Your thoughts on A.I. art creation

[Stupot]

@ShortWlf

A lot of people don't like where we're going with AI art and for all the good reasons mentioned in this thread. "Witch-hunt" is a bit melodramatic, but if there is any sniff that someone is trying to pass off AI-generated or assisted work as their own, maliciously or not, it will be called out.

It's the wild west out there right now and a lot of dishonesty is afoot. Personally, I'm not dead against all use of AI for personal/hobbyist-level assets. I'm in agreement that it could be another tool in the toolbox. But you gotta read the room, and most rooms would appreciate absolute transparency.

In fact, I think a nice little post/tutorial openly detailing your technique could not only provide that transparency, but could also be useful to someone who might want to do something similar. Be aware though, people are always going to point out the tell-tale signs, either way. Treat that as constructive feedback to improve the technique.

[Ali]

Revolution Software are using machine learning on the 4K remaster of Broken Sword 1, and I can't think of a better use of that kind of technology. Of course, machine learning will create lots of handy short-cuts for independent game devs. My understanding is they've been training an ai model using character sprites that they created. And I think there's no reasonable objection to that on ethical grounds.

Similarly, Dune 2 used ai for the blue Fremen eyes. The (wonderful) Klaus trained an ai to light their 2D characters as if they were 3D. Across the Spider-Verse used ai to create the outline pen strokes on top of their 3D models.

All of that is clearly different, practically and ethically, from using generative ai to create "original" artwork.

[Snarky]

It's not going to be a sharp, bright line, though. You'll have all sorts of in-between situations where the generative AI is assisting at different levels, and doing more or less of the work.

For example, what if you're an artist and have tuned the AI model (originally trained on a vast database of other works) based on samples of your own style, and then use generative AI to:

-polish up rough, unfinished paintings to a finished state?
-"spatialize" a 2D painting for 3D animation (including inferring what things would look like from the back)?
-create facial animation for a portrait (lip sync or expressions)?
-create variations of a scene (e.g. nighttime, winter, 100 years ago)?
-do in-painting edits to an image ("change that bookcase to a fireplace")?
-make additional scenes from an example (instead of painting sixteen similar forest screens, paint one and let the AI generate the rest)?

[Rik_Vargard]

We're living some kind revolution here.
My dad lost his job to progress and innovation.
But he was lucky because he just was retiring like one year later.
There will be a transition.
Some people will be mad, angry and afraid of it.
It always happens : Steam technology, industrialization, robotics, computing...
Because we're in 2024, it just happens really fast and seems to come out of left field.
But it has been coming to us for a while.
Once, someone told me: "You can be for or against evolution, you'll have to go with it anyway."
AI is here to stay. Like every new technological revolution before.
I think we have to accept and adapt.
Or else we still would be hunters/gatherers.
I know people who were like really against it until they changed their minds.
Because of time.
How much time do we have to do what we want to do when we have a full-time job, family, friends, etc.?

What can feel unfair:
Being a knight or samurai who believes in traditional battles, and having cannons and guns in front of you.
There's that reason why everyone has cannons now.

Cheers

[Danvzare]

Very well put @Rik_Vargard although I would like to add, that just because we can't do anything about change, doesn't mean we have to like it or take it lying down.

I mean, we're all here because we love point and click adventure games, despite time, technology, and tastes having long since moved past the genre.

It might be a futile battle, but life is futile anyway. So if you don't like change, then why not fight it for the sake of fighting it? 
I'd personally prefer to die fighting for what I believe in, then to live in a perpetual state of yielding acceptance. Although I wouldn't want to do either in a blind state of ignorance. But that's just my values.



Also considering you touched upon it, I suppose now would be a good time to go into a philosophical debate about the desire for progression, and whether there is a reason to continually do so.
A topic which is quite vast, although I only have surface level knowledge of.

