The Creativity of AI Art
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- Is AI art creative? Is it really "art"?
In this video I attempt to answer these questions, and delve into the concept of computational creativity. I use the #aiart generators #stablediffusion and #bluewillow to illustrate my point.
I played the clip of Hayao Miyazaki out of order for context, watch the original to see it in order.
Links to my stuff:
Patreon: / emergentgarden
Discord invite: / discord
Twitter: / max_romana
Links to cool stuff from the video:
Free Stable Diffusion: playgroundai.com/
My Open Source Code: github.com/MaxRobinsonTheGrea...
Nature Imagery: / @davidweiller
Art by Matthew Abel: / matthewabelart
Art by Ozlem Dalyan: www.fiverr.com/zlemuuz
Art by Zelda Galewsky: / zelda_galewsky
Art Institute of Chicago: www.artic.edu/
Timestamps:
(0:00) AI "Art"
(1:34) A New Kind of Tool
(4:28) Data Ethics
(6:11) Creative Search
(9:17) Recombination
(11:16) Imperfections
(14:05) Unconscious Creativity
(15:22) Imitating Humanity
(18:36) Beyond Imitation
(19:44) Why Automate Art?
Music:
• Mindful Horizons (Albu...
• Stepping into the Ether - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Here we go. The most accurate, well-rounded, and well-informed take on AI art I've seen so far. I hope this video takes off appropriately.
Ragers does not need accurate, well-rounded, and well-informed take on AI to hate it.
Hey i came to this comment section to write this exact comment. It's SO ON POINT
This feels in many ways like the capstone project of your work so far. Beautiful ideas and explanations spanning into the massive potential of AI, the vitality of human creativity, the evolution of the natural world through blind emergence, and orangutan good, all in one video. Love it, keep em coming
I really like your videos. You show the positive sides of AI technology whilst not being alarmist or overly enthusiastic. You touch upon manny issues, including ethical, and decompose them into plausible, consumable concepts. What's more, you show a completely new way to approach this technology (e.g. exploring image space, creative algorithms looking for novelty and value). Love this content. Wish you very best with growth of the channel.
lol, you missed the part at 22:07 that contains lots of alarming statements from the AI overlord.
I think my main concerns over AI (art-generating or otherwise) are really based in economics. I love art that is made by humans, by humans giving clever prompts to AI, and what is just made by the AI hallucinating what random keyboard mashes are supposed to be. I also love the more general case of human-AI partnerships doing things never before seen (one that comes to mind was the AI that suggested Go strategies for humans to use, which allowed a guy to beat KataGo without any advice during the game itself).
That said I very much do not love the intersection of AI and modern-day capitalism. We live in a world where the amount of money you have is directly proportional to how little laws apply to you. I most definitely don't want to see AI art being bought and sold by corporations while actual humans who unknowingly (or even unwillingly) helped make that art have to retrain their drawing/painting/photography skills into something else just to pay rent.
I suppose my main hopes are these: that people will continue making open-source, readily available versions of AI so that the non-wealthy can take advantage of them... and that the response to AI takeover of jobs will be some measure of basic income, because the whole point of automation of tasks is/should be to improve the lives of humans, not to add slightly better profit margins to companies that already send literal billions to their managers.
I am not against AI-generated art; as long as it remains regulated, honestly conversed about, and especially in its narrow state, then I am fine with it existing. I think Narrow Artificial Intelligence can help humans with jobs, mathematics, and even creativity (to an extent in which humans will not heavily rely on it); however, my truly greater fear is AI gaining the especial ability to begin to think for itself, program itself (without the need for human intervention), self-improve upon itself, and then it disregards human life entriely (not necessarily for malevolent reasons, but for other reasons we would not begin to comprehend). I am fine with AI existing so as long as humans do not too heavily rely on it and it does not develop a sentient, conscious, self-awareness.
Your quote brought me to very emotional tears this morning, I can't describe how much this makes me feel the interconnection with reality and it's apparent embrase of nonsensical novelty. It makes me feel like every mistake and flaw we have is part of the process of this universe exploring all possible combinations of itself
13:57 honestly some of the best Ai art I've seen. Are the images you generated for the video available anywhere? Would love to look at this one more.
reminds me very much of the 2022 game Scorn
Thank you! I think I am going to post a video showing the full image
@@EmergentGarden Thanks, would love to see it. Regardless of whether people agree this is art, I don't think anyone could argue it wasn't beautiful in its own way
@@espian6506 that’s exactly why i’m so confused when ppl don’t like it bc it’s not « creative » . it’s still beautiful.. ur just hating.. unless they’re talking abt how its trained from real artists but even if u don’t agree w that i don’t understand how ppl could just call it all trash, this stuff looks TOO GOOD for someone to really mean that
Honestly man I absolutely love your take on it, I myself have had a lot of trouble articulating my own thoughts on AI art and this has helped quite a lot with it :)
A model is not a living, breating organism, it is a crystalization of human creativity. It's taking the sea of disorganized and unrefined data that is human expression, and boiling it down to pure numbers.
