https://blue.feedland.org/?river=http://data.feedland.org/blue/feeds/V91Vaults.xml The feed for my FeedLand notes. Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:13:31 GMT feedland v0.6.43 https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:13:31 GMT http://rpc.rsscloud.io:5337/pleaseNotify Fri, January 26, 2024 3:13 AM EST "What's the difference then, between AI art and taking inspiration?" when an artist takes inspiration from another the goal is not imitation. It's to take some quality of the art and make it their own. When an AI artists specifically tries to emulate one specific real artist the results are usually...just an imitation. Now I will say that if you get your prompts right and really tune it and then maybe do some manual tweaks then you might have something that resembles your own "art style" and whilst so much of the output is boring and painfully derivative so is a lot of real artist work as well, and to be honest I've been caught out seeing stuff I really like and realizing it's actually AI, something that if it wasn't janked to heck could have easily been done by an actual artist. BUT (being the petty bitch I am) I don't see AI artists as really capable of making anything that is truly their own. The thing is inspiration is not just the work of other artists, it exists everywhere, internally and externally. Over the small time of recorded history you can look back and see art so varied, from indigenous nations to the ancient Egyptians to Asia to Europe. Art comes from SOMEWHERE and if we were to lose literally every piece of art known to man tomorrow the creating wouldn't stop. AI models take existing art and put it into a big soup to assemble something new, humans do something similar but the difference being our data set is infinite. If the machine can't eat good data then its ability to render anything coherent is compromised, and so is your "artstyle" you can only imitate what already exists. You didn't create it alone you did so as a collaboration with a very sophisticated tool. But you can't do it without the tool. The digital tools available to us provide efficiency, and do greatly expand what's possible. But they are not essential. Does any of this matter? if the end product looks the same (which its getting close to) then not really. Philosophical arguments are pointless and rendered irrelevant. In fact the whole "you can't do it without the tool" probs isn't really a good argument anyway. But no, you're not taking inspiration. You're pressing buttons on an assembly line Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:13:31 GMT https://blue.feedland.org/?item=274770 https://blue.feedland.org/?item=274770 "What's the difference then, between AI art and taking inspiration?" when an artist takes inspiration from another the goal is not imitation. It's to take some quality of the art and make it their own. When an AI artists specifically tries to emulate one specific real artist the results are usually...just an imitation. Now I will say that if you get your prompts right and really tune it and then maybe do some manual tweaks then you might have something that resembles your own "art style" and whilst so much of the output is boring and painfully derivative so is a lot of real artist work as well, and to be honest I've been caught out seeing stuff I really like and realizing it's actually AI, something that if it wasn't janked to heck could have easily been done by an actual artist. BUT (being the petty bitch I am) I don't see AI artists as really capable of making anything that is truly their own. The thing is inspiration is not just the work of other artists, it exists everywhere, internally and externally. Over the small time of recorded history you can look back and see art so varied, from indigenous nations to the ancient Egyptians to Asia to Europe. Art comes from SOMEWHERE and if we were to lose literally every piece of art known to man tomorrow the creating wouldn't stop. AI models take existing art and put it into a big soup to assemble something new, humans do something similar but the difference being our data set is infinite. If the machine can't eat good data then its ability to render anything coherent is compromised, and so is your "artstyle" you can only imitate what already exists. You didn't create it alone you did so as a collaboration with a very sophisticated tool. But you can't do it without the tool. The digital tools available to us provide efficiency, and do greatly expand what's possible. But they are not essential. Does any of this matter? if the end product looks the same (which its getting close to) then not really. Philosophical arguments are pointless and rendered irrelevant. In fact the whole "you can't do it without the tool" probs isn't really a good argument anyway. But no, you're not taking inspiration. You're pressing buttons on an assembly line "What's the difference then, between AI art and taking inspiration?" when an artist takes inspiration from another the goal is not imitation. It's to take some quality of the art and make it their own. When an AI artists specifically tries to emulate one specific real artist the results are usually...just an imitation. Now I will say that if you get your prompts right and really tune it and then maybe do some manual tweaks then you might have something that resembles your own "art style" and whilst so much of the output is boring and painfully derivative so is a lot of real artist work as well, and to be honest I've been caught out seeing stuff I really like and realizing it's actually AI, something that if it wasn't janked to heck could have easily been done by an actual artist. BUT (being the petty bitch I am) I don't see AI artists as really capable of making anything that is truly their own. The thing is inspiration is not just the work of other artists, it exists everywhere, internally and externally. Over the small time of recorded history you can look back and see art so varied, from indigenous nations to the ancient Egyptians to Asia to Europe. Art comes from SOMEWHERE and if we were to lose literally every piece of art known to man tomorrow the creating wouldn't stop. AI models take existing art and put it into a big soup to assemble something new, humans do something similar but the difference being our data set is infinite. If the machine can't eat good data then its ability to render anything coherent is compromised, and so is your "artstyle" you can only imitate what already exists. You didn't create it alone you did so as a collaboration with a very sophisticated tool. But you can't do it without the tool. The digital tools available to us provide efficiency, and do greatly expand what's possible. But they are not essential. Does any of this matter? if the end product looks the same (which its getting close to) then not really. Philosophical arguments are pointless and rendered irrelevant. In fact the whole "you can't do it without the tool" probs isn't really a good argument anyway. But no, you're not taking inspiration. You're pressing buttons on an assembly line Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:10:24 GMT https://blue.feedland.org/?item=274767 https://blue.feedland.org/?item=274767 "What's the difference then, between AI art and taking inspiration?" when an artist takes inspiration from another the goal is not imitation. It's to take some quality of the art and make it their own. When an AI artists specifically tries to emulate one specific real artist the results are usually...just an imitation. Now I will say that if you get your prompts right and really tune it and then maybe do some manual tweaks then you might have something that resembles your own "art style" and whilst so much of the output is boring and painfully derivative so is a lot of real artist work as well, and to be honest I've been caught out seeing stuff I really like and realizing it's actually AI, something that if it wasn't janked to heck could have easily been done by an actual artist. BUT (being the petty bitch I am) I don't see AI artists as really capable of making anything that is truly their own. The thing is inspiration is not just the work of other artists, it exists everywhere, internally and externally. Over the small time of recorded history you can look back and see art so varied, from indigenous nations to the ancient Egyptians to Asia to Europe. Art comes from SOMEWHERE and if we were to lose literally every piece of art known to man tomorrow the creating wouldn't stop. AI models take existing art and put it into a big soup to assemble something new, humans do something similar but the difference being our data set is infinite. If the machine can't eat good data then its ability to render anything coherent is compromised, and so is your "artstyle" you can only imitate what already exists. You didn't create it alone you did so as a collaboration with a very sophisticated tool. But you can't do it without the tool. The digital tools available to us provide efficiency, and do greatly expand what's possible. But they are not essential. Does any of this matter? if the end product looks the same (which its getting close to) then not really. Philosophical arguments are pointless and rendered irrelevant. In fact the whole "you can't do it without the tool" probs isn't really a good argument anyway. But no, you're not taking inspiration. You're pressing buttons on an assembly line