|
Post by andrewwerdna on May 13, 2024 10:11:22 GMT -5
What’s the difference between AI art and a picture taken directly from medieval texts, D&D artwork or copyright free pictures, which is what the majority of DS cover art is? In my opinion, AI art entirely lacks soul. There is absolutely no human involvement behind it besides putting some words in a generator. I mean, imagine musicians replacing all their vocals with generic TTS. It's pretty low effort and has noticeable faults. It just doesn't feel human. Humanity and soul is what makes art. I like the noticeable faults in AI art as well as human art, gives character in both cases. And the feeling that is lacks soul is subjective and not shared by me. It is uncanny for sure, and has that uncanny valley effect on a lot of people, but I personally think it feels more dreamlike than inert. But about the only human involvement being "putting some words in a generator," well that's just plain wrong. For example, one can iterate endlessly on a generation or series of generations by doing "variations" or "remixes," for an entire day or even a week if they want. And there are lots of other ways that one can put more effort into it if they so choose. Or they can just write a quick prompt and share the first thing that come out. If it is beautiful and meaningful to them and they want to share it with others why not? Do we only quantify the value of art by the effort spent in making it? Can we not appreciate beauty for beauty's sake, or does it have to have some measurable marketplace value?
|
|
|
Post by sinew on May 13, 2024 12:22:14 GMT -5
In my opinion, AI art entirely lacks soul. There is absolutely no human involvement behind it besides putting some words in a generator. I mean, imagine musicians replacing all their vocals with generic TTS. It's pretty low effort and has noticeable faults. It just doesn't feel human. Humanity and soul is what makes art. I like the noticeable faults in AI art as well as human art, gives character in both cases. And the feeling that is lacks soul is subjective and not shared by me. It is uncanny for sure, and has that uncanny valley effect on a lot of people, but I personally think it feels more dreamlike than inert. But about the only human involvement being "putting some words in a generator," well that's just plain wrong. For example, one can iterate endlessly on a generation or series of generations by doing "variations" or "remixes," for an entire day or even a week if they want. And there are lots of other ways that one can put more effort into it if they so choose. Or they can just write a quick prompt and share the first thing that come out. If it is beautiful and meaningful to them and they want to share it with others why not? Do we only quantify the value of art by the effort spent in making it? Can we not appreciate beauty for beauty's sake, or does it have to have some measurable marketplace value? Overall I think we just have different opinions, and that's OK. I stand by what I said about it having little to no human involvement though. If one likes, sure they can spend as long as they like making 'variations' and 'remixes', but ultimately that's just a click of a button. It's still absolutely minimal involvement. 99% of the work is done by the computer. At the very least, I think it's quite lazy. If you're lazy, sure OK, but I think you'd have much more fun and would gain much more satisfaction out of making something all by yourself. Seriously, try photobashing. It's so much more fun than you'd think. If people want to share the art they generated with AI, sure. As long as it has been clearly disclaimed that it's AI! So many people will put their generated images out there only to either not disclose that it's AI or to lie and say that they drew it themselves. It's very dishonest and I see it all the time. With AI being beautiful, I can agree on that. Horrors beyond our comprehension, pretty cool looking! Who would have known?! What makes art valuable is quite a philosophical question! You'll get a different answer from everyone. Mine, I believe that it's the person behind the artwork which makes the art so important and interesting. I like to wonder what sort of life experiences they had and what inspired them to create what they did. I especially love seeing all the interesting techniques used, what methods they employed, how they achieved certain things. I also love when artists mention their inspirations because then I get to look into what exactly inspired the work of my favourites. These things help me to learn and become better in my own art. I feel that artwork can give a glimpse into the artistic vision of the artist, I won't see their art in the same way that they see it themselves; I can only get a glimpse. This 'personal vision' is something that has always fascinated me. I think the artist has to make something themselves to really tap into this vision, AI wouldn't cut it. Yes, I do believe that effort involved is a major contributing factor to value, but definitely isn't the sole one! I like knowing that an artist has done their best to put their effort in to really express themselves. Most of the time, it kind of kills the fun and the soul when they use very minimal effort. What I previously