Improved AI generations of Gaga

[PartySick 166,054]

21 hours ago, moonsago said:

Some people don’t like being told otherwise of what they already believe. Don’t even bother, their mind is already made up even if they can’t provide a valid argument. They told me ‘art is whatever you want it to be’, well art is a human concept and it needs the human to ‘be’ to begin with, it does not exist without the human. 

To be a devil's advocate here, one could say the human observing the ai products is the human needed for art to be considered "art".

Art is generally defined as expressing creativity through a medium like music, dance, paint, digital works, etc.

And though the expression in this case isn't from the creator of the art, it could be from the person that draws meaning from the art. 'Cause then, it's expressing something.

That said, I find this all very creepy

[Werewoof 2,478]

I think there will always be a better appreciation for non-ai art in the end. It’s the same as hearing when people complain that “oh X is using autotune! They can’t really sing like Y!” Or “X relies on song writing camps!!! Y writes all of their own music!” There’s always the individuals who place great emphasis on the talent of individuals. Now about replacing artists in terms of companies? Yeah that will be tricky. I don’t really know what the answer to that is. 

[moonsago 7,285]

11 minutes ago, PartySick said:

To be a devil's advocate here, one could say the human observing the ai products is the human needed for art to be considered "art".

Art is generally defined as expressing creativity through a medium like music, dance, paint, digital works, etc.

And though the expression in this case isn't from the creator of the art, it could be from the person that draws meaning from the art. 'Cause then, it's expressing something.

That said, I find this all very creepy

I am sorry but I disagree. To express creativity through art and then for somebody else to INTERPRET that piece of art is something completely different. Computers are not artists and they will never be, they are lines or code that work on math, they don’t have an unlimited inner imaginative world to draw from, computers don’t contemplate, wonder, pose existential questions, it is not alive to put it simply. So you can look at their ‘artwork’ and form a conclusion on your own, but that is a meaning you assigned, the actual ‘artwork’ means nothing and speaks of nothing so it brings no contribution to the human experience. You can’t compare it to the art of an actual painter for example who’s work is a REFLECTION of themselves. And again, the concerns are also how unethical it is that AI uses stolen artworks and images to ‘create’. 

[Notorious Bean 8,472]

Can someone do this AI thing with Gaga but put it on Madonna in a music video 

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

1 hour ago, Werewolves Wanted said:

I think there will always be a better appreciation for non-ai art in the end. It’s the same as hearing when people complain that “oh X is using autotune! They can’t really sing like Y!” Or “X relies on song writing camps!!! Y writes all of their own music!” There’s always the individuals who place great emphasis on the talent of individuals. Now about replacing artists in terms of companies? Yeah that will be tricky. I don’t really know what the answer to that is. 

I don't think it's really comparable to autotune, You still need a person involved to sing and produce something that sounds good. The Music equivalent of this is you wanting a new lady gaga song and just asking the machine to do it for you, It runs trough it's data on work it stole from her and other musicians to produce a new song. It disregards the artist entirely in the art process.

The main issue Is that the whole system is run on countless stolen art. If these companies ditched the current generators and made new versions that only used art with permission and compensation It'd still be strange to want to automate art but at least It wouldn't be as shady as it is right now.

[Notorious Bean 8,472]

Can someone PLEASE explain how this AI thing works? It’s baffling 

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

33 minutes ago, Bowman said:

Can someone PLEASE explain how this AI thing works? It’s baffling 

Basically a company steals billions of data (art, photos, ect) from the internet 

Does the Data equivalent of money laundering

Uses all this stolen data to train an AI who's purpose it to make new art/photos from the countless stolen ones.

Open it to the public where people can put in prompts/sentences and generate their own images.

Use those people to discretely train it more on what generations are good and bad.

Then try to sell/profit from the program and generated images.

 

It's unethical and should be illegal but legislation hasn't caught up to AI to regulate it. Artists online are currently protesting and try to push to educate lawmakers but for now they're having their work stolen and used against them. It's sad to see people using it so casually and actually trying to defend the current generators.

[YCHofficial 5,293]

Lady Gaga Mary Jane Holland music video

[Werewoof 2,478]

2 hours ago, RahrahWitch said:

I don't think it's really comparable to autotune, You still need a person involved to sing and produce something that sounds good. The Music equivalent of this is you wanting a new lady gaga song and just asking the machine to do it for you, It runs trough it's data on work it stole from her and other musicians to produce a new song. It disregards the artist entirely in the art process.

The main issue Is that the whole system is run on countless stolen art. If these companies ditched the current generators and made new versions that only used art with permission and compensation It'd still be strange to want to automate art but at least It wouldn't be as shady as it is right now.

I’m comparing it with the mindset of non-stolen art as a source. I know that isn’t the case right now, but it might be someday. I think it can be compared in ways to autotune in the sense of people put high value on things that come from natural talent. AI isn’t natural talent in that sense. So the reason I said that was specifically is because I often worry about what will happen if people don’t use humans to create the art they consume anymore—so that’s me silver lining. 
 

I’m in no way referencing the art stealing aspect, that is not okay and undermines the artists. Just not what I was focusing on in my particular post. 

[Babba the Hutt 453]

What AI are you using? This is amazing, the results are insanely good.

[Anderson123 40,450]

Someone made AI generated pics of Gaga as Harley Quinn and they’re being posted all over social media and people believe they’re real Joker 2 set pictures omg.

[Ashley 9,870]

Why do they all have random tattoos?

[vanna shintuyu 11,373]

5 hours ago, Bowman said:

Can someone do this AI thing with Gaga but put it on Madonna in a music video 

https://twitter.com/LisaGoldlake09/status/1603380705459081217?t=I2RbbHv04AH_yfKD6xYW2g&s=19

sorta? it combined them and it's so cursed.

[hELXIG 44,271]

It's so strange because I can see aspects of her old face and her new face together 

But the images are beautiful!

AI is insane. And controversial already...  but rightly so.

I recently did the My Heritage generator and it was crazy

[Oriane 21,704]

On 12/14/2022 at 10:00 PM, 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. And of course AI is going to replace low-level jobs with "easier" tasks for a robot first. That's nice and all but what will these people do for a job? Again, we're keeping the elite at the top.