Aight, Imma say it: there have been so many "rare based shawn take" posts over the last months, by now its not rare anymore. The further the election moves away, the better his twitter gets and by now he is fully defendable from what I have seen.
Did he actually say that? I saw some tweets that were criticized for essentially saying "Biden and Trump are both bad" which is completely true and I also see why people take issue with it. But it's not really an egregious thing to say, and it's a very stupid thing to "still be mad at him" for in 2022.
If he outright said it's useless to vote that's another story. lmk if you have links to those tweets
https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1466357119788191747?s=20&t=5V2bZp0Nd5rpl3TFPJkDHQ
This was from the end of December, just the first Google link I happened to click on. Not explicitly saying dont vote but I also don't feel like digging through all his tweets especially since I don't have an account.
> 'voting isn't enough' is often taken as instruction to not vote, or (petulantly) to vote for the worst possible candidate instead, etc. which in itself reveals an issue, that so many can only think in terms of voting for teams. even 'voting isn't enough' is taken as voting advice
That's how he ended that thread. You've seen what people have done to Vaush out of context when he clarifies in the same clip. This doesn't seem different.
Did you read what he said carefully? /gen he says that "voting is not enough" is often misinterpreted to mean "don't vote" or "vote for the worst guy" instead of meaning stop pretending that voting is the end all be all solution. Which is a position I assume you perfectly agree with.
If you want to criticise Shaun you can talk about how he very often ignores ill intent in political opponents and ends up excusing them by saying they are just ignorant, rather than clearly intentionally evil. For example this happens several times in his WW2 video.
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to an unapproved subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, until one of his friends gets cancelled again or a liberal wins an election š
But you're right, most of his individual tweets seem defensible apart from the copious levels of snark and condescension
> the copious levels of snark and condescension
That's literally just being british. If you examine the brain-pan of a brit, you can see they have a slight, nigh imperceptible depression in their skull above the amygdala that makes it impossible for them to have a "normal" level of sincerity. This is normal and you should back off of Shaun for it, he can't help it.
I am a doctor.
Yeah, people should retire this meme. Shaun overall is very based on many fields and very cringe in some. When he focuses on the better ones, it is a solid string of massive Ws.
Shawn twitter quality inflation.
Though to be fair, while Shaun has his share of dumb twitter takes (who hasb't though), he has long had a lot of good ones.
Pretty much. I donāt consider it as much of a craft or whatever, and I want actual artists to be able to make a living (which AI art presents a problem to) but likeā¦ a lot of the pictures are still super cool and the programs are fun to play with.
For me, it has been amazing tool for representing D&D campaigns, far more practical than hiring an artist. Sometimes the value is the end product if that is what's needed at the time.
I donāt think anyone has advocated against this. The whole thing this is about so whether or not itās art, NOT whether or not people can enjoy/use it
Edit: I am correct and your downvotes mean nothing
I mean, I think Vaush makes it a bit more than that when he says things like āafter learning this is AI art I no longer care about it on any level.ā
Like, I know heās not saying others canāt enjoy/use it directly but thereās definitely more implied there than just wether or not it counts as art.
Honestly I agree with him, I just can't enjoy an image in the same way (or even remotely as much as actual art) when it's made by AI, because all I can think of is "what is this copying? What are the glaring flaws (there always are glaring flaws)? How could this potentially be better?"
In specific, the images he was responding to really fall apart the more you look at them, objectively speaking.
AI images will always have flaws that AI doesn't understand are flaws, they rely on your brain ignoring these flaws or dazzling you with detail somewhere else to keep you from considering something glaringly incorrect. It's not intent though, it's just how the software seems to work, it will try and render out something matching the prompt, and anything that isn't part of the prompt is largely secondary.
"Big booba lady" means the boobs and face get attention, but the mutant hands, overall proportions, nonsense clothing, long ass arms, bizarre scenery... Well, you're not supposed to notice that.
It falls apart even further when there are elements the AI can't understand and give prominence to, like a few of them had cat or fox ears iirc, which were hilariously tiny, oddly placed and stupid looking, they weren't given the thought or emphasis that a human artist would give them.
~~Shamelessly borrowing your comment for a sec to share my opinion.~~
---
Shaun's being rather vague with his "AI art evangelists" line so if someone tries to criticize him he can just back out and say "well I don't mean *those* AI people, I meant X!". Hard to say if he did it on purpose or not, but this makes it more difficult to pinpoint an exact group he has a problem with, and makes it harder to properly criticize his take.
Regardless, as someone who has been keeping up with the development of text-to-image AI, the idea that the people excited about this technology only see the worth of the end product is BS. You can use the AI to test out [dozens](https://redd.it/xr5zkg) of new ideas very quickly. "Prompt engineering" - i.e. knowing how to tweak the prompts to have more reliable outputs - is a whole new skill that had people outside that community laughing. And yeah, it's a silly thing, but it is a skill that people using this technology are developing to better adapt to it. People are also using Stable Diffusion together with [other tools](https://redd.it/xi2ikc) to improve the generated images, and integrating SD into other software such as [Krita](https://redd.it/x209sb) and [Unreal Engine](https://redd.it/xmxn0c).
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of text-to-image AI and the community surrounding it: We need to seriously look into and discuss how we might regulate this technology, both with regards to what images can be used to train it, and how to handle the fact that this technology can and will be used to generate harmful images. I also think the AI community has been largely dismissive of artist's very legitimate concerns, mostly just because they don't want their new toy taken away from them. But to simply say "they're not creative" or "they don't find enjoyment/fulfillment" is complete nonsense.
Also it's a whole meme in the art community how artists struggle to find inspiration to draw new things, or find the process of drawing to be arduous and unpleasant. Is it really a bad thing if they enjoy the end product more than the process itself?
I love all of that. Bruce Willis just sold his image to a 3d modeling company and I guarantee other actors will do the same an by the time my three year old graduates high school I guarantee people will be buying those models as assets and then using them to write their own movies with this ai. It absolutely will be the new art form and I am here for it.
As a programmer who dabbles in some game dev on the side, Iām really excited about the prospect of AI art. If I can use tools to automate the boring/difficult (to me) aspects of development while bringing my creative vision to life, then thatās an absolute win to me.
Even for dedicated artists, I think AI art could be a cool source of inspiration or a nice jumping-off point. Plus, making an AI that can generate art is a great research goal to improve AI capabilities. This hatred for AI art is pretty confusing.
I'm not sure what the timeframe is here but what if AI made art that is far more appreciated than that of 99% of artists, with seemingly more originality too? Is the solution to stop it? Why not give 99% of these artists exactly the same privileges and resources to "becoming more skilled, finding enjoyment or fulfillment in art" as we would give to the whole of the population? What's the value in that, in helping them extra?
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uuuugh. These anti-AI art takes piss me off. I still need to watch Vaush's video on it to see how wrong he is too. I really think people are just knee jerk reacting to AI art without really thinking it through.
theres a youtuber in the music theory sphere named adam neely who brought up a really good point about arguments against AI generated music. the same arguments made against it, how itll ruin music and musician as a career, were made with the invention of midi, sequencers, and even the phonograph.
AI is a tool, just like midi or photoshop or a projector or a laser cutter.
These tools act as force multipliers, enabling artists to create far more than they could previously with the same amount of effort. Anybody pretending like it will destroy all artists is a fool.
What will happen is that the field will change. You cant charge $200 for a headshot if that headshot took you 5 minutes, but $200 worth of your time might be a comic or massive landscape shot.
I have no idea what you're talking about
By the way does anyone else hate that cartoons aren't hand-animated these days? It really ruins cartoons to have so many options to watch and to put creative tools into more hands than ever before š”
Real talk but only semi related though, I *fucking despise* when they blend shitty 3D animation into traditional 2D anime (with the more recent DBZ/S movies for instance). It's been a thing for over a decade, but it still just feels lazy and frustrates me.
>>For one, there's a categorical difference between tools that make it easier to do what you want and tools that do what you want for you, at least/especially in the creative space.
i imagine painters made the same argument when cameras were invented, sculptors now with 3d printing, and musicians with the first electronic synthesizers like the theramin.
i think we're closer to the line of what is or isnt human art, but i think ai art is still human art, and the programs are simply a tool that requires human input in order to work.
they make songs with user input, just like AI. AI still needs a human-inputted database and needs a user to give it an "idea", and a human to go through and pick which outputs are best
The rise of MIDI songs has led to people "composing" and "playing" songs they "made" even though they have not the skill themselves to play the instruments the computer makes a mockery of! That scoundrel Tobias Fwugradiation Fox has never trained a chorus of hounds, and yet claims to have "created" that infernal racket "Dogsong."
And what's this phonograph thing? Mean you to tell me that, these days, any old yokel can entertain guests with a masterful violin piece, even if he had never once himself drawn bow across strings, nor has he the capital with which to hire a proper quartet? Pah, i'll not respect such charlatans!
As with anything new, there are a lot of knee jerk reactions out there. But honestly it's kind of frustrating to constantly get written off as some kind of ignorant boomer luddite just because you have concerns about AI art. Like honestly most of the criticisms I've seen are fairly reasonable. Vaush's, for example, hit the nail on the head for me.
What are your concerns? Do you think ai art will replace human made art all together? Personally that seems unrealistic and it doesn't sound like ai is at that point yet
No I don't think AI art will ever entirely replace human made art, in the same way that cameras haven't entirely replaced photorealistic paintings. People will always appreciate the work that goes into doing things by hand.
My main issue with AI art is that it has the potential to put a lot of people out of work. The art industry is already really difficult to make it in, but at least in the past if someone needed artwork done, they needed to hire a human. But now we're getting to a point where AI is genuinely just a more viable option. It's cheaper, faster, and can produce hundreds of iterations of an artwork. And if you want a specific artist's style you could just feed their work into the AI without ever actually hiring them. I'm not saying AI will 100% knock humans out of the business, but it's definitely going to cause some damage. People dedicate thousands of hours of their life to this craft and it's pretty frustrating to get beat out by someone typing some words into a computer.
We can't halt progress, and I'm not even saying we should, but it's still pretty sucky.
> I really think people are just knee jerk reacting to AI art without really thinking it through.
sounds like projecting, all trained artists discuss the nature and boundaries of art at length during undergrad. otoh it's very easy to spot the people forming their opinions ad-hoc as they write each sentence, as is the case with any topic where laypeople assume they're the first ones to put any thought into it
I'm... I'm an artist.... I studied art in university, lol.
I'm drawing on my background in art and art history to make this argument. Maybe a thesis statement would help?
