MidJourney design idea "Carpet Bombing"
- Thread starter jhaneyzz
- Start date
Grubb
Well-known member
Really cool! I've been using Stable Diffusion to generate pedal layout ideas and to inspire me with colour combinations I wouldn't normally think of. The Dreamlike Diffusion model in particular has been good at generating interesting pedal designs. I was trying to use it for artwork too but my design style doesn't really use artwork like this. Good to see someone else using AI for their pedal design work 
GizzWizzKing
Well-known member
I was generating stuff all day yesterday using Craiyon. Fairly low quality but cool stuff and way faster than I could whip together a graphic. I might dm you at some point for one or three of these requests.
jhaneyzz
Well-known member
Please do. I really did this stuff.
Dan0h
Well-known member
Back in September I received an email from Getty. Basically, Getty is stopping all “copyright/royalty” associations to specific AI generated imagery because of the unanswered question of imagery used to “train” the AI. But if you think about it, all of us humans view things and interpret them and then our, “art”, creations are really just our regurgitations of what we have seen and experienced, and of course we have seen and heard others copyrighted materials which in some way influence our outputs.
Just saying, isn’t the AI doing the same thing we do? But the AI’s output is questionable copyright infringement.… I can see that these specific modelers are most likely pulling in parts of others work and manipulating them verse starting from a blank slate and creating something so Getty is justified in this move, but it’s a fine line when you get down to it and brings up interesting thoughts.
Just saying, isn’t the AI doing the same thing we do? But the AI’s output is questionable copyright infringement.… I can see that these specific modelers are most likely pulling in parts of others work and manipulating them verse starting from a blank slate and creating something so Getty is justified in this move, but it’s a fine line when you get down to it and brings up interesting thoughts.
dawson
Well-known member
I struggled to be a freelance illustrator for awhile.
My buddy showed me one of these AI generators basically saying, "Look dude, you don't even have to work anymore!"
..I'm here wondering, "Well, do I even get to do artwork anymore?"
*Currently training for a different career.
Anyhow, I doubt I'll ever use them but I'm liking what others are doing with them.
For example, @Mentaltossflycoon has been doing really cool AI generated stuff recently.
Mentaltossflycoon
Well-known member
Thank you!
As a non visual artist who sympathizes with the threat to income, I totally understand staying far away from "skynet picasso." I started my music degree the same year Napster hit. My participation is with the attitude of "well I was just going to steal from Max Ernst and Hieronymous Bosch anyway." I wouldn't use the images for a product I was selling. I mostly think it's funny and have an absurdity fetish.
andare
Well-known member
The problem with AI art is that it's only possible because it's been fed artists' works that are copyrighted and against their permission. It is not so with AI music, interestingly, which has been trained on royalty-free music only.
Stealing from artists is not the same. Plagiarizing other artists is very very difficult and stigmatized in the community. Instead there are now AI hacks who are reproducing art in the style of specific artists because these artists have spoken out against it. So their work has been stolen, used to try and take their livelihood away from them and now they are even being mocked for it.
Call me crazy but what about the future implications of such technology? Forget about the lost livelihoods and the fact that every artistic endeavor will be stripped of humanity.
When AI is able to use deep fake technology to create video of anyone doing anything anywhere, how are we going to be able to tell it apart from reality? Are the companies who control the software going to be transparent? And do we really want a few rich companies to control such a tool, knowing that they already have politicians and the police in their pockets right now?
This technology is moving much faster than our ethics and our legislation.
I'll get off my soap box now.
Stealing from artists is not the same. Plagiarizing other artists is very very difficult and stigmatized in the community. Instead there are now AI hacks who are reproducing art in the style of specific artists because these artists have spoken out against it. So their work has been stolen, used to try and take their livelihood away from them and now they are even being mocked for it.
Call me crazy but what about the future implications of such technology? Forget about the lost livelihoods and the fact that every artistic endeavor will be stripped of humanity.
When AI is able to use deep fake technology to create video of anyone doing anything anywhere, how are we going to be able to tell it apart from reality? Are the companies who control the software going to be transparent? And do we really want a few rich companies to control such a tool, knowing that they already have politicians and the police in their pockets right now?
This technology is moving much faster than our ethics and our legislation.
I'll get off my soap box now.
benny_profane
Well-known member
Unless you’re willing to say that computers possess creativity and agency, then no, they are not doing the same thing as humans.
Bricksnbeatles
Member known well
Exactly this. I have issues with the ethical implications of all AI that is designed for the production of creative works, but:
Writing AI is largely based on training off of grammar and syntax rules and 18th and 19th century literature. Music AI currently is largely trained on music theory principles and traditional chorales.
Art AI is trained exclusively on visual works, meaning it needs a much larger base of examples (there are no real “rules” you can teach, like you can with music and literature), so you wind up with problems exactly like this.
There are examples of music and writing AIs being trained to effectively plagiarize as well, which is part of why I’m opposed to it as a whole, not to mention the fact that it actively devalues the work of living, breathing creators— but plagiarism is, generally speaking, more easily detectable/enforceable in music and writing. Just look at the massive miscarriages of justice in the art world in the Goldsmith v. Warhol and the Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia cases, just to name a few.
benny_profane
Well-known member
What, you don’t trust SCOTUS?
