Bowl VS AI art. 

U CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT

Bowl is the best character of the Baguetteverse. Man's the real deal

I am on the position of "Bowl is kinda immature here". Because the dude spent his time trying to yell out insults and when he leaves, there's an audio of everyone clapping. ... get it? The "everyone clapped" kind of moment?

@@lexcentrique2554 he had good roasts even if I disagree with him completely....

@@Tha-mountainYOU CAN’T QUIT *_I_* QUIT

He does very much so.

I believe that in the older video where art was discussed, he was especially found of van goth. Assuming I recall correctly.

​​​@@frenchbaguetteintelligence Only thing I disagree with Bowl about (not in this video, he did great here, I mean in "Art vs Modern Art") is the "knowing the artist through their work" thing. It's been bothering me a lot since I last saw that video. I HIGHLY recommend Bowl plays "A Beginner's Guide." It's a very in depth analysis as to what trying to put together and make assumptions about who the artist is based exclusively off their work does in the long run.

​@@TheManBehindtheFunny I always feel like this phrase is more about "to know him as an artist" than "I know the life of this man I have seen all his drawing" in short, time, place and old painting and aspiration can give light to some work and knowing that will help comprehend a particular work.

Bowl really likes Goya, so his standard for art is based on expressive figurative works with individual style and emotional / political content. He has very little patience for high Modernism, total abstraction in general, or really anything that seeks to mask the hand of the artist.

>bowl plan >enter >troll everyone >make great points >leave >success

Only FC can defeat Bowl. It is written

Like daily.

@@Pele-mele. hes such a good friend)

Ikr? The "Helpppp" was sending me lmao

Hehe.

They even called out a particular "photographer". I do wonder who they could be referring to.

Some people admit that they're wrong, others take a while to realize that they're wrong But SOME simply refuse to be wrong

Boy, that part when Sapient 0.2 compared the tiny Earth and big Earth photographs, said the sizes were wrong, ticked me off. Because he's right, there IS an obvious discrepancy at first glance... So why didn't NASA make the obvious choice to fabricate images of the Earth and Moon with the "right sizes"? Nope. NASA am stupider than he; only his brilliance can correctly comprehend distance and size proportions.

@@isg4 The based, the slow, and the cringe, as they'd be called today.

Which video was that agin?

You made me laugh.❤

​@@Pele-mele. THE GOAT

Real Ginger actually makes my skin crawl from sheer contempt.

Yeah that was too much for me. I need a smoke.

@@Serpillard Oh no...

Definitely the second one

@@plushenjoyingfiend4335 No, I'd say the former. It's one of the few times Bowl completely removes his comically-bigoted clown persona and actually takes people seriously.

Uhm.. actually I was gonna correct you for I felt like a 🤓 which made me not do such.

Doesn't need to drop it to be knowledgeable

@@RudderSCoolmain There is no shame in correcting someone or being corrected, contrary to what someone insecure might tell you.

​@ Uhm actually there is.

@@lastmanstanding7155 No.

I've been calling it ai content. Cause it's not art. It's content for people to post in there social media with minimal effort

Thankuu.

AI art is fun, and can be used as a crutch for individuals who are too poor to afford an artist for an indie project they are working on. At least until they get the funding to hire an actual artist. However, it should be banned for all companies. Massive fines for any company that tries to pull that shit. They have the money and have no excuse.

​@@anubis7457It's been a blessing for modders. Suddenly silent Skyrim mods get a voice with elevenlabs and anything that requires portraits can get them fast.

@@anubis7457luckily lawsuits against said companies seem to be progressing positively for artists. And can potentially lead to a precedent that better protects artists in general not just in the industry. Though work for hire contracts and so on can still be a problem. And cause further issues

Magic exists everywhere ❤

Creating something is very different from playing something. Not to say that chess players don't put any work in, but to say those things are completely incomparable. Also, I am an artist, and can say that I absolutely hate AI art, as well as any artist I've met. How many artists have actually told you AI art isn't bad?

