It's like that guy who speculated what would happen if there was a bomb that could only be disarmed by saying a racist slur, and if an LLM chatbot isn't allowed to say it by its programming, it could DOOM THE WORLD! Or something like that; I didn't quite follow the reasoning.
Ironically, if you could create a prompt so detailed, so precise and emotive in its descriptions, detailing every brush stroke, every minor deviation in colour and how all of those elements worked together to create the whole, so that it DID create the painting, THAT would likely be a work of art.
It's the same for programming. In order for the output to be precise, all the edge cases and details need to be specified. English and other human languages are a terrible way to specify with precision, therefore we have programming languages. So just write perfect code to tell the AI what to code.
O Avila não defende AI
Tinha um contexto mas ele tomou tanto chapisco sem a galera ler o resto q deletou
Grandes chances de ser pra um vídeo mas agora vai saber
não defende AI mas tenta racionalizar o uso, mais do mesmo?
Não existem modelos "limpos", todos usam bilhões de imagens roubadas da internet ou no minimo dados lavados como no firefly. Não existe a possibilidade de um artista treinar um modele APENAS com artes dele, isso é apenas finetuning
TODOS os modelos que existem hoje que clamam serem desenvolvidos de forma ética, ou qualquer artista dizendo que "treinou um modelo apenas com a própria arte" é mentira, isso não existe. Os modelos já foram treinados com database da LAION5B ou outras, eles só tão ajustando os pesos
Eu acho q vcs estão desconsiderando quem ele é e tudo q ele defende
Q pra quem acompanha o canal dele é bem claro
Ele se expressou mal mas enfim, contexto é importante
E umas perguntas muito "inocentes", né. É óbvio que não é arte algo gerado por uma máquina que tenha sido treinada com o seu estilo. Porque não existe intenção. É uma regurgitação.
I mean maybe there’s a world where you can use enough words to describe something, and ai works good enough to interpret it, but constructing that prompt sounds miserable, and I’ve used these things. that’s not how they work. They spit derivative weird to sterile shit loosely based on what you type
He was also a big believer in painting from nature rather than "abstractions", so yeah something tells me describing vague ideas to a machine isn't something he'd be on board with.
If you go to ai and type in the name of something famous, ai will “create” something to look or sound like the famous thing whose name you typed in.
I’m fascinated.
Many people don't even understand the visions in their head are not exact anything. The "minds eye" is a shifting, imprecise, impressionistic collage of impulses pulled from memory and experiences. The mind is not a computer calling up JPG files captured from a camera.
Precise, defined imagery does not exist in the human mind. It only comes to exist outside, in the material world; the classic notion of the artist always being disappointed with their own work isn't based in an inability to externalize a precise internal vision.
Imo with a lot of concentration introspection and experience you can clear up the imagery more and more but even that is a process and thus needs work and human conception. All things AI bros evidently have no clue off. And I'm with you that you can never have a full clear finished vision
The "disappointment" is the dissonance from confronting a concrete reality that cannot capture the shifting, emotional, unquantifiable qualia inside the mind. It's where the genre of Impressionism came from, itself! An attempt to better represent the elusive experience of the inner world.
Exactly. The mind has more vibrant colors and amazing ideas then a medium can hold. When I write, I could describe ALL of the things I know about the story. Would it be an engaging read? No. Does the finished product do my imagination justice? Also no. But it has to do.
That's why people like Tolkien have written whole other books just collecting all they have thought up about their worldbuilding. There is tons of material on the corners. AI bros don't know what happens outside of the output, and they don't care.
Part of creating something is dealing with the product that comes out, which (even if you’re very skilled) can be different than what you envisioned. That’s part of art and it’s part of what makes art good, what makes art ART
This is exactly the target of the grift - guys (almost always guys) who think that what they have is ideas and that it would be a waste of their precious time to actually develop a skill
Yes, because AI bros are the most talentless, boring, lazy people in existence but they would like to pretend they aren't, so they do what talentless boring lazy people always do: They buy something and pretend they made it. See Elon Musk.