mentioned, AI pretty much completely lacks. That's why I'm so opposed to it. It doesn't fit my standard of what makes art so enjoyable. I think this is also the reason why many others dislike it too. With human art, the artist can control and design every little aspect of the art, making it precisely how they like at every step of the way. With AI art, the generator hits refresh until they get something satisfactory. It's very lacklustre and lazy in comparison. AI artwork generation is certainly interesting and cool. It's both fascinating and terrifying seeing how far it has gone/is going. I think that people should definitely experiment with it and have fun, but it is certainly not something that should be commercialised or that should have a place amongst normal art. (Heavy on the commercialised part. If one uses AI for music and album covers, I strongly believe that it should not be sold in any way.) At the very least, it should be separated from the rest and clearly labelled seeing as many people seem to have a real grudge against it. Trying to integrate it along with normal art is just going to piss people off haha. For another reason why I think this way, refer back to my previous post with the part about the "AI mass art theft". Sorry for this post being kind of long! I've never had the chance to talk to someone about AI art, especially not with someone who's in favour of it. I'd love to discuss with you! Question: You mentioned AI artwork having meaning to someone. How could it have meaning if all the generator did was type in some words and refreshed as much as they like? It's the exact same creation process for each piece. I can't really think of art having much meaning at all when it's made as monotonously as some massed produced factory item is. Where does this meaning come from? Thanks for engaging!
|
|
|
Post by Tidemancer on May 13, 2024 12:45:39 GMT -5
I like the noticeable faults in AI art as well as human art, gives character in both cases. And the feeling that is lacks soul is subjective and not shared by me. It is uncanny for sure, and has that uncanny valley effect on a lot of people, but I personally think it feels more dreamlike than inert. But about the only human involvement being "putting some words in a generator," well that's just plain wrong. For example, one can iterate endlessly on a generation or series of generations by doing "variations" or "remixes," for an entire day or even a week if they want. And there are lots of other ways that one can put more effort into it if they so choose. Or they can just write a quick prompt and share the first thing that come out. If it is beautiful and meaningful to them and they want to share it with others why not? Do we only quantify the value of art by the effort spent in making it? Can we not appreciate beauty for beauty's sake, or does it have to have some measurable marketplace value? Overall I think we just have different opinions, and that's OK. I stand by what I said about it having little to no human involvement though. If one likes, sure they can spend as long as they like making 'variations' and 'remixes', but ultimately that's just a click of a button. It's still absolutely minimal involvement. 99% of the work is done by the computer. At the very least, I think it's quite lazy. If you're lazy, sure OK, but I think you'd have much more fun and would gain much more satisfaction out of making something all by yourself. Seriously, try photobashing. It's so much more fun than you'd think. If people want to share the art they generated with AI, sure. As long as it has been clearly disclaimed that it's AI! So many people will put their generated images out there only to either not disclose that it's AI or to lie and say that they drew it themselves. It's very dishonest and I see it all the time. With AI being beautiful, I can agree on that. Horrors beyond our comprehension, pretty cool looking! Who would have known?! What makes art valuable is quite a philosophical question! You'll get a different answer from everyone. Mine, I believe that it's the person behind the artwork which makes the art so important and interesting. I like to wonder what sort of life experiences they had and what inspired them to create what they did. I especially love seeing all the interesting techniques used, what methods they employed, how they achieved certain things. I also love when artists mention their inspirations because then I get to look into what exactly inspired the work of my favourites. These things help me to learn and become better in my own art. I feel that artwork can give a glimpse into the artistic vision of the artist, I won't see their art in the same way that they see it themselves; I can only get a glimpse. This 'personal vision' is something that has always fascinated me. I think the artist has to make something themselves to really tap into this vision, AI wouldn't cut it. Yes, I do believe that effort involved is a major contributing factor to value, but definitely isn't the sole one! I like knowing that an artist has done their best to put their effort in to really express themselves. Most of the time, it kind of kills the fun and the soul when they use very minimal effort. What I previously mentioned, AI pretty much completely lacks. That's