One of the things human artists have in their favor is their ability to change and adapt. Does this mean they can remain one or two steps ahead of AI? Perhaps. I suppose time will tell. No one really knows where all of this will lead, but I think a lot of it will end up as a novelty, something people will play with for a bit until they get bored.
"Process" will, I think, remain an important component of art. I do think that process will change with time and the development and technology. AI can take input and spit something out; humans can interpret input and produce something based on experience, skill, and individual interpretation. I think that advantage will always remain with humanity...but I could be wrong. It's happened before.
I believe humanity and AI will ultimately have a far different relationship than anything we can imagine today. Remember when everyone thought the 21st century would resemble the Jetsons? I think we worry because we don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, but I think it may well be more symbiotic than we can know now.
You're talking about biocybernetics, aren't you? Oh, horror. I mean, if someone needs a functioning heart or a new limb, sure. But this idea that we should because we can? Bad idea.
I completely agree with you though. We have no idea where this will lead. The future is murky even to those who can see ten miles down the road.
Yeah, because we can does that mean we should? **Shrugs shoulders, throws up hands, and walks away to find his spirit animal, Charles Bukowski...mostly because he knows he'll have whiskey.**
Ughh, um, guilty and yes, with a wee umbrage. So true, art in any form is hopefully gut driven with unabashed realism from organic instruments such as paper, pencil, paintbrush, guitar, piano and mind, to name a few. If I'm not mistaken, pure talent(gifted or educated) has succumbed to the tripe of technological expedience of contrived fame through the cogs of these tools, which I will sardonically deem as Plasticism. For me, the technological world is fascinating and yet completely invasive to my passivity. I call my iPhone “Umbillicus” as a joke. It’s become a connective tissue that I love and abhor at the same time! CGI, Gargeband(my guilty pleasure), or the other apps that create visual art at the flick of a wrist, I too feel are disturbing to objectivity of the arts in their purest forms. They are a threat! A cookin’ jazz band, fuck yes! A drum machine beat with blokes telling you to say “yo”, fuck off! Plastacism.🤪
Still working on some GB material to finish my Covid pet project. Fricken writers block, musically. I feel the songs are more mature, but lack a beautiful bridge. The idea of perfection is insane, it doesn’t exist. Plasticism is unacceptable!😀❤️
Initially, I was appalled by this Midjouney app, but the bots and droids have not taken over (yet). lol
Out of my "cat-like" curiosity, I typed in your exact verbiage "Carnival of lunatics" and "Tokyo in year 3031" into Midjourney, and "created" almost identical pieces of "art."
I just EM them to you.
My firm belief (perhaps only a firm hope) is that only actual flesh and blood can handle the randomness of being human. Also, in my humble opinion, although Jason Allen should accept accolades for creating a fun and interesting app, he should willingly return his "art" award. Allen only created an app.
Thank you for sharing such interesting articles. Even when I don't comment, I am devouring them as they always peak my interest. I felt compelled to comment on this one and try out the app because I have an IT background.
An odd thing to say, I know, but thank you for being as intellectually promiscuous as I am! The nature of the articles I write and post really do cover a range of subjects, and may at first glance seem ADD, but they're not. Like you, I'm just ... curious. About everything. I'm willing to bet your only real regret in life is that you won't be able to know all the things there are to know.
I was reading about DALL-E-2 the other day. Pretty depressing. Actual painting will still be dominated by humans, but robotics is rapidly approaching the fine motor control to handle brushes. Still not there: there is the example of the chess playing robot that broke a child's hand because it kept zipping out over the keyboard and scrambled the thing's spatial recognition circuitry: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/24/chess-robot-grabs-and-breaks-finger-of-seven-year-old-opponent-moscow (the robot is reported to have snarled something about the punk had it coming ... )
The absence of intention is some of what separates art from computer generated products. Allen didn't approach his screen with a vision of the picture he was trying to create, just an iterative entrance of terms and experimenting with the results. But of course, such experimentation is itself very much of a piece with the creation of what we all agree is legitimately art as well. Thus, in my novel I keep stumbling into things that I'd not seen but which reflect back on what has already been written and unify things into a coherent whole.
One formulaic aspect of the AI pictures you shared above (including Allen's) is how people are held at a distance; there are no faces. Even with crazy carnival, the "individual" is in a mask and hood, with no human features evident. I suppose with enough iterations (I understand that you can select those images you prefer and build upon those, sneaking that intention back into the process) the lines can be sharpened up. Yours were all a tad fuzzy, while Allen's was reasonably "sharp." I wonder how similar the results are when presented with identical start terms?