@@candace219I am an artist, and I do not absolutely hate art, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

@@candace219 I guess the main question with AI art is who will use it and for what. It's not the same if the machine is used by, say, writers and worldbuilders trying to ilustrate something they wrote about and, in general, folks not willing nor able to pay a comission than corporations and individuals using it for profit motifs.

@@candace219Every artist I’ve worked with in a professional setting hasn’t cared, because they know I’m still using them. I use AI art to create an initial reference and have artists draw the character I described in their own style. It’s a lot easier than me trying to describe a character in tedious detail. Also, I guess a better analogy would be, do people who create sculptures and decorative carpentry still do so even though it’s now mass produced? Yes, but a lot less than before due to it not being profitable for most.

too idealistic. People do draw for money. Maybe they just lost their passion for art along their carrier but keep doing it for the cash. Maybe there is another reason. Saying "artist don't draw for money" 100 times wont make it true.

That's what I was thinking as well! Thank god I wasn't the only one

I mean aren't you still using someone else work still?

@@Bru21424 Because of what the AI use for training? Yes, I mean it depends on the AI but there can be ethic issues regarding copyright. I only used it for reference and experiments yet so I haven't had to worry about that yet but yeah it's something I would have to look into if I want to use any for more serious projects. Which isn't the case as of now.

Artists will never be replaced. An artwork that used to take 100 hours will still take 100 hours. But all of the rudimentary and boring work will be done in less time and more of those 100 hours can be spent on pushing the envelope! This is what a.i. art means.

If I microwaved something that tastes better than the same thing at a certain restaurant for a meal, I'd question going back to the restaurant... Because clearly I am not _preparing a meal_ but reheating a prepackaged mass produced food item. So, yeah, agreed.

Too reductive, you reduce AI (same as Bowl) to its the most simplistic form. Not every person who uses AI and calls themselves artist is the same. Your analogy is also simply false, as it breaks down on too many levels, - a microwave and AI are not similar at all, even in principle of their workings. Some artist, with skills and all, still can utilize AI in one way or another (and there are those that do), since even generative AI has tons of tools to use that are beyond simple 'M.C.Escher' in the prompt, or just straight up photobashing different pieces of AI images. Hell, some people train AI on their own art, gotta be of some help to them. I don't see a point in being called 'AI artist', though, since those people that I describe are just artists, they just realize their own vision with some help of AI.

@@munchkintaker4263trolling

​@@munchkintaker4263 bait

@@munchkintaker4263 The argument isn't whether you can/should use AI to _help_ create/inspire art. But rather if AI itself is an artist. AI is a tool, so it'd be comparable to saying a paintbrush is an artist. Sure a paintbrush can be used to make art, but it's not an artist. And yeah, AI can create amazing works of art if you give it the right style of prompts, enough batches of attempts to do so, and example pieces for reference... But it's a simulation of art using an algorithm to basically make an image generator. It is belittling human artists to say AI is the exact same category. I wouldn't say there aren't good AI peices, but I also don't believe it should share in a category as human art. It's a different creative process and (AI/Human art) should respectively be treated differently from each other.

He probably hides those free-thinking opinions when faced with confrontation

I can actually somewhat understand that. I used to draw D&D characters for my buddies who play D&D.

@@Pele-mele. I have a player who likes to draw her favorite scene from every session, but I don't have the talent for even a sketch. Having AI be good enough that someone like me can get stuff out of their brain and onto paper? That would be incredible.

​@@Pele-mele.I use AI art a lot, because where else am I going to get the most unimpressed space Jesus for free?

@@Pele-mele. I’ve used it twice to try and get the idea of a Studio Ghibli-styled Legend of Zelda scene out of my head but it was so awful at doing it I gave up I’d rather pay someone $200 to draw it for me than deal with the bullshit algorithms

@@Pele-mele.I sometimes use ai art if I'm just interested in seeing particular kinds of images to stimulate my imagination and either don't know artists that make the kind of art I want in a style a like, do know those artists but know they don't have it, or just want to see how accurate an AI will get to what I like

Yeah, that's the actual nuance in this whole argument.

That's just using a tool. Adding lighting doesn't require an ai

@@massiveidiot77 It created a 3D look on handrwan art. Something that was too labor intensive to do on a reasonable timeline without AI. So yes, I agree. It is using a tool. Like I argued originally.

