Tools don’t have culture, people do. New subcultures exist for this tool. Like primitive CGI, it produces images differently. Onlookers seeing the limitations, and offering “Well why don’t you just draw that?,” do not get it.
Would you feel any differently if some collective of artists created a model entirely from their own works, specifically so people can describe images into existence? The end result would not be any different.
I would feel differently about that actually. I still wouldn’t call anything created through prompt a piece of art created by the prompter though. I might call the ai itself a form of art. I might call the prompted images art but the art would have come from and belong to the artists who created the ai
Why? They didn’t make those images, any more than you would. They made the thing that made those images.
The artists did make the images generated by their ai. They put their labor into creating the art that feeds it and they have the ability to curate what art goes into the ai in order to give it a meaning or message. The major factors in what I consider art are labor, intent, and meaning. The prompter lacks these. Their labor, if you would consider prompting to be labor, is absolutely minimal, you could not possible input less labor. Their intent is missing. Think of an oil painting for example. Each brush stroke is intentional, they all have purpose whether it be for representing the beauty of a scene through the lense that they see it and want the viewer to see it or for creating a message they want the viewer to understand. How can the prompter accomplish this? The prompter might give the image meaning but how is the observer meant to understand it when the prompter cannot guide them?
The ai these artists built and curated might be able to translate their message, guided by their intent, and created by their labor if built for that purpose and for that reason I consider images created by it to be their art. Who prompts the ai makes no difference.
I include might, in both my comments because this remains to be seen.
Sorry, taking this seriously. So… if I use their tool… and enter a lurid combination of popular cartoon characters, morally indefensible fetishes, and prominent political figures… it’s their fault. They made that art. The image you closed immediately but cannot unsee, contains absolutely none of my meaning. It is immaculate of my intent, and I cannot be blamed.
No matter how many hours I spent getting Frieren’s spit to land in Starmer’s ear.
If they created the ai to be capable of producing that sort of image then yes. They curated the ai, they gave it the data that allowed it to produce that. You can’t train an ai on, as a random example, exclusively traditonal oil paints pre 2000 and have it make porn of frieren. They would have to intentionally give it that capability. Should they have given it that ability, doesn’t it say something about their intent and meaning in constructing the ai? Isn’t it purposeful on their part?
Models from last year can render characters introduced this year. If you can describe their appearance - the robot will draw that. Maybe not easily. Maybe not well. But combining abstracted concepts is kinda the point.
It is difficult to imagine an image model that can’t emit basically whatever you want. If the model has people, it has everybody. You just have to find them.
Tools don’t have culture, people do. New subcultures exist for this tool. Like primitive CGI, it produces images differently. Onlookers seeing the limitations, and offering “Well why don’t you just draw that?,” do not get it.
Would you feel any differently if some collective of artists created a model entirely from their own works, specifically so people can describe images into existence? The end result would not be any different.
I would feel differently about that actually. I still wouldn’t call anything created through prompt a piece of art created by the prompter though. I might call the ai itself a form of art. I might call the prompted images art but the art would have come from and belong to the artists who created the ai
Why? They didn’t make those images, any more than you would. They made the thing that made those images.
Attributing authorship if they write the prompt, but not if you write the prompt, is a religious debate.
The artists did make the images generated by their ai. They put their labor into creating the art that feeds it and they have the ability to curate what art goes into the ai in order to give it a meaning or message. The major factors in what I consider art are labor, intent, and meaning. The prompter lacks these. Their labor, if you would consider prompting to be labor, is absolutely minimal, you could not possible input less labor. Their intent is missing. Think of an oil painting for example. Each brush stroke is intentional, they all have purpose whether it be for representing the beauty of a scene through the lense that they see it and want the viewer to see it or for creating a message they want the viewer to understand. How can the prompter accomplish this? The prompter might give the image meaning but how is the observer meant to understand it when the prompter cannot guide them?
The ai these artists built and curated might be able to translate their message, guided by their intent, and created by their labor if built for that purpose and for that reason I consider images created by it to be their art. Who prompts the ai makes no difference.
I include might, in both my comments because this remains to be seen.
But does the JPEG have Buddha nature?
Sorry, taking this seriously. So… if I use their tool… and enter a lurid combination of popular cartoon characters, morally indefensible fetishes, and prominent political figures… it’s their fault. They made that art. The image you closed immediately but cannot unsee, contains absolutely none of my meaning. It is immaculate of my intent, and I cannot be blamed.
No matter how many hours I spent getting Frieren’s spit to land in Starmer’s ear.
If they created the ai to be capable of producing that sort of image then yes. They curated the ai, they gave it the data that allowed it to produce that. You can’t train an ai on, as a random example, exclusively traditonal oil paints pre 2000 and have it make porn of frieren. They would have to intentionally give it that capability. Should they have given it that ability, doesn’t it say something about their intent and meaning in constructing the ai? Isn’t it purposeful on their part?
Models from last year can render characters introduced this year. If you can describe their appearance - the robot will draw that. Maybe not easily. Maybe not well. But combining abstracted concepts is kinda the point.
It is difficult to imagine an image model that can’t emit basically whatever you want. If the model has people, it has everybody. You just have to find them.
Lol somebody invested in AI