Stand with Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan -- with democracy and civilization against tyranny and barbarism
Pages
▼
24 January 2024
Video of the day -- artist at work
I browse the art site DeviantArt occasionally, and recently ran across this dark re-imagining of Frozen -- please do click for full size so you can see it properly. It's not only absolutely awesome, but offers a good illustration of the huge difference between art created by an artist on a computer and the "AI" stuff we've been hearing so much about. Artist Neytirix (see her site here) posted a video showing how she made this, step by step (the first 50 seconds is an intro):
The actual work took thirteen hours. You can see that this takes every bit as much skill and effort as traditional art created with physical paintbrushes or pencils. An "AI" system where you just input a text prompt, and a computer throws together an image over whose details you have no real control, is not the same thing.
(Update: added the image itself after receiving permission from Neytirix.)
This was all new to me, and I found it fascinating to watch the video, which makes your point well. There's great artistry and skill in this work--a far cry from what would have inevitably been derivative in an AI effort.
I checked the artist's web site. As she notes that commissions are not being currently accepted, she's clearly sought-after for her talent. That's all to the good.
I have to disagree. I use AI quite a bit. This is just the labour theory of value which is nonsesne. Nobody would suggest going back to medieval agriculture would they? AI art is not a magic bullet. It just takes out a lot of grunt work.
Annie: Thanks -- I'm glad you found it interesting. I'm always in awe of people who have real artistic ability. I could never have created something like this, no matter what kind of tools I was using.
As for commissions, I'm trying to imagine what a fair price for something like this would be. I hope she's made some good money for what she does.
NickM: But "AI" "art" isn't art. There's no skill or creativity involved in just typing prompts into a computer. If you can use "AI" for generating blueprints or something like that, fine, but that's unrelated to what I'm talking about here. And the value of art has nothing to do with any economic theory.
The AI generated art is almost like a slot machine, it’s nice if it comes out how you want but you can’t take very much credit for creating anything 🤷♂️
Perhaps you have a creative idea, but feel the need to hire an artist to get the result you envisioned. AI is the same thing, but perhaps with even more of a ‘mind of its own’, if u will
Mary K: Neither can I. So I have all the more respect for the abilities of those who can.
Bijoux: It is beautiful, even though it's basically a horror scene. Remarkable. A machine couldn't do that, except by accident. It has no sense of aesthetics; it doesn't know what it's doing.
Reaganite: Yes, a slot machine is a good analogy. It will deliver results within certain parameters, but there's no consciousness in it.
It's actually machines that don't have minds of their own, which is why it's not legitimate to call this "artificial intelligence" (we may someday develop real artificial intelligence, but right now nobody has even the foggiest idea where to start or how it might work) or the output of it "art". A product of mindless forces like a beach or a mountain may even be judged beautiful, but we don't call it art.
If I had money I probably would hire an artist occasionally to realize some vision. It can be fascinating to see what they come up with.
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogger account and aren't sure how to comment, see here. Fair warning: anything even remotely supportive of transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or supportive of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted and result in a permanent ban. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
On work days there is likely to be a substantial delay in approving comments, since I can't do blog stuff in an office. For this I apologize.
This was all new to me, and I found it fascinating to watch the video, which makes your point well. There's great artistry and skill in this work--a far cry from what would have inevitably been derivative in an AI effort.
ReplyDeleteI checked the artist's web site. As she notes that commissions are not being currently accepted, she's clearly sought-after for her talent. That's all to the good.
I have to disagree. I use AI quite a bit. This is just the labour theory of value which is nonsesne. Nobody would suggest going back to medieval agriculture would they? AI art is not a magic bullet. It just takes out a lot of grunt work.
ReplyDeleteAnnie: Thanks -- I'm glad you found it interesting. I'm always in awe of people who have real artistic ability. I could never have created something like this, no matter what kind of tools I was using.
ReplyDeleteAs for commissions, I'm trying to imagine what a fair price for something like this would be. I hope she's made some good money for what she does.
NickM: But "AI" "art" isn't art. There's no skill or creativity involved in just typing prompts into a computer. If you can use "AI" for generating blueprints or something like that, fine, but that's unrelated to what I'm talking about here. And the value of art has nothing to do with any economic theory.
There are some incredibly talented people out there. Not me, I cannot draw to save my life. lol
ReplyDeleteThat’s beautiful. I agree that AI is not creating art.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Samsung has an AI phone. I really don’t want to know . . .
The AI generated art is almost like a slot machine, it’s nice if it comes out how you want but you can’t take very much credit for creating anything 🤷♂️
ReplyDeletePerhaps you have a creative idea, but feel the need to hire an artist to get the result you envisioned. AI is the same thing, but perhaps with even more of a ‘mind of its own’, if u will
Mary K: Neither can I. So I have all the more respect for the abilities of those who can.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: It is beautiful, even though it's basically a horror scene. Remarkable. A machine couldn't do that, except by accident. It has no sense of aesthetics; it doesn't know what it's doing.
Reaganite: Yes, a slot machine is a good analogy. It will deliver results within certain parameters, but there's no consciousness in it.
It's actually machines that don't have minds of their own, which is why it's not legitimate to call this "artificial intelligence" (we may someday develop real artificial intelligence, but right now nobody has even the foggiest idea where to start or how it might work) or the output of it "art". A product of mindless forces like a beach or a mountain may even be judged beautiful, but we don't call it art.
If I had money I probably would hire an artist occasionally to realize some vision. It can be fascinating to see what they come up with.