why I'm so opposed to it. It doesn't fit my standard of what makes art so enjoyable. I think this is also the reason why many others dislike it too. With human art, the artist can control and design every little aspect of the art, making it precisely how they like at every step of the way. With AI art, the generator hits refresh until they get something satisfactory. It's very lacklustre and lazy in comparison. AI artwork generation is certainly interesting and cool. It's both fascinating and terrifying seeing how far it has gone/is going. I think that people should definitely experiment with it and have fun, but it is certainly not something that should be commercialised or that should have a place amongst normal art. (Heavy on the commercialised part. If one uses AI for music and album covers, I strongly believe that it should not be sold in any way.) At the very least, it should be separated from the rest and clearly labelled seeing as many people seem to have a real grudge against it. Trying to integrate it along with normal art is just going to piss people off haha. For another reason why I think this way, refer back to my previous post with the part about the "AI mass art theft". Sorry for this post being kind of long! I've never had the chance to talk to someone about AI art, especially not with someone who's in favour of it. I'd love to discuss with you! Question: You mentioned AI artwork having meaning to someone. How could it have meaning if all the generator did was type in some words and refreshed as much as they like? It's the exact same creation process for each piece. I can't really think of art having much meaning at all when it's made as monotonously as some massed produced factory item is. Where does this meaning come from? Thanks for engaging! I’d like first of all to express my gratitude to all those who participated in this thread for keeping it interesting and civil even while disagreeing with each other. It’s something take we can take for granted, but it’s not in this day and age. I’m somewhat in the middle regarding AI art: I used it because that’s what I had access to but I’m not in favour of someone sharing AI art as if they’d done it themselves. On the other hand, I’m not sure if one should declare it anyway, it’s virtue signaling to me. If asked, sure, but eh.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Moth on May 13, 2024 13:04:38 GMT -5
I like the noticeable faults in AI art as well as human art, gives character in both cases. And the feeling that is lacks soul is subjective and not shared by me. It is uncanny for sure, and has that uncanny valley effect on a lot of people, but I personally think it feels more dreamlike than inert. I've had similar dreamlike impressions mostly playing with DALL-E 2. It has a feature to upload an image and generate variations. Significant noticeable faults creep in when working with very stylized images, and some of them start to border on surrealistic and expressionistic in a very non-rational, dreamlike way.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on May 14, 2024 10:08:57 GMT -5
I stand by what I said about it having little to no human involvement though. If one likes, sure they can spend as long as they like making 'variations' and 'remixes', but ultimately that's just a click of a button. It's still absolutely minimal involvement. It's not though. I will try to better explain what I'm talking about with this remix/variation approach. First you come up with a prompt and generate something you find compelling, then do variations on that until you get something more compelling, then do variations on that and repeat the process until you are no longer getting anything more compelling. Let's say you do ten rounds of this, you could go through hundreds of generations throughout the process, each time making a decision of whether to proceed with it or not, decisions which are dependent on the user's aesthetic tastes and interests, and which then build on each other through this iterative process. What you end up with is totally unique to you because nobody else would have made all those same decisions. Perhaps that is still not as much involvement as the AI itself, but it is certainly more involved than "just a click of a button." And there are countless other approaches that are similarly more-involved. And of course this is not counting the level of involvement in crafting the prompt, which I think is a creative effort comparable to poetry (not on the same level, just comparable). Thank you. I agree, and I think people would be more willing to do so if they weren't met with rabid hostility because of it. There should be more leniancy for independent artists who are just doing this as a hobby. They're not trying to disrupt anyone's livelihood, they're just trying to do something creatively-satisfying in their free time. The commercial labels can pay artists though, I won't be defending them for using AI. If they want to rerelease an independent album that used AI for the cover they should commission an artist to recreate the AI-generated image, or else have a good justification for the why the AI art is important to stay as-is. And hell, they should commission artists to recreate public domain covers too while they're at it.