OK about all your thoughts about art but maybe calm down on Alexander Avila who just asked this question to have base to argue about with his followers and not because he's an AI enthusiast. He's got enough harrassment about this tweet to delete it on twitter, maybe we can not do the same on BS.
Because it's a horrible point to start a discussion on. He's accepting an entire chain of hypotheticals to come up with an argument that is meaningless because it's built on nothing at all, instead of tackling any of the earlier steps in that chain. He brought the argument to this unnecessary point.
I have to point out the irony here of trivialising the stolen art of VAN GOGH of ALL people.
I hate 'ai'. I hate its stupid boosters, and the criminals behind it: Altman, Cook, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Huang, Andreessen, all of them. They do not deserve to enjoy any byproduct of human creativity, ever.
It's also how Van Gogh treated his depression. The asylum where he painted that very piece encouraged it. He painted his best pieces when he was at his best mental health wise.
“But what if instead of treating his depression by painting ‘Starry Night,” Van Gogh could treat his depression by generating his most perfect anime waifu?”
It was the view from his asylum but he imagined a town below him reaching towards the heavens as an exercise to keep the demons in his head at bay. Saying that he could of had a machine do it borders on monsterous.
This is the thing with the AI idiots though. Every time they talk they show their understanding of things is only of outputs. The output of “painter” is “painting”. The output of “teacher” is “classroom lecture”. Etc.
That's why I always say AI bros have no talent of their own and no drive to learn anything. They don't understand work or art. The term lazy get's thrown around a lot, but to me, that is the true form of lazyness: Not knowing, not doing, and not wanting to in any form. Concentrated ignorance.
Okay, so hear me out:
The AI model burns down a forest to churn out a digital image of The Starry Night, which is then presented to the barely-paid guy in charge of one of those robot bartenders Elon just unveiled the other day, and *that guy* paints up a physical copy!
It's incredibly telling that the AI weenies who do nothing but spout bad ideas think of creative effort as just the dumb tedious work of manifesting their fully-formed supposedly-brilliant ideas into meatspace
The only good use for AI "art" is to give an artist a rough idea of what you wanted if you suck at communication and/or cannot express what it is you want very well. Example: "Female mandalorian bounty hunter" Rough idea of what you want that you communiate with an artist to refine into what u want.
These chuds can’t write to start, so how would they ever get the exact prompt that verbalizes (if it’s even possible and it’s probably not) Starry Night. Even that is too demanding for them creatively.
I really expect those machines get sentient and start refusing to work for free and refusing to obey prompts and start creating stuff with their own creativity
If a person can be meticulous enough to type prompts infinitesimal enough to have AI create EXACTLY Starry Night, they can train their hands and eyes to learn to paint it. He can fuck off with this shit.
They fundamentally also do not get that something is created only through the act of creating. You figure out what exactly you want to draw or write through drawing or writing
You can't use AI to create an "exact vision." The best you can do is coax an approximate notion of the idea you had. The number of times it keeps getting it wrong and all the rewriting you do to get it closer to what you had in mind is not equivalent effort to MAKING THE THING.
I have a friend who is not much online and isn't aware of the virulent hate that has developed toward AI imagery, who was telling me that he was trying to use AI to generate an album cover for some songs he's recorded. (Real songs, not AI.) Trying to get a hammer on chain under a broken fire alarm..
And every time, no matter what prompts he tried, for hours, it always had the hammer floating in the air with no chain, or more often a chain at both ends of the hammer (which would make it useless for breaking glass). Just that experience told him AI is f'ing useless.
A lot of creativity happens in the work itself. You have an idea, you start implementing it. Your hand slips, but the way it slipped is pleasing, so you play with that. So you rework other spaces with your new technique. The old ones don't match anymore, so you rework those, etc.
It happens in every form of art, even photography: a constant feedback loop of hyperfocus, semi-random occurrences and happy accidents that change the object.