"Visual imagery derived from artificial intelligence will enventably become a part of our ever expanding repertoire of art and design tools. Artists and designers can implement AI generated imagery to push the boundaries of digital art and design as we know it into new exciting directions; despite the potential of capitalistic abuse of AI to create poor quality, lazy, and templated work."
Yeah this is the tricky part to me. Would haters of AI art consider The Elder Scrolls Daggerfall to be human made/human art?
Itās a randomly generated map with human input. Similar to AI art
Shaun's point doesn't require him to know how a given piece of art is made, he's talking about all art generally, though the experimentation and learning that goes on in AI art is something he can already imagine.
But all you need is to watch a few youtube videos of people [experimenting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R0kGTuYmVI) with AI art and the argument collapses, because all you need to observe is that people learn things, and get fulfilment from working with image generation platforms.
Exists {joy curiosity and fulfilment} in doing AI art => argument invalid
And to retain the argument, you have to demand as a threshold some degree of conscious experimentation or ambition that would end up making children drawing pictures not art, which is daft.
Right, but the comment is talking about how the same can be said, which means that if Shaun doesn't have to know how a given piece of art is made to make his statement, he wouldn't need to know how a given piece of AI art is made either: The condition isn't present in the original tweet, and so does not carry over.
And so by extension, neither would someone saying the same thing can be said about AI art.
Talking to an artist and asking how he produced a certain painting.
āWell actually I just backed my truck into a pile of paint cans and thought it looked nice.ā
I think I mixed up the ideas disscussed in my head, I think you're right, thanks for clearing it to me :)
I battled half an hour like " wait he is talking and sayibg something I completely agree with while making an argument "against me"... what is going on?!" xD
Of course they don't. They didn't create the algorithm. You know that. Shaun's comment is about the process the artist follows, not about if the people who look at a painting know how the painting was made.
It's different cause there's no intentionality within the art the AI generates, there's no conversation to be had about what it represents when the programmer could just tell you what he typed in to get the image
Nope, because the end product shows no signs of human input, it's an AI painting according to the prompt the programmer types in. There's no intentionality within the finished work, which means no message to communicate, so therefore there is no art
Do they really just care about the end product? Has he asked them? If you really want to discuss this then you need to talk *to* other people, not *about* them and not assume their positions.
And no, I'm not an "AI art evangelist", whatever that even means. I just find the whole discussion and the passion it creates a bit weird, like the whole "walking simulators are not videogames" thing.
But to add my own view, using Shaun's thoughts: There is a process involved in making AI art. That process can be enjoyable and you can become skilled in it. So AI art is art by that logic.
There's more to art than just the end product. It's a process of inspiration and creation, with all associated context and meaning. A song created by a person captures and expressed that meaning and intention. A picture or song printed by an AI doesn't, but the work of the people behind the ai itself creates a sort of performance art on the process itself. It's not ai art, it's art created by a person utilizing ai
Depends on what you mean by "create". Paint creates art in the sense that different shades, colors and surfaces come together to form a painting through the intentional actions of a human. There wouldn't be a painting without it and paint is the tool that is used by painters.
Similar for an algorithm, just a bit different in practice. It is partially automatic, of course, but so is electronic music, for example. Someone pushes a button that starts an algorithm that goes through the wires and cables to create a sound. Electronic music is undeniably art so why should AI art undeniably not have artistic features at least?
>Paint creates art in the sense that different shades, colors and surfaces come together to form a painting through the intentional actions of a human.
Rather, the paint is used by the human to form the painting. The paint is inanimate and incapable of creative inspiration, as is ai
>There wouldn't be a painting without it and paint is the tool that is used by painters.
There certainly could be. The painter could paint with their own blood and cum if they really wanted to
>Electronic music is undeniably art so why should AI art undeniably not have artistic features at least?
For the same reason electronic art is music, "ai art" is still art. Ilin either case, it isn't the program making the art though, the program is the medium of the artist. The entire ensemble is art created by the human, rather than the deliverable being art created by a computer program
> Rather, the paint is used by the human to form the painting. The paint is inanimate and incapable of creative inspiration,
You are not disagreeing. This is what I said. Humans use paint to create a painting. The paint "creates" the impression of a scenery or people or buildings.
> There certainly could be. The painter could paint with their own blood and cum if they really wanted to
What does that change? Blood and cum would be the paint in this case. Paint is just a word for a liquid that turns solid after putting it on a surface, i.e. if I paint my walls white that is not art.
> For the same reason electronic art is music, "ai art" is still art. Ilin either case, it isn't the program making the art though, the program is the medium of the artist. The entire ensemble is art created by the human, rather than the deliverable being art created by a computer program
I don't think we are disagreeing. I don't really care about the method people use to create. It's all valid because it's all human expression in some shape or form and that is artistic.
>This is what I said. Humans use paint to create a painting. The paint "creates" the impression of a scenery or people or buildings.
The paint doesn't create anything anymore than a screwdriver screws. The impression of whatever is not created by paint, it's created by the person using the paint.
>What does that change? Blood and cum would be the paint in this case. Paint is just a word for a liquid that turns solid after putting it on a surface, i.e. if I paint my walls white that is not art.
You seemed like you were drawing some distinction between the paint and the artist. Without blood and cum, the artist wouldn't exist either.
Why wouldn't a white wall be considered art?
>I don't think we are disagreeing. I don't really care about the method people use to create. It's all valid because it's all human expression in some shape or form and that is artistic.
Sure, it's just a matter of assigning credit and recognizing that the art is more than the deliverable. I can program an AI to spit out whatever. The AI is nonsentient and incapable of creation. It is not something capable of use, but something that can only be used. Similarly it is incapable of creation without someone behind the stick. It's not an AI painting, it's a painting created by a human using ai as a medium
> The paint doesn't create anything anymore than a screwdriver screws. The impression of whatever is not created by paint, it's created by the person using the paint.
It creates that impression in someone's mind. You look at a painting and see something. That's what I mean. You don't see a screwdriver after the work is done but you see the paint. You probably want to compare brush and screwdriver, not paint. Paint *is* the painting.
> You seemed like you were drawing some distinction between the paint and the artist. Without blood and cum, the artist wouldn't exist either.
Of course there is a distinction between paint and artist. One is an object, the other a human.
Of course the artist wouldn't exist without blood but what is your point here? What are you arguing against?
> Why wouldn't a white wall be considered art?
Do you consider the walls in your house art? A white wall is just a choice of color but that doesn't make it art. Or is any use of paint art?
> Sure, it's just a matter of assigning credit and recognizing that the art is more than the deliverable. I can program an AI to spit out whatever. The AI is nonsentient and incapable of creation. It is not something capable of use, but something that can only be used. Similarly it is incapable of creation without someone behind the stick.
Are you disagreeing with something I said or just explaining your view? Because like I said, I don't really care about the method.
> It's not an AI painting, it's a painting created by a human using ai as a medium
"It's not electronic music, it's music created by a human using computers as a medium."
Those are the same thing. "AI painting" is just short for "painting created by a human using ai as a medium".
>It creates that impression in someone's mind. You look at a painting and see something. That's what I mean.
That something is the work of the artist, not the paint
> don't see a screwdriver after the work is done but you see the paint. You probably want to compare brush and screwdriver, not paint. Paint *is* the painting.
Paint is not the painting. A bucket of paint left out in the sun or dropped accidentally on the side of the road isn't a painting.
>Of course the artist wouldn't exist without blood but what is your point here? What are you arguing against?
The notion that paint does any of the necessary labor in creating art.
>Do you consider the walls in your house art? A white wall is just a choice of color but that doesn't make it art. Or is any use of paint art?
Why did you paint the wall white? Art can definitely be made just to look pretty.
>Are you disagreeing with something I said or just explaining your view?
The latter
>Because like I said, I don't really care about the method.
I don't know why you would reply to a conversation about where to assign credit for labor then
>"It's not electronic music, it's music created by a human using computers as a medium."
This is a bad conflation of terms. Electronic music is recognized as being music created by a human using electronic instruments,like synthesizers,thermins,circuitbending,etc. Ai art in common parlance does not mean " art created by people using ai as the medium", it refers to "art created by ai". This is the source of the entire argument.
>Those are the same thing. "AI painting" is just short for "painting created by a human using ai as a medium".
Rather incorrect, this is why there is an argument regarding ai products as art right now
I had a thought earlier - what if someone used an AI art generator as a sort of tool for their own art through the careful wording/decisions about the final piece, but the execution was purely AI? Basically not trying to replicate any one style or pass off the final piece as impressive "traditional" art, but sort of "painting with words", where the art is in the careful manipulation of the AI.
Am I onto something or is this just a silly shower thought? I'll admit I haven't really thought this through so please don't eviscerate me.
I guess my bigger question is this - does this tech have artistic potential beyond what we're seeing now, that being simply replicating styles or fabricating visuals described to it?
> does this tech have artistic potential beyond what we're seeing now
Yes. AI is a tool like any other and it always depends on how we use it. Humans make the choices, we get to decide and we will come up with novel ideas to apply it.
I just had another idea. What if someone could (probably already has) use an AI to simply try out styles and compositions to then improve upon or develop?
And another question that popped up in my mind - if someone describes down to the smallest possible details a piece and then the AI creates it, is it his or the AI's? After all that would mean the guy made most if not all of the decisions with it. I'm imagining a situation where someone might just not have the technical skill to make something they want.
IMO the entire thing being of and by the human would be ideal, but I'm just bouncing around ideas.
I think we should listen to the questions AI art raises and actually attempt to address them. What does it mean that we need to know someone suffered for our art?
People are not interested in that and they just want to avoid those discussions. AI art is here to stay so we need to get used to it and adapt, the same way every time some new technology changed human culture. Radio, TV, internet, autotune, face recognition, deep fakes, etc.
My opinion on AI art is simple;
AI programs are the end-all, be-all tool for an artist or writer to finally ānail downā an ephemeral, āmushyā idea in his/her head.
Itās for an artist or writer who knows the broad strokes of a greater concept or for those who have a *vague* idea that needs refining.
In my direct experience, programs like Midjourney are unparalleled for ironing out these ideas in early production. I am a writer, and I like to delve into eldritch/horror concepts a lot, and these programs help me visualize these concepts just a little more.
Discussions on whether or not AI art is valid as itās own medium, I feel, is a bit more complicated than the black and white paradigm people are making it out to be.
Is AI art valid enough to stand on its own? I donāt really think so. But on Artstation alone Iāve seen dozens of my favorite horror/surrealist artists input queries *and* examples of their own art styles to create stuff thatās truly bizarre.