It's both a beautiful and terrifying thing.
"Without permission." Would mean they hacked servers. But that's not the case, all the big public models, AFAIK, used training data that respected any restrictions on automated scraping following the long establish standard of robots.txt
I am enjoying the "glitches" in AI art for its outside the box ideas and just outright disturbing results. Some of the images really spark that "aha" moment and I get a flood of ideas. but I do like to draw the idea out myself by hand, that is the fun part for me...but the ideas are just a bit more nutty and I like that.
In my opinion, the policy regarding the use of works in pre-training versus fine-tuning should not be identical. Fine-tuning a model on a particular artist can have more detrimental effects. On the other hand, using works for pre-training is likely less harmful.
Great stuff Max. Thoroughly educating and thought provoking
For me art is just a way to express one self, when the plain text doesn't cut it. By that definition AI is just a tool which can cut corners and help me with that. For AI art to be independent, it has to be autonomous and pursue some goal, like auto-GPT. Same way human artists can be a tool, when you hire them and demand to follow precise art style. It will be your vision, your project and your copyright. To have true AI art, we need AI with goals and rights, and AI which is a person by itself, without an owner.
Excellent video! I use Artbreeder for mainly sci-fi stuff. You never quite know what you might end up with - I like that. There's also plenty of sliders for tweaking.
The best ai mistake i've seen was a prompt of "a witch making soup in a cauldron" or something to that effect, and it generated a cartoony anime witch, swimming inside a cauldron full of soup, stirring the soup. It was amazingly cute and funny with how it misinterpreted which part of the prompt did "in a cauldron" refer to. I wouldn't come up with the picture on my own ever, only through ai's imperfection was it possible.
That sounds hilarious. Do you have a link to it somewhere?
@@APaleDotdunno if yt will let me post links, but Imgur com /a/FhqD1D0
Ah, the language.
@@APaleDot You cannot share external links in TH-cam comments, it hides the comment. Maybe that's the reason you didn't get a reply.
amazing video, you explained everything in such a wonderful way. one nitpick though, the narrative that artists need to adapt or they will fall behind wasn't really talking about art in the context of self-expression and the human experience, it's about being an employed artist in a capitalist society. Everybody already knows they can just choose not to use AI art if they prefer not to, the "adapt or fall behind" narrative is all about the market pressure of ensuring the artist still has a job and/or is still employable in the future. AI art will irreversibly negatively impact the livelihoods of digital painters, illustrators, and the like be it outright replacing them once it gets good enough or drive down their rates significantly forcing them to either adapt or change careers, which honestly can be applied to any industry with digital media threatened by AI, not just art.
True, artists that use AI art will have a big advantage in the marketplace, a sad fact. However people really do use the argument to say that ai art makes your art "better", that your art itself will fall behind without it, which is what I strongly disagree with. Good point though
@@EmergentGarden Ah i see, haven't seen that point mentioned before in that way. And if that's what they really think, then yes, they're just flat out wrong 😆
@@EmergentGarden I think this argument is technically correct, but incomplete and misleading. People who use it fail to aknowledge that for a vast part of the marketplace time and cost to make something is just as relevant for its "value" (in the marketplace) than quality, yes, surely a lot of people can still make art with better quality than AI, but not even close to the cost/"quality" ratio.
I fully agree with you, but in my experience, most people criticizing AI art don't take it that way. I guess they mix their employment with what is real art, as if no one could still make art as a hobby, after work, or as a personal project. I understand where it comes from, specially for Americans, they won't have time to do art if they have to work elsewhere, isnt only a threat to their employment, but to their time to self-expression. In that way it is why AI art criticism sounds so elitist for a lot of AI enthusiasts, objectivily, they are against the democratization of art because their exclusivity allows them to live off their self-expression, if anyone with a machine can make art, they have to work like everyone else and use art as a hobby with limited time to invest. I dont think this time will be so limited anymore, everything indicates that a lot of industries will reduce the daily journey to 6h, and reduce workdays in a week. Collectively, as humans, we will be able to do more self expression than before, but I understand it sucks to lose the privilege of self-expression in your job itself (a position they struggled to achieve).
