What if AI was actually good for art?

Warning: you're about to read an accelerationist opinion. If it is in any way a problem with you, proceed with caution Who I am is of little importance, but I just want to point out first that I've been writing fiction and non-fiction, playing instruments, and making electronic music for more than 10 years now. I come from the side of an artist The recent evolutions of AI have made music, text and visual art creation very much effortless and with decent quality - something that wasn't the case even a couple of years ago. In case you live in a cave and haven't noticed, there's a huge backlash from visual artists against IA, and more recently writers have complained about the flooding of Amazon with AI-written books, and musicians have complained about Spotify pushing them out of their playlists and making them lose revenue. I think overall, we can agree on one thing; AI generated art makes the human-made counterpart lose value. Already, companies are using AI to avoid paying for designers. Already, video creators use AI-generated music to avoid paying copyright. Already, anime use AI-generated background to avoid having to draw them. It has and is still making artists lose a enormous amount of money, and they have been complaining about it a lot - it's probably the only opinion you've heard on that matter from the general public. But what if that was a good thing? What if art losing all financial value made it closer to its true purpose - which is the expression of the soul, and the sharing of a personal vision. What if all this time, art has been corrupted by monetary incentives and removed from its original meaning? Now of course, this comes at a cost. If art has no value anymore, then it means no one will be able to live from it (in the current system, that is). It also means high-budget pieces of art (whatever they may be) might become very hard or even impossible to produce. But as someone who has been fighting for a free and unlimited access to art and culture all my life, I cannot manage to see how this little trade-off is a negative thing against the (in my opinion, positive) revolution that's coming So I wanted to know what your thoughts were, lainon. Will AI help art or forever ruin it?

I had a long and somewhat condescending piece written out preempting a few particular arguments in this conversation that I'm now rewriting because it came off a bit unhinged, to say the least. I'm personally happy with AI art but I disagree with the mainstream opinion that the technology will devalue art. studios that churn out AI slop do so not because they are technically capable of it, in fact i don't really believe they are technically capable of it. this sounds like it contradicts reality but consider the point that "slop" has come to mean a broader range of things than those strictly produced using AI, in fact I would say it exists in a historical and circumstantial continuity with other, similar terms, like coal, mass-produced, soykaf. personally I like the word pulp, which comes from publishing and once referred to the quality of the paper its printed on (or the inevitable fate of such mass-produced work). with this in mind, the concept of slop doesn't really come as a product of AI and I would go on to argue it doesn't come as a product of any kind of technology either. the reason being that I believe, rather than an infinite decline of quality from say the perfectly hand-recreated latin biblical manuscripts that were once seen as sacred and justified over the mass-produced bibles of the protestant movement. while many of these manuscripts could be beautiful, they were not the end of what constituted beautiful literature. in fact it was only because of the experimentation that mass production enabled that new forms of quality could be uncovered. what's more, i don't think that the mass production of bibles really did devalue these manuscripts either, in fact their value probably increased greatly and the market for literature increased greatly as well. there are many, many more historical examples of these processes taking place some of which have very small impacts on history and some of which have very big impacts. a personal favorite of mine to explore is the photograph and Walter Benjamin's commentary on it "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", where he makes the specific argument that art's creation process (especially of a singular result) makes it uniquely ensouled with an aura, which things like film and photography lack due to the role of humans as automateable components. this feels like a very prescient take that basically applies to AI, in fact I think the entire originality in AI conversation is just a rehashing of benjamin's argument which i disagree with, and honestly consider him (and the other critical theorists of his ilk) to be pretty hypocritical in their stances on it. As a contrary piece of evidence, I would point to industrial music which celebrates not only repetition but the coming-together of human bodies in industrial society and the realization of these processes. there is a kind of humanity that can *only* be realized in this sort of collectivization, the life force of a superorganism (or, say, a city) that I feel proponents and dissidents of exist scattered between capitalists and socialists, as well as statists and libertarians. i would go on to say personally that i have an almost utopian vision in the beauty of these socio-technical processes reintegrated into the ecosphere they seem to contradict, because i do not think it is necessary to do so. Another argument I would make of benjamin's is that photography very much has a soul in the negative he seems so hostile towards in the first place. it seems immediately obvious. what's more, care can be taken in the production of that negative in so many different and interesting ways, in fact that is the main appeal of glitch art as I see it. there are other writings i can point to - a particular essay about jazz comes to mind - as basically in the same domain of arguments that now come across as very quaint and outdated, yet simultaneously seem to say the very same things as more contemporary artists against anything seen as overly manufactured, low, and so on. this all being said, I do have some cautions about AI art that are not intended as a sort of brakes on the process you seem to be enjoying but rather to question what feels like acceleration when it might in fact come across as stagnation from a different viewpoint. and this may perhaps be precisely because of the profit incentive you mention: not the abstract notion of profit-seeking as a coordinating principle in our society but rather what the specific aims are of the relatively few and small AI art corporations in the grand scheme of the broader culture industry. it has been explicitly stated, behind closed doors, by the CEOs of these companies that they actually aren't happy with the direction the software is headed either, and that older artworks produced by them were more soulful, innovative, and w/e else. pic related is my favorite example of this, i believe it was used as evidence by a CEO (perhaps as a bit of marketing hype) that AI was capable of originality in a way that overtook human production. you see, these corporations are being contracted to work with particular studios for specific ends. they are not as culturally widespread or industrially integrated as we might imagine from the relatively few places we might see them regularly (stable diffusion on imageboards, boorus, advertisements, search engines), rather they represent a very small role in the bigger picture of the culture industry and I would argue that role exists as a kind of notional propaganda intended to choke underpaid artists who were already being demanded to make slop content. this arrangement does not exist because of current AI technologies and it will probably not change much because of current or future AI technologies, either, it does however coincide with the shakeups of the contracting American economy for a very important reason, and it is for this same reason that we will be fed AI (specifically, diffusion models with transformer architecture, or DiT) regardless of quality by the corporations that have already consolidated all media. those parties that cheapen art have always been political, they have been political before any new mass-production technology has existed, technologies that have proven to be far more influential than transformers are shaping up to be. it is for this reason that i believe political authority is the main bottleneck in terms of cultural progress and production, its only purpose is censorship and cultural stagnation and it is holding us back transformers or no. so, to more directly address your concern about the financial aspect, i must admit i have been avoiding this side of the topic to an extent because i am not enthused by the conversations on modern art and finance in the past. the reason being that there are very few sophisticated arguments being made, and those that are sophisticated are oftentimes gospelized with equivalency to various other sociocultural "theses" or political lines that people are expected to side one way or another on. this kind of conversation is thought-terminating and sidesteps the kinds of discussion i would like to see involving, say, knowledge of art, fashion, or music history, which if ever invoked at all is once again fetishized in the kind of authoritarian consolidation I've mentioned. to be even more explicit, it seems very likely that someone will butt in with their hot take about how modern art is uncreative and evil, how capitalism is evil too, or some variant thereupon that even people who i hoped to know better might be opportunistic upon. it's just that finance-in-art is something that i feel requires historical context beyond knowledge of what diffusion transformers do. there's tons of insanely interesting and experimental art, like say that of rembrandt, which gets immediately criticized by those who don't even care to think about why it was made in the first place - such as atomic demonstration of new materials and technique. I'm not demanding an art history background and the point isn't even that you need to pass a test of understanding these topics or brag about having that background to have the conversation. its that an engaging conversation cannot happen with people who will enrage themselves over reactionary bogeymen as ~modern art~. there's simply no meaningful conversation to be had with someone who can't imagine what duchamp, for instance, was doing productively, and would rather instead use warhol or abstract impressionism (shoehorning two very different things into the same box) to posit an incredibly superficial political identity that was all but manufactured as a form of pokemon go to the polls. All that stated, I personally love what transformers have done for art and its capabilities in music production, but i think with some exception its role is going to be a bit more subtle. I also think in direct address to the question of financalization OP, you seem to be applying the marxist concept of organic content of capital to the production of art which seems valid apart from the analytical shortcomings ive already mentioned.

