Is AI going to replace human artists?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Is AI going to replace human artists?
Is AI going to replace human artists?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Yes, and there is nothing you can do about it.
I have yet to see AI generate something exactly the way I want to see it. You can only get thast by paying an artist money.
Doraemon's gadgets get more true everyday
He has a mangaka machine that can mimic ANY illustrator and draw any commision you want. Eg. You want a cyberpunk Ghost in the Shell but in the style of Osamu Tezuka's work? Go ahead.
The camera didn't stop people from painting.
To be fair, it did frick things up for a great while.
The camera is it's own brush. AI can't make real art.
It's been argued that machines will surpass humans in pretty much everything sooner or later, and that eventually we'll be outdated and purposeless.
I think those kinds of fears are looking more and more credible every day.
People might think that art has got to be one area that would be beyond machine understanding; surely only a human would understand art? But no, AI is getting pretty competent results already despite the tech still being fairly recent. It'll very likely get even better in the future.
the coming skynet-future will not be the result of wars but because of that one guy that requests every character in harem dancer outfits.
Wouldn't even be that far-fetched of a scenario. Someone wants a really realistic waifu/chatbot/realdoll/AI combo as his gf, ends up creating a machine with a consciousness, and the man will fall because of coomers.
That would be me, sorryNot sorry
Don't worry anon, harem dancer outfits are A+ taste.
Not everything anon mostly because:
Economics, only the well-off can afford robots and their regular maintenance.
>But no, AI is getting pretty competent results already despite the tech still being fairly recent. It'll very likely get even better in the future.
Only if you take "art" to be a purely optical subject (which it isn't). The AI can only produce "art" with human guidance and even then, it still needs a huge reference depository to be accurate (and it often isn't, that painting isn't neoclassic at all with all those diagonals and earthly tones, the baroque as frick background and the general muddiness of the figures, neoclassicism was all about being idealistic and clear minded).
thats because the ai can only pull from the images that they have been trained with.
I know, that's part of what I meant, the other part being that the AI can barely deal with that because it's using very non-neoclassical elements to compose a neoclassical painting, because people don't know how to use the terms classical and neoclassical, and this interferes with the AI image repository. It sees realistic or academic painting being called "classical" and mixes up those elements erroneously.
I would prefer if it would replace Hollywood writers first.
It's an eventuality that I do my best not to think about.
I've already got enough anxieties holding me back from doing my best, I don't need tech nerds fricking with me.
At the same time, I'm sure Walt Disney himself thought similarly about advances in computer technology, so frick it, even if his legacy was severely tainted by it.
Oh no "artists" will need to get a real job
What real job? Those will be taken as well.
You know design and branding are real jobs right? Like, people wouldn’t even read sci fi book without the covers.
do not underestimate the ability of anons to hate the people who produce what they consume and be ignorant about the topic of their boards
I doubt your job is much different from the dudes in Severance.
>Zookeepers
>Sports players
>Amusement park workers
>Bartenders
>Fast food workers
None of these do any more for society than an Artist does.
Is AI going to replace humans before we irrevocably frick up the environment?
>will ai, that bases all it's shitty photohop edits on existing work produced by humans, be able to make it's own work!
maybe, but like modern writers it will be shit.
>maybe, but like modern writers it will be shit.
I guarantee almost everything you read is some sort of modernist literature unless you're a gigachad who only reads up to Cervantes and post later Joyce.
>can do all sorts of wild, recognizable detail and the general structure of a face
>somehow can't do eyes
Nah.
the AI is autistic?
Eyes are the windows to the soul. How can a soulless machine comprehend even a fraction of it?
That mindset seems a bit wienery. The eyes look wonky in a lot of AI-generated images, but I think it's only a matter of time until they figure out how to fix it.
I could see this be a tool for artist for some years before getting good enogh to actually replace them. That thing can't do eyes nor does exactly what you want.
It's limited by how language factually does a poor job at describing a picture. To get the same results as a real artists, you'd have to enter pages and pages of descriptions for every aspect of the picture. "apple" would requires lines to describe what apple, from what angle, if it's pristine or has flaws, if it's big or small, if it's fresh or waxed. Even stuff like "holding" whould require extremely precise description of the body language, the actual way of holding, with what sort of physics, etxc.
Want "toriyama style". then you need to explain on what medium, what period of his life, in the style of what other work you are thinking about.
Even with all that, you still fall under massive pitfalls, for instance "draw X in Y artists style" often just transpose X to a random piece made by Y, it's not the same as meeting the artist and ask him what this subject would inspire to him. Frazzeta sailor moon wouldnt' be flexing half naked on that frickin pile of stone, he would read about her, look at her and create a unique piece for her
Typing a detailed description for the AI still takes a lot less time than waiting for an artist to draw a sketch of the same description.
no, for a real artists this shit is as shallow as corporate menphis blobs. the ai doesn't create, it mixes 2 things and normies who don't recognize those things thinks it's new.