@@moonblaze2713 no I mean it literally is a tool. A lot of companies will use the ai term to describe normal computer effects even if they have absolutely nothing to do with ai

Are you talking about Klaus? I wouldn't call it "just came out" though

Steve, my man! I haven't seen you in quite a long time.

@@sweetricecakeman8582 Steve misses your company, old friend

Greetings steve, punch down another tree at work today?

Me too. I am a shitposter down to my very CORE.

AI art is perfect for shitposting it can make some amazing things with literally zero effort I do prefer real art but no human could make V1 from ultrakill and the marauder from doom eternal sit down and have a nice picknick lunch in hell.

Well, you could say the same about, say, a money laundering machine or cheating software for a videogame. I would agree that if anyone involved in AI "art" is an artist, it'd be the programmer that made the hodgepodge machine in the first place, but the art in this scenario would as such be the machine itself, not the hodgepodge it barfs out.

Bowl is always sane, he’s just an asshole. Unfathomably based.

FR, as a somewhat beginner artist (got some commissions but wouldn't say I'm professional yet) it's refreshing to see bowl, who's normally just around as comedy, actually defend art AND be totally correct is so refreshing

Thanku.❤

Haha, you're welcome. ❤

Harry is not in that server. Maybe it's better that way though since they seem to ban people whom they perceive as hostile. You can literally say "The sky is blue" and get banned for provocation. 😬

I want to see Harry in that server. It would be diabolical

Harry has always the most adorably unbased takes

Hello! I saw your answer and found it really civil, interesting even if I don't agree with it. " If AI art could truly replicate the visuals of art indistinguishably, then it's going to give you the same feelings of happiness, sadness, awe, fear, etc, at least on the immediate visual scale. And those feelings are real. " Except it would only a copy of a style, of a genre, of an image. And he included the persons who can feels those things in his argumentary. When 99% Cannot see the difference, 1% can. Also, I don't know if it's because of anticipation, implicit pact or what but.... People do tend to loose their perception when they learn it's AI generated. Maybe bias against machines, who know? To complete my precedent, I'd say that the same problem with counterfeit goods. The difficulty is present, but it'll never be a perfect photocopy, no matter how hard you tried. Or else experts would be useless.And then.... there is ALSO the "Why". "Why they used this color", "why there is brush traces here", "Why there is some differences between his two eyes". All these questions, an AI art would not give you any explanation, any reflexion. Emotion felt in front of a paint made by an artist could be intentional, Counterfeit probably not and AI Art DEFINITIVELY not. It does not mean that it cannot give emotions but... In movies, you could try to make a scene serious but your plan goes wrong and it make it hillarious. Same principe. Wanting to share an emotion and Feeling that same emotion are completely disconnected. Well, about the subjectivity of being betrayed if there ARE labelled "AI Art", I'd say Yes and No, because of the Painter's goal. If you begin to feel things before looking at the art, you could feel betrayed because you thought that the artist wanted to give you this emotion. AI does wan't Nothing. And you wouldn't stop to consider the fact that you felt emotions the "artist" never wanted you to feel to begin with. Of course, it IS subjective the way you feel something but with an actual artist, you can actually fool yourself into thinking that was the intended way. And for your next point... Maybe THIS is the Crux of the problem? When you search images, you can hypothetise about its creator's experience, how much time did he or she took to have that level Skill and feeling admirative of it. Afterall, Art is already heavily subjective, why the experiment of the Artist wouldn't be considered? All and all, I think that "AI Art" vs "Human Art" could be resumed with a signe expression and the affect you have for it : "It's not the goal, it's the journey to it that count". I hope my english was not too crappy...