Regardless, I expect Dewey and Barnes are shitting themselves in their graves.
That is a very interesting observation you made there. Yes, I agree. There are no real faces, and you can't count the one that's masked. So, what does that mean? Because I'm getting Smiths vibes here.
Yes, poor Dewey and poor Barnes. They never saw this one coming.
I'm not an artist and have an unrefined, optimistic view of machines. I can't disagree with the statement that AI has already "won." But I'm optimistically excited to see what happens next. My favorite historical reference is math. When we humans realized and accepted that machines are faster and more precise than we will ever be in calculations, we moved on to "higher level math and physics." Many were concerned that "math would be lost forever," but instead, we began to tackle computations that were previously "unimaginable." I acknowledge that math and art may be fundamentally different "processes," but I naively predict that true artists will take art to higher and unimaginable levels.
PEDRAM!!!!! Oh, how happy I am to see you here! It feels as though I never get enough time to pick your brain, and now here you are offering me a look at it. Your insights are especially welcome here because I am the past, and you are the future.
Seriously. This is your time. What you say carries a lot of weight with me because you're actually in the thick of it, whereas I'm merely peeking between my fingers from the sidelines. Imagine the fun we could have if you guys came from a visit to Italy and we all had a dinner that lasted maybe five days!
ALSO. Thank you for giving so generously to Cappuccino. As freelancers, we are always flirting with disaster. Your support made a significant difference this month. Love to you both.
Oh please, all of us, collectively, ARE the present. I learned that from your own yoga classes :) and yes we will keep trying to find a time to visit.
And believe me, you will never lose our support as long as you keep writing to make us all think :)
I did notice that the substack app has a "read aloud" function but I was kinda bummed that your articles weren't read by you :( I'm curious - is that something you prefer not to do or just haven't considered it? I personally LOVE when a piece of writing is narrated by the author but I've also heard some writers really want their readers to directly engage with the piece. I get it either way but was just curious about what you think. Sorry if this is not related to this specific post. Well, on a second thought, it kinda is, because some of the audiobook apps use machine-generated-speech to read anything.
One of the things human artists have in their favor is their ability to change and adapt. Does this mean they can remain one or two steps ahead of AI? Perhaps. I suppose time will tell. No one really knows where all of this will lead, but I think a lot of it will end up as a novelty, something people will play with for a bit until they get bored.
"Process" will, I think, remain an important component of art. I do think that process will change with time and the development and technology. AI can take input and spit something out; humans can interpret input and produce something based on experience, skill, and individual interpretation. I think that advantage will always remain with humanity...but I could be wrong. It's happened before.
I believe humanity and AI will ultimately have a far different relationship than anything we can imagine today. Remember when everyone thought the 21st century would resemble the Jetsons? I think we worry because we don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, but I think it may well be more symbiotic than we can know now.
You're talking about biocybernetics, aren't you? Oh, horror. I mean, if someone needs a functioning heart or a new limb, sure. But this idea that we should because we can? Bad idea.
I completely agree with you though. We have no idea where this will lead. The future is murky even to those who can see ten miles down the road.
Yeah, because we can does that mean we should? **Shrugs shoulders, throws up hands, and walks away to find his spirit animal, Charles Bukowski...mostly because he knows he'll have whiskey.**
Ughh, um, guilty and yes, with a wee umbrage. So true, art in any form is hopefully gut driven with unabashed realism from organic instruments such as paper, pencil, paintbrush, guitar, piano and mind, to name a few. If I'm not mistaken, pure talent(gifted or educated) has succumbed to the tripe of technological expedience of contrived fame through the cogs of these tools, which I will sardonically deem as Plasticism. For me, the technological world is fascinating and yet completely invasive to my passivity. I call my iPhone “Umbillicus” as a joke. It’s become a connective tissue that I love and abhor at the same time! CGI, Gargeband(my guilty pleasure), or the other apps that create visual art at the flick of a wrist, I too feel are disturbing to objectivity of the arts in their purest forms. They are a threat! A cookin’ jazz band, fuck yes! A drum machine beat with blokes telling you to say “yo”, fuck off! Plastacism.🤪
In true Eskelin spirit, you have devised a new term: plasticism. I love it.
I bet you're an absolute wizard on Garageband.
