Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

You are right, there is still a market for handmade clothes and self expression to a certain degree. My point is that it self expression was not the main function of clothing when they were invented but self-expression was the main function of art when it was invented.

Hence there is still a different between them.



Art being related to money is more of a western thing started a few century ago when nobles hired oil painters to do painting as some kind of property owned by them. Then capitalism turned it into something related to money.

It wasn't case even before that. For example in ancient China art was simply a way for educated people to social and have an exchange with each other, as a way to self-express.

I would say the core function of art was not basic human need but self actualization when it was invented. Just that capitalism changed that.

Thus it is possible to draw the conclusion that AI isn't going to replace art. It is possible that commercial products that needed traditional art techniques (such as games, movies) will delegate some workload to AI, but that isn't the same as saying the humanity no longer need self-expression because AI exists.


If you can do that then good for you. I can't, personally. I am kind of person who can only engage if I know the person behind it. Their life experience, their perspectives etc matters a whole lot more than the actual output.

To me art done by people that I know and admire almost always have more value than an random well made image that's just pixels to me. Because perspectives of a real human being is more valuable than techniques(pixels).

I feel like this is only true in retrospect, at some point the artist was unknown to you then you came across their art and developed an interest to know more about the artist behind it.

Otherwise I would have to imagine you knew the person personally and one day went "WHOA! you make art this is so cool, it really captures who you are as a person, I love it" And I just can't imagine you knew every artist you have ever appreciated personally before coming to know they had art you could look at.

It's possible, but even then the position of AI still isn't going replace human though. To me at least.

If one day someone made a piece art or literature, show it to people, people will question why those decisions were made in their own works. An AI guy probably won't be able to answer in-depth if they relied on algorithms to made decisions in their work. While people who made the decisions themselves can explain their thought process in-depth way more easily.

There are many cases in art community with people pretending their work is fully handmade, and eventually got caught using AI because they dodged the questions when people questioned it. That ruined their reputation more than just being honest about AI from the get go.

A lot of people who are mad about AI aren't even artists, they are consumers who wanted to see humanity in art and AI ruined their needs.

There are just way too many people posting their AI art pretending it is made by human individual. Some of the consumers don't like that, and the trust between artists and consumers are being destroyed because of AI. I wish the industry figure out a system to differentiate them more easily so the trust can be built again.

This seems to be wishful thinking. As a human who doesn't consume an immense amount of art, I can look at bad quality AI art and immediately recognize it as AI. Doesn't look good, but doesn't hurt me to have seen it.. can continue to look for what you want to see.

This is just puritanism. If the consumer can't immediately tell whether a person or AI made it, then they can't rightfully say there's something wrong with it being AI-created. It's like being forced to hand-write a paper because typing or VTT isn't enough suffering. The same arguments were made 10-15 years ago about purely digital art instead of using paper and shading multiple layers by hand..

On another level, when commissions are involved, there's a perception that you're paying too much for the level of work involved. It's ok to pay $100 for someone to draw for 4 hours, but not ok to spend $100 for them to use their AI-reliant pipeline to render and clean up in 20 minutes. (I consider this another poor argument, it stems from jealousy more than anything else.)

It is not wrong, but it is different entity.

because to me image output and self-expression are 2 different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art



Human activity is part of art, the product is the result. You need both to be qualified. If you have a result without the journey/activity that makes this "art" in incomplete state.

That being said, in English the word "art" is closer to "craft" and they aren't separated from "things being made for human expression", hence the confusion.

For example in English people called the position that creates video game assets "video game artists", this isn't the case in my language.

In my language "art(for self expression)" and "craft(final result)" are a bit more separated, they don't have the exact same meaning. Hence it is very hard to argue an image without that much human individual involvement being art.

If an artist uses AI to get a start and cleans it up to their tastes/standards, are they not still expressing themselves in doing that? As such, shouldn't AI art be ok as long as a human is taking some step in the process, or are you gatekeeping art behind the percentage of human labor involved..?

For that matter, is story writing or animation no longer art attributable to the writers or animators if the end result is using solely assets that others have made?

Personally I am open to use percentage in a "is this art" discussion.

Saying a piece with 50% human individual decision having more "humanity" than another piece with 5% human individual decision is perfectly fine by me.


Whether there is an effective way to identify the precise percentage is another issue though.




Art and assets being interchangeable in entertainment industry is more of English language problem imo. ;p in my language we have different words for "art" indicating different functions.

Vast majority of what people say on twitter is virtue signalling, almost everyone saying something "nice" on twitter for a cause are doing the equivalent of posting a picture of themselves with a puppy.

I would argue art and beauty are overly conflated, for example I think this tree is beautiful, it is naturally occurring
If someone had made this tree it would be art, I think AI should be respected similarly as being capable of creating beauty.

And making work that derives from that beauty is still art, like making a painting of this tree would be.

I don't like it, the amount of exposed roots reminds me of Mboze.

In my language we have different terms to describe people who craft beautiful trees in an image, and thinkers with a human perspective, and generates work for their perspectives as a result.

AI can be crafters, not thinkers.