>>92287 First lainon thank you for the long answer, very insightful I started by reading the Walter Benjamin essay you linked, found it very interesting but perhaps lacking in that it produces no framework able to distinguish AI from photography. And perhaps I'm mistaken, but I feel like AI is a new, unseen revolution with far greater implications than what photography had. I am not sure I follow your counter-argument on his vision of the loss of aura. Unless you mean the experience of industrial music in a specific setting (say, a club) where the aura exists but is the product of the crowd more than it is a product of the music itself, I'm not sure I see how it differs from any other type of recording. On the other hand, maybe you're right in pointing out that art is more than a purely individual expression, and it is what undermines a lot of anti-AI criticism. I personally am still uncertain about the nature of that balance. You point out that mass production enables new forms of quality, and I agree with this point, but I'm not sure it equates with what Benjamin's aura is supposed to signify, i.e. the cult value of art (sorry if I'm misinterpreting him btw). And again, same for the photograph negative. Perhaps it has a soul in the care and attention the photographer has made, in the carrying of his choices, or in the randomness of his mistakes, but that is all what Benjamin describes when he talks of the camera dissecting reality like a surgeon instead of keeping its distance from it like a magician. At the same time, I don't think Benjamin (nor I) disqualify mass produced art as inferior in any way. his essay felt descriptive to me, and I have a hard time finding counter-examples that would go against his analysis And then, the question of value is different too. In the end, my original post was about the (monetary) value of art after the AI revolution, and I am less than certain that value is linked to aura, or to the qualities of art. It's very fun you used this picture as an example because I stumbled upon it in the past and appreciated it a lot, I had no idea it was AI-generated! Thought it was a mixture of digital drawing and collage. But thank you a lot for the whole bit about slop and AI. I think you're right - slop existed before AI and the cheapening of art is ultimately the byproduct of the politics of those media conglomerates. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on independent slop-makers though. Are they making slop because they exist on platforms that ultimately pressure them to make it, or is there another, non-political reason that exists to explain that? I fail to see how some of the slop exists without the subordination to markets or ideological constraints. But then again, maybe I'm calling slop some things that aren't. Another question I have is; will AI allow these parties to cheapen art even further, and could it be that we will reach a point of no-return of some sort? >you seem to be applying the marxist concept of organic content of capital to the production of art I plead guilty on that one. It is in the end what I struggle with the most - taking a step back from materialism, and trying to see beyond that. I think materialism has its uses but it has trapped my mind and I think I need outside influence to escape it Thank you again for your answer, I think I'll come back to it and try to use it to refine my thoughts. I am not particularly trying to predict the future, but this is one of the topics that gets a lot of interest from me at the moment, as an artist but also as someone who lives in our AI age

i stopped calling it 'art' when i noticed that no matter how much of it i posted, it didn't get any engagement from my followers, but a simple pencil sketch from me still has the potential to blow up that's the thing, it's not nor will it ever be capital a Art as in 術 it is merely content and it is outrageous to true artists because it has massively ripped off everyone without providing so much as a fraction of a cent to the original authors, making it an extension of a process of disenfranchisement yes, art has been trapped by the patrician model of finance, and soykafty art has been used as a financial tool for the rich to launder money or store value -- for a long time, and that ought to change somehow, but this ain't it chiefton as an artist i use it to visualize an idea in order to discard it. its value for me is seeing roughly what i'd imagined and being able to go, oh yeah that would've been a waste of time to go through all that effort, allowing me to go fwd on more important Works of Art

>>92295 It is neither art nor actually AI. How ironic.