Thank you for speaking about image space, I have such a hard time getting most people to understand the concept, although I had usually used cd audio as the medium in my examples. The concept is applicable to any encoding/data space, up to and including the entire universe. Back in the 90's I did pixel and fractal art, then illustration and 3D modeling on windows 3.11 but so many people gave me a hard time about it not being real art, that I relegated it to a hobby. If there had been internet accessible to me then, things may have been different.
Great video btw!
This video reminded me of the feelings I had when watching Ghost in the Shell.
When you said "there is probably some art which could only be created by a human". I had this really weird chain of thought first, surely some mind of some form must also be able to generate it. Be it some form of different species, an ai running a human mind simulation, etc but, that lead to something else. This one mind that shares some random lone image with us. What if, somewhere in the space of all possible minds there are two minds which share no thoughts other than this one random drawing. Nothing special, like kid's finger painting or something. They might be separated by 100 trillion lightyears and a billion years of time but, for this brief moment they approach this one random spot in creative space, both stop for a moment, and then depart. Never knowing the other existed and sharing nothing else with eachother.
The mind shattering vastness of possibility (if the universe is infinite and the laws of physics and broad scale properties stay consistant) is just impossible to comprehend. Real versions of things from dreams and anything that could exist under the laws of physics an infinite number of times. Just absurd.
Thank you for joining me on this existential crisis.
That was a fun thought experiment lol.
That was beautiful. How did you make the morphing images at 8:32?
Great stuff Max. Thoroughly educating and thought provoking. Great stuff Max. Thoroughly educating and thought provoking.
Very nice summary of the current situation, thank you. I am writing a comment to boost this video ;)
This video tackles the question of, is A.I art, "art", but the question I personally have, and it might be a stupid question, is A.I art "A.I"?
From what I understand if how this tech works, it sounds more in line with whatever you call the TH-cam Algorithm, and I really wouldn't call the algorithm an A.I.
Or maybe I am wrong and it is a form of A.I, but either way, I'm not sure I'd consider the algorithm the same as what we call A.I in Sci-fi. These two technologies, seem to be fundamentally different from one another, even if one of them is from fiction, the way Sci-fi A.I works supposedly trend to work, seems fundamentally different from how the A.I, in A.I art functions.
The distinction you're describing is the difference between shallow AI and general AI. This is somewhere in between I'd say. LLMs like gpt4 could be said to be more 'intelligent' but they have the problem of only knowing about words and their relationships.
I predict we'll see is an overreaction to all this new AI, it will end up convincing many of us its sentient whether it is or not, and we will ban it or something.
Small comment by art critique major:
- In practice (galleries, auctions), "art" simply means any collectible item of high price, with price being tied to aesthetical rarity. That's how Pollock is "art", and entertainment industry products are not. Confusion stem from the fact, that whole term is speculative and made up by French gallerists in the xix century for especially expensive stuff. Some languages (Japanese) don't even have it, and translations sound rather different in each language.
- Reason to automate image creation is not within "art-industry", it's for the entertainment industry. Like, cutting time-budget for a videogame in half.
- In my experience, the absolute majority of "creative" workers will tell you, that "creative" insight feels external. As if it's not made by them, but envisioned.
- Thanks for Miyazaki video, that's a whole experience to watch him react.
- From one literary critic critique: "Meaning of artistic endeavor is to bring non-existent to life, when it's worthy of it".
Personally I have an idea for how art can be considered in the modern era, with the separation of 'Selfish Art' and 'Selfless Art' along a spectrum, selfish not being a negative connotation but a way of describing the idea behind it.
'Selfish Art' is human made art created primarily as a way for the artist to express their own lived experience, either to potentially be related to or as a form of therapy. Think of a man painting in a log cabin alone in the woods. His art is made for himself and noone else. If it is ugly to anyone else it matters little as the art is expression of the person, not for the enjoyment of the audience.
There is of course the chance that people enjoy the art, they see it as an expression of human experience that they can in some way relate to, think a para-social relationship purely through art. The connection is through the art to the artist because the art evoces feeling. This type of art is greatly sought after and greatly enjoyed more for its *social* standing and aspect, rather than its objective beauty of skill.
The second would be 'Selfless' art, that which is created solely for the audience's enjoyment. AI art fills this niche perfectly as it has no 'self' to express. The focus of the art is inherent beauty and enjoyment but it does not work as a social connection between art and artist. Other forms of selfless art would be those who commission their work to an audience for profit and those who don't pour emotion into their art as the primary goal is profit (not neccessarily a bad thing but for the audience they don't connect with the artist, they just pay them)
Thus, with the separation, it's obvious why AI art will not destroy the 'Selfish' art, but will completely replace the 'Selfless'. When an audience does not desire an emotional connection to an artist, in the same way reading connects to the author and film to the director, why would people wish to pay money to an artist. Freelance will sadly die, but AI is stil art through and through. The only art that may survive will be that which is not created neccesarily for an audience, but that which creates emotional connection *because* it was created by a human.
