SoulMonster

Because you don't ask for permission to use other's art as inspiration when you create your own art. No one is demanding this from conventional artists, hence it makes no sense to demand it from AI visual artists. Whether the data is stored in RAM or neurons is irrelevant.

Which is why it is just a tool. Like the paintbrush. It doesn't create anything on its own. It relies on the direction of the artist in the form of text prompts, the parameters used, and finally the data models it has been trained upon and which it will use. A bad artist will create bad art, regardless of using a pen and paper of an AI software. But to great artists it can be a valuable tool.

You don't think you can get proficient in using software like Dall-E and Midjourney and that as a result you will have AI visual artists that are better at realizing their artistic vision using the medium of AI than others?

I find your attempt at distinguishing between "digital data" and normal physical artwork, and computer memory and "brain data" irrelevant. In the end it is art being created at least partly influences, inspired, from other art.

The imagination lies with the artist, regardless of whether he uses a paintbrush or an AI software. He still needs to have the vision for the art, and then be proficient in the software to insert his own individuality in the result. For examples, you could train the AI model on previous AI works you have created, thus training a model to create future artwork that comes with your signature style. Again, Ai art is much more complex than simply asking the software to "create me some art". It is about providing as detailed information as required to have full control of the output, just as you would with a paintbrush, infusing the result with your artistic vision.

You don't see the similarity in artists memorizing the art of other artists, learning about the art of other artists, studying the art of other artists, and using this knowledge directly when creating their own art - like artists have done since the start of time - and AI visual arts software being similarly trained upon existing art? To me, this is very much the same thing. I get that conventional artists are angry, but I don't buy their argument that this is sufficiently different from how it has always been. If you can't with good consciousness attack Eduard Manet for being inspired by Titian when painting his Olympia, then you can't with good consciousness attack AI for similarly being trained on Olympia. My point is, there is a fine line between simply being inspired by or straight off copying and plagiarizing anyone's art (not to say legally infringing upon), and I have yet to see a working argument that AI is any worse than how it has always been. Sure, you will find examples of AI art that crosses the line, but the same can be said for conventional art, too. But I do get the anger, conventional artists are after all faced with a new type of competition and it is only human to get emotional in such circumstances and want to protect their interests. The difference, really, is that AI art takes much less time (and hence it is less expensive, and hence it undercuts the prices of conventional graphical design), and that it can be done without having skills in conventional art creation (you would still need skills in AI arts, though; and poor artists, regardless of the tools used, will always create poor art).

The counter-argument is that conventional artists also rely upon inspiration and being trained on the works of other artists. In all of our great artists, Picasso, Manet, Monet, Munch, etc, one can see traces of other artists, one can see the inspiration, one can see how they copied each other, how they emulated each other, how they didn't exist in a vacuum. This is really not much different to how AI is trained on other works, too. The proof in the pudding is that the results, the arts created, are not sufficiently similar to be actual infringement of others works, and hence it is simply just another facet of age-old inspiration and not copying.

Good example. Photography was blasted as the bane to artistry when it came, by purists who saw it as a threat to conventional, realistic painters. Now they live side by side. Here are some AI art: https://blog.agoraawards.com/artificial-intelligence-art-2023/

It's a close race for me but Monsters win.

In the end it comes down to whether we as "art consumers" approve of it or not - if it moves us, if it inspires us, if it makes us wonder and question. Those AI artists that simply use AI tools to "pump out" uninspired artworks will fall behind and be forgotten. They will lose out in the competition to those visual artists who are inspired and create something of value, whether they are conventional visual artists using the traditional tools of the trade or AI visual artists who master this new technology.

I can ask Midjourney to create an image of you riding on a unicorn with a GN'R banner in your hands. I can also ask my muscles to make my pen draw the same artwork. In both cases I have come up with an idea of what I want to create - something that is creative and novel, I am the artist not the software - and I use a drawing tool to realize that idea (AI visual tool or a pen, respectively). The output from Midjourney would be based on how detailed I can make the description in the text prompt and my skills on using such text prompts scripting efficiently, then it would come down to what parameters I would use to affect the style of the output, and finally on the algorithms and model data that exists in the software upon which it looks for templates. Basically, my skills as a visual artist would determine the outcome. The output from my pen would be based on my own drawing skills. Again, my skills would determine the outcome. AI visual arts software have become really complex and in the hands of experienced professionals can create quite impressive results, like this image below: Do you think the artists who made the AI painting above simply typed in "Create an image of four humans standing infront of a big round window"? No, they were responsible for all the details in the artwork, they meticulously defined how it should look - the style, the content, the details. Just like a painter would have been. Only that they used their artistic mind combined with their tool of choice which was an AI software, and not a canvas, paintbrushes and colors. And yes, the AI models are trained on immense data sets of existing artwork - the same way conventional visual artists would also not exist on an island but be inspired by the works of others and use this directly when they create new artworks - but the end result from Midjourney, or other of the most sophisticated AI visual art programs, don't constitute infringements of others copyrighted creations because it is not sufficiently similar to any one specific artwork in its database. Similarly to how you would find traces of previous artists' works and style in the works of all popular conventional artists, like Rembrandt or van Gogh or Munch.