I think not having a specialized term to differentiate the two is the core problem in this debate probably.

This still amounts to gatekeeping though, you may personally feel a baseline of humanity is necessary, but many others won't. AI art is still going to inherently be inspired by the datasets it was trained on, so an in-depth observation may eventually lead you back to the (human-created!) elements that are combined to create the eventual artwork. For example, people have quite successfully used AI models to recreate a certain artist's style.. and that could be viewed in much the same way certain historical waves of art are shown to be inspired by earlier artists.

I agree with this, as well.

well part of my argument is addressing "people cant use AI to make art it is cheating" and I would say if that is true then "people cant use existing beauty to make art it is cheating"

"painting a landscape is cheating you didn't do all the composition work it was that way to begin with"

"Style" is just a combination of color and pixel placement though. How does creating human style by analyzing and redoing pixel placements being equal to thinking like a human though? I just don't see it.

Like I said, in my language we don't call people who craft beautiful trees in an image "artists", we call them "crafters" or "painters" instead. but in English both pretty much means the same thing. I think that may be the main reason behind people see them as the same thing.

The problem isn't AI being cheating or not, but algorithms made the decisions for human in the process, thus taking away one individual's opportunity on decision making in the final output.

Since humanity is part of definition for art, the way it works is changing the current definition.

It is a philosophical discussion, not a technical discussion.

"Art" is just a combination of color and placement, too. Human thinking is just a neural network combining inputs in a certain way to produce an output, why is it special here?

Art critics analyze artworks, attributing elements of the artwork to prior artists to map inspiration for people who have died centuries ago. How is that any different than analyzing an AI-created piece and attributing the inspiration to the distinct art styles noted in the dataset?

If the value of the artwork is in the process used to arrive at the artwork, surely there is still a comparable process present in AI that you could ponder.

man i miss when ppl did stuff in ffxi together all the time

The definition on wiki literally isn't that. I linked the page. It's like the 5th time that I emphasis the language problem behind it.


It's called Humanism I think.(A Philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

The entire history of art is centered around Humanism thus defined by it. It's fine to not agree with this school of thinking. Feel free to invent another term to describe algorithm generated images.

It is not "gate keeping" for wanting a more precise language to describe 2 different entity.

But when you start arguing that humanity is the same as algorithms you are entering the terroritory of philosophical debate that will face a lot of people disagreeing.


Just FYI, the court still hasn't grant AI copyright because they are considered not-people, I think it is common sense that human see humanity as having greater value than algorithms.


AI is just a bunch of code and their perspectives are shaped by people who created them, not because they have real life experience.

There are a LOT of things that I can't generate by AI because AI company said so.

I just can't see how they can be compared to humans in anyways.

Current gen of local image generation tools use a data training set you can customize yourself, so the 'artist' behind the AI is determining what influences it and the AI art will have elements of that training set. So, it's still got human influence both prior to creation(the input arts and the input prompt) and post-creation (touchup, adjustment).

But, I still think this argument is mostly emotionally motivated. People who participate in art don't like the idea of AI being able to do the same thing they can, so they focus on a very narrow definition that specifically excludes AI art. Reality is that in the majority of the cases, the consumer only cares about the quality of the product.

Wanting to have a more precise term to describe 2 different entity isn't the same as gate keeping nor narrowing the definition of a term.

We should have more terms to differentiate things in a more precise manners, not less. It helps the consumers pick what they want and makes discussions less confusing.

If human generated images are different entity from algorithms generated images, saying both needed a different term isn't gate keeping, it is precise use of language.

Like I said, in my language people use the term "AI generated image" but very rarely "AI art" is used. But in English it is gatekeeping to say "AI generated image is not art". This really confusing.


I am in several different anime/otaku groups, I can tell you this is definitely not the case.

There is a few groups literally require people proving they are made by human before posting, and those groups are all very large.

There is definitely a market for "humanity" in the final output in the current market. Maybe you don't belong to this group, but they exist.


The meaning of art is indeed philosophical, but philosophy and emotional motivation do not have direct relation. A lot of philosophy theory are entirely logic based.

oh no Hell blade Sanua 1 was one of my favorite games and hellblade 2 apparently is *** because the game is only 5 hours long :(

Give this thing 2 more months, and the only 2 teams who won't be priced out will be NYYC and ETNZ- New York Yacht Club just was able to drop an entire 2nd build testing out new theories and such....and being able to do such a thing is so far beyond the capabilities of the other teams its shocking.

This newest build is clearly super fast- the question will be can they even control such speed? If nothing else, it'll be fun as hell to watch them try.

i really miss the old ffxi from Rise of zilart and onwards :( cant have it on me to play a Private server

It's OK to miss things man!

Lol I just noticed that. I thought they'd all be new NPCs..
Hmm I wonder if this would be reason enough to start a fresh playthrough

Rewatched the trailer, and they all seem to be new NPCs actually (most shown in the 1st DLC trailer)..

Safe!

still waiting for the 3 hour long vaati analysis

In the end, it was a great explanation video, that delivered exactly what I wanted and like.

Now I feel like I truly understand FFX story.

And wow, a lot more deep than I thought I knew