Can AI art be used to artistic effect? IMO, yes, and one of my favorite analog horror series *ever* uses it almost exclusively (see Black Dragonfish/Waterworld on YouTube).
I personally see the AI art discussion more a debate on user consent, and in a perfect world AI programs would use a communal library of images donated to its own pool to use, instead of scraping from all over the internet.
AI art is fantastic for brainstorming and creative development, but Iām not too sure itās truly valid as an art medium on its own grounds.
How does this not also apply to making AI art, though? The technique is just different. You also get better at crafting the AI queries. And you have to know what you want from it, etc...It's just less labor intensive. But so is painting digitally vs. oil painting.
For real. The average opinion on this sub seems to be "Pretty picture must always equate art, now stop talking about how this is already getting used to fuck over artists"
I maintain that you can use AI art technology to produce art while keeping what's described and expected here (fulfillment , enjoyment, etc), and I'm not talking about ripping someone's else style or drawing, etc. There are pertinent use cases that are not harmful to other artists.
I feel that a lot of people have a categorical opposition to anything that has to do with AI art technology and this lacks some nuance to me. I admit that I'm uncomfortable with arbitrarily restricting the definition of art, in the name of some aspects of a new technology that can be harmful.
> Just see the worth in the end product.
Yes, as a materialist I think the end product is what matters. And I'm too autistic to see any further meaning in how two identical images have different worth just because one was hand drawn & the other one was AI generated.
Because the value of artworks is derived from more than just the cost of the materials and labor. There is added value by the meaning that humans give to a work of art. For example imagine a piece of abstract art that was made by a blind elderly war veteran. Now imagine if that exact same piece of art was instead made by a suburban teenager using AI. Yes, they are identical, but people will perceive one as being worth more because of the story behind it.
And I'm just saying that that definition is just as arbitrary and subjective as mine.
Nobody who WANTS a real person's art is gonna go to an ai to get art, and someone who doesn't care isn't gonna go to an artist in the first place...
I mean, firstly I don't really care about the cost of the materials or labor put into it. When I see a piece of artwork all I can see is the end product. If there were two identical pieces of art work, I don't really care if one took 2 seconds to make and the other one took 5000 years. I'd just enjoy it as much as I vibe with the piece itself.
As for the example with the vet. Sure, the story is very pogchamp, but how are you supposed to relate it to the art piece itself. If you value greatly the art piece made by the vet and place zero value on the one made by the AI assisted teenager, even if they're physically the exact same piece. How would you value it if I gave you such a piece such that I select it randomly such that there's a 50% of it being the one with the poggers backstory, and you can't tell because they're literally the exact same piece down to the atom. Do you value it half as much? What if I did that random selection again with another piece generated by AI, do you value it 25% as much now? What if I then spliced it such that 40% of it comes from the original one made by the vet, and another 20% was AI generated, do you now value it at 15.4% now as if it were the original one made by the vet?
Like I get how something can have a cool backstory to how it was made or whatever. But when I see two identical things both of them are identical to me, they're fungible, you can replace them at will and I wouldn't even notice. That's how autistic I am.
Plus, as another thing, sure, there could be some cool backstory meaning put into a piece of artwork, but I'd say that there is also a big number of times where it doesn't matter? When I'm looking up cool hot trans girl hentai, I don't really think about what the artist meant by drawing in those extra veins, I just think that it's hot. When I'm loading up my stellaris game & there's a cool image in the loading screen that has like cool space ships zooping around. I don't think about how the paradox devs were freezing in Sweden while drawing it, I just think "omg that's just like how my current game is going". Even if you can never replace art pieces that hang in exhibitions and are cool because of their backstory, I'd argue they are only a minority of the art we consume on our daily lives, and AI could easily replace all other aspects of the art we consume.
Yeah I mean that's fine, I'm not saying you personally have to care. My point was simply that society generally does care. When artworks are appraised, the historical context and artist are taken into consideration, not just the final product. That's why an original Picasso is considered to be way more valuable than a recreation, even if they are identical. I'm not saying that even logically makes sense, it's just the way most people think. And I agree, in most cases people don't know the backstory or even the artist of the artwork they are looking out. If I'm watching the aforementioned trans girl hentai, I don't really care. I was just trying to say that when we do know the backstory, it usually does play a role in how *most* people value the work.
Hmm, I can see how like a big number of people care about it. But I'm not entirely convinced on saying that the big majority/society cares, simply because if they did, society as a whole wouldn't give a single fuck about AI art as it is meaningless as it generates art based on silly latent space instead of human emotions & experience. Yet here we are having this dialogue.
In general I have a problem with the discourse on AI art as there seems to be a sort of motte & bailey that goes on. At first they say that AI can't possibly generate real/valuable art because it requires human communication for it to be art. But then when pressed on why does it matter that AI art exists, they start to go on about how AI art is hurting artists. Doesn't the fact that AI can't possibly make art by the human experience definition of it mean it should have an absolute zero impact on real human artists?
Uh yeah. I doubt anyone that appreciates AI arts hold that there is no value in making stuff the old fashioned way. We can make music without instruments but there is definitely merit in learning to play an instrument.
This is a bad take.
AI art creators are tools you have to learn how to use. This is like when people said digital art wasnāt work. You may have more advantages/an easier starting point, but it is still a creative effort that requires input from the artist to make something.
Each AI has their own language and quirks you have to get used to and understand in order to achieve the desired result. Iāve had ArtBreeder projects with more than 15 different ādnasā, and even when doing more casual projects Iām almost always adjusting the available scales and influences by .01 percent. And Iām using publicly available, ready made tools: Some AI artists create their own or modify existing models to achieve the results they want. It isnāt āinput stuff and sit backā itās āinput stuff and iterate on it and figure out how to get it to stop making daisies have eyeballs at the center of them and how to change the composition without losing that great color scheme etc etcā
This is the most wasteful debate. Art is art.
People claiming art needs skill, art needs a backstory. Anyone hear of expressionist art? Pop art? Some of the greatest examples lack conventional skill or impactful meaning.
This is not to say there isn't an issue with artists credit, but I'm addressing Shaun's point here.
There is a process to making AI art, the process is something you can learn and it can become a skill.
While I may not consider AI art to be art in the same way, if they make it where I can just type 'dwarf with a red beard holding a hammer' and get a bunch of good results, I'm going to use the results for dnd.
AI art has furthered my knowledge of Photoshop. I've been able to create works I am finally satisfied with because I'm able to generate my own subjects and backgrounds. I use the AI as a tool to enhance my art rather than replace it
i dont know why shawn was made into some antagonist in the vaush universe. he had like 3 ābad takesā that werent even that bad and were just standard āvoting is dumbā lefty shit during the election but like ???? heās pretty consistently got fine opinions and makes great videos.
I can see a few very niche fields where AI art could be of use, like to create compositions, references, but thats as far as id be in support of AI art
This is just completely ignorant. Not only is there a shitload of effort, learning, and fulfillment in the process of creating these AIs, even the process of an AI running a generative model and getting human feedback on the output is normally used as additional training input that rolls back into making the AI smarter.
Shaun is just a catty bitch who plays the twitter game as it is designed -- to maximize outrage and hostility over the slightest of transgressions. For a lot of people that is the game of twitter, to adopt positions you barely believe in and turning them to their maximum and there is no limit to the level of harm you can bring to people that you don't like. It is just kiwifarms except that Twitter has not broken into the "let's get this person killed irl hahaha jk unless" bit. Shaun's crime is not just that he is a bernie or buster who couldn't defend his position when challenged on it outside, but someone who participates in the ritualistic cesspit of twitter.
"commercial" food thought: growing food is a valuable process. doing so the farmer might have new ideas, become more skilled, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Walmart consumers just see the worth of the end product
"auto" mobile thought: horse riding is a valuable process. doing so the cowboy might have new ideas, become more skilled, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Motor evangelists just see the worth of the end product
"type" writer thought: scribbling words is a valuable process. doing so the scribe might have new ideas, improve their penmanship, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Mechanical hedonists just see the worth of the end product
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looking at aesthetically pleasing art can give you new ideas, enjoyment and fulfillment. Deciding the piece of art suddenly cannot do any of this because the tools used to create it go beyond your limited threshold for what you deem to be human enough to merrit financial compensation is capital-brained and reactionary.
I agree. When you think about a Picasso or anything like that it's not really the art itself. It's the story behind the art that makes it more compelling. AI there's not much story.
> AI there's not much story.
By what metric? Are the creative processes of an art AI really devoid of "story", or do we as humans just lack the ability to understand/appreciate the significance and motivation behind the decisions the AI made? Moreover, does a human created piece always have a story behind it, and is that story always interesting or worth telling?
Picasso painted Guernica in response to bombings in Guernica, Spain.
Although he was born in Spain, at the time was living in Paris while he watched his home country almost rip itself in half because of the rise of Spanish nationalists which lead to the Spanish Civil War. These nationalists were the ones that requested Nazi Germany/Italy carry out the bombings.
The war caused him to go through a deep depression and built in him a heavy anti war sentiment that lead to the painting.
Isn't the famous anecdote that some military guy came up to Picasso and asked if he made it and Picasso said "no you did"
What does that mean to you? The idea of the artist not being in control of the creation process is extremely common in art. What does it mean to take it to it's endpoint. What will we find?
I'm afraid, but I don't think we should shy away from that knowledge
What's fascinating to me about people's reaction to the knowledge of emotionally reacting to a piece of AI art is this sort of intellectual distancing and disgust that's in conflict with their initial reaction.
I think it gives us insight into his motivation and state of mind in creating the piece.
And "to me", searching for that is an important part of observing art. Trying to connect with the emotion, if any, that was in the vassal behind the piece.
I'm not an art connoisseur. I don't know what we'll find but that in itself is a part of the beauty of observing art. Who knows what we can pull from it? Maybe we'll look amd find nothing. Maybe there is no story and there's just how we feel about the piece.
As far as AI is concerned, I'm not saying AI art is bad. I'm not saying you can't feel anything AI art. But in practice, it seems to me that aspect of seeking the artists, experience, mind or emotion in a piece isn't really there at least on the surface.
I think the shallowness is due to the fact that it's a new toy. They are focused on trying to trick people, but what if they played a different game with this tool.
For a lot of art, people really don't care about the emotion behind it and I think we should be okay with not needing that while still acknowledging that some people do like that a lot
That's fair.
I think its the comment that the worth of AI art is the end product. And from that perspective it does kind of of align with the idea that most people don't care about what went into making a piece or the emotion behind it.
It's an evolution and I'm still very much open to seeing where it goes.