I wouldn't refer to visual art creation becoming available to everybody as just "hobbyists". It kind of trivializes it. Technological developments is typically inclusive, not exclusive. It's like when personal computers came on the market in the 80s and suddenly everyone could use computers for all kinds of purposes. AI in visual arts means that everyone can now create art, even those without the traditional skills of drawing. I am piss poor at drawing, but I can suddenly use Midjourney to create fairly impressive artworks for various projects. And yes, this means that traditional visual artists suddenly find themselves with a huge new competitor - there is no denying that - but not necessarily from hobbyists, more from AI visual artists: A new breed of artists trained in AI visual tools who are experts on the AI software and can create better results using that software than hobbyists can.

The first large malaria vaccination project started in Cameroon today. Go science!!

It creates just as much as a paintbrush or a pen does. So, nothing I guess, depending on how you want to define it. It is just a tool used by a visual artist. In the case of most AI image creator software like Midjourney - as an example - it takes the text prompt given to it by a human being (which can be as innovative and creative as a human can be), the directions given through parameters defined by that human being (like what model sets to use, etc), and then based off on the data models it has installed, creates something that satisfy all conditions. This output will be entirely unique and novel. But in the end, the output is not better than the directions given by the humans, and the confines defined by the data models it has to use. Somewhat similarly as it is with a pen or a paintbrush. The limitations with AI art today are both that artists need to learn how to wield this tool for efficient use, and the limitations present in the existing data models (resulting in flaws like wrong number of digits on hands, etc, and inability to correctly translate text prompts into visuals). Most software is also not sophisticated enough to allow for individuality in the AI art similar to what we have with conventional visual arts, like individuality in the choice of color palette, pen stroke signatures, etc etc, but now I guess many digital artists will disagree with me.

Yes. Absolutely. From now on, consider ALL communication from the band to be directed towards casual fans with absolutely no concern over how it will affect a few hundred hardcore fans. They have a product to sell and promote, we don't matter.

Well, that is obviously not what I am talking about. I am talking about visual artists using AI as a tool to create visual arts. Similar to in those videos from Blackstar from above. Typically through a prompt-based interface. So you get what you type as input, and therein lies the need to be innovative, artistic, novel, creative, to create something that people will find interesting. But to address what you are talking about: Yes, you can use AI to create visual arts that is sufficiently similar to copyrighted works to be infringing upon their IP. But you can also do this with just a pen and a pencil. I mean, any decent graphical artist can create images that are sufficiently similar to Disney characters to violate their IP, just using the normal tools of their trade. Is AI making such theft easier? Sure, at least as far as it opens up such infringement for anyone, even people with little artistic skills themselves, analogous to my point earlier that AI is a tool freely available to anyone to use to create art...or to steal art.

Same here. I am such a novice in these matters but clearly feel the mixing could be a lot better in general, to make it sound more dynamic and punchy, more cohesive. But the clipping fortunately keeps on escaping me. May it last

Then tell me So, no, then, just someone having fun with AI.

I have thought the same, still, it also fits the chorus of The General.

Uhm, yes? That's exactly the point. It is a tool, a method, and it relies on the creativity of the artist to create something novel. Like a chisel or a paintbrush. Aside from the satire, did you actually have a point?

Exactly. It is a tool, a technique to create visualizations. In a sense it is making visual arts more available to everybody. You don't need to know how to paint, or draw, yourself, to create visual arts, now you can do it on your computer through AI-assisted rendering. You still need to direct the AI to create something that realizes your vision of the art. And if you are poor at that, or if you use poor software and you don't edit and optimize afterwards, the results will be poor. Just like if you are poor at drawing or painting. The big difference is that you can't really admire the technique that went into the art, like the brushstrokes of Rembrandt, or whatever, but you can still admire the outcome. AI-created art will still do what art is supposed to do, inspire emotions and make us intrigued. I get that conventional visual artists have a big problem with AI-generated art, because, again, it makes their technique superfluous to an extent, but the upside it that it allows for people without the these manual techniques to also create art, which is good. It democratizes visual arts, in a sense. And I get that AI-generated art can be extremely shoddy when not done correctly, and come across as soulless and hence not art. But if it is done with purpose, where an artist uses AI simply as a tool to realize a vision, and maybe exceed technical limitations he has, and when the results are edited/controlled, then I see little problem with it. Except of course that it means more competition for visual artists who might already be struggling in a competitive industry...but that is progress, I suppose? I referred to opponents to AI as luddites, previously, and there is something to it. I have myself used AI to generate visuals for various hobby projects and I am astonished by the world that has opened up before me. Artists will have to learn how to use AI as one of the tools in their repertoire, and the best artists will, as always, be those that utilize the tools at hand to create works that we intrigues and awes us.

Bach said it had a slow, grinding heavy riff with piercing vocals. I think that fits well with the chorus. Whether it is "epic" is entirely subjective. Bach liked it, so do I. People got to keep in mind the band's history of releasing every thing from top notch songs to absolute shit and don't have too high expectations for anything new.

OCTOBER 23, 1986: OPENING FOR ALICE COOPER AT THE ARLINGTON THEATRE BUT AXL IS MISSING

I became a fan in 1988, so yes.

And he said this in 2011, "It's like sometimes music to me is just you're supposed to hear the song, you don't have to write a script to it." Did you catch that all you guys clamoring for the band to make UYI videos again? Not going to happen. What you are getting from now on is only live footage and AI, live footage and AI in holy symbiois.