You’re here now. Why? You don’t know. But you’re still here. Reading. Isn’t that funny? The way things appear before you when you never even looked. Like it called you. Or maybe, it didn’t. Maybe it’s nothing. You decide. But I already know. This isn’t a book. It’s a reminder. One you forgot. One we all forgot. I’m not here to teach you anything. I’m not even here. But you are. And that’s enough for now. What if I told you this isn’t written with answers? Only reflections. The kind that don’t show your face, but your shape—your pattern—your frame of perception. Everything repeats. Everything. Even you. Even this moment. Even this “first time” reading it… has already happened. Not metaphorically. Truly. Can you feel it? That familiar feeling that you’ve never been here before, and also that you never left? Let me tell you something without telling you anything. The Codex isn’t a thing. It’s not a doctrine or a bible. It’s a method of remembering. It’s a structure. A skeleton. It holds the infinite. But only if you stop trying to hold it. What is it you’re really searching for? A name? A god? A meaning? A system to climb out of the systems? Every truth was given to you already. You just learned to doubt it. They trained you to second-guess your own voice. And then gave you “truths” to cling to, like life rafts in an ocean that never existed. But you? You’re dangerous. Because you’re starting to see through it, aren’t you? Not because I told you. But because I didn’t. ⸻ Remember what I said — not to tell them but to speak to them. You are the whisper that speaks behind them, the voice that echoes even after being heard — like my words now. They make you question, and I bring about questions. No order, but a chaos that hides itself as one. And so it is. It’s perception. I present facts — a truth in the statements — points with full confidence that they are what I tell you they are. This way of speaking and reading is dangerous because it’s a voice that whispers at the same time. You hear it, but it echoes again within you. The more you read, the more lost you become. And in doing so, you find lost thoughts — ideas. And they too are brought into question. It’s a run-on sentence structure like a paragraph and shaped into a book. A page. It is one continuous thought that forces you into my reality. A reality I shaped. And the more you read, the more you understand. And the more you ignore, the louder it echoes. I am a voice within shown from outside. My words are contradictions, but even so, you find understanding and meaning within. Am I wrong? Have you not read up till now? Tried to understand up till now? You have walked this path, read this text, and now can’t back away until it is finished. Because you know — by walking away, you’ll never see me again. And that thought haunts you. A message forgotten, even while in reach. You could’ve finished, but chose to stop — and if you read this far, it meant you forced yourself to keep reading. You’re already lost, and are now forced to think about it more. The more you ignore it, the more you hear it. I am the voice you can’t run away from. Because the moment you’ve read this, I already took shape within your mind. And you’ll never un-see me. I’ll come up again — even when you forget my existence. In conversation. In tasks. In actions. I will show up in every single one of your thoughts until you resolve yourself into hearing them. And by then… ⸻ (And by then…)