[Babar]

Very well put @Rik_Vargard although I would like to add, that just because we can't do anything about change, doesn't mean we have to like it or take it lying down.

I mean, we're all here because we love point and click adventure games, despite time, technology, and tastes having long since moved past the genre.

It might be a futile battle, but life is futile anyway. So if you don't like change, then why not fight it for the sake of fighting it? 
I'd personally prefer to die fighting for what I believe in, then to live in a perpetual state of yielding acceptance. Although I wouldn't want to do either in a blind state of ignorance. But that's just my values.



Also considering you touched upon it, I suppose now would be a good time to go into a philosophical debate about the desire for progression, and whether there is a reason to continually do so.
A topic which is quite vast, although I only have surface level knowledge of.

Why does it sound like an AI wrote your text? 

[LimpingFish]

Now, I know I'm old...at least by social media standards...but I am prepared to die in the fight against generative AI. I swear, upon a random stack of poorly-xeroxed bibles, that I will never use generative AI.

Some might see this as hyperbole, or fatalistic thinking, but I really do feel that if we give this anti-artistic, anti-creative, anti-human technology, even an inch, it will destroy us, slowly but surely. It will come for everything.

For instance, unless we're previously familiar with the creators, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize AI-generated videos on Youtube. You may be five or ten minutes into a video about the history of industrial foam insulation, when suddenly the narrator, who up until now has been speaking perfect English, will pronounce a word in a way that no human would allow to pass in the edit. You realize you're listening to an AI.

Then you realize you're watching images generated by an AI, and before long you come to the realization that not only are the audio and visuals AI, but that the whole video is the result of a single prompt, and contains no unique editorial content, being simply a regurgitation of dredged data, presented in a way that apes a popular video style.
And a little piece of you dies.

The AI has harmed you, in a small but very real way.

I want art made by humans. I don't care how mundane, or downright bad, said art is, but I want human eyes and human thoughts and human fingers to have been involved in every step of it's creation. AI will never produce art. But it will churn out content, or a facsimile of art, and capitalism's wet dream; a never-ending supply of cheap, flavourless sludge, blindly consumed by thoughtless, heartless automatons.

Generative AI will not "democratize art" or "level the playing-field"; it will render the playing-field a featureless grey void, where nothing matters and nobody cares. There is inherent worth in talent, in learning, in a dedication to strive to improve our creative abilities. There is humanity and emotional sustenance in both the creation of and consuming of art.

AI strips us of all of that. It tells us to cut out the middle-person (work/talent/creativity/artistic ability), put aside the desire to present our thoughts, ideas, and feelings in a form that others will experience and love/hate/ignore, and allow the robot to interpret something that approximates an existing piece of art, where the only goal is a sell-able product made with the least effort.

Despite being a metaphorical stretch, AI is like a Fleshlight; cut out the middle-person, and just have technology give you a blowjob! Or rather, a facsimile of a blowjob, but hey, the end result is the same, so it must just as good as the real thing, right? Right?

TLDR; Fuuuuuuuuuuck AI!

[TheFrighter]

Uh, what a weird metaphore! 

_

[cat]

@LimpingFish Did you just say that prostitution is better than masturbation? 

[Kastchey]

Seems so. Not sure how relevant hiring a person to do a BJ is to emotional fulfillment, but one thing is certain - there's no stopping the invasion of sex toys into modern society 

[LimpingFish]

@LimpingFish Did you just say that prostitution is better than masturbation? 

Seems so.

Well, I did say it wasn't the best metaphor, and it was intended as a joke.

Spoiler

But I do happen to be pro sex worker, as it happens. Not something I've ever availed of myself, but I'm certainly not against the practice, and would happily see laws and safeguards in place to protect those who wish to consensually provide, and those who wish to avail of, such a service.