AI art I think kind of represents something in-between inspiration and personal vision for the person who shares it. I try to approach art trusting that at least one person in the world appreciates it, the artist who decides that it is worth sharing. So I know that it can be appreciated, and so for my part it is just an effort to understand how to also appreciate it. I think that applies for AI art too, if the person is sharing it I will assume that they have an appreciation for it, so it can be appreciated and it is just a matter of trying to recognize that aesthetic value that they see, or perhaps appreciate it from another angle that they do not see.
I don't think the amount of effort matters as much as how meaningful it was for the artist (or prompt engineer or whatever). I think these things can be confused sometimes and people can dump tremendous levels of effort into art that is not meaningful to them, and I think that is a lot worse than a low-effort release that is not meaningful to the artist, because at least there was little time or energy wasted.
I tend to prefer "lazy" art actually (I would call it "raw" or "minimalist"), because I think it tends to better capture the sense of discovery an artist has while creating the work. Art that is extensively practiced and polished often loses that feeling I think for both the artist and the listener. Nothing wrong with that, for some people that sense of discovery is not as important as other things, but that's just what I'm personally most interested in. So basically I think there is often a unique value to low-effort art and it is not inherently bad for being low-effort.
Agreed! I think this would be a fair compromise for both sides, if people who want to work with AI will keep their stuff noncommercial, clearly labeled, and not spam-promoted all over the place, then maybe those who dislike AI can let it be and not get into a tizzy from just encountering its existence. Even if it is just coming up with the prompt, those can be every bit as unique and personally meaningful to the prompter, as if they were to write a haiku and then someone attempted to illustrate it for them. I anticipate you might respond to that with, "but that is because I'm interested in the illustration because of what that might mean for the person who illustrated it for me." Well, that can apply to machines too. My main DS project Illusionment is primarily a tech demo exercise, though one which is earnestly meaningful to me, because I'm so interested in what discoveries and strange essences might be revealed by channeling the dungeon mood through particular instruments. So I feel like we can be interested in art from collaboration with the minds of machines even when they're as dumb as an SC-55, but I think all of these AI models/interfaces are like synthesizers that are able to dream. Maybe it's unhealthy to be so interested in what a machine can dream up rather than actual people, but for me that's the whole idea with dungeon synth, it's an indulgent escape from the mundane (and often times other people). So it's only natural that I approach making AI-DS the same way, just pure curiousity of what it will be like for this machine mind to make dungeon synth, no matter what level of involvement I personally have it is still meaningful to me. I don't know if you saw in the other thread, I have a project now called Delusionment, because I am eager to have a snapshot of what these machines can do with this aesthetic at this point in time. This tech is going to change so fast, and when these platforms update the models, the old models that we are using now may no longer be available, so I think it will be historically very meaningful and personally nostalgic to look back on, a snapshot of the enthusiasm of radically new creative technology emerging, more groundbeaking even than the sampler, and the specific limitations we were grappling with for a very short time (for example, as of right now Suno does not have this "remix" function I've been going on about so much, but Udio does, so those limitations are already an obsolete thing of the past, however I happened to capture the moment of trying to make a sincerely-felt album with those specific limitations). So that's just one example of how it can be meaningful, but I imagine less weird people can easily find more relatable meaning from working with these tools. I could go track-by-track and explain the meaning and value for me in each song in the album, because they all bring something different, or I could talk about the cover, but this post is already quite long. But one other element of your question, how do you appreciate the "mass-produced" nature of it? I think this is a critical question that we are facing with all media right now, not just AI. I personally just try to resist my systematic tendencies and appreciate things for what they are as I experience them. I think that is sort of like the challenge of facing the blank page creatively, with canvas of infinite possible beauty where do you begin? I don't really have an answer to that one, my curiousity just naturally leads me. Thank you as well for being interested in hearing the other side of this issue.