I do get what you mean about "intent" in an image and how AI doesn't give that, but I would say that's not *entirely* the case... but also kind of is. It's on one's perception of this. Say someone wants to make an AI image on something they're actually interested or passionate about. Best example I can think of is the Dungeons and Dragons community. Maps, Items, Monsters, you name it, can all be generated. While these people aren't going to be able to tell you why "this eye looks different to that eye", they could definitely tell you the intent. In fact... *you* can see the intent as much as them, because you can see the item or monster is as they described and wanted. Same thing goes for other AI creations. They couldn't tell you the finer details. They may not even know such finer details exist. But they do have an intent that's reflected. In some cases, highly reflective of a bunch of stuff they tried. Different words at different strengths, different models, different "special words", in-painting, etc. To put this another way. If you went to someone's AI work, felt awe and asked what their intent was (without telling them you felt awe), they can still say awe... because they intended to make you feel that way, lol. They might even be able to comment on certain aspects because they literally asked for those certain aspects. One *could* even ask for "differing eyes". The people inputting stuff aren't emotionless robots. (For now) But I will also say again and agree, when it comes to the finer detail, they couldn't tell one thing from another, and they didn't "feel emotion in every brush stroke". How much one cares one way or the other comes to their personal preference. As both you and Bowl have mentioned, it may just be that ~99% of people couldn't tell nor care and it's ~1% that do. Of course, who knows the actual number, eh? Or how it might change over time. Again, I really wonder what's gonna be the opinions of the generation growing up with AI art. Also - also, as a side point on that thing I mentioned at the end about brain-to-art, it once again muddies the conversation when it eventually happens. Cause what you make would literally be your minds intent interpreted. No challenge or time taken at all, but it's literally intent brought to life as one-to-one as possible.@@kirua258

Also, Faux Cares, if you see this, I went to a French immersion school and still am learning! Albeit I’m not very good… I have been considering moving to Belgium when I’m old enough. I think making jokes about the British and the French are funny, yes, but having solidarity with another people group makes me very happy, so whenever I see you acting all French I’m very charmed. Keep up the great work! -^^-

Reductive sentence honestly, AI has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with automation, which is used to replace most boring and awful jobs, like how the fuck is an AI going to replace a janitor? And for the part where AI does “steal” the job of artists I always point the finger at those who choose it over actual people’s work because clearly if you were replaced by an AI that means they did not care about you or ur piece of art but only about the money they could make out of it

Found Ai apologist.

Nothing more annoying than people quoting stuff to look smart and replying like a troll when confronted “apologist” if anything it’s dumb idiots that started reject AI for no reason because they worry they suck too much to compete with it when that has never been the point Next thing you’ll say is that technology ruined everything and people don’t read books anymore

Machines can replace most jobs such as Cashiers and factory workers, replacing a janitor can be done by training AI with deep learning algorithms to perform the Job Optimally

​@@Vermillenoyou're no better than Sapient "logical flaws" 2.0 over here. What's your response to his argument?

Actually, the Betrayal goes in one direction, not both. If you, as a sentient being, bought a product, hoping it would help you but the product is defective, you could be betrayed by it, even if the product itself did not sold itself to you by a lie. Technically, the producer of your product would be the one betraying you but that argument can also goes for the AI, the way it was programmed, where did he searched sources, and so on and so on. You don't actually need sentience for betrayal. You need giving hopes you cannot fulfill. You definitively need sentience of an ACTIVE betrayal though.

À votre service, monsieur saucisson.

The only problem with that is, AI has no human input over the actual work created. You just type in a prompt, and the machine does all the work for you. As an artist, writing down your idea to give to something else to tackle, isn't you creating anything, it's being lazy. Photography HAS a human input over the actual creation. The artist has to position the camera, adjust the settings, make sure the time of day is right, choose the right lens, focus the camera, etc The artist has complete control over the result more or less, while AI is just typing in a prompt and gambling on whether or not the robot produces something you want. AI art will NEVER be real art

​@@mr.timusproductions116these points would have been made about Photography a few decades ago. I can't bother to recreate your whole message by replacing "AI art" with "photography" and "photography" with "paintings" while also tweaking some points so they make sense, but I hope you can see my point. Art is subjective. Anything can be art if even a single person thinks it's art. An artist could shit in a can and sell it as art (which actually did happen). Acting like "being human" is the ONLY requirement is genuinely very confusing, because is that really where you draw the line? What about a Chimp that learns to paint and makes genuinely beautiful pieces? Is it not art cause it's not human? Or maybe it is, and now you can see that the starting point didn't make much sense to begin with. Long story short, I believe AI art is art, and just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it unworthy of the label. Have a good day