No. The entire point of most art is that it speaks to a human perspective on things. Even if you gave a machine empathy it would still not be human, and would therefore not be able to create human art. Dulls would enjoy it, but you will always have people who prefer manmade things, regardless of context.
And this is just the free version of DALL-E. DALL-E 2 can do some completely insane things
You'd be better off asking if it will replace writers since AI is way better in that field than in art(see GPT-3) and so far the answer has been 'no'
No since any mainstream AI is going have swf restrictions placed on it.
Someone post the image where the creators of Dall-e specifically said they made sure the AI could only draw SFW topics and not even specific individuals.
No. But Soulless capitalistic companies will jump on it so they don't have to pay artists
this, im pretty sure the creators of the AI would make it paid to use once the AI gets perfected enough. after that, the AI will be improved even more and given to companies who would probably pay millions to use it.
AI and animals can't make copyrightable works, so no.
>mfw at this point human artists have so irreversibly ruined their perception among other normal human beings that even if AI did replace them, there's no one who's going to stick up for them because they burned every bridge imaginable
I guess people skills were more important than technical skills after all.
Wtf are you on about??? Are you seriously reducing every single artist of every single medium into some homogenous boogeyman? Who did they "burn bridges" with anyway?
It's very fashionable to reduce a group of people into a humongous boogeyman, anon. You should try it sometime, it gets a ton of likes- I mean (You)s on Cinemaphile.
Dear god, it's the Olsen Twins.
No, it can only mash up other peoples artwork, never creating something truly unique
So do most human artists. Nearly all artwork is derivative and takes inspiration from the creations of other artists. It's extremely rare for someone to actually come up with something entirely original, like invent a new art medium that no one has ever thought of.
"new art medium" the AI can't even generate new art styles let alone mediums
Stop wanking robot wiener.
>So do most human artists
It's not the same thing at all. A 5 year old with a crayon is more creative than any existing AI.
How would you identify creativity in a drawing? If I showed you a bunch of drawings by a 5-year-old and added one picture by an AI among those images, would you be able to spot genuine creativity and tell which image was by the AI?
Ask a kid to draw a house and he'll draw a house with his family. He'll also add smoke out of the chimney because he wants you to understand that it is a chimney. There's an urge in humans to show what they care for and make sure they are understood.
>How would you identify creativity in a drawing?
It's not about the end result, it's about autonomy from external input.
A child will create an image of what they see without any input other than their own interpretation of their environment. Give them crayons and they will draw. Give them charcoal and they will draw. Give them fingerpaints and they will draw. An AI will do nothing at all unless you tell it what to do, and then it will only do that based on the data set you give it. An AI without a data set of children's drawings will never create a children's drawing.
So Dalle-mini's likes drawing cute girls, figures.
Do you really think a fricking neural network "wants" anything? If it "wanted" to draw anything, it wouldn't need your input to do so. It's amazing how the people who seem to love AI the most also seem to be the ones least knowledgeable about the subject.
Anons ITT don't even necessarily love the AI. Anyone who comprehends what current AI tools are capable of is concerned about the implications for the society. These image-generation tools are a cool new toy, but the speed of all this technological advancement is pretty ominous too. Automation and AI are soon going to be capable of taking over so many jobs that it's unclear what the future will hold for us. It's not a problem just for artists; it will affect everyone.
Also, I don't get why you think an image-generating AI would actually have to have a mind of its own before you can find its results impressive.
>Also, I don't get why you think an image-generating AI would actually have to have a mind of its own before you can find its results impressive.
Because it's not impressive, it's a machine mashing up images after human input.
>Automation and AI are soon going to be capable of taking over so many jobs that it's unclear what the future will hold for us. It's not a problem just for artists; it will affect everyone.
AI isn't even a thing that exists, there are plenty ways to deal with the incoming problem, most of them involve walking away entirely from our current economical system and even then I bet you don't want to discuss that.
I don't even want to mention how we have far more serious and looming problems than automation. At this point we barely understand human intelligence, let alone creating a completely new form of intelligence from scratch. Looming ecological and social disaster will probably wipe us out before we move a lot further from where we are now, if anything.
see, that only proves my point, the only thing the the AI could create involves literal feathered things, and even then most of them are barely a drawing.
I'm not even mad, I'm just describing a bunch of far more likely scenarios that will occur before Robot Michelangelo is a thing.
Does that mean you wouldn't be able to distinguish art by AI and an actual child? (For the record, all the houses in the picture above were generated by AI that was mimicking a child's drawing)
I don't think humans have true autonomy from external input, either; we're limited by the data we get too. We look at the world around us, and photos and art from other people, and we learn drawing principles from art books, and then we apply all that information to create art. Most of us pick a pencil or a tablet or some other common tool that someone else has used before, instead of thinking out of the box and trying to radically deviate from the norm. Most of us also draw in a similar style as our favorite artists. Weeaboos draw in manga style, cartoon fans mimic Disney movies, Eurogays may take inspiration from Asterix or Tintin, people on some online communities love to draw ugly people with tumblr noses, and so on.
