Some thoughts on "AI Art"

Some thoughts on “AI Art”



Support me on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/ThoughtSlime

Follow me on Twitch:
https://twitch.tv/ThoughtSlime

One time tips on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/Thought_Slime

Want more Thought Slime videos? Check out Scaredy Cats! Horror content, every Tuesday at 12 pm EST :
https://youtube.com/ScaredyCatsTV

CGI-Sewer Background courtesy of Andrea Jörgensen:

Emily Paints You:
https://www.instagram.com/emily.paints.you/

Eyeball Zone solicitations can be sent to thoughtslimeeditor@gmail.com, please include your pronouns and use the word “eyeballs” somewhere in the subject line. I do not accept sponsorships, so please do not e-mail me about it.

The Eyeball Zone Masterlist:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PSzDDfsDnvWZjoTUQQfWulK6uwfP9oKwi_y1SBL3WdM/edit?usp=sharing

source

40 thoughts on “Some thoughts on “AI Art””

  1. Thank you for making your art. And thank you, any artist reading this, for making yours. I hope if you're in an art block or a slump that you feel better, regardless of if it means art comes from it.

  2. I'm not convinced it's all stolen. There have been some examples of malicious people, sure. I don't see an issue with AI learning off of open-source libraries. There was also the same scare when Photoshop came out, that it would put artists out of work.

    I don't think human-made art will ever really lose value.

    I also disagree with your comparison to Lichtenstein. He didn't change anything about the art.

    I could write a lot more but I don't really feel like it.

  3. I don't make money. I refuse to engage in any activity that would earn me a wage or salary. I will never generate profit for anyone, including myself. I have skills, mind you. I am capable of doing things. But as I have no drive to earn, and am vehemently opposed to others profiting off of work I do while I receive nothing of lasting value, I simply don't bother. I'll die anonymously in a ditch, and I'd prefer that outcome to living into my 70's knowing I spent most of that time struggling to survive while the actual fruits of my labor were simply redirected upwards, to people who have no need to labor themselves, and certainly don't need the money anyway. I'm not playing this game.

  4. My job is to write and I don't write novels but a distinctly large number of Kindle unlimited books, especially romances, appear to be generated by chat gpt. I think that writing is in way more direct danger rn but it feels like people are talking way more about the cute little glitchy drawings.

  5. Yeah, "AI art" is nothing but rapid prototyping for the 2d medium, same as 3d printers didn't replace the people who, before 3d printing, hand-carved the pieces industry used for prototyping.
    "Algorithmical Art generators" don't produce finished works. it can remix existing genres and expressions for artists, to help set said artist's creative processes in motion, but nothing more. It's an imagination supplement.

  6. Thanks for this! There really is something to be said for the fact that it's not the technology itself, it's the way it's talked about and the way that people want to use it. It's not just a fun tool for filling in the less 'important' parts or automating busywork, or just being treated as a toy to play with, it's not even being treated as a machine for remixing things (which is what it really is) – it's being talked about as a replacement, something that will be used to replicate and replicate again as soon as they get the hands and eyes worked out. The corporate styles, the names synonymous with IP; Tomorrow the same thing, tomorrow the same thing, again and again but this one in green, and this one in space. Built on the backs of artists and with complete dismissal and distaste for them. Because with a few clicks, now the prompter is "Just as good".

    An AI Written article can only say something new by accident. AI Art can only be novel by accident.

    I don't do art for profit, and a sad side-effect of that is that I can rarely do art at all. I work, try to keep a house, maintain relationships, feed myself; It's all time, and I'm rarely left with anything free to work on art, and certainly not enough to significantly improve. People who can make all or some of their revenue through art are the ones in positions to improve, innovate, become actual masters in their field. It's the people starting out that I worry for – the ones who need their art to supplement their revenue stream to have the time and space to develop.

  7. I'm glad you hit on the problem that it's the commodification of art at the root of this conflict. I'm not sure that it was Lichtenstein's intent to mock the artists he plagiarized. At least that was never my take. I thought the idea was to create the appearance of mechanically duplicated images and put that in a fine art context. Like, in Whaam he not only reproduces the look of printed comics, but also splits the painting in half where the page break would be. So, in other words, it's not "is this comic panel art", but "is a copy of this comic panel art". Similar to how Warhol used screen printing. What is an artwork when it can be exactly duplicated. I'm not sure what he himself thought though, so I could be wrong.

  8. AI art gets away with a lot because people like abstract art not realizing that when humans make an impressionist piece they do it on purpose. When AI paints a man with no face or 8 eyes on his left nipple it's because it literally doesn't understand people don't look like that.

  9. there's this scene in the film The Holy Mountain where an "art factory" makes expensive paintings via conveyor belt, where canvasses get pressed under peoples' butts that have been painted various bright colors

    truly ahead of its time

  10. Couple of points: a good artist using "AI" will create better art than a crappy artist using "AI", so it is essentially another tool like Photoshop; artists being screwed over because they are being undercut by someone else isn't new and is everything to do with the freelancer model most artists work under – unionising art would be awesome.

  11. I am a software engineer in animation, and I 1000% endorse your message here. I make the light-simulation tools you talk about (path tracer) and compositing tools with a sprinkle of lookdev. Aside from just making a living, I love art, I want to make it and help artists make it.

    Our ML team focuses on things like denoising and super-resolution, which is mostly to cut renderfarm cost and consumption. But other good ML tools, like the spiderverse line placement, are meant to skip 80%ish of the monotonous busywork for certain tasks. The 3D pipeline can be arduous and there's a ton of room to make it easier.

