Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.
He hasn’t, though. He’s done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion’s share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.
I think part of the problem with the “AI is Art, aktuly” discourse is that people who aren’t professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist’s end goal. This isn’t about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking “I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle” instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
It’s a shorthand to describe basic quality. Because AI slop can be manufactured so quickly, and because it can reasonably approach human art at first glance, the fundamental problem it presents is one of sifting. How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
Even without commercialization
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work. Even then, its haphazard and poorly implemented. But there’s just so god damn much of it. The media equivalent of smog clouding up your windshield and clogging your lungs.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
I don’t think even the people who unironically call themselves “AI artists”, as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work.
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don’t think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That’s how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
He hasn’t, though. He’s done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion’s share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
I think part of the problem with the “AI is Art, aktuly” discourse is that people who aren’t professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist’s end goal. This isn’t about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking “I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle” instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
‘An Overwhelmingly Negative And Demoralizing Force’: What It’s Like Working For A Company That’s Forcing AI On Its Developers
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
It’s a shorthand to describe basic quality. Because AI slop can be manufactured so quickly, and because it can reasonably approach human art at first glance, the fundamental problem it presents is one of sifting. How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work. Even then, its haphazard and poorly implemented. But there’s just so god damn much of it. The media equivalent of smog clouding up your windshield and clogging your lungs.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
I don’t think even the people who unironically call themselves “AI artists”, as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don’t think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That’s how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.