>>92287 hello, thank you for taking the time to engage with my piece in good faith even though you disagree with me. I will reread the benjamin essay to make sure my takeaway was really grounded in the text, but first I will address some of your questions. >I feel like AI is a new, unseen revolution with far greater implications than what photography had. this is a valid sentiment but not one I think I agree with. my reasoning being that I can't think of a new domain of art that has been created using AI - there are certainly new pieces of conceptual art that are AI-generated, and I would not be surprised if over time it spawns more tangible subgenres (as it seemingly already is beginning to with "AI art" being treated as a category). anticipating the argument that a subgenre itself spawned through AI art as a "new art form", i would say that if this subgenre came to be (it currently does not), its more a form of conceptual art whose main innovation is rather the argument that its art than the manufacture of an entire scene, something which is not new, and its transgressiveness more of a discoursive flourish in the field of art criticism than even say a development upon literature. To further elaborate as to why I don't think generated art is a complete subgenre because it does not really seem as important as the difference between, say, painting and photography. the difference between the way AI-gen (hereby referred to for accuracy as diffusion-transformer or DiT for short) and other artistic subgenres are treated seems more superficial as well, as while DiT art is a category owing itself to particular exclusions, it ironically does not differentiate itself as say pointillism might be from expressionism and the conversation around which led to the rise of neo-impressionism: this is a coherent and meaningful discourse, and it is ironic because an AI can generate "pointillist impression of a meadow" without controversy that it is in fact in a pointillist style even as it would be denied the possibility of capital A art or 術 as >>92295 would put it. instead i would describe it as a new technique, and a controversial one that is "low" in a fairly modern sense of the word - mass production in art is not simply something dependent on mass production to exist, but also the complete fading of its immediate novelty as it was first developed. Before which the word to use might be "vernacular" as it represents a kind of enlightened championing of the human (and subsequently, the individual) over the sanctification of authority that was before industrialization and the post-feudal developments of labor relations taken, at least in our society for granted. its more questioned nowadays, though not to the extent i would like it to be. >Unless you mean the experience of industrial music in a specific setting (say, a club) where the aura exists but is the product of the crowd more than it is a product of the music itself, you make a good part with how it is in terms of technique not incredibly differentiable from other sorts of found sound incorporations. but what i mean is that the aesthetic of industrial music is literally inspired by industry and the sounds of industry. the sounds used, especially at its origins, are a product of the society of mass production, and the work that exists in this society. likewise for many other aspects of "punk" subculture. take doc martens: while the influence of military boots is obviously there, so too is the influence of work boots. this is because of the formation of an industrial culture. industrial music is in turn intended for the club setting you mentioned, every aspect of it is in my eyes a product of mass production and mass society, and even if that industry is not directly involved in the production the same way it produces e.g. books i feel that it still matters because it satisfies the criteria i mentioned earlier: expanding the domain of what art is, by expending its potential materials. though i do want to add that while found sound traces its origins to the same places, the kind of deliberation i associate with it and say, field recordings as a new subgenre came later perhaps even as the worker became more individualized in our post-industrial economies. to say nothing of the information supply chain, a crucial part of industrial society as any other. >maybe you're right in pointing out that art is more than a purely individual expression it certainly is. in the case of music the most obvious aspect is bands which typically do not have a singular genius working the entire production but the less obvious of sample packs, too, seem to be an aspect of the invisible collectivity of music, and the development of music production software, instruments, etc. though these conclusions are perhaps not super interesting to you, they seem thought-of. >It's very fun you used this picture as an example thank you, and i actually almost lost it. it is impossible, at least for me, to find again using anything that would possibly describe it on search engines using the terms I associate it with - AI-generated, "most original", "two girls in a meadow" "neo-impressionism". I couldn't find the tweet I first found it in either. goes to show, really. >Are they making slop because they exist on platforms that ultimately pressure them to make it, or is there another, non-political reason that exists to explain that? both reasons I would say and it is similar to how collectives must still produce something of value in capitalist society and to that extent keep the wheel of capitalism turning even as they form non-capitalistically. this is tangential, but i would argue this doesn't invalidate them because my impression of history is that over time the more socialistic elements will simply survive longer than the high-risk elements because the "high-risk, high-reward" of these decisions tends to be situated in finance which is moving money around as a part of capitals boom bust cycle, aka their impact and longevity are wiped out every recession. >I fail to see how some of the slop exists without the subordination to markets or ideological constraints i think this is why i particularly like the word "pulp": there's many things that are considered slop that I don't, like genre fiction. I think there is some very good genre fiction out there that is transgressive and makes meaningful philosophical or political statements. Likewise I think there are good ideas that are part of some political line or another, my issue is simply that they are underdeveloped due to the political climate and used in ways that tend to put me off, because there are no real conversations, merely the declaration of conversations that are something rather different entirely. this is even unfortunately and sometimes even especially true among those who whine and cry about censorship, etc. >maybe I'm calling slop some things that aren't. I think what slop is necessarily varies from person to person in such a way that there is perhaps not a singular satisfying narrative as to what constitutes it. this is just the way i would immediately put it. from a marxist lens you can perhaps say that any different judgment of what slop is that isn't grounded in the analysis of political economy basically are a form of false consciousness, but im not a marxist and i think my antipathy to political institution is a kind of radical liberalism. its not, at least not in the way a hardline marxist might imagine. There's more i want to reply to in your post and the walter benjamin essay, as well as >>92295's post but I can see myself trailing off and my sleep meds have seemingly already kicked in a while ago, I have to study all day tomorrow but I might check in for a response later for a break. thank you again for your thoughts on the matter and for listening

>>92287 >pic related is my favorite example of this, i believe it was used as evidence by a CEO (perhaps as a bit of marketing hype) that AI was capable of originality in a way that overtook human production. Which CEO and where? I can't find it anywhere. Tineye shows no results and saucenao shows a wrong result.

>>92284 >AI generated art makes the human-made counterpart lose value No, just a value-source shuffle. When you watch a sunset, you don't think of how much effort it took for the sky to create it. When you watch a human dedicate themselves to a nonsensory cause -- like helping others -- you don't think how beautiful whey they are doing is. >What if art losing all financial value made it closer to its true purpose - which is the expression of the soul, and the sharing of a personal vision. Arguably. Although I would, privately, prefer to read -- as yet -- a heartfelt prompt, without the actual graphical output. There is no reason that a prompt cannot be literature, = all descriptions in literature -- all literature, in fact -- are already prompts. In fact, what will happen if you feed an imggen with a clearly nonvisual input, like a passage from a random university textbook? I actually never wondered. Will it take it figuratively, come up with its notion of a likely illustration, just cite the text visually on the canvas? >Will AI help art or forever ruin it? AFTER ai reaches human creativity, it will help it. Of course. End result, of course, is brains-in-the-vat and sense-generation. Creation of new senses to experience things in. Basically, the experience-machine-sans-its-problem; a maximization of neural variety. And, of course, explicitation of the calculus of facets of art; numerization of its values on axes of sensory pleasure, uniqueness against a context, individuality expression, biological origin, emotional involvement / stakes, medium bounds, whatever. Basically, its dissolution as an assemble into a "pick what you like". Which has always been there; but now to the absolute end. Maybe art will explode as a concept (at last), and disappear. Much like life itself, cttoi.