    Midjourney et al are not that. They replace artists and obliterate the creative process. The absolute contempt shown by some devs and enthusiasts towards artists sickens me, as someone who is lucky enough to work with these pros on a near-daily basis.

    And there's all this sinister talk of "democratizing art" from these people, as if effort and talent are greedily hoarded, as if it's not possible to break out a pencil or cheap watercolors and try to make something whenever.

    To those people: artists aren't malicious hoarders, they are workers who gained expertise you lack, and you resent them for it. You resent them while craving a stream of vague content they're somehow obligated to feed you. You want them to bow to the machine you worship. You want power over them. You shouldn't have it.

    Fuck AI art

  12. I think the effect of AI art is going to be similar to the effect photography had when it was introduced – it will certainly replace human labour and make it harder for certain kinds of artists to find work, but it won’t be the end of art like some people claim cos there’s lots of things it will never be able to do

  13. Wow, Continuous drip feed of focus group over marketed joyless gruel is inspired 👏👏👏👏👏👏
    Wow just wow.
    And I realize exactly what you mean cause this is exactly how I felt when Grammerly came out!

  14. Great video ! Very interesting i think one of the problems with ai generated art is that it is very reliant on human made art. You see ai generated art become worse the more non human generated art are its inputs. At some point there will be to much ai generated inputs which will make things look worse and worse.

  15. AI image generators have been a pain in my ass for over a week now, with Artstation and Deviantart widely protesting how both websites allow AIGIs to be posted there and don't protect the actual artists from these algorithms stealing their art to be churned into more monstrosities. I'm glad Mildred understood that this is all about the exploitation of artists, stealing our labor so that we don't need to be paid for it anymore, and not that much about the ugliness inherent to AIGIs. The explanation of how these algorithms work and how it differs from humans was very good too, cheers.

  16. I think it would be pretty cool if an artist could train an algorithm on their own art style. That way they could retain ownership and control of their work and any automated imitation of it.

  17. 2:50 This highlights your fundamental lack of understanding of what is happening with AI art: "who will never ask for any sort of creative input on what is being produced".

    Creative input is absolutely essential. People using these AIs call themselves prompt-crafters, and how good you are at getting the images you want comes down to learning the language and descriptions… "the creative input"… that the AI responds correctly to.

  18. Weird that no one seems to be trying to automate CEO/management positions. Seems like an average Civ 5 AI could handle that kind of thing, without a multi million dollar salary and bonus package. It could even be hardwired to be incapable of fraud, etc. Seems like that would save more money and limit liability

  19. While AI created art can be an interesting tool I'm considering anyone who thinks it's going to replace meat artists unironically a clown.
    Like, okay bro, fine. You're discouraged. You look at those fine rendered, more realistic looking pictures and think "I could never create this, so I won't even try. Goodbye art." that's your prerogative
    What about the millions of people who do art, because they like it? Do you really think I, who has been intimidated the fuck out of by so many better artists and hasn't given up, gives a shit?
    AI "art" so far had me mildly annoyed at best, if not completely emotionless.
    Also realism is wildly overrated. Get a grip people. If I want something that looks like real life I go out and touch grass.

  20. I don't advocate for violence of any kind so instead I'll just say that whoever invented AI art should be punished by being locked away and forced to watch birddemic for 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and never be allowed to engage with any other type of art in any way shape or form ever again.

  21. That's might be the most disappointing video I've seen from you. It shows a profound misunderstanding of how "AI" models create art (no, it's not a form of collage), and a profound lack of care to understand the counter argument proponents of AI Art are making. Such as the fact that the AI is the tool, not the artist.

  22. No one has understood my existential dread around AI art. Because, like, I actually kind of dislike the whole 'high art' vs 'commercial art' divide. Commercial art is fine, hell, all the drivel comics are fine. You can apply art to that. There can be passion, soul, all of that put into it. I remember my professor back at DigiPen, he said his former professor said his art was 'not very good, and he was a better designer, as he designed compositions well and communicated ideas well but lacked an artistic vision' and his response was, is good design, not art? And I agree. Good design is an incredible art form, its wonderful, and its also something that actual audiences don't get.

    I hate it because its like all the people who stare at Hitler's paintings and go 'oh you can see how he didn't care about people because' No, shut up. He liked buildings and wasn't studied growing up in an art variety that was currently hip. The same thing that happened to Hitler happened to the Hudson River School of artists. Their style, and their passions, were something that wasn't currently in. That didn't make it less valuable of art. It's just that art is trends didn't favor them and considered art meant to be beautiful, inspiring, and represent an untouched world was not in the vogue. They wanted art that captured a indomitable force of man.

    Commercial art, is fine. People actually do like it. it may not be ideal, but art made for someone is art nonetheless. You can have passion for making someone else's mind come alive. Its honestly a wonderful experience. But AI Art? AI art is everything that kills art.

    Because its able to replicate whats trendy. It makes it hard to draw anything because people will just AI generate a trend they prefer. This is legitimately brutal in furrydom and in the art commission world, I'm sure its bad in anime art too.

  23. A can draw a picture in the dirt with a stick and get more fulfillment from the finished product than when I use those silly programs. I may not be a successful artist, but I'm satisfied with being capable. 😁💜

    Edit: I make money with construction. It's the standard substandard way to subside. When I think about capitalism, I feel like the only things I need to really make it financially are greed and insecurity. 😆

  24. If you ever want to see the limits of AI art at the moment, ask for a picture of a foot, or for a person doing a handstand, holding something with their feet, surrounded by a crowd of dogs. Absolutely wrecks it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.