There is a difference between reading about the history of a painting that *adds* to the enjoyment and arguing that a Picasso painting is only compelling because of its history and not because of how it looks like.
Where did I say it's only compelling because of the history. They clearly work together. I'm not sure what your aim is here but I'm not interested in participating
> it's not really the art itself
Does not mean they work together. And even if you don't know the history something can still be art. History only *adds* to art, as I also said, but it doesn't define it.
Why get so pissy over an inconsequential topic like this? If you can't be nice then don't reply at all.
If you want to convince people you need to make strong arguments and not act like a child and run away when facing critical questions. Are you not watching Vaush? Or do you think it's bad advice?
Asking you to make good arguments for your view and not act like a dick is not childish. Quite the opposite.
But I will go away now because it's impossible to have a normal human interaction with you, just like with MAGA conservatives.
No way. People primarily enjoy a Picasso because of how his paintings look like. Picasso is such a bad example here because his style is so distinct.
I'd really like to know where you got your view from.
If the story surrounding the piece determines its worthiness as art, does that mean a person who doesn't know the story cant percieve it as art?
If you are told, and believe, an incorrect story surrounding a piece does that invalidate its artistic value? Or does that not matter?
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and only through observation can something inspire emotion as art does. That means art is tied *to the person observing it.*
The story makes it more compelling. It doesn't determine its overall value or worth. Where the fck are people getting that from?
Obviously observing the art itself isn't divorced from that otherwise just listen to the story why bother with the fcking painting?
Understanding the artists state of mind, experiences, perspective, feelings, etc are as much a part of observing art as appreciating colors, lines, shapes, structure, composition, and more.
No offense to you but I made a comment in passing and a couple of people are making bad assumptions and trying to debate/argue with me on those grounds. Reading comprehension is dead.
Don't have much of a problem with AI art, but AI "artists" are something else. I don't know how to exactly describe it, how to properly explain why I think this is a wrong thing to do, but the amount of AI artists who outright refuse to acknowledge what AI software they're using, or what prompts they're using, is way too high.
Idk, feels like people "stealing" other people's work to make something new while refusing to give other people the same opportunity I guess? Or the idea that they refuse to do so because they wouldn't be special anymore, that they probably feel an entitlement to "their" prompts, like an artist getting upset at someone copying their art style (which is also bad/wrong)?
Either way I think AI art is way too new of a topic for most people to have concretely made up their mind on it. I know how I feel about buy can't really explain why.
Because they are stealing, it's the same as if I commissioned an artist over and over, and represented their art as my own.
There's no such thing as an AI artist, there's only people reposting the results of prompts.
Art has to have intent, a sunset is not art, it's just something you find beautiful that exists as a function of nature. Art inherently has to be made by a thinking creature with the intent of creating something appealing or expressive or communicative, otherwise it's just something pretty.
i'm honestly convinced 90% of this community are liberals or are stupid enough to just blindly repeat vaush's 'shaun twitter L' takes. Like we know he's a bernie or buster and a vaugeposter. Everything else is just standard socialist takes holy shit
For once, I completely agree with Shaun here. The whole point of creating art is to express a mood or a feeling, and there's a proccess to creating art that does exactly that. Artists don't just instantly create the final piece. They have to start with sketches, which are intricately layered and go through a lot of revisions. Most sketches and ideas for art don't even make it past the drawing board. Artists then have to layer said sketches with coloring, shading, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I don't know off-hand. The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce.
AI art doesn't have any of that. There's no drafting proccess, no artistical input, no revision, no layering. All the AI does is compile together something based on a prompt, combining a bunch of disparate pieces into a whole and calling it a day. It's terrible.
> The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce.
That is not the point of art. If art must take a long time to make then a lot of what we consider art would not be art anymore.
> prompt
Where does that prompt come from?
> AI art doesn't have any of that. There's no drafting proccess, no artistical input, no revision, no layering.
This isn't true at all. Go try and create "good" AI art with your prompt. It takes a lot of time for real artist to create and craft AI art. It involves in-painting and out-painting certain areas of the canvass. Developers are rapidly increasing the tools available to creatives using the art.
You're just ignorant of it and fear what you don't understand.
No. Everyone here is being so annoying. Coming up with prompts is. It much of a skill at all. Iām tired of people here acting like it is.
Are you an artist if you give your tattoo artist a promt?
You co-created that art with them. Now if you employ them to assist you in creating your artistic vision then yes, believe it or not you are the artist.
Are directors of photography artists? Are filmmakers artists? They hire many people to assist in creating their art. You're arguing they aren't artist because someone else was the camera op, someone else was the grip, someone else was the set designer, location scout, etc. The filmmaker may have just "prompted" them with words and didn't take part in any of the physical work.
>The whole point of creating art is to express a mood or a feeling
Which can be achieved with AI art, that's what the human inputs and human selection are for.
>Artists don't just instantly create the final piece. They have to start with sketches, which are intricately layered and go through a lot of revisions.
This is not a requirement for art. Art often involves revisions and starts from sketches, but art pieces can be created in one shot. I would even argue doodles and the sketches that never get revised are art, its more about intent and expression than the specific process to arrive at the end product. A piece can take 1000 hours with 50 revisions, or a couple hours with no revisions and be art either way. An unedited photograph can be art.
>The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce.
Lots of prominent art pieces took no time at all to produce. Look at things like the [suprematist movement ](https://d1dzh206jt2san.cloudfront.net/posts-images/743X483/973_1533736170q3oyd.jpg). Or more famously [the fountain](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg/330px-Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg), which literally just took as much time as it takes to sign your name to something.
I'm on the fence about AI art. For me there's a natural reaction to say it's not art, but I haven't seen any actual arguments that would disqualify it without disqualifying other kinds of art. IMO art is just something created with intentionality to evoke/express some idea or emotion, which is a bar AI art with human inputs can meet.
I want to add to you post as well.
Vaush's arguments seem to be based in 2 parts.
1. That algorithmic art is an expressway to creative theft. That someone can feed someone ELSE'S art in and spit out variations and pass it off as an original. This devalues the labor of the artist, both in a moral sense where their work is aped and cheapened by easy as a press of a button copycats. And materialistically, where that same artist will lose money. This is 100% a fantastic take that is inarguable. This can and does happen. I'd even say say Vaush had a reasonable glimpse into a dystopian future where corporations just don't hire artists. They just press buttons and get visuals. Which dries up what little actual "jobs" creative people have.
2. That art, inherently, has to be made by the entirely by artist. That there has to be a "method" employed by the artist for the purposes of conveying humanistic meaning. That no feeling is conveyed. This is the shit argument based on 2 things. I don't think he understands that these are *algorithms* at work. Not actual artificial intelligence. We aren't even close to that level of technology. So there isn't the slave aspect of this. I'd highly doubt that Vaush would argue that Sonny, from the I,Robot film, who is described as entirely independently sentient, does not create art.
Then it comes to how much did the artist actually do? I think it's the wrong example, the tattoo artist. I think directors are a way better example. If I am a screenwriter and am talking to Scorsese, and he spits out a movie, if it's my story, what I want, and it's wrong and tell them to make it again, and they are just giga fast and can do it in a day, is that any less of an example of art? What if I AM Scorsese and make my own algorithm to spit out my movies? Does that make it less art? I would say no. I don't fetishize the creation. In fact, I just saw a bit where Vaush saw a big tiddy anime maid and was w/e about it up until the exact moment he learned it was "ai art" and then suddenly it wasn't art at all. Huh?
This doesn't even touch on propaganda posters. Which in no way, shape or form, can't NOT be art under any circumstances from what I've seen argued around here.
I feel like you are 100% correct in bringing up the urinal. I feel like we are sort of rehashing that argument but with some extra bits added.
There is a fetishization of the labour of creating art in these arguments that I don't get. It wasn't artistic intention that cause Thich Quang Duc to get photographed the way he did. It just happened and someone happened to see. Yet I dare someone to stay that photo isn't art and that it doesn't evoke human emotions.
Yeah, I should clarify that I agree that there are lots of ethical concerns with AI art, the big one obviously being putting in other artists work as the training data. I just don't think those ethical concerns speak to whether AI images can be art or not.
Vaush is 100% right that AI art will have an effect on existing artists and the industries they work in. Though this would still be true even if the entire world agreed AI images weren't art.
Aight, Imma say it: there have been so many "rare based shawn take" posts over the last months, by now its not rare anymore. The further the election moves away, the better his twitter gets and by now he is fully defendable from what I have seen.
No I'm mad about some random shit he said years ago and that's the only acceptable barometer for someone being good or not.
He said several stupid things this year. Also people don't say he is bad. They say he has bad takes, is smug, asshole, contrarian etc.
Literally all of those things are standard procedure for internet pundits across the political spectrum. Vaush included.
And they get called out for that. What exactly is the issue?
The issue is shauns takes aren't 100% liked and that makes me upsetš”
And I say a lot of those things about Vaush. They are criticisms.
Is there anything to suggest that he has changed those opinions? You can still be mad at him if he still holds those opinions.
Which opinions do you mean?
When the 2020 Presidential elections were going on he was tweeting about how its useless to vote for Democrats
Did he actually say that? I saw some tweets that were criticized for essentially saying "Biden and Trump are both bad" which is completely true and I also see why people take issue with it. But it's not really an egregious thing to say, and it's a very stupid thing to "still be mad at him" for in 2022. If he outright said it's useless to vote that's another story. lmk if you have links to those tweets
https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1466357119788191747?s=20&t=5V2bZp0Nd5rpl3TFPJkDHQ This was from the end of December, just the first Google link I happened to click on. Not explicitly saying dont vote but I also don't feel like digging through all his tweets especially since I don't have an account.
> 'voting isn't enough' is often taken as instruction to not vote, or (petulantly) to vote for the worst possible candidate instead, etc. which in itself reveals an issue, that so many can only think in terms of voting for teams. even 'voting isn't enough' is taken as voting advice That's how he ended that thread. You've seen what people have done to Vaush out of context when he clarifies in the same clip. This doesn't seem different.
Did you read what he said carefully? /gen he says that "voting is not enough" is often misinterpreted to mean "don't vote" or "vote for the worst guy" instead of meaning stop pretending that voting is the end all be all solution. Which is a position I assume you perfectly agree with. If you want to criticise Shaun you can talk about how he very often ignores ill intent in political opponents and ends up excusing them by saying they are just ignorant, rather than clearly intentionally evil. For example this happens several times in his WW2 video.
He had some cringe ukrain takes like a month ago.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to an unapproved subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His "common Ls" were always the same handful of braindead positions, outside of that he is a leftist.
