demagogue on 19/11/2022 at 13:02
For anyone that doesn't like messing with Github, someone's finally come out with a version of Stable Diffusion called ArtRoom that you can just directly install locally like a normal app. (
https://artroom.ai/download-app)
The model is something like 7GB, so you need some space for it.
I guess there are online versions that are better and more open than they were before. But I like having a local version anyway.
Another tip that's making the rounds these days are negative prompts. That's how you get rid of the weird eyes and extra arms and fingers and other artifacts. But you need to make sure the system you're using has a way to enter negative prompts.
The default ones for ArtRoom are: lowres, bad anatomy, bad hands, text, error, missing fingers, extra digit, fewer digits, cropped, worst quality, low quality, normal quality, jpeg artifacts, signature, watermark, username, blurry.
----
The thing is, I think I mentioned this already before ITT, but I can already predict a kind of over saturation really soon that's going to change the scene. My AI Art folder already has well over 1000 works. They're almost all stunning. But there comes a point where ... well there's a theory behind this. As the generation of a thing becomes cheaper, at a certain point you don't have to collect the works. You just generate them on demand and trust they'll always be there. It changes the way you think about what art even is and how you interact with it. I think soon enough this is going to become a thing for most art forms. People will just take it for granted that the art or music or movie or whatever it is is just one click away when they want it. It's going to diminish the value or even point of saving art as a unique artifact in itself, since 4000 just like it are just a click away. I don't even know if that's as bad as it sounds, but it's inevitable I think. I also think at some point there's going to be a backlash where's going to be a fetish for "authentic creation", and a whole movement coming out of that.
Well, who knows what will happen. Who could have predicted the last year? We'll see.
Azaran on 19/11/2022 at 15:43
Quote Posted by demagogue
The thing is, I think I mentioned this already before ITT, but I can already predict a kind of over saturation really soon that's going to change the scene. My AI Art folder already has well over 1000 works. They're almost all stunning. But there comes a point where ... well there's a theory behind this. As the generation of a thing becomes cheaper, at a certain point you don't have to collect the works. You just generate them on demand and trust they'll always be there. It changes the way you think about what art even is and how you interact with it. I think soon enough this is going to become a thing for most art forms. People will just take it for granted that the art or music or movie or whatever it is is just one click away when they want it. It's going to diminish the value or even point of saving art as a unique artifact in itself, since 4000 just like it are just a click away. I don't even know if that's as bad as it sounds, but it's inevitable I think. I also think at some point there's going to be a backlash where's going to be a fetish for "authentic creation", and a whole movement coming out of that.
Well, who knows what will happen. Who could have predicted the last year? We'll see.
I imagine this will spell doom for graphic designers and illustrators
heywood on 19/11/2022 at 16:06
Or, after looking at enough output from an AI, we'll begin to spot its tell-tales, and grow tired of it and move on. The earlier output from Dream already looks very samey now. And the set of generated images that you posted above all have perspective issues. I'm impressed by the sculpture though, unless the AI just copied something from its database.
But setting aside the recent NFT bubble as a one time thing, digital art has never been particularly valuable. In digital form, we use it mostly for background wallpapers. There are endless numbers of those available for free on image sharing sites. Some are used to make cheap prints sold at gift shops and novelty stores, but those have no lasting value. If I had an AI image generator and wanted to make money, I'd train it to generate logos.
In order for a piece of art to have value it has to be tangible, unique, and have a story behind it.
Sulphur on 19/11/2022 at 17:26
Well, there's nothing stopping someone from eventually using GPT-3 or a similar model to also generate a unique story for a piece of art. If you want tangible, you can just feed it to the next version of (
https://globalnews.ca/news/8736867/ai-da-robot-painter-ai-technology/) Ai-Da.
What dema's alluding to is that any creative art form has the potential to be colonised by procedurally generated products from a sophisticated enough neural network or collection of AIs. It's inevitable that, in this version of our reality, that there's going to be a remixer that'll just take our parameters for entertainment and generate something we'll enjoy on the fly. Given enough training data, we could probably see something as good as a Dan Brown novel come out in the next five to ten years from one of these machines, which is very low-hanging fruit but paves the way for something possibly more profound eventually. Infinite content, but not exactly the way Arcade Fire imagined it, I'd wager.
The fetishisation of 'genuine' art already exists, dema, it's only going to be that in the divide of machine-generated remixes and human-produced art, we'll end up wanting to pledge our allegiances to one or the other, and quickly realise that in a world where it's genuinely difficult to distinguish between the two, and who's conning whom, it won't matter to the average person. While that's depressing, I think that once we grapple with the idea of what 'meaningful' really is in that future of extreme over-saturation and overloaded filters (which we've already begun on our own), we'll hopefully come out the other side a bit more evolved.
lowenz on 20/11/2022 at 21:42
It's not "depressing" if the models can evolve by themselves.
It's depressing if they target only our entertainment, being something like a human mind eternal nursing (=Huxley's Soma)
heywood on 23/11/2022 at 18:35
It is a neat technical accomplishment to be able to generate an interesting image with as little as two words. But it also makes for a very shallow art form when the artist is limited to just a handful of words and parameters for input. The creative process is basically thinking up a general idea, and then trial-and-error testing it, and repeating until it spits out something you like. When it does, you can digitally share it with others, and they can have exact copies. That's only a step removed from mass produced art.
We already spend our lives surrounded by cheap art, so what's the significance of one more method for producing it?
I don't see it devaluing existing forms of art. The value of an original piece is determined by a lot of things: the stature of the artist, the story behind the work, the significance of the work to other artists, and the number of people who have seen it. It's not so much the physical item as the human story that goes with it.
One of my favorite artists is René Magritte. His paintings are technically and conceptually simple enough that any halfway decent painter could emulate him convincingly. Perhaps someday soon an AI will generate something in a similar style. But even if it could generate a new Magritte on demand, it wouldn't be of any interest to me. I like Magritte because of the questions he was asking through his paintings, in the context of when he painted them, as a member of the surrealist movement in Paris during the modernist period. Removed from that context, his best works are still clever. But in that context they are subversive.
Azaran on 23/11/2022 at 20:31
I can see AI art becoming useful for people who wish to give form to their fictional works. E.g., writers of illustrated fantasy novels. The only issue is getting the image style to match. So for instance it's easy to generate the image of a castle. But then if you need a second image of that castle aflame, it may be tricky to get the AI to generate a matching castle, and could require dozens of tries. Unless you use a base image.
Quote Posted by heywood
Removed from that context, his best works are still clever. But in that context they are subversive.
Every major movement is historically contextual. If Picasso/Magritte/Monet, &c emerged today, they'd be mere drops in the 21st century ocean of excess. You'd have to scream EXTREMELY loud to be heard in today's cacophony, and even then you'll be forgotten within a week thanks to the endless stream of info packed feeds we're all exposed to.
Starker on 23/11/2022 at 23:56
There are a lot of artists who failed to stand out in their time and were only recognised later.
