Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
I make shit for other people all the time for free. Stop generalizing a global population based on capitalist assumptions. Even if you were trying to be a business person with your work, you’d charge what people are willing to pay and at a price that holds demand. Which would probably mean cheaper than an artist. (And if you really wanna talk about prices let’s talk about regular art prices and how subjective that is…)
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
I know perfectly well how the tech works. It’s given a bunch of images and randomly rolls dice to generate weights until it can generate things that approximate its training data, then continues in that general direction using a hill climbing algorithm to approximate that data as closely as possible. Every output of a generative neural network is a combination of random noise and a pattern of pixels that appeared in its training data (possibly across several input images, but that appeared nonetheless). You cannot get something out that did not, at some point, go in. Legally speaking, that makes them a collage tool.
I ask again: do you have an argument or are you going to continue to make appeals to ignorance against mine?
Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
Was the price the art sells for seriously the only part of my argument you could find a problem with? If so, that says a lot about yours.
Considering I responded to your three comments?? No, it wasn’t but good try at trying to insult me lmao.
At least I can pay attention who I’m talking to in a thread if you wanna start throwing stones 😂
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
You’re purposefully downplaying and over simplifying what AI models do. I’m not going to continue arguing with someone who can’t debate fairly.
Learning models don’t fucking collage shit. That’s not how the tech works.
I’m not going to debate this shit with someone who’s this blatant with their bad faith argumentation as you are being, good bye.
Anyone else wants to actually discuss or learn more about the tech in a civil way, lmk.
I know perfectly well how the tech works. It’s given a bunch of images and randomly rolls dice to generate weights until it can generate things that approximate its training data, then continues in that general direction using a hill climbing algorithm to approximate that data as closely as possible. Every output of a generative neural network is a combination of random noise and a pattern of pixels that appeared in its training data (possibly across several input images, but that appeared nonetheless). You cannot get something out that did not, at some point, go in. Legally speaking, that makes them a collage tool.
I ask again: do you have an argument or are you going to continue to make appeals to ignorance against mine?