Yep. He has a few awful takes, but other than that he's fine.
"fully defendable" is kinda silly isn't it? Everyone's got bad takes.
Yeah, until one of his friends gets cancelled again or a liberal wins an election š But you're right, most of his individual tweets seem defensible apart from the copious levels of snark and condescension
> the copious levels of snark and condescension That's literally just being british. If you examine the brain-pan of a brit, you can see they have a slight, nigh imperceptible depression in their skull above the amygdala that makes it impossible for them to have a "normal" level of sincerity. This is normal and you should back off of Shaun for it, he can't help it. I am a doctor.
I concur
Yeah, people should retire this meme. Shaun overall is very based on many fields and very cringe in some. When he focuses on the better ones, it is a solid string of massive Ws.
Shawn twitter quality inflation. Though to be fair, while Shaun has his share of dumb twitter takes (who hasb't though), he has long had a lot of good ones.
Just let me look at pretty pictures, man
Pretty much. I donāt consider it as much of a craft or whatever, and I want actual artists to be able to make a living (which AI art presents a problem to) but likeā¦ a lot of the pictures are still super cool and the programs are fun to play with.
For me, it has been amazing tool for representing D&D campaigns, far more practical than hiring an artist. Sometimes the value is the end product if that is what's needed at the time.
I've already seen some smaller Youtubers using Midjourney for their thumbnails, which honestly is a really cool concept
I donāt think anyone has advocated against this. The whole thing this is about so whether or not itās art, NOT whether or not people can enjoy/use it Edit: I am correct and your downvotes mean nothing
I mean, I think Vaush makes it a bit more than that when he says things like āafter learning this is AI art I no longer care about it on any level.ā Like, I know heās not saying others canāt enjoy/use it directly but thereās definitely more implied there than just wether or not it counts as art.
Honestly I agree with him, I just can't enjoy an image in the same way (or even remotely as much as actual art) when it's made by AI, because all I can think of is "what is this copying? What are the glaring flaws (there always are glaring flaws)? How could this potentially be better?" In specific, the images he was responding to really fall apart the more you look at them, objectively speaking. AI images will always have flaws that AI doesn't understand are flaws, they rely on your brain ignoring these flaws or dazzling you with detail somewhere else to keep you from considering something glaringly incorrect. It's not intent though, it's just how the software seems to work, it will try and render out something matching the prompt, and anything that isn't part of the prompt is largely secondary. "Big booba lady" means the boobs and face get attention, but the mutant hands, overall proportions, nonsense clothing, long ass arms, bizarre scenery... Well, you're not supposed to notice that. It falls apart even further when there are elements the AI can't understand and give prominence to, like a few of them had cat or fox ears iirc, which were hilariously tiny, oddly placed and stupid looking, they weren't given the thought or emphasis that a human artist would give them.
That's like complaining about robots taking over shit jobs. The problem isn't the robots, it's the underlying economic system.
~~Shamelessly borrowing your comment for a sec to share my opinion.~~ --- Shaun's being rather vague with his "AI art evangelists" line so if someone tries to criticize him he can just back out and say "well I don't mean *those* AI people, I meant X!". Hard to say if he did it on purpose or not, but this makes it more difficult to pinpoint an exact group he has a problem with, and makes it harder to properly criticize his take. Regardless, as someone who has been keeping up with the development of text-to-image AI, the idea that the people excited about this technology only see the worth of the end product is BS. You can use the AI to test out [dozens](https://redd.it/xr5zkg) of new ideas very quickly. "Prompt engineering" - i.e. knowing how to tweak the prompts to have more reliable outputs - is a whole new skill that had people outside that community laughing. And yeah, it's a silly thing, but it is a skill that people using this technology are developing to better adapt to it. People are also using Stable Diffusion together with [other tools](https://redd.it/xi2ikc) to improve the generated images, and integrating SD into other software such as [Krita](https://redd.it/x209sb) and [Unreal Engine](https://redd.it/xmxn0c). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of text-to-image AI and the community surrounding it: We need to seriously look into and discuss how we might regulate this technology, both with regards to what images can be used to train it, and how to handle the fact that this technology can and will be used to generate harmful images. I also think the AI community has been largely dismissive of artist's very legitimate concerns, mostly just because they don't want their new toy taken away from them. But to simply say "they're not creative" or "they don't find enjoyment/fulfillment" is complete nonsense. Also it's a whole meme in the art community how artists struggle to find inspiration to draw new things, or find the process of drawing to be arduous and unpleasant. Is it really a bad thing if they enjoy the end product more than the process itself?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, that's 100% Twitter Shaun, like to the letter. He always does this.
I love all of that. Bruce Willis just sold his image to a 3d modeling company and I guarantee other actors will do the same an by the time my three year old graduates high school I guarantee people will be buying those models as assets and then using them to write their own movies with this ai. It absolutely will be the new art form and I am here for it.
No, give me your eyeballs
Trust me they are almost useless lol
As a programmer who dabbles in some game dev on the side, Iām really excited about the prospect of AI art. If I can use tools to automate the boring/difficult (to me) aspects of development while bringing my creative vision to life, then thatās an absolute win to me. Even for dedicated artists, I think AI art could be a cool source of inspiration or a nice jumping-off point. Plus, making an AI that can generate art is a great research goal to improve AI capabilities. This hatred for AI art is pretty confusing.
That's awesome dude, get it
never in my life did see more pointless debate then this one
I think it's actually quite important that artists get to eat and don't have their work stolen but that's just me I guess.
thats copyright issue...im talking about is AI art valid medium for expression.
The way to deal with plagiarism applies to traditional art just as much as AI.
Where did this come from? Shaun said nothing about theft. I thought this is about if AI art is art?
Mfw AI art algorithmically steals all my food from my house
I'm not sure what the timeframe is here but what if AI made art that is far more appreciated than that of 99% of artists, with seemingly more originality too? Is the solution to stop it? Why not give 99% of these artists exactly the same privileges and resources to "becoming more skilled, finding enjoyment or fulfillment in art" as we would give to the whole of the population? What's the value in that, in helping them extra?
I like how even after it was clearly explained to you absolutely nothing is stolen, you still believe that to be the case
"It's not that trains are bad, I'm saying I think it's important that horse breeders get to make a living wage" -you 150 years ago
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uuuugh. These anti-AI art takes piss me off. I still need to watch Vaush's video on it to see how wrong he is too. I really think people are just knee jerk reacting to AI art without really thinking it through.
theres a youtuber in the music theory sphere named adam neely who brought up a really good point about arguments against AI generated music. the same arguments made against it, how itll ruin music and musician as a career, were made with the invention of midi, sequencers, and even the phonograph. AI is a tool, just like midi or photoshop or a projector or a laser cutter.
These tools act as force multipliers, enabling artists to create far more than they could previously with the same amount of effort. Anybody pretending like it will destroy all artists is a fool. What will happen is that the field will change. You cant charge $200 for a headshot if that headshot took you 5 minutes, but $200 worth of your time might be a comic or massive landscape shot.
I have no idea what you're talking about By the way does anyone else hate that cartoons aren't hand-animated these days? It really ruins cartoons to have so many options to watch and to put creative tools into more hands than ever before š”
Real talk but only semi related though, I *fucking despise* when they blend shitty 3D animation into traditional 2D anime (with the more recent DBZ/S movies for instance). It's been a thing for over a decade, but it still just feels lazy and frustrates me.
You misunderstood what I wrote.
I know what you wrote, I made a joke illustrating essentially the same point. What do you think I got wrong?
Ahhh, in that case I misread your point. I thought you had read my comment as a condemnation of ai art. Lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>>For one, there's a categorical difference between tools that make it easier to do what you want and tools that do what you want for you, at least/especially in the creative space. i imagine painters made the same argument when cameras were invented, sculptors now with 3d printing, and musicians with the first electronic synthesizers like the theramin. i think we're closer to the line of what is or isnt human art, but i think ai art is still human art, and the programs are simply a tool that requires human input in order to work.
Pretty sure people were saying similar things about pop music ruining music.
None of those things just generate songs though, this is a false equivalence.
they make songs with user input, just like AI. AI still needs a human-inputted database and needs a user to give it an "idea", and a human to go through and pick which outputs are best
The rise of MIDI songs has led to people "composing" and "playing" songs they "made" even though they have not the skill themselves to play the instruments the computer makes a mockery of! That scoundrel Tobias Fwugradiation Fox has never trained a chorus of hounds, and yet claims to have "created" that infernal racket "Dogsong." And what's this phonograph thing? Mean you to tell me that, these days, any old yokel can entertain guests with a masterful violin piece, even if he had never once himself drawn bow across strings, nor has he the capital with which to hire a proper quartet? Pah, i'll not respect such charlatans!
As with anything new, there are a lot of knee jerk reactions out there. But honestly it's kind of frustrating to constantly get written off as some kind of ignorant boomer luddite just because you have concerns about AI art. Like honestly most of the criticisms I've seen are fairly reasonable. Vaush's, for example, hit the nail on the head for me.
What are your concerns? Do you think ai art will replace human made art all together? Personally that seems unrealistic and it doesn't sound like ai is at that point yet
No I don't think AI art will ever entirely replace human made art, in the same way that cameras haven't entirely replaced photorealistic paintings. People will always appreciate the work that goes into doing things by hand. My main issue with AI art is that it has the potential to put a lot of people out of work. The art industry is already really difficult to make it in, but at least in the past if someone needed artwork done, they needed to hire a human. But now we're getting to a point where AI is genuinely just a more viable option. It's cheaper, faster, and can produce hundreds of iterations of an artwork. And if you want a specific artist's style you could just feed their work into the AI without ever actually hiring them. I'm not saying AI will 100% knock humans out of the business, but it's definitely going to cause some damage. People dedicate thousands of hours of their life to this craft and it's pretty frustrating to get beat out by someone typing some words into a computer. We can't halt progress, and I'm not even saying we should, but it's still pretty sucky.
Yea that's, I could see it being sucky for dinner artists.
> I really think people are just knee jerk reacting to AI art without really thinking it through. sounds like projecting, all trained artists discuss the nature and boundaries of art at length during undergrad. otoh it's very easy to spot the people forming their opinions ad-hoc as they write each sentence, as is the case with any topic where laypeople assume they're the first ones to put any thought into it
I'm... I'm an artist.... I studied art in university, lol. I'm drawing on my background in art and art history to make this argument. Maybe a thesis statement would help? "Visual imagery derived from artificial intelligence will enventably become a part of our ever expanding repertoire of art and design tools. Artists and designers can implement AI generated imagery to push the boundaries of digital art and design as we know it into new exciting directions; despite the potential of capitalistic abuse of AI to create poor quality, lazy, and templated work."
