demagogue on 24/11/2022 at 02:35
This tech is leveling up in leaps and bounds. Midjourney v4 is coming on line soon, and lots beta images are coming out. I think one commenter summed it up by saying it's actually what people imagined Dalle 2 was going to be before they actually used Dalle 2. From what I've seen it's a big head above its predecessors. What's striking is just how hard and fast it's coming.
I remember like in the 1990s imagining what the 21st Century was going to be like, for me and the world, and my imagination carried me about to the 2020s, after which things got blurry. More or less things went as I imagined they would. But sure to form, I feel like we're in uncharted territory now. I don't know what to expect from anything.
Sulphur on 24/11/2022 at 13:51
Quote Posted by heywood
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.
I misread this as your talking about the normal creative process; the reason I did that is because this describes literally any creative process. Any creative person does exactly this.
Quote:
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.
The value of art is entirely notional, as you've outlined, and what you're talking about is the rarified medium of exhibited pieces in a gallery somewhere. They're important, but also not consumer entertainment, where the bulk of our speculations lie. Having said that, let's pivot to capital A Art and play the devil's advocate: why couldn't art created by a machine not have context and story attached? Would it be less worthy of the moniker of art because it wasn't created by human hands? What if the story of the neural network that birthed singular pieces of art was along the lines of something that it showed a preference for a subject, like a naiad, and spent the rest of its existence portraying them in various lights (and prolific excess) like a person smitten? Is the thing that provides meaning to art simply the fact that humans created it, or is it what it provokes in the viewer along with its unique context, human or not?
demagogue on 25/11/2022 at 01:58
Quote Posted by demagogue
This tech is leveling up in leaps and bounds. Midjourney v4 is coming on line soon, and lots beta images are coming out.
Stable Diffusion 2.0 meanwhile is having a (
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z3koal/i_think_all_the_hate_toward_sd20_doesnt_make_sense/) rocky go of it. They're saying it's taking one step back so it can take 2 steps forward in the future, but it doesn't look good in the meantime, however long that lasts. Then again, it's free & open source.
Edit: To explain a bit more, they're replacing their entire model with one completely empty of potentially copyright protected images, e.g., anything by any artist after the 1930s, and most photos of people, which guts an awful lot out of it. And not just marginal content, but the really core stuff people would need to make anything useful with it.
Azaran on 25/11/2022 at 03:37
It's official. We're living in the Matrix
Cipheron on 30/11/2022 at 00:34
Quote Posted by Azaran
They're also the only engine to accept mature prompts and generate them accordingly :p
Lol, I tried a couple just to check that out and I wouldn't recommend it. The engine has no concept of what a person is, so you get a Lovecraftian chimera of porn limbs and torsos. The problem is that it's too incoherent to even be properly disturbing, and just gets boring after you've done a couple.
Tocky on 30/11/2022 at 05:38
Even when you are not trying for sexualized imagery it adds it. Using the words witch, moon, lithe, woman, beautiful, still produces such. I assume it is because the program has been trained that way by acceptance of downloads done as success. It adds an extra limb or crosses the eyes in hilarious ways but it's still better than it was. It is refining what it observes we want through a self correcting algorithm.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/ORWkBKS.pngIt ignores some things you type such as moon in favor of what it thinks is key despite them being first in order. It has a more lascivious bent due to downloads. It's tempting to blame it's jaundiced eye on the program but the fault is our own. The mention of full body to correct a half or closer image is misinterpreted.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/xNaLjfD.pngThe other program is more artistic but this one produces more realism and sometimes almost gets what you want. Still not as good as painting something yourself but perhaps with time it will listen to implicit instruction and generate a thing exactly. Is it art? In a way. And in another a rehashing of previously accepted imagery. It still produces pleasing works on occasion and leaves you feeling that if only you could find the right words you would have something approaching art.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/70cMm77.pngInline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/AqS1tjA.pngInline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/Q15cBnn.pngAzaran on 30/11/2022 at 14:18
Quote Posted by Cipheron
Lol, I tried a couple just to check that out and I wouldn't recommend it. The engine has no concept of what a person is, so you get a Lovecraftian chimera of porn limbs and torsos. The problem is that it's too incoherent to even be properly disturbing, and just gets boring after you've done a couple.
I did a handful of very specific ones (particular acts described in detail), and about half were right on the money
Azaran on 30/11/2022 at 23:19
My bold prediction: within the next few decades, most of our entertainment will be AI generated. The tech to make AI generated (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf6eOSJgN0Y) music is out there too, and AI video tech is already starting up.
Music, movies, tv shows, will be mainly AI generated within 20 years. You'll be able to feed a full movie /show script into an AI program, and it will spit out a complete film or show within a few minutes. All it will need is human revision to iron out the kinks, some editing, and voilà