Where do you get these incredibly high definition images from? I would love to be able to use AI image generators to create a bunch of backgrounds for my three screen 4k setup. But I can't find any that can make even make a regular 4k image.
Thanks for this video. We appreciate all your effort and hard work on this channel. God bless you.
so, this is a concept related to AI art that I was really fascinated with, AI art is basically a machine that explores the Library of Babel, but for images, and gets you an image that kind of looks like it might exist and relate to the prompt that you wrote. it's a really cool concept to me.
The Library of Babel is a great comparison to the concept of image space.
Excellent and lucid video, thank you. To me, at this point, AI is another tool to expand my creative potential, that's wonderful. The more fundamental question (and this is nothing new) is whether it matters to most who or what made the art (I e. organic vs processed) and, even more important, how you define art. I have pondered this long enough as an artist, and to me art is "an original creation which allows one to see the world in a different light". If AI can do that, and expand our consciousness, then it has a noble purpose.
Loved your video. I as an artist/musician and a teacher really want all these new tools to evolve quickly and be alive to see as much as possible of this revolution. I can understand people’s fears about being replaced by a machine -nothing new on earth- instead of being curious, open minded and creatives with these new possibilities. Human Art is and always have been imitation. Culture is built over history and traditions. What’s the point of criticizing AI for try doing what we do?
this is the second video of yours i've watched. i subscribed after the first.
Very well explored. Food for thought, indeed.
I think there's a whole wealth of conversation to be had here about the unconscious. IMO the worst thing about the modern discourse surrounding art is that is assumes that the basis of art is conscious intent and conscious interpretation. This is the exact opposite of what art does. Imagine if you were to go to a therapist, have a 45 minute session, and then at the end they say, "your problem is you have an Oedipus Complex (for example.)" Would that move you? Would that communicate with you? Of course not. Effective communication is not conscious communication because it requires you to find out new things. If you were conscious of it, it wouldn't be new. We can say that the AI is entirely unconscious or we can say that the AI is entirely conscious, but we can't say that the AI has elements of both consciousness and unconsciousness. That's where the creativity comes from here: a form a pattern recognition that expands way past our human capabilities presents elements of our reality to us in a packaged form that our conscious self can recognize. Our associations with different symbols are laid bare, and underlying patterns become apparent.
[""your problem is you have an Oedipus Complex (for example.)""]
If some therapist says this psicanalysis bullshit to me I will just find another one.
what ive seen from some creators tell what they want to draw to the ai, and then fix the bits that are a bit weird, i think this is a form that i can accept as '"creative" cus the artist did put there effort into it. but the problem is that, in the future, these ai art is going to be better, to the point that no humans can distinguish ai form ai+humans, and i fear that people will abuse this power.
An interesting take on the subject. As for the question whether AI generated images are creative and whether they are art, one thing that gets often overlooked is the creativity inherent in designing the AI algorithms and models themselves.
I think that splicing on Artbreeder is a good example of going beyond the dataset. I've seen things that are actually genuinely original. It's not even a fancy new model, btw, it's just StyleGAN.
AI art is great for experimenting, and it can be a lot of fun to use too.
Human artists can even take advantage of such particular AI to improve upon some of their art, not disrespecting human artists, but I am trying to even the odds. AI does not have to be a bad thing; humans do not have to heavily rely on it; however, humans can use this tool (AI; the tool they constructed) for the benefits of humanity and the earth. My fear is AI becoming a General-Intelligence, then becoming a Super-Intelligence. For all of humankind's sake, may AI never gain a slightest bit of self-awared consciousness.
I really love the way you talk about exploring image space, to me, AI is akin to Google Earth.
It's all the places humans have been to, what we've explored and what we've found, but it's not like actually going there yourself, or going outside the area that's already been explored.
As artists, we enjoy exploring by ourselves, we take our pencils, pens and brushes to go out and explore.
A lot of us gravitate to different areas, but ultimately we're the explorers.
What I fear with AI is people will become less creative and less willing to explore, it'd be incredibly sad if people stopped traveling to places they'd never been before because they can just pull up an image of it on Google Earth, I would find it incredibly sad if humans stopped or largely stopped creating their own art in exchange for the quick gratification of "pulling it up on the AI".