Still working on some GB material to finish my Covid pet project. Fricken writers block, musically. I feel the songs are more mature, but lack a beautiful bridge. The idea of perfection is insane, it doesn’t exist. Plasticism is unacceptable!😀❤️
Initially, I was appalled by this Midjouney app, but the bots and droids have not taken over (yet). lol
Out of my "cat-like" curiosity, I typed in your exact verbiage "Carnival of lunatics" and "Tokyo in year 3031" into Midjourney, and "created" almost identical pieces of "art."
I just EM them to you.
My firm belief (perhaps only a firm hope) is that only actual flesh and blood can handle the randomness of being human. Also, in my humble opinion, although Jason Allen should accept accolades for creating a fun and interesting app, he should willingly return his "art" award. Allen only created an app.
Thank you for sharing such interesting articles. Even when I don't comment, I am devouring them as they always peak my interest. I felt compelled to comment on this one and try out the app because I have an IT background.
An odd thing to say, I know, but thank you for being as intellectually promiscuous as I am! The nature of the articles I write and post really do cover a range of subjects, and may at first glance seem ADD, but they're not. Like you, I'm just ... curious. About everything. I'm willing to bet your only real regret in life is that you won't be able to know all the things there are to know.
Too many things. Not enough time.
YES, you get me! Delighted to be part of the tribe :-)
I was reading about DALL-E-2 the other day. Pretty depressing. Actual painting will still be dominated by humans, but robotics is rapidly approaching the fine motor control to handle brushes. Still not there: there is the example of the chess playing robot that broke a child's hand because it kept zipping out over the keyboard and scrambled the thing's spatial recognition circuitry: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/24/chess-robot-grabs-and-breaks-finger-of-seven-year-old-opponent-moscow (the robot is reported to have snarled something about the punk had it coming ... )
The absence of intention is some of what separates art from computer generated products. Allen didn't approach his screen with a vision of the picture he was trying to create, just an iterative entrance of terms and experimenting with the results. But of course, such experimentation is itself very much of a piece with the creation of what we all agree is legitimately art as well. Thus, in my novel I keep stumbling into things that I'd not seen but which reflect back on what has already been written and unify things into a coherent whole.
One formulaic aspect of the AI pictures you shared above (including Allen's) is how people are held at a distance; there are no faces. Even with crazy carnival, the "individual" is in a mask and hood, with no human features evident. I suppose with enough iterations (I understand that you can select those images you prefer and build upon those, sneaking that intention back into the process) the lines can be sharpened up. Yours were all a tad fuzzy, while Allen's was reasonably "sharp." I wonder how similar the results are when presented with identical start terms?
Regardless, I expect Dewey and Barnes are shitting themselves in their graves.
That is a very interesting observation you made there. Yes, I agree. There are no real faces, and you can't count the one that's masked. So, what does that mean? Because I'm getting Smiths vibes here.
Yes, poor Dewey and poor Barnes. They never saw this one coming.
I'm not an artist and have an unrefined, optimistic view of machines. I can't disagree with the statement that AI has already "won." But I'm optimistically excited to see what happens next. My favorite historical reference is math. When we humans realized and accepted that machines are faster and more precise than we will ever be in calculations, we moved on to "higher level math and physics." Many were concerned that "math would be lost forever," but instead, we began to tackle computations that were previously "unimaginable." I acknowledge that math and art may be fundamentally different "processes," but I naively predict that true artists will take art to higher and unimaginable levels.
PEDRAM!!!!! Oh, how happy I am to see you here! It feels as though I never get enough time to pick your brain, and now here you are offering me a look at it. Your insights are especially welcome here because I am the past, and you are the future.
Seriously. This is your time. What you say carries a lot of weight with me because you're actually in the thick of it, whereas I'm merely peeking between my fingers from the sidelines. Imagine the fun we could have if you guys came from a visit to Italy and we all had a dinner that lasted maybe five days!
ALSO. Thank you for giving so generously to Cappuccino. As freelancers, we are always flirting with disaster. Your support made a significant difference this month. Love to you both.
Oh please, all of us, collectively, ARE the present. I learned that from your own yoga classes :) and yes we will keep trying to find a time to visit.
And believe me, you will never lose our support as long as you keep writing to make us all think :)
I did notice that the substack app has a "read aloud" function but I was kinda bummed that your articles weren't read by you :( I'm curious - is that something you prefer not to do or just haven't considered it? I personally LOVE when a piece of writing is narrated by the author but I've also heard some writers really want their readers to directly engage with the piece. I get it either way but was just curious about what you think. Sorry if this is not related to this specific post. Well, on a second thought, it kinda is, because some of the audiobook apps use machine-generated-speech to read anything.