Improved AI generations of Gaga

[PerfectCure 4,758]

What AI is this? Wild 

[nATAH 46,573]

29 minutes ago, moonsago said:

There is no real creativity in this new form of ‘art’, the human is not involved in creating these, there is no REAL interpretation through the human experience/lense, it’s just associations of images blended together through an algoritm. It’s math, not art. And the major concern isn’t even with that, it’s the fact that artists will not have work comissioned anymore when you can have a computer generate your editorials in magazines, as one example. Why pay 10 people for a photoshoot when you can have an 8 dollar a month subscription plan to one of these programs. People will lose their livelyhoods. And this won’t stop here, I literally watched a video of one of these engineers say how in the future they plan to make AI robots for cheap and literally said something along the lines of ‘why would an employer pay you 100.000$ a year when he can buy hundreds of 10$ AI robots to do your job’. People don’t realize the future implications of unethical AI development. Make no mistake, this is for the rich. 

this plus the fact the AI is stealing from existing pieces of work! these AI wouldn't be possible without human made art in the first place and art communities are protesting across all different platforms to stop the implementation of AI software to prevent their work from being taken without permission. there's too huge a risk of lawsuits for AI to replace anybody!

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

45 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

New generations in art have always existed in new eras. One era after another. Paintings pre date the digital era and so on. Art will always exists because of it, there's room for everyone.

That's not how this works at all, This isn't a new medium like digital painting. You still need a skilled artist to create a digital painting. This takes the artist out of the art process, that's the whole goal. It's evil.

These generators use a massive amount of stolen art to generate, without that stolen work it wouldn't be nearly as good, Just look at the music versions to see that. 

There wont be room for everyone because if these go unchecked actual real artists will have to compete with it which is impossible. and it wont just be art, there's ai written books too, soon enough it'll be bots prompting everything and the internet will be filled with this AI generated crap constantly.

AI in creative fields is an attack on all artists.

[Melodean 8,317]

Part of me thinks they’re really cool but I also find it a bit disturbing idk 

[Defmix100 6,233]

First the laying down oreos promo, now she won't need to do actual photoshoots anymore haha

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

38 minutes ago, RitaOral said:

AI is inevitable, lots of peoples will no longer be competitive in their fields but many more opportunities for humans will arise from it. Just like with every big revolution there will be a shift. It is coming one way or another. Just like the industrial revolution when machines replaced humans, the same will happen

There's absolutely good uses for AI but using them to replace artists isn't one of them

[ALittleMonsta 1,529]

AI getting scary good.. I guess no turning back point for AI art at this point! What AI did u use for this?

[moonsago 7,285]

1 hour ago, RitaOral said:

AI is inevitable, lots of peoples will no longer be competitive in their fields but many more opportunities for humans will arise from it. Just like with every big revolution there will be a shift. It is coming one way or another. Just like the industrial revolution when machines replaced humans, the same will happen

I didn’t say AI is completely bad. I noted unethical development of AI that is there to serve the people at the top. I am sorry but you can’t compare the industrial revolution to the AI revolution. Machines came in the support of human labor, AI comes to replace human labor. That is the very big difference. And to come back to AI in art, not to be dramatic but when  it comes to it AI is the death of the artist. Period. If the artist no longer exists no real progress exists. Remember, AI works with what already is ( it steals from artworks that are already made, which is also unethical ), it’s incapable of true interpretation & originality therefore a meanigful progress. People need to start being more concerned by this idea of eliminating the human from aspects of this world that are essential to it’s development. AI art literally means NOTHING, artists give meaning to their artworks and is a reflection of their inner world, an onging search for the meaning of life, our meaning as humans, what is AI art? LINES OF CODE. Cold. Dead. 

[CaliforniaDreamin 788]

2 hours ago, RitaOral said:

What do you guys think? The models are improving at a crazy fast rate

 

I post them on my twitter page 

https://twitter.com/ARTPOPAI

 

Which one did you use because all the ones I’ve used besides Lensa bans the use of any kind of public figure 

[CaliforniaDreamin 788]

1 hour ago, NATAH said:

no to AI art!