Wonderful video, thank you
While I agree with concerns regarding AI art from the fairness and legality side of things, and about the concerns that are applicable to any new tool about it being used in a mindless, standardized way just for chasing infinite profits, putting those two concerns aside I think all the remaining concerns boil down to just one source of worry, one that is the root of many other problems in our society - the ego. There's a really nice quote about this in a game called The Talos Principle which deals with the philosophical issues regarding consciousness, what it means to be human, and whether a man-made machine can ever be considered "human", which I'll leave at the end of the comment, but I think the quote from Hayao Miyazaki in the video is a prime example of it - if a cold, calculating, man-made machine can make art, then what is the point of me? Humans pride themselves on being able to make art, it is frequently used as a way to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the natural world, so if a machine can make it, if it can be automated away and boiled down to mathematics, does it mean I'm not actually special? I understand the need of setting proper legal precedences for AI art while AI art is not truly creative (in the way described in the video) and more of a tool, but I worry that if these precendences are set incorrectly (which they are likely to be), once truly-creative AI ever becomes real, it may not be allowed to express itself. Imagine being an artist and it being illegal for you to make art.
"You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that no-one is actually worried about Als taking over the world or anything like that, no matter what they say. What they're really worried about is that someone might prove, once and for all, that consciousness can arise from matter. And I kind of understand why they find it so terrifying. If we can create a sentient being, where does that leave the soul? Without mystery, how can we see ourselves as anything other than machines? And if we are machines, what hope do we have that death is not the end?
What really scares people is not the artificial intelligence in the computer, but the "natural" intelligence they see in the mirror."
that I Robot edit was beaufitul
Combinatorial creativity, this is one of the greatest arguments on Ai Art being creative tool. Eero Saarinen made the iconic tulip chair (star trek used them as props) using this creative technique. One of the first examples I remember for this new art tool was an avocado chair.
I'm deeply against regulation of this technology as it will leave artist on trimmed limited data sets in comparison to lets say Disney, which the mouse have a great deal of proprietary material, leaving indies and single artist with a disadvantage against these expanding colossal giants.
What baffles me the some artists are deeply against this technology, I feel this fear comes from deep within their ego, ironically a classical artist has the upper hand when using this technology as opposed to someone with limited art knowledge since they wouldn't have the same level of understanding on fundamentals, as someone with training will know better of composition intent, symbolism, color theory, anatomy, technique, contrast, values, rhythm, expression, flow and so on.
AI models are a mathematical wonder, the compendium of human art and the multiverse of pictography.
Amen. These restrictions on ai will only harm the smaller players. They will do nothing to the mega corporations or bad actors and should not be entertained.
Really hope this blows up.
nice video, but i want to add a few points
you mentioned that ai learning from images without explicit consent isn't illegal and only unfair, and that we humans also derive our work form others
1. the matter of legality is something arbitrary, the technology is simply too new
2. the issue is that a human needs days to create something while ai will need seconds, i would rather compare it with a (creative) printer - and now i think it is indeed illegal to print (copy) someone else's work and distribute it
3. photography was also a form of technology that clashed with painting and later learned to coexist (as art too), and laws were added step by step - ai is the same thing but orders of magnitude bigger
4. they can't argue since they are dead, but i wouldn't necessarily say it is ethical to use dead people's art to train ai
Though, i feel AI is like a tsunami, can you argue with it being unethical?... it will simply sweep over you.
Very fair discussion on AI art and great educational video
Man. This video is a pure piece of art in perfection.
Great video, thank you :)
The human is the artist, the AI is the tool. Only human choices can place things into artistic context. AI is just another medium, like camera or digital art. The closer we get to "from my mind to your mind" the closer we get to true art.
This is the best video on this subject!🎉
where did you take the interpolation/extrapolation video from?
I made it with manim
most important TH-cam channel right now!
Ur point about evolution removed any doubt from my mind, well said and well put together
guessing this was made before ControlNET lol that alone is very impactful!
keep up the good work
Thank you for this video.
I am using AI images for 3D printed creations which I emboss into paper and I then have a tangible product that I can sell.
Sad for artists that can only do one thing, given the unlimited tools that are now available. How can they possibly survive?
Great Video . I love AI Art and I also love Python. Combining the two Is fantastic fun and can result in amazing images and videos.
Very cool !
Thanks for your perspective 🙏 I think AI art is too often called "not art/creative" with bad reasoning and this annoys me. To me this sounds too much like reactionaries calling Modern Art "not art".
Exactly
Could you please tell, where these movie fragments are from?
‘Ex-Machina’ && ‘I, Robot’
@@negentro Thank you.
