this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
352 points (92.3% liked)

Comic Strips

15697 readers
2260 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it's unlikely that your work will be impactful.

I'm still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it's possible to use this tool in a way that's revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.

I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

Have you not seen the AI generated QR code embedded in an image ? I don't think it can be done without AI, Don't know if you would consider it art, but I do : for example here is the first one I got when googling it https://www.qrafted.ai/img/gallery/girl-3.jpeg

Like all AI things unfortunately the web is flooded with them now..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 28 minutes ago

Embedding the features of one image into another to create an illusion is a task I'd consider AI for, IF the artist performing that task can be propelled by using the output as a base. If it takes far more manual correction by artist to the point that it takes longer to make a finished piece, or if the time spent enjoying the process is diminished, it's no longer worth it.

AI in art should be about automating the tasks that require scale or repetition, like how 3D graphics took much of the mathematical work from artists, letting them focus on sculpting their forms precisely.

Time freed from automating one task should be spent by the artist on another task, such that the work is done faster AND is appealing in a clear and obvious way.

The most "creative" way I've seen this done so far is using separate prompts for different 2d image elements in still painting, which appears to take longer to make less consistent results.

It feels like prompters rely on the divided tastes of the internet to convince people that their art looks good to someone, just not the current viewer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

This is a very cool concept, but has anyone actually gotten this to read as a qr code?

I've tried a bunch of apps without any luck.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 minutes ago

Yeah. I have the same question.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 hours ago

Good take.

Don't hate the tools, hate what capitalism turns them into and uses them for.

Reminds me of the old panic that photography would be the death of painters. It was shortly followed by an all time boom in art and creativity as painters tried new things and moved on from photorealism.

There's still so much room left for human art and artists even in a post-AI world, as long as we keep rejecting the slop and supporting actual artists. Then maybe new art forms will emerge. Who knows!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Oops, just wanted to write a quick comment but it evolved into me giving some of my thoughts on AI gen as a means of artistry. Oh well, not deleting this now.


I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art.

Most self proclaimed AI artists just type a prompt, maybe do a bit of "prompt engineering" (Read: putting the name of a good artist on the prompt) and then in-paint (Read: re-prompting, but only affects a specific area). That does not give you enough control over the drawing to do anything interesting.

I say this from personal experience. Even small differences is facial expressions, too small to be described with words, can make a big impact. The no. reason artists don't use AI and dislike it is because it doesn't given enough control over the final image, because it does not let them put in details which cannot be described through words. You might say we might someday have an AI that (somehow) gives you more control, but that would nullify the whole "advantage" of AI: Not having to spend time worrying about the details. If you are going to spend 4 hours prompting in details... you could have just gotten a better result by just drawing it yourself.

Think of it like making a level in Mario Maker VS making a game in a game engine. Sure, making things in Mario Maker is faster than making a game yourself, but it doesn't give you the same fine grain control that making a game from scratch would. (But even this is not a perfect analogy has, in Mario Maker you actually get to choose where the blocks go, instead of with AI, where you can only describe how the blocks go and hope the AI gets it right with little hope of editing it yourself.)

Actually, about that "editing it yourself". In this hypothetical AI Mario Maker scenario, you could go into Mario Maker's editor mode and edit the level with the same amount of detail a normal, handcrafted, Mario Maker level would, but with AI image gen, you get the image and... Ya, about has useful as any other downloaded image. Artists typically create layers to do their art thing, but AI output puts everything in one layer, making hard to edit. I could go on this, but I don't have all the time in the world to write this. Someone posted this video on [email protected] , where an AI "artists" quit AI because of these problems of lack of control. (Don't judge me based on the video, I found it on the aforementioned community here (lemmy.ml link))

I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.

That's the multi billion dollar the AI companies are trying to solve, having to pay wages. The far right loves this as they feel like those who worked hard to develop artistic skills are below them somehow. Part of the conservative rhetoric. AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.

I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.

I feel like people who want talk and argue about AI should know how the training works at a mathematical level. I swear the number of people who act like it's magic is way too much. I say this because it would give you a really good idea of how specialized training won't solve the lack of originality problem. I haven't had a refresher on this so I might be misremembering some things... Any who, this playlist is pretty good I think.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

The problems you describe with control is severely outdated. There are tools specifically to allow you more control outside of prompts. Ipadapters, controlnets, etc.. invoke and krita support layers and all sorts of other normal artistic methods for image editing. For people who use ai image gen more seriously, prompting is just the tip of the iceberg.

For the insane amount of slop generated every day though, sure, prompting is all they use.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago

That would be possible, in an abstract way.

Let's say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.

Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.

This will be a model that only knows the artist's work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.

Now, let's do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.

Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That's a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.

I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 hours ago (22 children)

It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.

It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.

It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.

Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.

It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.

It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Not to mention the ecological damage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

That’s my secondary issue with it.

My issue is less with AI and more with how capitalism has mucked up an opportunity.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago

If I ask Taylor Swift to make a song about a chicken eating marshmallows and she does, all the lyrics, music, production, and voice, are me and not Taylor. I made it. Me. That's how AI art works. Even if Taylor was also just copying other artists. All me. I'm so talented my words can only be appreciated in prompts to Taylor. You wouldn't understand. Buy my marshmallow song.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›