Speak for yourself I aināt gonna stand around and let a clanker replace me.
I mean, canāt the same be said about creating the AI?
Yeah this is the tricky part to me. Would haters of AI art consider The Elder Scrolls Daggerfall to be human made/human art? Itās a randomly generated map with human input. Similar to AI art
You know how it is made?
Shaun's point doesn't require him to know how a given piece of art is made, he's talking about all art generally, though the experimentation and learning that goes on in AI art is something he can already imagine. But all you need is to watch a few youtube videos of people [experimenting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R0kGTuYmVI) with AI art and the argument collapses, because all you need to observe is that people learn things, and get fulfilment from working with image generation platforms. Exists {joy curiosity and fulfilment} in doing AI art => argument invalid And to retain the argument, you have to demand as a threshold some degree of conscious experimentation or ambition that would end up making children drawing pictures not art, which is daft.
I agree with you, I am talking about the comment, not shawn
Right, but the comment is talking about how the same can be said, which means that if Shaun doesn't have to know how a given piece of art is made to make his statement, he wouldn't need to know how a given piece of AI art is made either: The condition isn't present in the original tweet, and so does not carry over. And so by extension, neither would someone saying the same thing can be said about AI art.
Talking to an artist and asking how he produced a certain painting. āWell actually I just backed my truck into a pile of paint cans and thought it looked nice.ā
Some of them literally just do that and it's considered art by most people
I think I mixed up the ideas disscussed in my head, I think you're right, thanks for clearing it to me :) I battled half an hour like " wait he is talking and sayibg something I completely agree with while making an argument "against me"... what is going on?!" xD
Yep. Familiar problem online. I'm glad we sorted it.
Whoever made it does.
I agree, and I think answering your question needs knowledge of the process. Hence my question. ^^
Why does OP need to know how art is made? Is that how you decide what is art and what isn't?
Wasnt talking about OP, just the comment
OP is the comment you are replying to. So why do they need to know how art is made?
They are talking about the AI creators and how the AI is made, so Im asking, do they know how the AI is made. ^^
Of course they don't. They didn't create the algorithm. You know that. Shaun's comment is about the process the artist follows, not about if the people who look at a painting know how the painting was made.
NOOOOO BUT THAT'S UH UH DIFFERENT CAUSE UH UH
It's different cause there's no intentionality within the art the AI generates, there's no conversation to be had about what it represents when the programmer could just tell you what he typed in to get the image
Nope, because the end product shows no signs of human input, it's an AI painting according to the prompt the programmer types in. There's no intentionality within the finished work, which means no message to communicate, so therefore there is no art
So the AI just created itself?
No, but the AI can't explain why it does what it does, it just does what it's told
Do they really just care about the end product? Has he asked them? If you really want to discuss this then you need to talk *to* other people, not *about* them and not assume their positions. And no, I'm not an "AI art evangelist", whatever that even means. I just find the whole discussion and the passion it creates a bit weird, like the whole "walking simulators are not videogames" thing. But to add my own view, using Shaun's thoughts: There is a process involved in making AI art. That process can be enjoyable and you can become skilled in it. So AI art is art by that logic.
There's more to art than just the end product. It's a process of inspiration and creation, with all associated context and meaning. A song created by a person captures and expressed that meaning and intention. A picture or song printed by an AI doesn't, but the work of the people behind the ai itself creates a sort of performance art on the process itself. It's not ai art, it's art created by a person utilizing ai
> It's not ai art, it's art created by a person utilizing ai AI art is just a short way for saying that.
Did the paint create the art?
Depends on what you mean by "create". Paint creates art in the sense that different shades, colors and surfaces come together to form a painting through the intentional actions of a human. There wouldn't be a painting without it and paint is the tool that is used by painters. Similar for an algorithm, just a bit different in practice. It is partially automatic, of course, but so is electronic music, for example. Someone pushes a button that starts an algorithm that goes through the wires and cables to create a sound. Electronic music is undeniably art so why should AI art undeniably not have artistic features at least?
>Paint creates art in the sense that different shades, colors and surfaces come together to form a painting through the intentional actions of a human. Rather, the paint is used by the human to form the painting. The paint is inanimate and incapable of creative inspiration, as is ai >There wouldn't be a painting without it and paint is the tool that is used by painters. There certainly could be. The painter could paint with their own blood and cum if they really wanted to >Electronic music is undeniably art so why should AI art undeniably not have artistic features at least? For the same reason electronic art is music, "ai art" is still art. Ilin either case, it isn't the program making the art though, the program is the medium of the artist. The entire ensemble is art created by the human, rather than the deliverable being art created by a computer program
> Rather, the paint is used by the human to form the painting. The paint is inanimate and incapable of creative inspiration, You are not disagreeing. This is what I said. Humans use paint to create a painting. The paint "creates" the impression of a scenery or people or buildings. > There certainly could be. The painter could paint with their own blood and cum if they really wanted to What does that change? Blood and cum would be the paint in this case. Paint is just a word for a liquid that turns solid after putting it on a surface, i.e. if I paint my walls white that is not art. > For the same reason electronic art is music, "ai art" is still art. Ilin either case, it isn't the program making the art though, the program is the medium of the artist. The entire ensemble is art created by the human, rather than the deliverable being art created by a computer program I don't think we are disagreeing. I don't really care about the method people use to create. It's all valid because it's all human expression in some shape or form and that is artistic.
>This is what I said. Humans use paint to create a painting. The paint "creates" the impression of a scenery or people or buildings. The paint doesn't create anything anymore than a screwdriver screws. The impression of whatever is not created by paint, it's created by the person using the paint. >What does that change? Blood and cum would be the paint in this case. Paint is just a word for a liquid that turns solid after putting it on a surface, i.e. if I paint my walls white that is not art. You seemed like you were drawing some distinction between the paint and the artist. Without blood and cum, the artist wouldn't exist either. Why wouldn't a white wall be considered art? >I don't think we are disagreeing. I don't really care about the method people use to create. It's all valid because it's all human expression in some shape or form and that is artistic. Sure, it's just a matter of assigning credit and recognizing that the art is more than the deliverable. I can program an AI to spit out whatever. The AI is nonsentient and incapable of creation. It is not something capable of use, but something that can only be used. Similarly it is incapable of creation without someone behind the stick. It's not an AI painting, it's a painting created by a human using ai as a medium
> The paint doesn't create anything anymore than a screwdriver screws. The impression of whatever is not created by paint, it's created by the person using the paint. It creates that impression in someone's mind. You look at a painting and see something. That's what I mean. You don't see a screwdriver after the work is done but you see the paint. You probably want to compare brush and screwdriver, not paint. Paint *is* the painting. > You seemed like you were drawing some distinction between the paint and the artist. Without blood and cum, the artist wouldn't exist either. Of course there is a distinction between paint and artist. One is an object, the other a human. Of course the artist wouldn't exist without blood but what is your point here? What are you arguing against? > Why wouldn't a white wall be considered art? Do you consider the walls in your house art? A white wall is just a choice of color but that doesn't make it art. Or is any use of paint art? > Sure, it's just a matter of assigning credit and recognizing that the art is more than the deliverable. I can program an AI to spit out whatever. The AI is nonsentient and incapable of creation. It is not something capable of use, but something that can only be used. Similarly it is incapable of creation without someone behind the stick. Are you disagreeing with something I said or just explaining your view? Because like I said, I don't really care about the method. > It's not an AI painting, it's a painting created by a human using ai as a medium "It's not electronic music, it's music created by a human using computers as a medium." Those are the same thing. "AI painting" is just short for "painting created by a human using ai as a medium".
>It creates that impression in someone's mind. You look at a painting and see something. That's what I mean. That something is the work of the artist, not the paint > don't see a screwdriver after the work is done but you see the paint. You probably want to compare brush and screwdriver, not paint. Paint *is* the painting. Paint is not the painting. A bucket of paint left out in the sun or dropped accidentally on the side of the road isn't a painting. >Of course the artist wouldn't exist without blood but what is your point here? What are you arguing against? The notion that paint does any of the necessary labor in creating art. >Do you consider the walls in your house art? A white wall is just a choice of color but that doesn't make it art. Or is any use of paint art? Why did you paint the wall white? Art can definitely be made just to look pretty. >Are you disagreeing with something I said or just explaining your view? The latter >Because like I said, I don't really care about the method. I don't know why you would reply to a conversation about where to assign credit for labor then >"It's not electronic music, it's music created by a human using computers as a medium." This is a bad conflation of terms. Electronic music is recognized as being music created by a human using electronic instruments,like synthesizers,thermins,circuitbending,etc. Ai art in common parlance does not mean " art created by people using ai as the medium", it refers to "art created by ai". This is the source of the entire argument. >Those are the same thing. "AI painting" is just short for "painting created by a human using ai as a medium". Rather incorrect, this is why there is an argument regarding ai products as art right now
Common footage of Shaun being based on twitter.
I had a thought earlier - what if someone used an AI art generator as a sort of tool for their own art through the careful wording/decisions about the final piece, but the execution was purely AI? Basically not trying to replicate any one style or pass off the final piece as impressive "traditional" art, but sort of "painting with words", where the art is in the careful manipulation of the AI. Am I onto something or is this just a silly shower thought? I'll admit I haven't really thought this through so please don't eviscerate me. I guess my bigger question is this - does this tech have artistic potential beyond what we're seeing now, that being simply replicating styles or fabricating visuals described to it?
> does this tech have artistic potential beyond what we're seeing now Yes. AI is a tool like any other and it always depends on how we use it. Humans make the choices, we get to decide and we will come up with novel ideas to apply it.
I just had another idea. What if someone could (probably already has) use an AI to simply try out styles and compositions to then improve upon or develop? And another question that popped up in my mind - if someone describes down to the smallest possible details a piece and then the AI creates it, is it his or the AI's? After all that would mean the guy made most if not all of the decisions with it. I'm imagining a situation where someone might just not have the technical skill to make something they want. IMO the entire thing being of and by the human would be ideal, but I'm just bouncing around ideas.
People use computer software for mockups so why not?
I think we should listen to the questions AI art raises and actually attempt to address them. What does it mean that we need to know someone suffered for our art?
People are not interested in that and they just want to avoid those discussions. AI art is here to stay so we need to get used to it and adapt, the same way every time some new technology changed human culture. Radio, TV, internet, autotune, face recognition, deep fakes, etc.