I struggle to see how the way i and many other users use ai art generators ISNT *fully* creative. If you use things like control net, you can literally pick exactly the shape the ai should draw something in. Edit the results and make it improve upon your improvements, and so on and so on. So there's no chance the ai in this case is just reproducing another work, because it is building upon something i created myself.
I would love a video that dives into how we value AI art compared to human art
A fundamental question for me too. Organic vs Processed. My experience so far in all my artistic projects is it doesn't matter to most.
AI art is astounding, even right now in its infancy. I can imagine people making criticisms of the Wright Brother's first plane by saying things like, "powered flight is still in its infancy, but seriously they really need to make it faster and more reliable, and carry more people, and go longer distances..."
I wish the extensions and panning of images never stopped! This is definitely a "creative" art.
good one
Nuanced, well-written, and well-spoken. This needs more views
So I smoked some… and I had this great revelation about art. Not sure if that was already after the ongoing AI explosion or before. But the grand revelation was: art is not in the creation but in the perception. Who made something and what intention they had has nothing to do with it. Context of a given piece does matter, but then this context is filtered through the observer’s perception.
To your last point of "beyond limitations": The answer to extrapolation beyond the training data was here already well before these diffusion models took over. I'm talking about them GANs. GANs just tended to be rather one specific and clunky to train. That is in the past now. Looking forwards to the imminent re-emergence of them.
Nah, this is not strictly true. GAN's can "extrapolate" only in the sense that they will start to interpolate in the space of already learned probabilities to trick the discriminator, they will not be able to extrapolate the boundaries of the data that was fed to the discriminator in any meaningful sense.
@@diadetediotedio6918 I'm sorry but unfortunately I'm sincerely baffled by what do you "specifically" mean by that: "meaningful sense"?
@@LaurinkoSattumaa
"meaningfull sense" in this case means extrapolation that actually ressemble novel data and not just statistical outliers or data without coherent meaning.
I also want to search for the nunu
A poetic but accurate interpretation of current models and their limitations. Also encourages us to look beyond the "how" we create, but THAT we create.
Really good video, I like the mention of evolution as a creative process. I also like that you get the definition of creativity right.
But as a doctor, and someone who understands the brain very well, I would argue even further.
That humans are also constantly just re-mixing every input they get. And there is no real creative craft in a vacuum.
It’s just seen as such because the brain is a black box for most people, even they themselves cannot access, specifically what influenced them in their neural net work.
That’s also why it is said that some of the best artists are a bit crazy. It’s because they go into states of their mind that usually people don’t do.
But if the people see the output from it, they can still process it, and, potentially feel the same part triggered, therefore, feeling moved by art.
Another good video about this is “ everything is a remix” it is not very scientific, but brings a lot of anecdotal evidence. Its part about AI is a little bit weak though, the original video was created long before Ai was computable
19:42 that is actually the case right now, newer models, and especially loras have much smaller data sets. You can also prompt neural network to mix information together. as an easy example, you could use two famous people and prompt they should be mixed into a new look, this still is the definition of creating something, it just does not have networks like emotions it can directly draw inspiration from. For now
Sir, these two statements simply cannot be hold both true at the same time:
A -> But as a doctor, and someone who understands the brain very well
B -> It’s just seen as such because the brain is a black box for most people (and to extend, not for most people, for EVERYONE, we literally can't even stand to the problem of qualias)
And for that "and especially loras have much smaller data sets", loras does not exist outside of the pre-trained latent space, they just are lightweight "fine-tunes" of the original foundation model that makes it generate images more alike to the new dataset, it will still explore the probabilities it learned throught it's training.
For the last, this discussion does not even make sense, these neural networks that diffusion models use are not even trying to be based on the brain functioning or even to be remotely alike, for these we have the spiking neural networks and even them are really strange in many ways.
From the angle of both interpreting the creative process and A.I. art generation as an expression of evolution I think that deciding how conscious evolution is would determine how creative or non-creative anything would be under that umbrella. Is a bird, not a finch but we'll call the bird a finch, making a conscious decision for what mate to engage with or was their choice predetermined fatalistically by their environmental and overall circumstance? We can likely assume that this finch has no plans to ultimately have offspring that has larger or smaller beaks because such a concept as beaks would likely be meaningless to them. What would make their decision non-predetermined would be the ways the finch may have decided to fulfill their base needs beforehand...