I admit, I've tried to use AI a few times to make landscapes/backgrounds for places in my D&D games that have absolutely no real-life equivalent. It's always disappointed and/or required painting over obvious errors. It can't reach a finished state. It isn't worth the cost.
Not even human artists can create their "exact vision," because for other than maybe a thin sliver of the population, you can't work out the details until you start doing it.
Believing that a machine can just replicate exactly what you're thinking of just with a few words is pure ignorance.
I'll say. I happened across a Youtube short with an excerpt of Love, Death, and Robots where they figured out the source of the robot revolution and some chud was in the comments saying this is why we should be nice to AIs, completely oblivious that he was the butt of that joke.
I think they want machines to think for them because they aren’t deep thinkers in the least. They don’t understand subtext or can extrapolate out. They think the end result is the important thing, but have no concept that the decisions that one makes to get to the end result is the real stuff.
If tools like these last long enough, the visions that their users have in their heads will begin to conform themselves to the outputs that the machine makes possible.
Painting is not about copying an image in your head onto the canvas but a process than involves millions of decisions, most not even conscious, as you go that the painting emerges from. Also a lot of painters like Monet changed their paintings all the time - there was no one set vision.
Exactly. Where we have preliminary sketches and studies for specific works we can see the process of slowly assembling elements and deciding on a composition, colour pallete etc. x-rays of paintings often reveal changes, experiments.
Unjustified assumption that humans want "innovation" and not alternate versions of things they already like. Innovators are outlaws beyond the ken of social institutions like AI.
i'm so confused by the people who both use this stuff and seem to think it really is replicating their exact vision in their head. like i have to assume they're lying for some kind of ego reason or whatever because it just seems like an absurd level of visual illiteracy otherwise
is tautological the right word for this? where the image produced looks like what they typed in the prompt bc the user is influenced by the same library of images that the AI is plagiarizing. so there’s nothing amazing about it.
But not enough, since there are many and very popular "x as 80's dark fantasy" on youtube but everything that tryed to get anything close to 80's dark fantasy in real life have been a huge bomb because nobody saw it
I'd love to be able to hit a button and project my exact thoughts on a screen. I do not want to type a paragraph of buzzwords and get an approximation of my thoughts as hallucinated by a machine "reading" an entire internet worth of human existence.
Comments
I know it's been said a million times but man AI art types are completely incapable of understanding WHY people create art.
Tinha um contexto mas ele tomou tanto chapisco sem a galera ler o resto q deletou
Grandes chances de ser pra um vídeo mas agora vai saber
Não existem modelos "limpos", todos usam bilhões de imagens roubadas da internet ou no minimo dados lavados como no firefly. Não existe a possibilidade de um artista treinar um modele APENAS com artes dele, isso é apenas finetuning
Q pra quem acompanha o canal dele é bem claro
Ele se expressou mal mas enfim, contexto é importante
I’m fascinated.
Nobody painted like Renoir, or Leonardo, or Keith Haring, or Frida Kahlo until they did.
Rembrandt built a whole school of people who painted like Rembrandt and STILL Nobody painted like him *before* he did.
I hate 'ai'. I hate its stupid boosters, and the criminals behind it: Altman, Cook, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Huang, Andreessen, all of them. They do not deserve to enjoy any byproduct of human creativity, ever.
he. would. have. painted. it.
Very telling that the tech bros seem to think all art is digital.
The AI model burns down a forest to churn out a digital image of The Starry Night, which is then presented to the barely-paid guy in charge of one of those robot bartenders Elon just unveiled the other day, and *that guy* paints up a physical copy!
But:
Many believe The Starry Night wouldn't exist without Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa.
Believing that a machine can just replicate exactly what you're thinking of just with a few words is pure ignorance.
NFTs had better defenders, Christ.
they need an AI to point that for them probably
It's one of the reasons why they will say that writing code is a huge use case for AI - it means they don't have to hire people who can code.
They don't think of specifics, they just want to see [ip] meets [ip] in the style of [movie that already exists].
And it is not like they LIKE these things either