|
|
|
Post by lolth on May 17, 2024 23:56:17 GMT -5
AI goes entirely counter to the ethos of dungeon synth, and in my opinion, should not be tolerated. Not only is it bad for artists by robbing them of their much needed and underpaid niche of creating artwork for albums, but it feels really lazy and inauthentic to use artwork that you didn't even create for your release. I'll take a sloppy J-card with nothing but a pencil sketch and an album title over the most "beautiful" AI "art" piece any day. What’s the difference between AI art and a picture taken directly from medieval texts, D&D artwork or copyright free pictures, which is what the majority of DS cover art is? There's a world of difference, human intent is what makes art art. In order to program AI generative art algorithms, they train on and copy existing art made by humans-- and since AI can't add anything original of its own, it's all entirely derivative and lacks soul or creativity by its very nature. I'm disappointed to see people in the dungeon synth community of all things defending AI art. You really wanna use AI art for your music based on a decades old lo-fi counter-cultural movement?? DS is an art form dedicated to old ways, why the fuck would you wanna suck the life out of it and ask MidJourney to create something not half as beautiful as a painting made by an actual human artist? Even a xeroxed lo-res photo with a handwritten logo is better than that. C'mon.
|
|
|
Post by archivist on May 18, 2024 0:25:37 GMT -5
What’s the difference between AI art and a picture taken directly from medieval texts, D&D artwork or copyright free pictures, which is what the majority of DS cover art is? There's a world of difference, human intent is what makes art art. In order to program AI generative art algorithms, they train on and copy existing art made by humans-- and since AI can't add anything original of its own, it's all entirely derivative and lacks soul or creativity by its very nature. I'm disappointed to see people in the dungeon synth community of all things defending AI art. You really wanna use AI art for your music based on a decades old lo-fi counter-cultural movement?? DS is an art form dedicated to old ways, why the fuck would you wanna suck the life out of it and ask MidJourney to create something not half as beautiful as a painting made by an actual human artist? Even a xeroxed lo-res photo with a handwritten logo is better than that. C'mon. I wholeheartedly agree. Even if you were to feed an algorithm the same stuff that usually constitutes DS album covers (copyright free D&D, medieval, fantasy, etc, art as mentioned before) you're still presented with a problem. When you find an image and decide to feature it as your cover art, there's a process of experiencing the piece and feeling the connection between it and your music. It's not a pure aesthetic consideration either; you develop an understanding of the image and its context and go through the process of deciding if it's right for the purpose. I would hope the process of finding/making cover art is a little more involved than 'this is a random thing that looks fun', anyways. Especially for a genre like DS.
|
|
|
Post by moreteeth on May 20, 2024 14:50:21 GMT -5
That's perfectly fine, actually; AI art—if such a word is even applicable in this case—is extremely ugly and ruins almost every project it's attached to, and I'll never use it. Regarding your second point: the sin of the group does not absolve the sin of the individual. Any accusation of hypocrisy in regards to an accusation conversely made towards you is self-incriminating; you're essentially acknowledging the immorality of the accuser as being comparable to your own. I'd rather someone take art from a hundred years ago made by a human, borrow it and reinterpret its purpose, then credit the dead artist afterward than to proliferate the use of a technology which will possibly put hundreds out of jobs in the now. So, good on the Facebook group for banning AI art.
Edit - For whatever reason, the quote feature isn't working for me. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by moreteeth on May 20, 2024 17:41:51 GMT -5
There's a world of difference, human intent is what makes art art. In order to program AI generative art algorithms, they train on and copy existing art made by humans-- and since AI can't add anything original of its own, it's all entirely derivative and lacks soul or creativity by its very nature. I'm disappointed to see people in the dungeon synth community of all things defending AI art. You really wanna use AI art for your music based on a decades old lo-fi counter-cultural movement?? DS is an art form dedicated to old ways, why the fuck would you wanna suck the life out of it and ask MidJourney to create something not half as beautiful as a painting made by an actual human artist? Even a xeroxed lo-res photo with a handwritten logo is better than that. C'mon. I wholeheartedly agree. Even if you were to feed an algorithm the same stuff that usually constitutes DS album covers (copyright free D&D, medieval, fantasy, etc, art as mentioned before) you're still presented with a problem. When you find an image and decide to feature it as your cover art, there's a process of experiencing the piece and feeling the connection between it and your music. It's not a pure aesthetic consideration either; you develop an understanding of the image and its context and go through the process of deciding if it's right for the purpose. I would hope the process of finding/making cover art is a little more involved than 'this is a random thing that looks fun', anyways. Especially for a genre like DS. It's also important to acknowledge that the temporal immersion is almost immediately evaporated once you realize the art used is a product of artificial intelligence, and that goes for almost all media across genres. It's like a pair of converse shoes in the background of a film about Marie Antoinette. When a genre is a child of eighties video games and ambient, using artificial intelligence shouldn't even be a notion if you have any consideration for craftsmanship. On a personal level, I'd never understand why plugging some prompts into a box and watching sludge come out is more rewarding than finding the perfect image, editing it, putting it through a Xerox, and ostensibly creating an aesthetically viable product using the means available to you. I'll elaborate upon this later.