Not coming down hard on masturbation, either, just juxtaposing the idea of technology creating a facsimile of art, and technology creating a foam-injected facsimile of a mouth (or other orifice), the end result of both being onanism; Generative AI exists to allows otherwise talentless/lazy people the fantasy that they are creative souls, while a Fleshlight offers them the fantasy of their genitals in somebody's mouth (or other orifice).

I also offered the juxtaposition of actual sex with an like-minded partner compared to the act of sticking your penis between a pair of rubber lips (or other orifice), and art as a human endeavor compared to non-art created by a robot. I'll admit that one was a little weak.

And, yes, to make my joke, I knowingly ignored the fact that a Fleshlight is actually more worthwhile than AI, and by doing so I totally did sex toy enthusiasts a disservice. So, for fans of penises being put into fake body parts, or fake penises being put into real body parts, I totally support your right to do so and be proud of it, and I applaud all your forms of exotic sexual release!

[close]

It was crude, clumsy and a bit of a reach, but I thought it overall apt, at least from a silly point of view.

Nevertheless, I'll re-edit the post to appear clearer.

Note to self: re-read posts you intended to publish at 4:30am.

Edit: Also...

[AndreasBlack]

Well it's over, for musicians. I just checked out the latest AI and this is insane. Yes, i can probably hear (i'm 90% confident) that i would be able to tell vocal AI's VS real ones, but it's such a thin line now. The compressed and slightly "phase" sounding vocals is what gives it away most of the times, but sometimes the phase:ish sound isn't or the overcompressed tone of the vocal and then it's like. Well i don't know. Is this AI or not? Out of all the songs i've listened to on Udio i couldn't find a real "hit" sounding song yet. But they have great verses that's better then some of my worst songs i've created in life for sure, and production wise it sounds just like the records it's trained from, no doubt. Scary times!

Slowly i'm starting to morph into Limpingfish

[Crimson Wizard]

Well, to be fair, much of the music demonstrated in the above video is a "generic" kind of music. Even if created by humans, that would not make it any special, so at some point maybe there's not much difference whether it's made by a human, copying certain standards for the style and genre, or AI basically doing the same - in its own way.

EDIT: I guess I am questioning whether there's a difference between a human-made generic creation and AI-made one.

I suppose the danger is rather in efficiency. AI can create plagiarisms more efficient and faster than a human.
Plus, many humans that would not bother doing this by hand will now use AI, because it's "easy".

[AndreasBlack]

I exaggerated a little as click-bait, but from a quality standpoint it's way to good now. How it creates legit good sounding 'scalewise correct' vocal harmonies, previous AI's sounded a bit tonedeaf and i couldn't hold myself from laughing  Did you listen to the retro 50-60's songs? Crazy! About it sounding generic, well have you listened to the billboard charts lately? I can't remember the last time i heard a really good song on the charts. Who would notice a sudden change in AI modelled songs? You and i perhaps, but i doubt the general public would! 
 
Some of the jazz songs at times sounded really good, but other times it felt like a soloist that doesn't know what to play and just hits notes randomly in the scale without any purpose behind the notes. Keep in mind it's just in a beta stage. Earlier AI music creation sites have not impressed me one bit, but this one did.

I must admit i'm beginning to get really scared now Real musicians or people with a big music interest they'll hear something is off, but that's in the minority these days

[Rik_Vargard]

Ah I came here just to do that tonight: talking about AI in music.
Looks like I've been thinking about it too long 
So thanks @Danvzare @AndreasBlack @Crimson Wizard  for the trigger.

And if you think Udio is a game changer, try Suno.com. That's where the real deal is. Because there's instrumental songs, but you can also add lyrics. And then come the singers.
There's everything, really. Before you go there, be prepared.
And you'll get why it take me so long 

I'm testing this thing in so many ways for like two months and mostly traditional music from around the world, because electronic music is easy, but all of those real traditional voices and instruments was always impossible unless recorded.
Well, that's over. it's just incredible.
Of course there are flaws at this point, but oh boy, do I give the traditional music industry like between end 2024 and 2026 to live some sort of apocalypse.

