- Aug 25, 2017
- 2,916
- 4,480
No offense my guy, but I don't think this is going to be very productive to keep going. I'm going to go like "no, you're not getting what I'm saying" and you're going to do the same, and it's going to get more complicated as the amount of talking point branches increase.These posts are getting huge, so let's define a few key theses that are going to be relevant throughout:
1. Very clearly someone directing a tool can be an artist. This tool can be advanced and substitute parts of the labor that may have otherwise been required. Example 1: a digital painter using Photoshop to execute their vision. Photoshop has plenty of features to help along, including AI algorithms, such as generative fill and smart masking. Example 2: a photographer using an iPhone. iPhone does plenty of things to improve picture quality, oftentimes WITHOUT any decision making from the photographer. For example, it will detect the presence of the sun and adjust brightness and colors accordingly. If you know anything about DSLR photography, you will know that it's a pretty massive part of taking a picture. There are loads more, these are just simple to understand examples.
2. Very clearly someone directing a person can be an artist. See my previous example of a movie director. In this instance, that person is NOT necessarily an artist themselves. For example, a camera operator can just be told how to execute the shot, without their input.
Also, since English language is complicated and the term "artist" has several meanings, I'm going to specifically refer to a person drawing something as a "painter" and a person who is performing some kind of creative endeavor as an "artist", to avoid confusion.
See thesis 2. Either or both could be considered an artist. It depends on the situation. It could be that commissioner is very strict on their vision and the painter just does the work of putting it on the canvas, then the commissioner is the artist (the one doing creative work). It could be that the painter has complete creative freedom with just a general idea given, in which case the painter would be the artist. It could be that both contribute, making them both artists.
I recommend you read a book on basic fundamentals of drawing. One of the first things you are taught is to never think about drawing "an object" and its relations in 3D space but rather think about simple 2D shapes that you see. Painters quite literally disable their depth perception on purpose by closing one eye when observing their subjects. The famous training exercise of drawing upside down is meant to force you to stop thinking about real world concepts and focus on the shapes. There are some techniques that have to do with thinking of simple 3D shapes (like spheres, cylinders, cubes) on the canvas and constructing the subject from there, but those are in no way a requirement to paint.
We could also talk about how neural networks do actually quite literally get an understanding of real world concepts - an easy to understand example would be that embeddings of language models words such as "king" and "queen" will be in the roughly in the same relation to each other as words "man" and "woman", despite being in different parts of the latent space. Meaning the model will understand the concept of gender. But it's not super important to this particular point. It's just that the model will get whatever information or concepts necessary to perform its task by nature of training, sometimes better than humans (this is how we lost to bots in chess for example, or discover new mathematical proofs via AI).
Hands by the way are famously difficult to draw in perspective, especially in arbitrary poses. Remember I talked about people mistakenly witch hunting actual painters? Well that often comes from hands not looking perfectly acceptable. And not only that, but AI will of course be affected by any errors in the dataset that was used to train it. In that sense, AI was bad at hands because humans are bad at hands! Isn't that cool? Notice I said "was", that's because newer models have been pretty good at hands for quite a while now. Finally, if you see extremely bad hands on a gen, that's because the author didn't put any effort into fixing them up. With inpainting it's extremely easy to do. This will be relevant later.
I mean you can study why a model made a particular "choice", we do all the time. It's just difficult, it's like if the painter was in another language. Speaking of languages, humans also do things rather "mindlessly" oftentimes. For example, native speakers often struggle to explain rules of their language to a learner, saying something like "I dunno man, it's just how to is". That's because they internalized it through practice, rather than consciously thinking about grammar rules. This is what becoming "fluent" essentially is. This applies to many skills where they kind of become automatic rather than being conscious. Painting is no exception. One of the best times I was painting was where I was in the "flow", rather than thinking about it consciously. And to be clear, no one is claiming that AI is conscious. I consider it a tool, but a clever one at that, and one that has many attributes of a person executing your decisions for you. Makes sense, since it does have neural networks at its heart.
I don't know why this is important. The point is basically thesis 1. Not sure why you'd want a tool to do research, or what you mean by that.
Then I'm not sure what your example has to do with the discussion, or what it was supposed to illustrate.
As long as we agree that it has nothing to do with copying or tracing or editing or theft, then I'm good with this. Just don't want to pollute the discourse with inaccurate emotional language.
You cannot possibly how well you detect AI art because, well, you cannot possibly know anything about the ones you don't detect. It's been very possible to generate perfectly good artwork that vast vast majority of people won't be able to detect for a while now. It just takes more effort and knowledge. The ones you see as "obvious" are low effort gens. Just like regular artwork, bad gens are more prevalent. I have personally seen a couple of people pass themselves off as normal artists to take on commissions. Their works are posted in public on websites that banned AI gens. Believe me, I'm no less upset by low effort gens than you are. I'm equally as upset by low effort everything though. I mean again, we are on f95.