|
|
|
Post by gambali on May 20, 2024 20:33:02 GMT -5
I can see some of the points regarding the positives of AI but please place me in the "no thanks" camp.
The DIY aesthetic of DS is a big reason why I find it so attractive. Secret transmissions sent by fellow misfits into dark music, fantasy and sci-fi books/movies/video games. Folks that use whatever cheap equipment is at hand and do it themselves, because that's all that's available and just get on with it!
Take away those people, YOU people, and I don't see much point. Sure, it might sound pretty cool, but it hits so much harder when I know there's another weirdo at the other end plugging in a janky old Casio or tweaking VSTs (before their crappy old computer crashes) making music with no greater goal than to celebrate some niche passion of theirs.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Cool Orcs, Moreteeth!
|
|
|
Post by magicwillow on May 20, 2024 20:58:28 GMT -5
I agree with OP's sentiment. I myself am working on a few "post-dungeon" projects that push dungeon synth into realms ive not heard explored before with influences from post-rock, post-black and shoegaze. I think facebook is genuinely toxic most of the time, but on the positive side I don't see much gatekeeping on the proboards forum, everyone is just genuinely nice and friendly.
P.S. Above statement is completely ignoring the AI debate. I think AI art is fine intellectually but I will never like it as much as anthroprojenic art. Commissioned art is ideal, then public domain, then AI. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into developing AI but I will always remain skeptical of technology until I see clear benefits manifest in society from it and even then I'll decide for myself if those benefits are truly benefits.
|
|
|
Post by moreteeth on May 20, 2024 21:29:28 GMT -5
I can see some of the points regarding the positives of AI but please place me in the "no thanks" camp. The DIY aesthetic of DS is a big reason why I find it so attractive. Secret transmissions sent by fellow misfits into dark music, fantasy and sci-fi books/movies/video games. Folks that use whatever cheap equipment is at hand and do it themselves, because that's all that's available and just get on with it! Take away those people, YOU people, and I don't see much point. Sure, it might sound pretty cool, but it hits so much harder when I know there's another weirdo at the other end plugging in a janky old Casio or tweaking VSTs (before their crappy old computer crashes) making music with no greater goal than to celebrate some niche passion of theirs. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Cool Orcs, Moreteeth! Thanks! I agree with your sentiment. Both dungeon synth and black metal are founded upon their aesthetics and the homebrew approach of its creators. I listened to your Bandcamp. Has a nice Goblin vibe to it, as in the Italian rock band.