Photos are photos you cannot make a realistic photo of something that does not exists AI can create from scratch, maybe when they develop a camera that can snap a photo of your imagination then the comparison will make sense

​@@bruschetta7711Have you ever heard of Photoshop? I can photograph a white horse, stick a narwhal's horn on it's head, and that would be a pretty realistic unicorn, which to my knowledge don't exist

​@@mr.timusproductions116Typing in a prompt is human input. Besides, you only notice AI art when it's bad, but if I was a good artist and made an AI painting, and then fixed the errors that the AI generates, you wouldn't recognize it as AI generated.

Personally they are just 2 different things, I have nothing against AI art but part of what makes artists good is the drawing itself the AI has the image already completed there and ready to show, some people might only care about the final piece but I think for artist themselves and people interested in it the drawing part is also important

Oh my Brandolini, That's not a counter; you arbitrarily trained the AI to patchwork consistently your work until the result was satisfactory. This adresses you gave your concent, not that the already existing algorithm still exist solely because the collective data of the internet still had a database to pull its existing codes beforehand thus factually establishing it was stollen from other artist in order to process its training. You fed the AI on your own, it made a replica of your design, but its code is already existing and well advanced, you just provided the necessary to speed the process and narrow down the patchwork's efficiency, period. This is an half-truth fallacy, one i typically see used by tourists and charlatans rightfully gatekept(like any other hobby with a functioning immune system). Photography is a medium, AI is a tool; the false equivalence is another fallacy on the bingo card. Their functioning is different mechanically, that's why it's a separate medium fundamentally, unlike "AI art" tools specifically(as in other AIs bring other problems to the table with separate contexts and functioning under the hood). And that is why it will not take the same road, because photography historically did not actually had any problem with either painting, hand drawn and digital drawing for any industry whatsoever, it coexisted with all the other techs that were symbiotic to the other art forms because they were mechanically predisposed to, while Ai Art generation is parasitic by leeching off data. This is a disingenuous false narrative, the key differences are there and clear as day. Conflating - something that you do ironically, so the double standard checks out - AI tools with machine learning is just as disingenuous, you're commonly affected by the same syndrome as all common Tech Bros, you're stuck on the first phase of the Duning Kruger Effect. You're right on one thing though, generating is the correct term, that's about it; but the problem of "Ai Art is not art" is in context due to the lack of consent, commonly "countered" by tech bros with the copout to "giving concent the moment one uploads anything" that is the new "she was asking for it, her skirt was *that* short". It fails to adress the problem, and obviously* that is not how you adress it. You adress it by regulating the tool's use, change its process, establising new laws to protect the art industries; not giving it to the masses so carelessly while it also gives new ammunition for corporation to maximize profit and shoot down jobs so that they have to pay less people and come up with even more scummy practices. It can be seen plainly in other industry like the gaming landscape such as the whole Steam Vs Epic case: Steam regulate the sea of garbage of games using Ai Art for easy assets and purge it, while Epic is saturated by low standard shovelware that barely works simply because its CEO(Timmy) is a contrarian with a hateful boner for Gaben.