I think the only truly creative artists were the cavemen who first figured out that you could scrape material that dyes stuff along a flat surface in a specific way to create a 2D depiction of a 3D-object. Or the ones who picked up some clay and molded figures out of it. Everyone else just uses the foundation that they'd built.
An AI that generates images isn't conscious, and it can't function as an independent creature with its own free will. But I think they do a pretty good job at mimicking art created by conscious beings.
No because AI can only generate art that's based off of existing images. It can't create anything new, just remix existing things. You can't tell an AI "generate a new art style for me".
Hopefully. People want to fricking much for a commission, I’m not going to pay you $100 for a ducking picture with no background and simple colors.
No because AI developers are inherently pro-establishment and pro-censorship while art is inherently anti-censorship
In animation?
For in-betweening maybe. Not for keyframes. That might unironically be a good thing. It means cheaper production, which means less centralization in the hands of a few large studios. It means lower barrier of entry for indie-creators. You'll see greater volumes of shit being produced each year, but also more diamonds.
>For in-betweening maybe.
I know a guy working on camera software, mostly to record sports events. They are automatizing a lot of systems to crop images so matches can be displayed on multiple support without having to record the action multiple times.
Their most recent project is frame interpolation via deep-learning: cameras that can achieve 60 frames per second are so expansive they are usually rented, not purchased. I was told they are more complex too and need trained operators. The idea they had was to allow 30 frames per second be interpolated to 60 frames or anything in between and sell it as an all-purpose solution that would allow studios to film in 60fps with 30fps equipment.
So that's definitely in the pipes. At least for live events.
In certain avenues probably, like every corporate illustration job is probably done once this gets the kinks worked out. All the soulless corpo art will become moreso.
For things that can't be created by simply typing in a set of keywords can't be replaced. Atleast not until AIs are sophisticated enough that you can almost discuss with them like a real artist.
And of course artists who simply like to create art will always probably be around.
I think the noodle video about Animation Interpolation brings it up.
all of this is a rudimentary AI regurgitating something that was generated by a human mind, it's still not creating something new on its own different to what any human might make him/herself
This isn't even Cinemaphile
Get the frick out of here
Wrong board
Artist, here. I'm actually having a lot of fun using it to make beautiful pictures & concepts.
These AI programs should be used as inspiration or thumbnail generators, which artists should then create bigger versions of.
You can just use fricking actual art history to look for inspiration.
t. artist too
I do that, too.
Yes, I acknowledge how crude the results are. I use them as inspiration, not the final product.
You are aware that you could just be looking into the shit this AI bases its drawings on. Instead you're letting an artificial program eat and regurgitate something that already exists.
It has a rough quality that makes it useful for brainstorming. Really speeds things along early in the process.
The center one looks like a Naruto/Boruto villain.
I doubt it. A lot of people talk about how computers are going to replace humans in the animation industry, whether it's AI voices or AI art but I just don't see it. The technology is straight up not there, for every good Spongebob imitation, there's a dozen that is clearly just a robot with a filter. For every good AI generated story, there's a million that are clearly some nonsensical mishmash of words that are either extremely violent or overly verbose. As for art? Well I'm reminded of the "Create a fake person" programs that always find a way to make some weird lump of flesh and hair and teeth. It's not gonna happen, robots can't imitate humans.
Does it matter?
Eleutheromaniacs fear AI because they fear the inevitable. They fear the reality that time flows in one direction, and that direction is away from freedom. They fear the reality that there will always be someone to answer to, even if it's not a human. They fear the reality that some day, there will be no patience for failure.
not really, the bottom line is that ai are still mathematical constructs and as such are bounded by the Halting Problem and Incompletion Theorem
>ai are still mathematical constructs
And you're not, somehow.
neurons arent binary, anon
Well, neither is my friend, here.
I definitely know who you're talking about. Yes, that's moronic.
the thing is, despite the possiblity of the quantum, all quantum computers are still used to model binary logic gates
I take the allegations of quantum computing with huge grains of salt because we're still living in a binary age.
Also, your anti-hegelian view of history is even more moronic than a proper hegelian one which is already very dumb.
not anon but should also mention that quantum has to do with hardware, ai is a software thing and trying to create a new logic system to take complete advantage of quantum quirks like superposition
is like the equivalent of starting over from scratch. right now the advantage of quantum over binary is that quantum computers can do things like reverse binary gates
What is your game? Everytime I see your posts, it's always the same thing. "These people are bad because they don't submit to the bootheel of their superiors. Life will be so much better if they just give up all autonomy and submit". And then later, proceeds to list every dictator who agrees with your philosophy as "eleuthromaniacs" themselves.
What is your fricking problem?
I'm convinced wlop is an AI. These come out so close.
I hope ai and robots eventually replace all human labor
I hope I get to enjoy a realistic waifubot before the inevitible collapse of civilization
No lel
DAMMIT WHO THE FRICK IS HACKING THE SITE'S IMAGE SERVER?
What makes you say that?