Would artificial intelligence aided images go in digital art?

[Artyczar]

People will always appreciate the artist's hand, I feel. There's never anything like the hand-crafted. I think that will always be the case.

 

[laika]

There's never anything like the hand-crafted. I think that will always be the case.

Until it isn't. Until machine art is indistinguishable from the hand-crafted :-(

Sorry. Had to be done.

Hilarious - thank you! I love the first one in the sequence. Why would it choose hairy toast? It reminds me of a certain toasted-looking politician who despises windy days.

 

[amo]

Until it isn't. Until machine art is indistinguishable from the hand-crafted :-(

Hilarious - thank you! I love the first one in the sequence. Why would it choose hairy toast? It reminds me of a certain toasted-looking politician who despises windy days.

I said this in my blog post about AI, but I don't think I repeated it here. A lot of my non-art income comes from transcription (started in medical, more general now), and ever since I started in medical transcription in 1995, I've been told that voice recognition is going to replace me and take away my job. Now I do have to say that the technology has changed the nature of the work over time, but I still have plenty of work (usually as much as I want and sometimes more than I want; I'm a freelancer). In fact, the "old school" transcriptionists do a lot better at the new kinds of work because the less-experienced people over rely on the technology and don't know how to spell or punctuate properly in many cases.

I think we'll see something similar in art/design. Fewer people will be able to get more work done, but it won't go away entirely. And that's really just commercial art. Fine art has always been it's own unique thing. To me, unfortunately, it looks like fine art success is more about who you know than about quality or ability. The internet has made many things more or less a popularity contest, anyway. AI won't change any of that.

 

[amo]

I love the first one in the sequence. Why would it choose hairy toast? It reminds me of a certain toasted-looking politician who despises windy days.

You know, I have a lot of observations about AI's quirks. It reminds me. . . . and this might be part of what you find unsettling about AI. It reminds of writing poetry (and sometimes visual art, in different ways), where the act of making things fit rhyme or meter causes me to say things that weren't originally intended, and then I have to check and see if I really want to say that. Sometimes it leads to amazing discoveries, serendipitous wisdom, and sometimes I have to cut out the nonsense. The AI throws out this random "poetic" element, and sometimes it's nonsense and other times it's not.

I'm probably not explaining it very well. Let me show you an example:

When I was generating my image for "Chef Cat Makes A Shrimp Cocktail" (OpenAI's DALLE-2) - the fourth image is the one I used (and the only usable result here) - but look at how shrimp images, shapes, and colors crept into the body of the cat in each image. Only #4 was "fixable." I see that a LOT in my generated images. Unintentional echoes.
Another:

The puzzle pieces were supposed to be in the blender but see how they crept out into the counter and the backsplash, etc. Don't get me started on the macarons - I have NO IDEA how those got there (reported to OpenAI as unwanted result).
There are, of course, other AI engines, and I haven't examined them all closely, but I have seen what I consider to be flaws/defects in all the ones I have looked at closely. Some of them apply heavy style changes to cover for defects in the rendering, for example.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that some of these issues are actually possible opportunities for serendipitous discovery ("happy accidents"), but what I seem to be saying now is that AI has a long way to go. Both are true

Edited to add: I lost my point. If I find it, I'll post again. I had a point that I failed to make, just can't remember what it was exactly.

 

[amo]

Oh, I remember. The AI throws out these "echoes" or unintentional effects of various kinds, but it can't tell whether it's useful/usable or not. That takes an artist.

 

[Enyaw]

Why would art be any different than assembly machinery or music or. ... and on and on ... machines writing code for better machines ..

 

[amo]

Why would art be any different than assembly machinery or music or. ... and on and on ... machines writing code for better machines ..

I sure see a difference between art/music and machinery/assembly lines. There are some similarities in process, granted, but some things are utilitarian and other things are . . . . higher. I think.

 

[Enyaw]

i was referring to the fact that they are all computer assisted.

 

[Artyczar]

I still don't think machines in art, like in music, will "take over" all human creativity. It will assist, and listeners and viewers will still like what they like. We as creators can't control that part. I like Classical music, and I like Radiohead who have used all kinds of machines in their music in creative ways. Some people like strictly electronic music. Humans, for the most part, are still creating it/controlling it in larger or lesser degrees.