Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nemelex t1_iweok24 wrote

Reply to comment by Emory_C in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578

My labor is my guidance of the algorithm. I'm not just asking it to give me a picture, I'm img2img guiding my own rudimentary ideas, clarifying, reprocessing, in-filling to the details of my idea. I'm clearly and closely incorporated with every part of the process.

It's like saying a house isn't a real house if you use power tools to build it and a hired architect to design it instead of doing it all yourself. Why shouldn't we rely on specialized expertise and specialized tools to help us with our creative expression the same way we do with the real world?

1

Emory_C t1_iwfkiiw wrote

There’s zero creativity in what you do, I’m afraid. The algorithm is just copying ideas from better minds, badly. If you truly want to be creative and show the world your vision, learn to express it in your own way. The algorithm will always, by definition, be derivative.

1

Nemelex t1_iwflejp wrote

The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters. You can shout random words into the engine and get something out, sure, but you can also guide it and persuade it to make what YOU imagine. If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.

Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative. Culture and society are cumulative; if I'm taught the methods of art from a teacher who was taught by a book, my art nor vision isn't lessened by the fact that my abilities have a source outside of myself. It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal," because we are collectively influenced constantly by the world around us and the things that interest us. The only difference is this can do it faster.

It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering. You would diminish the value of their artistic expression simply on the fact that they are not physically capable of it, and I find that reprehensible.

0

Emory_C t1_iwfnbsz wrote

>The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters.

No. Ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea is worthless by itself. It's the execution of an ideas that makes it unique and valuable and interesting. Since you're abdicating the execution to an algorithm, you're also abdicating your role as the creative agent.

>If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.

Please. 🙄 I've used all of the current AI engines and they're nowhere near sophisticated enough yet to realize even a basic idea:

  1. They can't show complex backgrounds, landscapes, or interiors.
  2. They can't generate interacting people.
  3. They can't draw tools of weapons.
  4. They can't create expressive faces.
  5. They can't create consistent characters.
  6. They can't frame shots.

And there's lots more it can't do, as well. There's no way a genuinely creative person who has a story they want to tell would find any of the current iteration useful in any way.

>Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative.

This is a bullshit reply made by the uncreative. There are still such things as "originals." They may have drawn from the artists who came before them, but then they took those influences and made something wholly new.

The algorithms cannot do that. All they're capable of doing is mocking already existing styles.

>It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal,"

If all you made was art that seemed like a bad Van Gogh knock-off, you'd be quickly forgotten by an artist. You would need to quickly develop your own unique style. Since the algorithm cannot do this, it's destined to fail as anything other than pure kitsch.

>It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering.

The disabled can create great art. There are numerous examples of people with physical and mental disabilities overcoming those limitations and making gorgeous music, paintings, and other artistic pieces. If you have the creative bug, nothing will stop you from creating. And there is a power in having to fight to get your true vision into the world. If you don't understand that idea, you are not an artist.

1