Bricksnbeatles
Member known well
To protect the image and financial interests of corporations and the wealthy elite while screwing over the Everyman? No, I have the utmost trust in them to do that.
jhaneyzz
Well-known member
My thoughts are directly in line with Dan0h.
As an artist I can create stuff that no one has ever seen.
But what I create is all based upon what I have seen
Once I see someone else's art It influences what I create
Aren't all of my etchings just ripoffs of the guy who created etching
You can't copyright a style
Doing art "in someone's style" is not copyright infringement
An AI "seeing" an image online and using it as an input vector in a very calculated algorithm is exactly what a human does.
That said. there is no way to fully align ethics/law/ and business
So I say it's OK for Getty to firewall their library from direct query by AI art engines, but good luck when the images hit the web.
There is no stopping this. and there is zero chance of legislation "controlling" the ethics.
But don't despair, people need to stop believing that what they see in a video, read in a post, or hear on a podcast is acceptable at face value and take a lot more responsibility for what and who the choose to believe.
The ready availability of "deep fake" technology (usually far shallower that you think) will end conspiracies, not create them.
my 2¢
As an artist I can create stuff that no one has ever seen.
But what I create is all based upon what I have seen
Once I see someone else's art It influences what I create
Aren't all of my etchings just ripoffs of the guy who created etching
You can't copyright a style
Doing art "in someone's style" is not copyright infringement
An AI "seeing" an image online and using it as an input vector in a very calculated algorithm is exactly what a human does.
That said. there is no way to fully align ethics/law/ and business
So I say it's OK for Getty to firewall their library from direct query by AI art engines, but good luck when the images hit the web.
There is no stopping this. and there is zero chance of legislation "controlling" the ethics.
But don't despair, people need to stop believing that what they see in a video, read in a post, or hear on a podcast is acceptable at face value and take a lot more responsibility for what and who the choose to believe.
The ready availability of "deep fake" technology (usually far shallower that you think) will end conspiracies, not create them.
my 2¢
benny_profane
Well-known member
This is a very depressing view of human creativity. These algorithms are created by humans to analyze, mine, and construct images in a systematic way. Ersatz approximations of human creativity are simulacra. Is that how you’d describe an artist? The process and functions by which something is created is quite relevant.
What? Ethics is supposed to inform, in part, how law is structured, which in turn dictates the bounds of acceptable, fair, and just business practices.
How are ethics and law unable to cope with the whole of business? What is inherently incompatible here?
jhaneyzz
Well-known member
Thanks for the dialog,
I think we're just coming at it from different angles. I don't find it depressing at all. I'm just saying we create new things base upon old things we see. that is exactly what the AI is doing. And what commercial illustrators, art directors, photographers etc. are asked, and ask themselves to do every day. That IS creativity.
My point in law, ethics and business is that we aren't going to pass a law that says we can't train AI to look at stuff and make new stuff based on the old stuff but with some suggested changes. Just that, nothing else. Except that there is not perfect ethics, no perfect law and now perfect business.
andare
Well-known member
Is AI ever going to have a blue period like Picasso?
Is AI ever going to be put in jail and inspire portraits like it did to Egon Schiele?
Is AI going to transition from playing a Les Paul with a pick to doing whatever magic Jeff Beck was doing on a Strat?
Artists don't just parse images and music through an algorithm in their brain and regurgitate facsimiles according to a project brief.
Their works are always informed by their personality, emotions and life events. Even commercial artists. It's why certain artists are hired and others are not.
You can't copyright a style but you can copy it and you will be called out for being a copycat. See Greta Van Fleet. Those guys are basically redoing Led Zeppelin because they love the band and spent years developing the skill to do it. The effort is definitely there.
AI just spits out mishmashes of human works and most people see it as an opportunity to save a buck. It always comes down to that. One day James Cameron will be able to tell a machine "Make Avatar 15". But is that movie going to be worth watching? Is anyone going to be able to go watch it? Maybe we'll all be too busy fighting for food once every job is gone and our Great Leaders refuse to implement universal basic income.
Is AI ever going to be put in jail and inspire portraits like it did to Egon Schiele?
Is AI going to transition from playing a Les Paul with a pick to doing whatever magic Jeff Beck was doing on a Strat?
Artists don't just parse images and music through an algorithm in their brain and regurgitate facsimiles according to a project brief.
Their works are always informed by their personality, emotions and life events. Even commercial artists. It's why certain artists are hired and others are not.
You can't copyright a style but you can copy it and you will be called out for being a copycat. See Greta Van Fleet. Those guys are basically redoing Led Zeppelin because they love the band and spent years developing the skill to do it. The effort is definitely there.
AI just spits out mishmashes of human works and most people see it as an opportunity to save a buck. It always comes down to that. One day James Cameron will be able to tell a machine "Make Avatar 15". But is that movie going to be worth watching? Is anyone going to be able to go watch it? Maybe we'll all be too busy fighting for food once every job is gone and our Great Leaders refuse to implement universal basic income.