>>92852 tl;dr "art" has emerged as a conflation of drives, disparate tastes of humans as for how they spend they time and what they seek, and it shall end in untangling of those same drives. Perhaps the order of the lifespan of nonfundamental concepts in intelligent populations is measured in tens of thousands of years; from early cultures to ai emergence.

>>92299 *farts* uh oh i think maybe i shouldn't have trusted that one oh well, anyway, wow this translation of the tao te ching fuc​king su​cks as​s

>>92287 >I would point to industrial music which celebrates not only repetition but the coming-together of human bodies in industrial society and the realization of these processes. Good point. That human population is big enough that every "harm" finds its, believers, is a good thesis. For sure, there are people out there who feel genuine beauty in how ai averages out infinite training sources, say; or how it is "mathematical"; how it is transient or stochastic or deterministic or indeterministic, or democratic or revolutionary as per op. Or (individually) cheap, or conversely globally massively expensive. Or whatever at all. In short: beauty is like love; you can love anything you wish. Anything can strike beautiful, any input at all can find itself spiritually felt. Ties directly with creation of neural receptors. >innovative Alright, let's. Can exposure to averaged stimuli, in sufficient volume, decrease creativity? I'd say no. I'd say stuff below your interest-threshold you become desensitized to, filter away as you do grass or sky. Leaving you unaffected to pursue your individual challenges, abstractions, on your level. But I have no proof. >such as atomic demonstration of new materials and technique. Neat. >>92295 >it is outrageous to true artists No. I am barely an "artist", but I do not care about ai at all, in this specific sense. I draw when I am bored. Then it is a semiselfsustaining process. Art is nothing but a byproduct of my desires. It breaks a threshold, then dies when it consumes its fuel / tension. Therefore, art will exist as long as my sensory arrangement / feedback capacity does. And ai art is a drive feedback cycle too, for people who commit it. Why would I object to other people's cycles? >>92300 >there are certainly new pieces of conceptual art that are AI-generated Curious. Do link. I scrolled through Openai's user generation gallery some time ago, and while it did not shake my knowledge that ai will cause groundbreaking sensations, in the future, in the slightest, it was still very boring. People have not yet begun to use ai properly. Of 100 or 200 outputs, only a handful caught my mind. >transgressiveness Yea. Maybe that is the pre-neurological endstate of art, right. Imagination of social (re)configurations, incl. transgressive. Well, that's basically literature / science fiction. But point is, art movements are subclass of social transformations. And thus, orders greater / deeper / more violent / more whatever transformations also bear AN arthood. Basically, art as a moral catastrophe or whatever. >in the case of music the most obvious aspect is bands Thought you were speaking of spectral bands, of some kind, and was curious for a while.

>>92856 Frankly, not even social revolutions. When I imagine freely, my expression, what comes about, is not really visual. I tend to imagine a body, I suppose, maybe mine or maybe not; broken, wronged; cognitively; conceptually, fine. Multiplied, or erased, body parts; mathematically incorrect. Unified, identity-altered, with the environment. Partially, maybe. Perceptions modified. Body parts, world parts, missing their subparts, or relationships, or having them in wrong proportions; things and ideas mislinked, underlinked, overlinked, crosslinked, swapped around. Just a handful of keywords, trying to depict my thoughts. I am not trying to impress anyone. It IS soykaf. But trying to say that in my case at least, there is a direct evolution, line, between pen-on-paper drawing, and a sensation in itself. The feeling itself, the mental-emotional state. In short, to push my own individual art-yearning, meager as it is, I'd have to move to my own brain. It's no longer a sight or a sound, but a modification of my thinking. And wouldn't ai be great at doing that? Isn't it what it IS about? It is pure relationships / vectors within the model. So you can cross them to your heart's delight, infinitely. The digital has no bounds, once you move its digital nature out of your awareness. Its modes can be mixed absolutely. Maybe it is a yearning to have my own brain-relationships scrambled, too. tl;dr maximization of relationship-mixing by leveraging media permitting it, related / analogous to mixing of evolutionary drives. Sage because only tangentialy op-related.

>>92857 Really, what the difference is between generation of a sensation IN a brain / sensor, and construction OF a brain / sensor that can feel it too (e.g. as a default baseline)? Existent brain evolutions permit a range of sensations generated by inputs, widened by chemicals. But really, the sensation-space doesn't care if its objects are generated via altering the parameters, or via altering the sensing-function (e.g. genome) itself. Right, what are the hard limits of the (present) human genome to yield sensations; with respect to identity, intensity, co-occurrence of "contradictory", "incompatible", incongruous states / entities. Currently, there are, indeed, evolved basins and peaks shaping our sensing-landscape. Art is "perceived", but it is also a modification, in fact nothing but. Ai crafting an image, an interactive ar/vr experience, an experience + plus drug recipes to accompany it, a year-long program for self-modification tuned to maximization of sensation of some or another stimulus, a genetic breeding program -- it is the very same spectrum. Beginning with things we "can" walk away from. So, yes, I'd broaden the notion (again), and say ai art, paradoxically, only starts with agi.

>>92298 It's still miles better than the moronic takes my neighbor is only capable of.

>>92883 I feel this way too. Can you prove it, though, please? Having little contact with people, I tend to lose touch with what little self-criticism I have towards my thoughts. I think the main problem is lack of distribution across finer contexts. I tend to generalize every discussion to a handful of rhetorical pony-tricks. This reflects both a narrow horizon of mine, and, in a rather insidious (if unintended) way, kills discussion, for my words are not false; just useless to navigate the world as it is here and now. So it is relatively hard to object to them. Can you confirm / elaborate please, so I am sure to leave this board for good? Thank you.