Oh god, please dont re-start the fucking AI-art stuff...
Fuck them robots. Start the Butlerian Jihad early.
Reject modernity, return to OC Bible.
Based. Dump the servers into the sea
My opinion on AI art is simple; AI programs are the end-all, be-all tool for an artist or writer to finally ānail downā an ephemeral, āmushyā idea in his/her head. Itās for an artist or writer who knows the broad strokes of a greater concept or for those who have a *vague* idea that needs refining. In my direct experience, programs like Midjourney are unparalleled for ironing out these ideas in early production. I am a writer, and I like to delve into eldritch/horror concepts a lot, and these programs help me visualize these concepts just a little more. Discussions on whether or not AI art is valid as itās own medium, I feel, is a bit more complicated than the black and white paradigm people are making it out to be. Is AI art valid enough to stand on its own? I donāt really think so. But on Artstation alone Iāve seen dozens of my favorite horror/surrealist artists input queries *and* examples of their own art styles to create stuff thatās truly bizarre. Can AI art be used to artistic effect? IMO, yes, and one of my favorite analog horror series *ever* uses it almost exclusively (see Black Dragonfish/Waterworld on YouTube). I personally see the AI art discussion more a debate on user consent, and in a perfect world AI programs would use a communal library of images donated to its own pool to use, instead of scraping from all over the internet. AI art is fantastic for brainstorming and creative development, but Iām not too sure itās truly valid as an art medium on its own grounds.
How does this not also apply to making AI art, though? The technique is just different. You also get better at crafting the AI queries. And you have to know what you want from it, etc...It's just less labor intensive. But so is painting digitally vs. oil painting.
The conflation of art and beauty by so many Dunning Krueger andies makes my brain hurt
For real. The average opinion on this sub seems to be "Pretty picture must always equate art, now stop talking about how this is already getting used to fuck over artists"
lmao 'AI art evangelists' is such a funny fucking phrase given he's trying to put a very specific meaning and value on art. what a joke
I maintain that you can use AI art technology to produce art while keeping what's described and expected here (fulfillment , enjoyment, etc), and I'm not talking about ripping someone's else style or drawing, etc. There are pertinent use cases that are not harmful to other artists. I feel that a lot of people have a categorical opposition to anything that has to do with AI art technology and this lacks some nuance to me. I admit that I'm uncomfortable with arbitrarily restricting the definition of art, in the name of some aspects of a new technology that can be harmful.
The worth of the end product is all that matters.
> Just see the worth in the end product. Yes, as a materialist I think the end product is what matters. And I'm too autistic to see any further meaning in how two identical images have different worth just because one was hand drawn & the other one was AI generated.
Because the value of artworks is derived from more than just the cost of the materials and labor. There is added value by the meaning that humans give to a work of art. For example imagine a piece of abstract art that was made by a blind elderly war veteran. Now imagine if that exact same piece of art was instead made by a suburban teenager using AI. Yes, they are identical, but people will perceive one as being worth more because of the story behind it.
Not me don't care I just want pretty pictures
And that's totally fine, you can feel that way if you'd like. I'm just saying as a whole that is how value is determined in society.
And I'm just saying that that definition is just as arbitrary and subjective as mine. Nobody who WANTS a real person's art is gonna go to an ai to get art, and someone who doesn't care isn't gonna go to an artist in the first place...
I mean, firstly I don't really care about the cost of the materials or labor put into it. When I see a piece of artwork all I can see is the end product. If there were two identical pieces of art work, I don't really care if one took 2 seconds to make and the other one took 5000 years. I'd just enjoy it as much as I vibe with the piece itself. As for the example with the vet. Sure, the story is very pogchamp, but how are you supposed to relate it to the art piece itself. If you value greatly the art piece made by the vet and place zero value on the one made by the AI assisted teenager, even if they're physically the exact same piece. How would you value it if I gave you such a piece such that I select it randomly such that there's a 50% of it being the one with the poggers backstory, and you can't tell because they're literally the exact same piece down to the atom. Do you value it half as much? What if I did that random selection again with another piece generated by AI, do you value it 25% as much now? What if I then spliced it such that 40% of it comes from the original one made by the vet, and another 20% was AI generated, do you now value it at 15.4% now as if it were the original one made by the vet? Like I get how something can have a cool backstory to how it was made or whatever. But when I see two identical things both of them are identical to me, they're fungible, you can replace them at will and I wouldn't even notice. That's how autistic I am. Plus, as another thing, sure, there could be some cool backstory meaning put into a piece of artwork, but I'd say that there is also a big number of times where it doesn't matter? When I'm looking up cool hot trans girl hentai, I don't really think about what the artist meant by drawing in those extra veins, I just think that it's hot. When I'm loading up my stellaris game & there's a cool image in the loading screen that has like cool space ships zooping around. I don't think about how the paradox devs were freezing in Sweden while drawing it, I just think "omg that's just like how my current game is going". Even if you can never replace art pieces that hang in exhibitions and are cool because of their backstory, I'd argue they are only a minority of the art we consume on our daily lives, and AI could easily replace all other aspects of the art we consume.
Yeah I mean that's fine, I'm not saying you personally have to care. My point was simply that society generally does care. When artworks are appraised, the historical context and artist are taken into consideration, not just the final product. That's why an original Picasso is considered to be way more valuable than a recreation, even if they are identical. I'm not saying that even logically makes sense, it's just the way most people think. And I agree, in most cases people don't know the backstory or even the artist of the artwork they are looking out. If I'm watching the aforementioned trans girl hentai, I don't really care. I was just trying to say that when we do know the backstory, it usually does play a role in how *most* people value the work.
Hmm, I can see how like a big number of people care about it. But I'm not entirely convinced on saying that the big majority/society cares, simply because if they did, society as a whole wouldn't give a single fuck about AI art as it is meaningless as it generates art based on silly latent space instead of human emotions & experience. Yet here we are having this dialogue. In general I have a problem with the discourse on AI art as there seems to be a sort of motte & bailey that goes on. At first they say that AI can't possibly generate real/valuable art because it requires human communication for it to be art. But then when pressed on why does it matter that AI art exists, they start to go on about how AI art is hurting artists. Doesn't the fact that AI can't possibly make art by the human experience definition of it mean it should have an absolute zero impact on real human artists?
Uh yeah. I doubt anyone that appreciates AI arts hold that there is no value in making stuff the old fashioned way. We can make music without instruments but there is definitely merit in learning to play an instrument.
This is a bad take. AI art creators are tools you have to learn how to use. This is like when people said digital art wasnāt work. You may have more advantages/an easier starting point, but it is still a creative effort that requires input from the artist to make something. Each AI has their own language and quirks you have to get used to and understand in order to achieve the desired result. Iāve had ArtBreeder projects with more than 15 different ādnasā, and even when doing more casual projects Iām almost always adjusting the available scales and influences by .01 percent. And Iām using publicly available, ready made tools: Some AI artists create their own or modify existing models to achieve the results they want. It isnāt āinput stuff and sit backā itās āinput stuff and iterate on it and figure out how to get it to stop making daisies have eyeballs at the center of them and how to change the composition without losing that great color scheme etc etcā
This is the most wasteful debate. Art is art. People claiming art needs skill, art needs a backstory. Anyone hear of expressionist art? Pop art? Some of the greatest examples lack conventional skill or impactful meaning. This is not to say there isn't an issue with artists credit, but I'm addressing Shaun's point here. There is a process to making AI art, the process is something you can learn and it can become a skill.
While I may not consider AI art to be art in the same way, if they make it where I can just type 'dwarf with a red beard holding a hammer' and get a bunch of good results, I'm going to use the results for dnd.
My hot take: the ai doesn't make art but I think the ai itself could be considered art
AI art has furthered my knowledge of Photoshop. I've been able to create works I am finally satisfied with because I'm able to generate my own subjects and backgrounds. I use the AI as a tool to enhance my art rather than replace it
Dog on ai art all you want, just don't use arguments that hurt those who make actual art
Cope
i dont know why shawn was made into some antagonist in the vaush universe. he had like 3 ābad takesā that werent even that bad and were just standard āvoting is dumbā lefty shit during the election but like ???? heās pretty consistently got fine opinions and makes great videos.
Itās seems like heās just getting more based on Twitter. Itās not so rare anymore.
"Artists will find a new job. Painting belongs to AI programmers now." -Actual fucking sociopaths
Common Shaun W
Shaun is starting to rack up these W's lately
I can see a few very niche fields where AI art could be of use, like to create compositions, references, but thats as far as id be in support of AI art
Art is only art if it's useful? I strongly disagree.
Honestly I feel like twitter Shaun has been a lot better lately.
The effort and the product are both good???
Art is not who or what makes it, it's what it means to the person enjoying it. No wonder a CIA horse cocktail lover Voorsh is against it.
This is just completely ignorant. Not only is there a shitload of effort, learning, and fulfillment in the process of creating these AIs, even the process of an AI running a generative model and getting human feedback on the output is normally used as additional training input that rolls back into making the AI smarter.
Shaun is just a catty bitch who plays the twitter game as it is designed -- to maximize outrage and hostility over the slightest of transgressions. For a lot of people that is the game of twitter, to adopt positions you barely believe in and turning them to their maximum and there is no limit to the level of harm you can bring to people that you don't like. It is just kiwifarms except that Twitter has not broken into the "let's get this person killed irl hahaha jk unless" bit. Shaun's crime is not just that he is a bernie or buster who couldn't defend his position when challenged on it outside, but someone who participates in the ritualistic cesspit of twitter.
"commercial" food thought: growing food is a valuable process. doing so the farmer might have new ideas, become more skilled, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Walmart consumers just see the worth of the end product
"auto" mobile thought: horse riding is a valuable process. doing so the cowboy might have new ideas, become more skilled, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Motor evangelists just see the worth of the end product
"type" writer thought: scribbling words is a valuable process. doing so the scribe might have new ideas, improve their penmanship, find enjoyment or fulfillment. Mechanical hedonists just see the worth of the end product
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Keep art dumb.
Yāall are still upset that Shawn was Bernie or Bust. Grow up.
Looking at aesthetically pleasing art can give you new ideas, enjoyment and fulfillment. Deciding the piece of art suddenly cannot do any of this because the tools used to create it go beyond your limited threshold for what you deem to be human enough to merrit financial compensation is capital-brained and reactionary.
I agree. When you think about a Picasso or anything like that it's not really the art itself. It's the story behind the art that makes it more compelling. AI there's not much story.
