someone is going to say: " Oh man he is such a genius "AI prompter", I want
to become like him".
If I reach a point where I have to use ai to get inspiration to draw anything
or concept a design,- in a time where the internet is packed with tons of
resources I might as well call it a day and quit the whole art thing.
My new thought on it is that I notice it's becoming a media literacy thing. Like all those images you generated are different, but they all scream AI to me. I instantly see them and I'm like yeah ok. I work with an older guy that was sharing reference photos and inspiration, and sometimes there will be an obvious (to me) AI image mixed in there and he legit doesn't realize. Just kind of interesting.
Also Trash, I really resonate with that comment. I think we all kind of need to snap back to reality, and step back from the computer. What you can produce with AI is not you. It does matter what you actually have in your brain and what you can do without tech. I'm hoping that reality check will come for those AI obsessed sooner rather than later.
Some great discussions in here, I also think plenty has been brought up already - but for shits and gigs I'll add my 2 cents into the mix
Generative A.I and all its versions: image, writing, sound, film, etc, (Art) is fundamentally unethical.
Firstly, no matter which way people try to spin it, we surely all agree that generative A.I cannot work without scraping Art that existed on the internet prior to this tech's creation. There was no consent, nor compensation. Sounds a lot like stealing.
So what gives? Aren't we, as artists disappointed when other artists (talking specifically about illustrators here) have been caught stealing another artist's work, for example with tracing? To me, it is really, really weird not to feel some negative emotions when finding out a favourite artist of mine has traced from another professional artist, regardless of crunch. There are other ways of speeding up the process, but tracing is unethical. I shouldn't have to explain why, but for the sake of steering clear of miscommunication: tracing is bad because you are stealing from another person's time and hard work in solving your creative problem (and that's just one reason). In other words: it's unfair.
So, I don't think using generative A.I is fundamentally any different to tracing another artists work. What are the differences now? Well it's taking from multiple artists, so a person using generative A.I is a lot less likely to get called out on it. Secondly? Using generative A.I is a lot more socially accepted. We've got mega companies, celebrities, hundreds of people on social media, universities and even other artists now using this technology without really batting an eye. Because for these people, as darktiste (paraphrasing) said: "The person doesn't care about how it's made, just that his vision is met", or in other words, yeah, "the ends justify the means".
It makes sense these are the kinds of arguments we hear from people that start to use generative A.I. It's a very "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality. Here's the thing though, just because a person can type a prompt in and have machine learning spit out something somewhat like the vision in their head - who cares? Just being frank, but who gives a shit? Our balance of perfection and imperfection is what makes us human. Not to get bloody corny, but goddammit - if Art isn't all of what makes up our human experience - it's our blood, sweat and goddamn tears of years of practise that goes into every single drawing, painting, design and even scribble that we create.
Why do people not seem to care or remember this? Why is this a problem?
Personally, I have yet to think and feel strongly about anything generative A.I has churned out to date. There's just this wash of uncanny sameness that is evident. Of course, in the future, this will probably change - generative A.I is certainly in it's infancy, and that anecdote has some truth to it, Jephyr. Though, in my opinion, unless generative A.I can actually become a sentient being, with it's own thoughts, feelings, behaviours and therefore experiences: there will come a time where this tech's output it will reach it's technological limit and everything will look and feel so lifeless, everywhere.
As it stands, an artist using generative A.I for or in their artistic process is certainly a choice.
I think it misses the point of being an artist.
We are so privileged to live in a time with the internet and all of it's available resources at our disposal to learn and speed up our artistic process like never before seen.
Not so long ago, that this was an incredible feat.
Why would we need anything faster?
This is where using generative A.I is taking that privilege a step too far. It's no longer about art for art's sake, or the human expression. It becomes about creating "art" at the speed of light without any of the human spirit.
The problem is the system.
I'll be honest, I didn't watch that FZD video about A.I because I'm almost certain I know the talking points and why Feng would be in favour of using the technology... have you seen the way he puts his students into crunch to become "industry-ready" concept designers? Have you seen how utterly "ends justify the means" Feng's way of thinking about art is? He is a top 1% concept artist that has accepted the insane turnaround time expected of concept artists. Because of this, I don't think he's a good frame of reference to discuss the ethical concerns a lot of artists feel regarding generative A.I.
Edit: Alright, I had time to watch the whole 1hr 25min vid from Feng - I should have watched it before assuming. I'm glad to have been incorrect about most of my assumptions and that he is advocating the importance of more skilled artists today more than ever.
Regardless, the reality is, generative A.I just adds to the pile of evidence that we are living in an era of late stage Capitalism:
Quote:In Jameson’s account, late capitalism is characterised by a globalised, post-industrial economy, where everything – not just material resources and products but also immaterial dimensions, such as the arts and lifestyle activities – becomes commodified and consumable.
(09-10-2024, 09:01 AM)Leo Ki Wrote: I came to similar conclusions when I had a look at these churners when they were still primitive.
They all manipulate sensory material, which is just the surface of the mind, but it is the mind that creates and appreciates the sensory material.
The only soul the generators have is a bunch of human-entered tags on source images that were pillaged "for non-profit research purposes."
Same goes with text generators. Language is not the mind, it's an expression of it.
I think this is the most meaningful thing that been said by a mile.
Word are secondary to the experience of this electromagnetic universe. Light entering the eye is simply the decoding of electro magnetic matrix by the brain.
It that vibration that influence us everyday.
We as artist are incline to communicate and share were colorful experience through color and shape we explore were subconscious mind and we send visual frequency through were artwork that sometime resonate yet profoundly influence society simply by choosing the color of what we wear to the mark we put on paper.
We have a special role to make the world aware of this colorful experience they are living in and not to take it for granted.
Just wanna finish by sharing a Jackson pollock artwork one of my artistic influence.
![[Image: wink.png]](http://crimsondaggers.com/forum/images/icons/wink.png)