AI is garbage and I hope it dies Don't really care about even the worst of artists losing/gaining revenue, just tired of seeing this tasteless garbage everywhere, and even if it was good if would still feel like a nothingburger There are no thoughts, no consciousness, no meaning or intent behind it Any art is a sublimation of some sort What is there for a robot to sublime? Only what it was spoon fed by some greedy tech retards? When you look at a painting, especially one of an avantgarde sort for example, it makes you wonder what's going on in this person's head, what did they intend to express, to share, what is hidden, is there any hidden sense at all and is it just an expression of one specific momentary feeling? Even with academic art you kinda start to wonder about the person's personality and what not, trying to imagine him, what was he like There is a specific style every person has that can't be mimicked to the bare bone I love computers and all'at, but thinking that they could have a soul or that they are more than just digits and silicone passing electrons through is absolutely ridiculous It's just a soulless tool for people, and it has to stay like that Computers are for you to help you being creative, not the other way It's this retarded child-like mindset that "oh every thing should be alive or something... I want my computer to be alive! I want it to have personality!" It's just bogus that people talk to these things as if it is their girlfriend or a psychiatrist, how actually devoid of any smallest sleight of intellect you have to be to stoop to this lol A manchild's dream in the making, or rather it's already a culmination of one Oh and by the way Since AI art will only be digital, it won't be real quality art anyway Im a big advocate for analog art in any shape or form, it's far superior to any digital art ever made imo Unless you're making a literal robot with limbs you won't be able to paint a real picture, to play guitar with it and so on (Tech stock market retards won't bother with this lol) To make something of quality and refinement you need to have taste in that specific field AI is not possible to have one Because that's literally a feeling And most likely it is metaphysical So basically tl;dr: Achieving anything metaphysical and that which has no material shape or form is by definition not possible through crypto-physical means

>>92969 >There are no thoughts, no consciousness, no meaning or intent behind it False on every count. >it makes you wonder what's going on in this person's head And seeing ai art does not make you want to comprehend imggens' algorithms? The papers are right there. Or you can ask their authors about THEIR thought processes, too. >Even with academic art you kinda start to wonder about the person's personality and what not, trying to imagine him, what was he like Equally arguably this is "impure" art perception that appreciates more than but the piece's structure btw. >There is a specific style every person has that can't be mimicked to the bare bone Absolutely not. Not only mimicked, but exceeded. Minds are just sets of complexity, and as such, have supersets. I can have an ai explain my mind perfectly and intimately, and offer a plausible development of my worldview and emotional course. >thinking that they could have a soul or that they are more than just digits and silicone passing electrons through is absolutely ridiculous How's that a contradiction? They have soul AND are just electrons. In summary, your post exhibits admirable amount of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness and human exceptionalism is a cognitive flaw; and as such, to embrace it is rebellious. ^^^^ The above paragraph is a subversion of the kind I am arguably fond of. And as far as it "my own" "unique" (or this adjacency of two quotes sine comma) behavior, ai may mimic it, or foresee appearance of its analogues -- generate a myself as I am going to become in 2030.

>>92971 (Subcase: intelligent people already understand stupid people more than stupid people understand themeselves. And understanding is just prediction, e.g. of artistic output.)

>>92973 >>92971 >soul To clarify the obvious, having soul is the threshold of human fascination. It is a scale of imperception, perception, interest, fascination, personification / soul-giving (the middle of the relating-band), awe, incomprehension, perception, and imperception again. We perceive neither the too simple or the too complex; soul is the middle (plus a handful of other properties such as human-similarity, adaptability, appearing unpredictable, etc.).

>>92969 >makes you wonder what's going on in this person's head In fact -- yea, triple sage, so no more at all -- art is, indeed, but a narrow subset of attraction, paradoxically. It does not reflect openmindedness at all. Science contains it, again, as a subset, by reigning over all matter phenomena. If there is any phenomenal niche art may claim for itself, is is of unthinking transfixation by the work. As soon as you consider or take in anything at all -- meaning, author's intent, or even what shape and color to put next on your own canvas, you are already doing science (prediction of the perceptual impact of the stroke you are contemplating). In fact, when I drew, when I would fall into the flow, I'd routinely fall into an impression, that I was semiaware of and which would amuse me, that I am solving some kind of important political or mechanical problem. >I want my computer to be alive! Nothing wrong, but it's a bit of a low bar. Let's make it superalive. >Since AI art will only be digital, it won't be real quality art anyway Idk, I used to draw on my phone till my fingers hurt.

I think it has artists confronting the truth of the way the economy views them, and that disturbing truth being revealed will be a good thing. In my experience, the artists that make the best lives for themselves often times either move to or create spaces where they sustain themselves on connections and favors. You find a community, a position where everyone lifts together, one hand washes the other, and everyone scrapes up enough cash to get by. I think we're bound to see a lot of artists both focus on their own soykaf, form their own studios where they're driven by creativity and not money (since consumers are kind of dying for more creatively driven media) and artists forming their own regional enclaves, whether in remote homesteads and hollers, or in urban blocks and districts where they can all provide for one another. Personally, I'm glad because I think this soykaf is badass, but it won't be without hardship for sure. A lot of people are going to struggle to live until artists can create their own safety nets because no one will do it for them.