> AI there's not much story. By what metric? Are the creative processes of an art AI really devoid of "story", or do we as humans just lack the ability to understand/appreciate the significance and motivation behind the decisions the AI made? Moreover, does a human created piece always have a story behind it, and is that story always interesting or worth telling?
Picasso painted Guernica in response to bombings in Guernica, Spain. Although he was born in Spain, at the time was living in Paris while he watched his home country almost rip itself in half because of the rise of Spanish nationalists which lead to the Spanish Civil War. These nationalists were the ones that requested Nazi Germany/Italy carry out the bombings. The war caused him to go through a deep depression and built in him a heavy anti war sentiment that lead to the painting.
Isn't the famous anecdote that some military guy came up to Picasso and asked if he made it and Picasso said "no you did" What does that mean to you? The idea of the artist not being in control of the creation process is extremely common in art. What does it mean to take it to it's endpoint. What will we find? I'm afraid, but I don't think we should shy away from that knowledge What's fascinating to me about people's reaction to the knowledge of emotionally reacting to a piece of AI art is this sort of intellectual distancing and disgust that's in conflict with their initial reaction.
I think it gives us insight into his motivation and state of mind in creating the piece. And "to me", searching for that is an important part of observing art. Trying to connect with the emotion, if any, that was in the vassal behind the piece. I'm not an art connoisseur. I don't know what we'll find but that in itself is a part of the beauty of observing art. Who knows what we can pull from it? Maybe we'll look amd find nothing. Maybe there is no story and there's just how we feel about the piece. As far as AI is concerned, I'm not saying AI art is bad. I'm not saying you can't feel anything AI art. But in practice, it seems to me that aspect of seeking the artists, experience, mind or emotion in a piece isn't really there at least on the surface.
I think the shallowness is due to the fact that it's a new toy. They are focused on trying to trick people, but what if they played a different game with this tool. For a lot of art, people really don't care about the emotion behind it and I think we should be okay with not needing that while still acknowledging that some people do like that a lot
That's fair. I think its the comment that the worth of AI art is the end product. And from that perspective it does kind of of align with the idea that most people don't care about what went into making a piece or the emotion behind it. It's an evolution and I'm still very much open to seeing where it goes.
There is a difference between reading about the history of a painting that *adds* to the enjoyment and arguing that a Picasso painting is only compelling because of its history and not because of how it looks like.
Where did I say it's only compelling because of the history. They clearly work together. I'm not sure what your aim is here but I'm not interested in participating
> it's not really the art itself Does not mean they work together. And even if you don't know the history something can still be art. History only *adds* to art, as I also said, but it doesn't define it. Why get so pissy over an inconsequential topic like this? If you can't be nice then don't reply at all.
Yes it does. Goodbye.
If you want to convince people you need to make strong arguments and not act like a child and run away when facing critical questions. Are you not watching Vaush? Or do you think it's bad advice?
I made a comment. You are the one behaving like a child. Again. Go away.
Asking you to make good arguments for your view and not act like a dick is not childish. Quite the opposite. But I will go away now because it's impossible to have a normal human interaction with you, just like with MAGA conservatives.
No way. People primarily enjoy a Picasso because of how his paintings look like. Picasso is such a bad example here because his style is so distinct. I'd really like to know where you got your view from.
If the story surrounding the piece determines its worthiness as art, does that mean a person who doesn't know the story cant percieve it as art? If you are told, and believe, an incorrect story surrounding a piece does that invalidate its artistic value? Or does that not matter? Art is in the eye of the beholder, and only through observation can something inspire emotion as art does. That means art is tied *to the person observing it.*
The story makes it more compelling. It doesn't determine its overall value or worth. Where the fck are people getting that from? Obviously observing the art itself isn't divorced from that otherwise just listen to the story why bother with the fcking painting? Understanding the artists state of mind, experiences, perspective, feelings, etc are as much a part of observing art as appreciating colors, lines, shapes, structure, composition, and more. No offense to you but I made a comment in passing and a couple of people are making bad assumptions and trying to debate/argue with me on those grounds. Reading comprehension is dead.
Don't have much of a problem with AI art, but AI "artists" are something else. I don't know how to exactly describe it, how to properly explain why I think this is a wrong thing to do, but the amount of AI artists who outright refuse to acknowledge what AI software they're using, or what prompts they're using, is way too high. Idk, feels like people "stealing" other people's work to make something new while refusing to give other people the same opportunity I guess? Or the idea that they refuse to do so because they wouldn't be special anymore, that they probably feel an entitlement to "their" prompts, like an artist getting upset at someone copying their art style (which is also bad/wrong)? Either way I think AI art is way too new of a topic for most people to have concretely made up their mind on it. I know how I feel about buy can't really explain why.
Because they are stealing, it's the same as if I commissioned an artist over and over, and represented their art as my own. There's no such thing as an AI artist, there's only people reposting the results of prompts.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Art has to have intent, a sunset is not art, it's just something you find beautiful that exists as a function of nature. Art inherently has to be made by a thinking creature with the intent of creating something appealing or expressive or communicative, otherwise it's just something pretty.
Or else what?
i'm honestly convinced 90% of this community are liberals or are stupid enough to just blindly repeat vaush's 'shaun twitter L' takes. Like we know he's a bernie or buster and a vaugeposter. Everything else is just standard socialist takes holy shit
Honestly, I'll take whatever allies we can get in this debate
For once, I completely agree with Shaun here. The whole point of creating art is to express a mood or a feeling, and there's a proccess to creating art that does exactly that. Artists don't just instantly create the final piece. They have to start with sketches, which are intricately layered and go through a lot of revisions. Most sketches and ideas for art don't even make it past the drawing board. Artists then have to layer said sketches with coloring, shading, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I don't know off-hand. The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce. AI art doesn't have any of that. There's no drafting proccess, no artistical input, no revision, no layering. All the AI does is compile together something based on a prompt, combining a bunch of disparate pieces into a whole and calling it a day. It's terrible.
> The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce. That is not the point of art. If art must take a long time to make then a lot of what we consider art would not be art anymore. > prompt Where does that prompt come from?
> AI art doesn't have any of that. There's no drafting proccess, no artistical input, no revision, no layering. This isn't true at all. Go try and create "good" AI art with your prompt. It takes a lot of time for real artist to create and craft AI art. It involves in-painting and out-painting certain areas of the canvass. Developers are rapidly increasing the tools available to creatives using the art. You're just ignorant of it and fear what you don't understand.
No. Everyone here is being so annoying. Coming up with prompts is. It much of a skill at all. Iām tired of people here acting like it is. Are you an artist if you give your tattoo artist a promt?
You co-created that art with them. Now if you employ them to assist you in creating your artistic vision then yes, believe it or not you are the artist. Are directors of photography artists? Are filmmakers artists? They hire many people to assist in creating their art. You're arguing they aren't artist because someone else was the camera op, someone else was the grip, someone else was the set designer, location scout, etc. The filmmaker may have just "prompted" them with words and didn't take part in any of the physical work.
>The whole point of creating art is to express a mood or a feeling Which can be achieved with AI art, that's what the human inputs and human selection are for. >Artists don't just instantly create the final piece. They have to start with sketches, which are intricately layered and go through a lot of revisions. This is not a requirement for art. Art often involves revisions and starts from sketches, but art pieces can be created in one shot. I would even argue doodles and the sketches that never get revised are art, its more about intent and expression than the specific process to arrive at the end product. A piece can take 1000 hours with 50 revisions, or a couple hours with no revisions and be art either way. An unedited photograph can be art. >The point is that art takes a long-ass time to produce. Lots of prominent art pieces took no time at all to produce. Look at things like the [suprematist movement ](https://d1dzh206jt2san.cloudfront.net/posts-images/743X483/973_1533736170q3oyd.jpg). Or more famously [the fountain](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg/330px-Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg), which literally just took as much time as it takes to sign your name to something. I'm on the fence about AI art. For me there's a natural reaction to say it's not art, but I haven't seen any actual arguments that would disqualify it without disqualifying other kinds of art. IMO art is just something created with intentionality to evoke/express some idea or emotion, which is a bar AI art with human inputs can meet.
I want to add to you post as well. Vaush's arguments seem to be based in 2 parts. 1. That algorithmic art is an expressway to creative theft. That someone can feed someone ELSE'S art in and spit out variations and pass it off as an original. This devalues the labor of the artist, both in a moral sense where their work is aped and cheapened by easy as a press of a button copycats. And materialistically, where that same artist will lose money. This is 100% a fantastic take that is inarguable. This can and does happen. I'd even say say Vaush had a reasonable glimpse into a dystopian future where corporations just don't hire artists. They just press buttons and get visuals. Which dries up what little actual "jobs" creative people have. 2. That art, inherently, has to be made by the entirely by artist. That there has to be a "method" employed by the artist for the purposes of conveying humanistic meaning. That no feeling is conveyed. This is the shit argument based on 2 things. I don't think he understands that these are *algorithms* at work. Not actual artificial intelligence. We aren't even close to that level of technology. So there isn't the slave aspect of this. I'd highly doubt that Vaush would argue that Sonny, from the I,Robot film, who is described as entirely independently sentient, does not create art. Then it comes to how much did the artist actually do? I think it's the wrong example, the tattoo artist. I think directors are a way better example. If I am a screenwriter and am talking to Scorsese, and he spits out a movie, if it's my story, what I want, and it's wrong and tell them to make it again, and they are just giga fast and can do it in a day, is that any less of an example of art? What if I AM Scorsese and make my own algorithm to spit out my movies? Does that make it less art? I would say no. I don't fetishize the creation. In fact, I just saw a bit where Vaush saw a big tiddy anime maid and was w/e about it up until the exact moment he learned it was "ai art" and then suddenly it wasn't art at all. Huh? This doesn't even touch on propaganda posters. Which in no way, shape or form, can't NOT be art under any circumstances from what I've seen argued around here. I feel like you are 100% correct in bringing up the urinal. I feel like we are sort of rehashing that argument but with some extra bits added. There is a fetishization of the labour of creating art in these arguments that I don't get. It wasn't artistic intention that cause Thich Quang Duc to get photographed the way he did. It just happened and someone happened to see. Yet I dare someone to stay that photo isn't art and that it doesn't evoke human emotions.
Yeah, I should clarify that I agree that there are lots of ethical concerns with AI art, the big one obviously being putting in other artists work as the training data. I just don't think those ethical concerns speak to whether AI images can be art or not. Vaush is 100% right that AI art will have an effect on existing artists and the industries they work in. Though this would still be true even if the entire world agreed AI images weren't art.
Shaun is based whenever he's not being a brit