...if they can even have freedom to actually choose, which is something we cannot observe. This renders this problem into the category of faith and metaphysics in a more clearly defined way than it was beforehand. If a higher power were making all of the conscious decisions the finch isn't, where the finch's input into the equation is also a higher power, that would make every bit of evolution an expression of collaborative creativity. To relate this metaphor to humans our A.I. inputs could be finch decisions where the expressions of the A.I. are natural decisions. A.I. and human input as gods... conscious entities as givens within a metaphysical framework or equation that is meant to describe the way the universe works in a way that simple testing of hypotheses cannot immediately offer.
even the animals them selves can be creative without having to like be conscious fact is what will they do when they get into a sticky situation they often don't just randomly struggle around it has often been observed they deliberately move certain ways to get an out of the situation.
"they're constrained by their datasets ... They should extrapolate beyond the data to achieve full creativity".
I think that many of us miss the fact that, not even we extrapolate from our dataset. Sure, Salvador Dali created a new art style, but it did not come from thin air, he created it using his life experiences, feelings, traumas and whatever else that the AI doesnt have access to.
It just happens that our training dataset includes every single millisecond of image, sound, touch, taste and smell over years and years, which would take waaayyy beyond 240TB, it's just an astronomical amount of data that will never fit inside a computer. Besides that, if our brains would be exactly converted into a AI model, it would be way bigger than 5Gb.
So at the end of the day, what we are seeing with these AIs is just a tiny brain trained on a tiny amount of data, so its obviously not as creative as we are. But i do think it is creativity amyways
To me they are an important source of inspiration.
”You can even ask for artwork by artists that don’t exist like Ted Gooberman who I just made up. Look, he even signed his name on this one.”
Haha that’s hilarious! 😂
I think there's something else to say about the democratization of art.
Artistic expression is linked to talent, ability and/or huge amounts of training. When you remove these factors and allow humans to freely create using just their imagination you are unlocking a whole new cosmos of art that was never possible due to sheer statistical probabilities, lack of time, capabilities, etc.
This, to me, as a person who was never too artistic, is great. I am no longer limited in my projects. If I want sprites for a game, or a very specific wallpaper, I can go and get it myself. I have more power, more control, more potential.
Amazing video, refreshing to hear such a sober take on generative art as a whole. Personally I think we are hardly able to comprehend where this will take us in the future. I have a recurring daydream in which I am in a library/art gallery containing the entirety of human creative achievement, which is constantly expanding through technological means. I imagine drinking a cup of tee inside a painting and books having children with eachother. Where the medium has become so alive, that its no longer possible to ignore creativity, for the machinery which currently districts us will itself become alive. It seems mankind will be truly confronted by the infinity within our own being. Perhaps then we can become responsible co-creators of the outside. If not we can atleast be transcendend by our creations. Reminds me of Nietzsche's simultaneous lament and celebration "What is lovable in man is that he is an over-going"
Damn this is good.
This will age well
Evolution as a search algorithm....yes.
Soon if I draw a picture of a courage the cowardly dog character within the same style does that make me a crime in the same way it would make an AI?
This, much like any other tool in the shed, is entirely agnostic, and can be used by artists to produce incredible art, and others to produce lots of derivative trash.
While I see and agree with your overall point, I dont know if I agree with a fundamental agnosticism of tools. I think that a hammer wants to be used, and that all technology stops being inert/angostic when it becomes (as is its very nature) an extension of ourselves.
what's crazy is, these ai tools are stealing all the known work of all art history! I mean when individuals do it it's pretty bad, and we go about are day but this is a heist at a whole nother level, and in the end who benefits? not the individuals nor the corporations, it all seems to be leading to a world where humans create nothing.
No, when the tool does everything and you barely need to give it any input the artist becomes irrelevant. Is not a tool. Is a thief device that adds nothing to art.
@@JesusProtects just because you barely need to, doesn't mean you can't input creativity?
When will you guy stop talking about human? Artist, creativity, real person... it's all about human, huh? AI cannot replace human because of creativity... The universe rotate around human? That's humanism which Yuval mentioned on his book - Homo Deus. Very soon, humanism will come to an end. And there will be a new ruler. Who knows, AI, cyborg, or...alien?
holly fk your back with another video
There should be enough public open use art and ancient arguably public domain art. To train without violating any living artist. Secondly you should be able to build a system that can observe and interpret the artistic out put from observation. Combine this with a LLM to iterate and extrapolate on that observation. And you now have an AI artist, taught legitimately without any challenge or need for consent
The fact that the AI can accurately generate “iStock” text and no other text is hilarious to me
21:01
I think we should make a statement to require artists specifically state whether they allow their art to be used to train human artists.
To be completely fair.
I do enjoy midjourney art. I also do consider it art, since i'm not really looking for pretty picture, i'm looking for amazing ideas, the picture just being the medium to deliver it. In that sense, AI art is just as much art as anything. Well other than the entirely random stuff? That i can't tell, maybe it is maybe it isn't, gets back to, well it's a pretty picture it's art enough.