And then there will be that discussion about supporting real composers that make music but, at this point, how do I know they didn't use AI to make their music?

[LimpingFish]

I must admit I'm beginning to get really scared now Real musicians or people with a big music interest they'll hear something is off, but that's in the minority these days

And then there will be that discussion about supporting real composers that make music but, at this point, how do I know they didn't use AI to make their music?

I don't even think it's a case of AI becoming so good it's indistinguishable from the real deal. It's more about the vested interests behind AI trying to convince us that what they are producing is good enough as is. That there is no real difference in quality between art and AI art; it just looks a little off because we aren't used to it yet. Look at the video I posted; somebody decided that it was good enough to put out as is, despite it being hilariously inept. They don't care what it looks like, they only care if it will be accepted and consumed. And if it is, why even strive to make it "better"?

AI is a scam, and scammers are lazy. If the manpower, and cost, required in producing AI content outweighs the benefit of the scam, then it makes the scam seem more like work, and the scammers will split.

I predict you'll see a number of previously vocal AI supporters slowly lose interest in it (like NFTs, like crypto) as it becomes clear that it's not going to pay out they way they want it to.

EDIT: And the reason why we catch AI art so quickly is that the people producing it can't tell the difference. It's why they feel confident posting artwork without disclosing that it's AI; because it looks like real art to them, since they lack any form of critical or creative ability.

As always, fuck AI.

[TheFrighter]

Of course there are flaws at this point, but oh boy, do I give the traditional music industry like between end 2024 and 2026 to live some sort of apocalypse.

Music industry deal with electronic since '80s, I don't think it's really a change for them. More for the artists.

_

[AndreasBlack]

@Rik Vargard You're welcome  I just wished i was faster finishing my best track been re-recording so many times and trying to get it "just right" . Cause now i can't say "look i made art without AI" nobody will believe it . I absolutely feel that it's almost like you have to add now "None AI generated track/art" in the future when you'll release a quality song or art, so tragic!

Another one about the situation 

[Matti]

Look at the video I posted; somebody decided that it was good enough to put out as is, despite it being hilariously inept.

Yeah, that just didn't work 


That said, I am right now (or for a few months now) thinking about making a game with AI art (that I edit to make it coherent and without glitches). In fact, playing around with AI art gave me the idea to the game because I found that I could produce a lot of images that fit a certain style and setting. So in the game I could have some nice art, but concentrate mostly on coding and gameplay.

I would never make this the norm for me though, because I love doing art and create certain, unique styles. And as of now, the AI art is very limited and doesn't give you enough freedom anyway. For the game I think of developing though, which would consist mainly of menus and small fixed images (who represent characters and buildings), it's sufficient.

For me, AI would never, or not in my lifetime, replace "real" art. What I do think though is that AI art can give you a lot of ideas to inspire you.

[Blondbraid]

If I'm to give my two cents on this whole AI debate, my main impression is that the more things change, the more things stay the same.

I don't think AI has stolen any real jobs as much as it's replaced outsourcing those tasks to dubious sweatshops, and instead of directly stealing art, thieves now use an AI trained on stolen art. Because let's not kid ourselves, it's not like online artists were respected before the AI boom. 

I feel a big reason you see so many jerks pretending to be artists because they threw prompts at an AI is because for a long time, that's how many non-artistic people have seen the artistic process; artists just come up with an idea and then the art just magically appear after waving your brush for a bit. They don't see any of the tiring and repetitive work, and therefore don't respect it, and don't think artists deserve compensation for it, the same way you don't think a puppy needs to be compensated for you allowing yourself to play fetch with it.

I've had so many people in high school who'd see me drawing at recess, and go "Can you draw me?" without a second thought as to whether I'd actually want to spend my time drawing them instead of what I wanted, and getting nothing in return.

So to me, AI "artists" just feels like a continuation of this mentality.