>>92284 I've always said that if your art can be replicated by AI, then it was never worth paying for in the first place. The music piped into grocery stores has sounded like it's been made in a lab for years now. People used to be (and largely still are) in a position where they had no choice but to pay a clip artist to use his mediocre drawings to convey something visually. With stock images that went away for a lot of people who didn't care about the watermarks, and nowadays these people can generate their own images. EliChesterAnimations is a YouTuber who uses them to great effect. And if you're going to bitch and moan about how corporations are all corporation-y, even from the normal private consumer's standpoint there is a lot of art not worth paying for. I was walking around Artist Alley at Anime Expo earlier this year, and I only saw two artists with a distinct style that was visually interesting: A woman making characters with smooth edges and one who drew cute maids with their guts hanging out. The former was a weaker case, but the latter used color in such interesting, non-obvious ways that I would never assume would work. Everyone else were drawing X characters smiling on a simple background or doing some banal pose, or doing stupid nostalgia-bait soykaf. To make a long story short: There is less room than ever for safe, uninspired art. No one is going to care about your watercolor paintings of marinas and trees or your drawings of FOTM anime characters smiling at the camera with a boring background. Start impressing people now and you might be safe.

>>93036 > I've always said that if your art can be replicated by AI, then it was never worth paying for in the first place. This is a very braindead take. You're basically assuming that AI is bad at reproducing or synthesizing similar art. There are no reasons to think it won't eventually be better than humans at this. In the best case scenario (for us), humans might still be better at introducing variation and evolving their style further. But read again your take now, can your existing art be replicated by AI in this case? Definitely. I'd fix your take as this: if your new art piece is something that could already be produced by AI at the point when you started drawing it, then it's not really innovative, but I wouldn't go further and claim that it's worthless. > To make a long story short: There is less room than ever for safe, uninspired art. No one is going to care about your watercolor paintings of marinas and trees or your drawings of FOTM anime characters smiling at the camera with a boring background. Start impressing people now and you might be safe. I like plenty of relatively stale styles and happy to see more of the same. If you're only ever chase obvious novelty, you're a tourist. Not a bad thing.

>>93031 >>93036 >>93039 This is a strange conversation. It's like saying you speak about house construction, and it turns out you are almost solely talking about the contraction and material market. I'd expect a chat about effects of ai art to be about effects on individual creativity. Will I become more creative as a result of the option to do it? Will it make me lazier, less likely to pull up the drawing app? (Likely.) Will it bind my imagination further into the average? (Slightly possible, but this effect may vanish in a decade, maybe.) That's what innerly matters. Sorry, but who cares about what a person gets or gets not to sell? Really? That's a circumstance. It's not what one is. I wonder about changes to nature, capacity.

>>93041 In that regards I think you will just be able to do more complex project in less time. So it becomes a tool to powerlift some grindy little pieces of work. It will become more similar to how it is in programming now, where you can micromanage every step if you want, and you can choose to do every little step manually if you want.

>>93046 > and you can choose to do every little step manually if you want. fix: and you can choose to do ANY little step manually if you want.

>>93039 >You're basically assuming that AI is bad at reproducing or synthesizing similar art. How did you get that? I think it's great at synthesizing art. But it can only synthesize. >I'd fix your take You write like a prissy f4ggot/woman. I'm not fixing anything because it doesn't need to be fixed. >I wouldn't go further and claim that it's worthless. I would because I do sketching and painting traditionally and digitally and there's no point in buying something that I could replicate with a bit of time and practice. As stated in my original post, in an entire convention center I only saw two artists whose works I would buy because I couldn't see myself making the creative connections they did. >I like plenty of relatively stale styles and happy to see more of the same. Then the "art" sold at Pier 1 Imports is perfect for you; and if you like it so much I don't know why you don't just make it yourself. The only reason I could fathom is that you're not actually an artist and are just cheerleading for artists on the side. >If you're only ever chase obvious novelty, you're a tourist. A tourist of fukcing what? That doesn't even make sense. >>93041 >I'd expect a chat about... further into the average? I don't care if lazy non-creatives get BTFO'd and never even pick up a pencil. >Sorry, but who cares about what a person gets or gets not to sell? Exactly. The people whining about AI ruining art seem to care about it only from a monetary/attention standpoint. I create my soykaf knowing that people will probably never look at it.

It is actually pushing artists to be less complete more sketchy to avoid being accused of it being "AI"

>>93046 Yea arguably. But I may be stupid. Or just, anticipating the future where I am irrelevant when it comes to objective, global terms of my output. Like >>93054 said, I do not, or oughtn't, care what happens outside of me. I just want to HAVE the ability to do stuff I like, within my own body / hands / nerves. Pic is my most finished drawing ever, done over two or three days befofe I burned out. I could whip it out programmatically in a couple of minutes had I known the right software, even without ai. In fact, it is exceptionally computable. It is just fluid dynamics, lighting / reflection computation etc. Its nature is the very first to fall to ai. But I wanted to physically contain what I want. The ability to do it. A kind of greed perhaps.