@@ProsecutorValentine I think you misunderstood my first point. Im not "feeding" the AI my drawing. I said I drew a design on paper and I am literally recreating it from scratch through prompts and inpainting, semantic maps, controlnet, etc. I am NEVER going to get my EXACT design I drew on paper beforehand by solely just typing a prompt and hitting generate over and over again. Therefore, the machine is not making a replica of my work since It would take ME physically using controlnet, inpainting, semantic maps, and other tools to get MY _exact_ drawing I made. If you truly believe this was solely the machine creating my drawn design then you might as well say that anyone that has ever recreated a drawn design in Illustrator actually didn't do it because the machine was the one responsible for making perfect lines, creating vectors, etc. and that's frankly ridiculous. Well, seeing that I've had a videography and photography company for the past 6 years and have been creating content with videography, photography, and animation for the past 10 years, and also work as a Multi-Media Production Consultant at a University, I wouldn't say I'm a "tourist" or "charlatan"... You're right about a "false equivalence" being made here but you are the one making the false equivalence. Photography is a medium. Cameras are tools within that medium. AI Generated Art is a medium, Prompt AI Art Generators are tools within that medium. If I were to draw a photo-realistic portrait of myself by hand so much to the point that it looked indistinguishable from a simple real image from a camera and I did an experiment by telling some people that this image was hand drawn and telling other people that this image was taken from a camera, the people who see it as a photograph wouldn't think much of it and the people who see it as a hand drawn image would be incredibly impressed by it because these are two entirely different mediums with artistic processes and limitations that we all already understand. Now if I generated a simple but extremely accurate portrait of myself from scratch and I did an experiment by telling some people that this was an image taken on my camera and telling others that this was an image of myself I AI generated from scratch, the people who see it as a photograph wouldn't think much of it and the people who ACTUALLY understand the artistic processes and limitations that go with the medium of AI generated art from scratch would be incredibly impressed. As I said, we're not at the point that it's common knowledge for most people to understand the actual processes behind making an ai generated art (as evidenced by you assuming I'd just simply feed my drawn design to the AI and it replicates it... ) Lol, "regulating the tool's use, change its process, establising new laws to protect the art industries" And would you have some examples of how you could realistically achieve this with software that is already open source and available to the public? It's not as if you can push some magic button and suddenly EVERYTHING that has ever used AI generated tools will just cease to function... I'd much rather tell people to use it and be as knowledgeable about it as possible as opposed to pretending it doesnt exist...

​@@ProsecutorValentine Also, as I said, photography when it first came out was received just as negatively as AI generated art is. Many artists and critics saw photography as a threat to their livelihood and art, as it could accurately capture reality in a way that painting could not. In reality, they had their own uses and it separated into their own areas and industry. There was definitely areas where it overlapped, but they both still exist today. machine learning with AI generated art is in it's infancy, both in terms of it's use-case and it's own specialization for the artistic processes. Objectively today, with the current limits of AI generated art, there are situations when AI generating art could be more efficient and there are times when drawing or taking a photo of it traditionally could be more efficient depending on whatever the use case and audience is. On top of that, AI GENERATED Content isn't the ONLY thing machine learning will be used for. There will be tools that come out to assist current artistic procesess and workflow within current traditional mediums that could potentially put us on the desirable and effective pace to draw art as opposed generating it. There's already GANs today that act as a live reference photo that "sees" the shapes and lines of what you're drawing and gives real time ai generated photos on the side to give you both a specialized reference for what you are drawing while also providing ideas to bounce off of in terms of color, composition, mood, with plenty of adjustable parameters including how specific it follows your drawing, how many pixels drawn before it generates a new image, what type of styles the image live generates, etc. There's GANs coming out that will allow you to manipulate areas of a photo as if it was in a 3d space with moving objects, generative fills, rotating objects, changing facial expressions, etc. That all comes from machine learning, open source applications, and people ACTUALLY trying to progress forward as opposed to shrinking back and pretending that AI isn't already a thing that exists and pretending that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING that has ever used AI will just magically decide to stop using it just 'because I said so' As soon as I saw the word "Tech Bro" I already see what perspective you're tackling this with. Sheesh. As if everyone who uses creates AI generated art is a "Tech Bro" lol. ok. Your analogy to the skirt thing is a such a gross bad faith argument lol. Someone getting physically assaulted isn't equivalent to the copious amounts of personal data that millions of us internet denizens both willingly and unknowingly give away. When I upload an image publicly online and someone downloads it to their computer, I didn't consent to them downloading it but I'm not expecting them to get in trouble, arrested, nor did they commit some sort of felony. But if I get physically a s s a u l t e d by someone and did not consent to them a s s a u l t i n g me, I would obviously expect them to get in trouble and arrested immediately. So, if an artist screenshots a photo I took, even if it was copyrighted, to use as inspiration for their own art, I'm not gonna chase them down for it unless they make it blatantly obvious that whatever final product they made is blatantly and obviously 1:1 the exact same thing as what I made. However, I would agree with what you said if it's pertaining to photos that have not been shared on a visible public platform and yet its still being pulled up from image crawlers to be sent to training models. That's different because Im not expecting anyone to be able to take screenshots of those in the first place since it hasnt been shared by me to any platform. But that's not solely what you're talking about, you're talking about images publicly available on the internet copyrighted or no copyrighted.