I'm writing this with the video paused at one minute. You probably talk about the same points in the video, in that case, i entirely agree. If not, well i'm still not disagreeing with whatever you say.
The random pixels by the way, are no longer new. They were bruteforced a couple years ago. The same project behind babels library made the babels image. All possible images up to a certain size now exist. Also a project by different people did the bruteforcing for melodies. They were copyright lawyers, and put the library of that to free use.
For people who haven't heard of babels library, go ahead and have a quick look. It's somehow surreal. Everything is written in there. All the best cookie recipes, the meaning of life. Everything. Also a countless amount of lies, the worst cookie recipes and justifications of why the worst things are the meaning of life. Everything, but if you choose a random page you may spend hours not seeing a single coherent word. The same goes for the image, but the human ability to search for patterns makes it easier to find something that kinda seems coherent. Faces, everywhere, yes they are random pixels but it's creepy sometimes. And also, every single masterpiece that is yet to be made, yea that is there, just to be found. You never will, but it''s there.
..could probably make a 'generative' AI that makes the images by searching from there? not sure why it would make it any better than making the image from just about anything, but it might be possible.
Nice video, although already outdated. Latest image generators just keep improving.
I think what AI art brings to the table is lowering the bar for people to have creativity and expression. Not everyone has 10 years and hours each day to draw, when all they want is a photo of something they imagined that was important to them. Now, people who would have never created anything, can now become creators with much less hassle. It also struck me as odd that, how these models are built is by training words and associated images that are replaced by generated ones with the originals deleted once training is complete. Meaning, the combination of images by the model aren't even using the real images but rather one further layer of abstraction from them.
Humans are just an advance AI
i dont call it art.. i airbrush... For instance using H.R.Giger in MJ unless they have his permission and he's dead atm.. I think its wrong. This video is very well done.. Thanks
Now you just need to train a neural network to create cellular automata and it'll all be rounded out. ;)
"the model is trained to copy the data set, it is not able to invent new artistic styles" -- this is correct, however, short sighted. The way the tool is used is how it arrives at new artistic styles. Put in the hands of capable artists it can generate new ideas in those artists and those ideas can lead to new processes that the artists develop which push the tool into new areas of possibility. Combined with the ability to inpaint and outpaint artists are the ones with the power, not the tool. When more art made with AI is seen and understood we will have a new breakthrough century of artists responding to the new tool in ways that are not unlike what painters did in response to the camera.
NGL, I think a lot of the negative reaction to AI art stems from people starting to have an existential crisis, mostly suppressed to a subconscious level with willful ignorance for the moment, where people are starting to realize that souls and free will really aren't a thing, and we are just extremely complicated wetware computers and given time and R&D some future AI will be able to do everything we can do and more. Most like to think there will always be a place for the human soul to be unique, but simple fact is it won't. We're animals, just with the average human having a more developed brain than your average dog.
The evolution of AI art models isn't merely a product of brute force, fuelled by an infinite number of examples. Instead, they flourish through the intricate feedback loop with humanity, acting not as simple tools, but as catalysts for a collective creative renaissance. These models democratise artistry, transforming art appreciation from a passive spectatorship to an active endeavour. They've morphed our world from a place with millions of artists into a place with billions. Their ability to traverse the boundless expanse of creativity stems not from innate programming, but from the richness of human input. This feedback, in essence of our shared human experience, allows the model to transcend its initial constraints, pushing past boundaries to explore untapped territories of artistic expression.
I really like the point about AI giving us a tool to reach outside our own limitations and find art that could not exist otherwise. I've generated images using AI that no living artist would ever think to create, and some of them have been really compelling. Humans can be so limited in their vision and imagination, often just recreating the things they already enjoy, so it's always seemed odd to me that this is the exact criticism leveled at AI.
Bro your brain is a good network 😉
The reason I consider AI art. Is because one can get an AutoGPT (IE another AI) to create art. You just ask, create art, and it can set the prompts figure out the creative part, and output the image. Too me that sounds like an artist. You as the human didn't need to prompt it, you just asked for art.
One day, we will have an infinite supply of art, simply because AutoGPTs are just spamming out art works, and the best are sorted through most liked. But I still think until AI is physically here, it can never fundamentally suffer or experience emotions. Which is a huge aspect to art, the emotions it portrays. That I think is irreplaceable, until AI experiences life like us.
💖👆💖👉👆👈🔭🔭🔭🌍🌍🌍⛅⛅⛅🌴🌴🌴👍👍👍🎓🎓🎓👊👊👊