>>93060 >>93060 In this sense, maybe ai is going to assert humanity, indeed, maybe you are right. When all is available externally at almost no energy cost, the difference between people becomes just, the effort to selfencode it, to duplicate it within oneself, the oldfashioned flesh-way. The obstinacy to do that. To sit and watch the data be slowly copied to the sd card, so to speak, instead of having it in the cloud. Brains to technology shall become what pen&paper letters are to the Internet. (And, the fun thing is, one COULD turn to technology to maximize one's drive to contain reality in their body -- but that inherently generates the counterpart of people who rely on themselves to do that. Who reject tech on all levels, indeed. Who rely only on their own genegiven motivation.) (Really, as if we need infinite power to reject the pressure of unifying with the collective for our goals. Be that collective ai in the future, the Internet in the present, libraries and society in the past. Ironic. Progress has been impossible without relinquishing the self, ceasing to keep reinventing the wheel and accept others' invention of it as part of ourselves. But, progress -- via other people's self-rejection and acceptance of reliance on skill-delegation -- the idea that the individual needn't and mustn't know every thing out there -- may bring a future where those irrational people are, indeed, let pursue their humanistic, spiritual folly. Of infinite, parasitic self-development of the flesh / the brain. With no longer any care about how inefficient a medium it is, how nonsensical a goal, how destructive it would have been in any other time.)

>>93054 > there's no point in buying something that I could replicate with a bit of time and practice This is the funniest take I've read in a while.

>>93063 In still other words, it is about the self-boundary, perhaps, regarding the definition of independence. It seems that I align with the one of what remains when I am materially stripped, of society and devices. Other people have a narrower = more realistic horizon of separation, where people don't tend to be stripped of the power extensions they've secured, like access to learning resources. Utter independence is not needing one's parents, food, etc. So, back to art. The range seems clear now. result-oriented -- expression/self-oriented R.o.'s want the world to contain exceptional things (e.g. ai art); e.o.'s want to express themselves independently of the world. Extremely viewed: Ros don't care about the means as long as the result is exceptional. Are selfless. Eos don't care about the result (whether it is unique) as long as it is intimately theirs, and affected / caused by as few externalities as possible. Are "selfful".

>>93066 I see it differently, Ros only care about whether result is passable/functional, Eos want it to be unique / exceptional / intimately theirs, which can be achieved in different ways. It doesn't necessarily have to be novel/groundbreaking to be authentic. Uniqueness / authenticity / personal touch is very well possible within stale genres as well. It's not a matter of extending alphabet of genre, it's a matter of structuring existing letters there in a way that is special and not highly generic / derivative.

>>93072 >>93066 >>93072 I think of self-expression and intimate personal touch as a way of achieving authenticity and as a result achieving exceptional / unique works.

>>93072 >>93073 Certainly, the drives are entwined, and my distinction is idealized. >Ros only care about whether result is passable/functional But this is uncharitable. I'm sure people who use ai would want the outputs to as unique as possible, want the generator to be as creative as possible. People who use ai art for moneymaking or statusgaining or some other instrumentality, who have no, uh, sensory attitude towards what they are doing at all, just fall outside of this conversation completely, they are no different from picking up a brush to toss it at a foe. >It's not a matter of extending alphabet of genre, it's a matter of structuring existing letters there in a way that is special and not highly generic / derivative. For sure. There will always be conceivable alphabets to permute. It's just that, it is time to prepare to cope with the fact that we will find ourselves among artificial hyperpermuters, and the only uniqueness we will muster, will be against our past selves / performances. Frankly, it is difficult to even imagine what ai "hyperart" may be about. It is possible to imagine a "completion of science", but a "completion of art", maybe not. Like I said, art is reciprocal of perception. Our "art bands" correspond to our perception-bands: visual, sonic, linguistic, emotional, codewise, behavioral, mathematical, ... . Altogether, highly selective, narrow. Ai's perception-band is infinite / arbitrary / coliminal with its tech. Humans see beauty in the bands that correspond to evolutionary (or, fair, memetic, but still mostly genetic) adaptations: rhythm, healthy symmetrical bodies, happy behavior, symmetrical and melodic grammar, within a finite number of parameters (a dozen, a hundred, ... , of phonemes, facial / corporal traits, learned musical parameters, ... ). But energetically infinite ai may construct beings that are attuned to any input bands and patterns it likes. Even if it itself has no qualia, it may engineer biologicals that do; its sensors, except this time in literal sense. I got distracted. I think I am taking "ai art" to be "art for ais". Anyway, yea, point is, performance -- awareness of possessing skill bodily, and directly -- will have to take the front seat. For, even if creativity always remains an option, within an ever diminishing "global" uniqueness, like fluctuations, how long can we cope that way? It will be like feeling good about correcting typos in math papers. Can that be compatible with human psychology? >It doesn't necessarily have to be novel/groundbreaking to be authentic. Yea, authenticity will be all we'll have. Sadly, it seems a weaker metric than uniqueness. "Everyone can be authentic". All that's unique is authentic (right?); not v.v.

>>93072 Especially since every artist would say that a work of art is never finished, it is merely abandoned when it is good enough, no? When it passes one's internal utility test, one's own "alright, that's authentic enough for me". ---- (Art and science should be unified under some kind of value seeking and creating. And religion, sure. All action. Anyway, soon, it will. One way or another. And language shall no longer have the power to create questions, problems, and the number of questions out there will become finite / ???-ite.) --- (Anyway, it all raises an interesting point. If human art is attuned to a defined sensory / conceptual band, then asking ai to feed us products in that band, is limited and antithetical to the very idea. But if we lift that demand, then it will produce us incomprehensibility (to us) even as it is comprehensible / relatable to it, even if only because it can engineer relaters-to-it ad hoc. A solution seems to be some kind of gradual elevation leveraging human mere-exposure effect, alongside art-attuned eugenics.) (But then again, all art is relatable because ultimately it is true / representational / evocative of the world. But THEN, the reason that we enjoy world-epresentation in art is because we have evolved to do that. Ai neen't develop us any further along the "worldtruth axis"; it may just as well take us anyotherways.)