@@bruschetta7711 I get what you're saying, and you're not wrong in some aspects. You can in fact do the minimal amount of work to get "something". That "something" may not be that interesting since you may not have prompted it very well, but you do get a finished "something". But, that's simply how this medium goes. There's identifiable skill floors and infinite skill ceilings with all of the mediums of art. A beginner at painting may start with painting stick people but then become an advanced painter and draw full painting portraits of people. A beginner at prompt ai generations might start with typing in "cool beach" and go with the first thing they see while an advanced ai image prompter may use a very descriptive prompt engineering, inpainting, semantic maps, control net, and any other tools to match the vision of they have the most extravagant beach that they could ever conceive. It's true that you get a finished photo with ai generated images, but you'd get a full photo of something if you took a picture of something with a camera too. You have to do a lot more work to draw a human face vs taking a photo of it. It's true that the drawing part is important... But once again, it's different mediums... The manner in which an AI image was generated is important too. Did you just hit the generate button 100 times and pray you got something cool or did you employ any of those techniques I mentioned above to create whatever you were envisioning? It's what seperates a beginner casual user vs a professional. Same with photography. Technically anyone can be a "photographer" since their phone can take a photo, but it's "Photographers" that use precise techniques and have a vision for what they want to create. And sorry to repeat myself again, but, it really is dependent on the mediums and what you make of it: If I showed you a photo of a mountain and a drawing of that same mountain, some people might say the photo is more important because it took someone traveling out there and finding the right composition and right time of day to achieve the intended result and some might say that drawing is more important solely for the sake of drawing such precise lines and coloring to make it photo-realistic. If I showed you an ai generated photo from scratch of that same mountain, some might say it's more important since you would have had to rigorously inpaint to get the exact colors, exact line shapes, exact compositions, etc.

It is fixed but only for the open source models like stable difusion and is something public

Well some people will always fall for it tho

even if AI art does become unrecognizable, it will be doomed by being despairingly generic.

Though there’s a part of me that’s tempted to try and use the concepts generated by AI with my own personal skills to create something that *could* be called “art”, through the fusion of both man and machine. Maybe. It’s just an idea as of current.

IMHO, I think like that's the best, if maybe the only good use case for AI generated art - inspiration for your own, self-made crafts. A tool; a means to an end, rather than the end itself.

​@@jesse422Wish more people have this mindset, both the AI supporters and the luddites. I code for a living, and I deal with AI on a regular basis. AI is a tool, the shit they generate is (currently) subpar so using it as is, is settling with mediocrity. Nowadays, you can ask AI to generate entire programs but without direction and someone to fix it into an actual program, its not gonna work, and if it does, it will look like an ugly code salad. AI art is the same, a simple prompt is a more visual salad than it is an art, but use it to draw inspiration and eliminate repetitive work and you get proper AI art. And people discrediting AI is discrediting a major ground breaking tech for personal use. You want an art piece of your dnd character? You can get it. You want to generate a wild concept no one ever thought to drew before? You have a personal artist now. If I search up roman legionary in napoleonic gear, or a griffon with an autocannon attached, I will have to previously go comission and wait for an artist to draw it for me, and if I want more than 1 picture, I have to comission more. But now, any wild shit I think I of, I can just get it.

Each designer also kinda puts their own style into their work, even if for more corporate stuff it's just a tiny little bit. AI has some kind of mashed style...

@@Pele-mele. Yeah, but, say, the cover of a self help book does not have much artistic value (in the sense that its aesthetics are not to satisfy human desires for beauty, not that it is useless). It's there as an asset, a cover to have a cover as it may be.

The pumpkin is his new head. Orange is the new Beige!