SoulMonster

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.

Just throwing this our there: If the trilogy videos had not been pompous, overblown, ridiculous things that weren't even intentionally parodic, the band would have more cred today. Not that I care about the band's standing in the history of music, I'd be perfectly happy if I was the only one liking their music, but many here seem to do. People hate the band, partly or wholly, because of these videos and it prevents these same people from listening to the music and discovering the greatness in the music. It's definitely a double-edged sword.

"Jumping the shark" is exactly what the Illusion videos did. They might have started out with some good ideas from Language of Fear and had some overarching vision that would at some point be resolved, but they ended up as nothing but a hot mess with very high production value. Not even the band members have any idea what those videos were all about. If Axl thought they made sense then that is indicative of Axl's mind at the time. Kids liked those videos because they were high-end production shots of their heroes that gave them an incredibly amount of showcasing on MTV ("I am a fan of the biggest band in the world, that validates me liking their music, yay, rawk on!") and they seemed on some level to have a meaning and you could speculate and endlessly discuss what the fuck the date on Axl's gravestone was about or why he jumped off the ship or why he wandered through the snow and so on. And grown-ups keep liking those videos for the nostalgia and because it is hard to rid oneself of ingrained affection acquired in adolescence when one has less critical sense. I also dislike the videos for what they represent: Axl exerting his will upon the band, which would ultimately be the demise of the UYI lineup and make Slash leave in disgust, and because they showcase what a nutcase he was back then, and still he got away with it. Kudos to him, I guess. To me, what is best with Guns N' Roses is the music. So I want music videos to showcase the music. And there is really no better way than to do that through live footage. Also because GN'R is a great live band. Alternatively, do an artistic music video that is really great from an artistic perspective. Like, give an actual great video artist free reins to make a video, based off of or unrelated to the song. A symbioses of great art. When typing this, the music wideo to RHCP's Otherside came to mind. The Use Your Illusion trilogy is not any of this. It was Axl's decision that the songs should be a vehicle for him to try to tell some story about his life and future, but it was nothing but a steaming hot mess. And that's my opinion.

Oh, I definitely prefer the music video to The General to the music video to November Rain. I get that they served a purpose back in the 90s when you had MTV and the band was on top of the world and I don't deny the commercial success of those videos and what it did to cement the legacy of the band. Still, I personally puke a little whenever I inadvertently catch a bit of them. But that's just my personal feelings on them. I am very much aligned with Slash when it comes to his opinions on music videos. I wasn't even digging them when they came out in the 90s. It was all just Axl's megalomanic ego trip of confusing visuals. But more power to you if you like them - that's great As for whether I have already now concluded that the music video to The General is better than the music video to November Rain? No I haven't. But they will be hard pressed to make a music video that I will find any worse than the video to November Rain. Again, that's my personal opinion. To me, the music video to November Rain makes absolutely no sense story-wise, it cost a tremendous amount of money, it was a pure Axl ego trip with no one else in the band wanting it or even understanding it. It has racked up a huge amount of plays on Youtube because it is a popular song but I doubt many people watch it because of its riveting story. If people watch it without the sound on, which would indicate the video has some inherent value, it must be because they are high on some very psychedelic drugs or in love with Axl. I would suspect any young people watching it would go, "WTF is this weird shit?" To all timers like me it might have some weird sentimental/nostalgic value. But I just see through it without the burden of any of that and it is an incredible expensive collection of cringy scenes making a muddled mess of a story all coming out of the shared minds of Del James and Axl Rose. I don't care whether the band "live on years to come". Why would I? But you are right, they will, and partly because of the cringy music videos they made in the 90s. You are absolutely right. That legacy is already cemented. So I am happy they don't have to rise to the same levels of cringe now and can instead make simple music videos based on live footage. Again, that's my personal opinion. Now let's see how you deal with it...

On this we agree, I am sure the majority will whine and complain when it comes out, too. As for whether it is garbage, I will wait with my conclusion until I have actually seen it, and not just let emotions run away with me because AI has been used

I have no idea to what extent the band members have been involved or not, and I guess neither have you, but personally I am very happy Axl isn't involved in the way he was back in the 90s which resulted in the cringy Illusion trilogy. MTV came and went.

Again, more effort seems to have gone into this than any of their recent videos since it is a combination of live footage (of the same quality as Perhaps, it seems) combined with a story with graphics created with the assistance of AI. So the effort level is the best we have seen from this band since, well, the 90s. If this video deserves this much criticism then I would hate to hear your opinions on the Perhaps video (which ONLY had live footage) or the Shadow Of Your Love video (which only had designed still images). So I don't know where "lazy" comes into it. Maybe because the graphic designers are using AI to help create the graphics? In a sense, that is their decision and more and more graphic designers are using AI as a tool in visualizations. There is nothing more inherently evil or lazy in this than when automatic sewing machines were introduced in England back in the 19th century and the reactions here are positively luddite. Garbage? Have you already seen the video? Wow! Please, please, tell Me more about this! Or is your knee-jerk reaction to anything this band does to whine and complain?...

How does the fact that The General "didn't exactly crush it" make the band's decision to release a video somehow worse? That they decide to make a video, even for a song that isn't their best, is a PLUS in my book. I applaud their decision to make music videos, even for their crappiest songs. And then some general comments to all the whining about AI, not directed at you, @downzy First, from the snippet it seems to be a video of mixed live footage combined with a story generated, at least partially, with the help of AI. The combination of these two things makes it surpass the effort levels of the Perhaps video or the Hard Skool video, immediately. Secondly, the part with AI generated graphics seems to be some fairly complicated story, it isn't just simple stills like in the Hard Skool video, it is actually quite complicated. Thirdly, the fact that it is AI doesn't mean someone has typed in "make a GN'R music video" in some AI generating software, it means that someone has, at least partially, used AI software to create the intended graphics to a script someone has come up with. In short, this is a video with a considerable budget and the effort required surpasses the videos we have seen over the last years (wow, did I just say that about GN'R, "videos we have seen the last years"!?! The band is making videos again!! Wow!) I think some of the reactions are from people who think "AI=evil!!! ARRGH" and some that have still not realized the band will never do another video like the UYI trilogy again (and on a personal note, thanks for that! Those were and are cringy).

Ah, ok.

You didn't like the Perhaps video? I thought it was pretty cool.