[nATAH 46,573]

Just now, CaliforniaDreamin said:

no thank you! i stand in solidarity with other artists who are protesting!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, moonsago said:

There is no real creativity in this new form of ‘art’, the human is not involved in creating these, there is no REAL interpretation through the human experience/lense, it’s just associations of images blended together through an algoritm. It’s math, not art. And the major concern isn’t even with that, it’s the fact that artists will not have work comissioned anymore when you can have a computer generate your editorials in magazines, as one example. Why pay 10 people for a photoshoot when you can have an 8 dollar a month subscription plan to one of these programs. People will lose their livelyhoods. And this won’t stop here, I literally watched a video of one of these engineers say how in the future they plan to make AI robots for cheap and literally said something along the lines of ‘why would an employer pay you 100.000$ a year when he can buy hundreds of 10$ AI robots to do your job’. People don’t realize the future implications of unethical AI development. Make no mistake, this is for the rich. 

I disagree. Art is whatever you want for it to be.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RahrahWitch said:

That's not how this works at all, This isn't a new medium like digital painting. You still need a skilled artist to create a digital painting. This takes the artist out of the art process, that's the whole goal. It's evil.

These generators use a massive amount of stolen art to generate, without that stolen work it wouldn't be nearly as good, Just look at the music versions to see that. 

There wont be room for everyone because if these go unchecked actual real artists will have to compete with it which is impossible. and it wont just be art, there's ai written books too, soon enough it'll be bots prompting everything and the internet will be filled with this AI generated crap constantly.

AI in creative fields is an attack on all artists.

I disagree.

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

6 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

I disagree.

On what exactly and why? because I stated facts.

AI Arts purpose is to replace artist.

AI generators do use billions of stolen art.

AI is taking art jobs.

AI does make Artists struggles even harder.

If left unchecked with no regulations it will get worse.

[REALITY 75,697]

I find the whole AI debate to be really interesting. Next semester I'm graduating with my Bachelor's in CS and I also plan on getting a Master's with a specialization in intelligent systems (AI, machine learning, natural language processing, etc.). But ever since I was young, I've always loved art. I used to draw and paint a lot, and I've always thought the arts were severely undervalued in society compared to STEM-based careers. I even wanted to major in something art related when I was younger. I say all this to say that I consider myself as someone coming from both worlds when discussing AI in the arts.

I think from a purely technological standpoint, seeing all this new AI art is great. It's cool to see how far technology has gotten and I genuinely do not have a problem with how advanced these things have become. I also think that trying to critique AI art as if it were made by a real person is stupid. Like, you see posts on Twitter trying to dog on AI art because "the face isn't perfect" or "the hands have 7 fingers" or whatever, but like...yeah...AI isn't perfect. It's far from it. You can recognize the technological achievements being made and still realize that these algorithms aren't infallible.

From an ethical standpoint, of course there are a ton of problems. First, AI does steal a lot of people's work. Idk what these companies' processes are like behind the scenes, but I sincerely doubt they asked permission and/or paid ALL for the artists' art that they used as data. There's also the question of whether or not AI will take away artists' jobs. I do think artists, just in general, are really undervalued and appreciated in society. I think there should be careful consideration and regulations in place to protect artists.

And this stems beyond artists too. AI is the future. Its development isn't going to stop, nor do I think it should. But I think we need to be able to find a balance between continual scientific/technological progress and the regulation of AI to ensure that people don't suffer because of it.

Finally you have the whole philosophical debate about how "AI art doesn't convey the same emotions and intentions as human art". To be honest, I would hope most people agree with that. Filtering data through an algorithm, no matter how you spin it, isn't going to give you the same emotional depth as someone taking the time to paint/draw/write/etc. something. The point of art is to convey human emotions onto something in a creative way. Many AI and machine learning algorithms, to their core, are just pattern recognition techniques. There isn't inherently anything "artistic" about AI. It can produce artistic products, but a machine is not using human emotion and life experiences to create that art. It's using samples and input data created by someone else. And to anyone saying that the evolution from digital art to AI art is equivalent to the evolution from hand-drawn to digital art: no.

I know this has been a hell of a comment, but I am passionate about topics like this, especially since they involve topics I'm genuinely interested in. I think AI generated art is a cool tool that can show you the power of what AI can do, but that's it. It's a great way to see how much technology as evolved and I think the development of AI is not only important, but inevitable. That said, anyone trying to replace human artists with AI art or anyone trying to convince others that AI art conveys the same emotion and feelings as human art is ridiculous. I also think companies need to be better of ethically sourcing their data. This whole conversation isn't a black or white scenario; I think you can acknowledge how good AI has become while also thinking it should have regulations.