|
|
|
Post by doomed on May 21, 2024 14:05:43 GMT -5
I agree with OP's sentiment. I myself am working on a few "post-dungeon" projects that push dungeon synth into realms ive not heard explored before with influences from post-rock, post-black and shoegaze. I think facebook is genuinely toxic most of the time, but on the positive side I don't see much gatekeeping on the proboards forum, everyone is just genuinely nice and friendly. P.S. Above statement is completely ignoring the AI debate. I think AI art is fine intellectually but I will never like it as much as anthroprojenic art. Commissioned art is ideal, then public domain, then AI. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into developing AI but I will always remain skeptical of technology until I see clear benefits manifest in society from it and even then I'll decide for myself if those benefits are truly benefits. This is the type of response you'd never see on the facebook groups. This is how it should be. Those people are such bad actors in genre and they take their gatekeeping so far that even winter synth is too far gone of a sub-genre of DS for them. Also as far as the AI conversation goes, a lot of people like going with the "soulless" argument, which imo is pretty weak as it is a very subjective take. However, there are legitimate problems with the way some AI focused companies are treating their employees, which is something I read up on not so long ago, which has shifted my opinion on AI. Any hate towards AI should be directed at the huge companies guilty of employee abuse, not the random users of the product. It's kinda dumb to give shit to a new small DS artist for using AI art. It's better to inform than to antagonize. Also all this is not counting those that use AI but claim that it is otherwise, that is very lame, shady and pointless.
Also my upcoming album is going into that post-rock/shoegaze-y sound, so I'm glad to see more people doing that too (new single is out and kinda shows this). I've probably said it before somewhere, but DS is such an open ended genre that it just begs to be experimented with. Genres like black metal and dungeon synth both share this contrast within itself in which they have this extreme purist, genre defining sound to them, but also an extremely experimental side as well. Pure DS will always be good, but it's also exciting to see what new experimental sound it'll keep evolving into.
|
|
|
Post by dragonaltar on May 21, 2024 15:42:58 GMT -5
I love seeing non-standard takes on dungeon synth. Even if they don't always land, it's neat to see people try to push those boundaries while remaining identifiably DS—I've seen works influenced by dub, circus music, synthwave, gabber, and prog rock just to name a few. I think, especially in the past five years or so, the genre's become quite flexible... that's exciting for such a niche genre as old as DS and I'm always excited to see new developments.
I have to echo the anti-AI sentiments I've seen here. It's kind of just lame—"AI" and LLM technology right now is being pushed heavily by the same art-disinterested tech bro types that pushed NFTs. Negativity towards AI technology is treated the same way negativity towards NFTs was by their respective fans. Once NFTs fell out of favor and profits dried up, the pivot to AI art followed soon after—it's the same idiots. With so many visual artists, myself included, expressing disdain for this kind of image generation pretty loudly (for varying reasons: stolen source material, ridiculous energy use, potential for impersonation, etc.), it feels like our concerns are being shrugged off when people do it anyway. At worst, it sometimes feels malicious—enthusiasts can and do generate thousands of these things daily, while gleefully stating that artists who served as the foundation for the technology they use are a corner to be cut. They literally rally around it—AI generated images of characters holding up broken pencils was a fad for a while. It's not really a wonder why we feel strongly about it when the most die-hard AI fans like giving us the middle finger. So yeah, when I see AI-generated images on DS album art, it makes me roll my eyes. I respect it less.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on May 22, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -5
With so many visual artists, myself included, expressing disdain for this kind of image generation pretty loudly (for varying reasons: stolen source material, ridiculous energy use, potential for impersonation, etc.), it feels like our concerns are being shrugged off when people do it anyway. Are you speaking of everyone who is continuing to use AI tools despite the opposition? Speaking for myself, I am doing my best to consider every point that I've seen raised, and I feel like I could address each pretty thoroughly, but I do not think it would be very productive to go into debate mode right now. It seems like people are just wanting to share their feelings about it more than actually hash it out. But for the sake of clarity, I think these were all the points raised against AI in this thread so far (please let me know if I missed any): - It's ugly/soulless
- It is lazy/low-effort
- There is minimal human involvement / the person sharing it did not create it
- It is impossible for the prompter to connect with AI art in a meaningful way
- It breaks immersion in the fantasy of the past because it is such modern futuristic tech
- Obnoxious tech bros are the most prominent people championing it, making it lame
- It is proceeding forward unabated despite the backlash
- Some AI enthusiasts like to troll/antagonize those who oppose AI art
- It is hurting/will hurt the profits of commercial artists and maybe even put them out of work
- It learns from copyright works without permission / is stealing
|
|