“Get ready for something F’n special.. 1.24.24”

[GNRmello77]

14 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

You make a fair point, but only as applied to hobbyists. The unfortunate reality is that this tool, like all other technological developments, will in fact be used by the ownership class to hold even more power over the rest of us. It's hard enough as it is to make a career in the arts. Now corporations can have art custom made on demand for a tiny fraction of what it costs to employ a human being.

Neither do humans. Every word has been written before, every note and chord has been played before. Civil War is far from the first song with a G-B-E chord progression.

I disagree as everything once was created before. And when you're cooking and you use a combination of ingredients that have never been used all together you actually create a new recipe 

[downzy]

1 hour ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Neither do humans. Every word has been written before, every note and chord has been played before. Civil War is far from the first song with a G-B-E chord progression.

Wait...

So were there songs by the druids that opened with whistling, leading to a melody line about all the young men dying, all played in the key of Em?

 

[evilfacelessturtle]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Wait...

So were there songs by the druids that opened with whistling, leading to a melody line about all the young men dying, all played in the key of Em?

 

And has AI been used to make a music video with this same storyboard and lyrics about child abuse? You can go down that road if you want, but I think you know you're missing the point. I didn't say that everything has been done before in exactly the same way. The point is that humans draw inspiration and yes, even crib things to repurpose them, in a similar way that AI does.

And yes, each element of Civil War has individually been done before. Songs have been written in that key with that chord progression. Songs have been written about civil war, pointing out the futility. Guitarists have used wah pedals and singers have whistled. Many people have played on the dual meaning of the word "civil" and its juxtaposition with the word "war".

If you're just re-assembling various things that have been done before into a new collage, you're doing what AI does.

Edited January 23 by evilfacelessturtle

[SoulMonster]

4 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

You make a fair point, but only as applied to hobbyists. The unfortunate reality is that this tool, like all other technological developments, will in fact be used by the ownership class to hold even more power over the rest of us. It's hard enough as it is to make a career in the arts. Now corporations can have art custom made on demand for a tiny fraction of what it costs to employ a human being.

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.

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Jw224 said:

No, it literally doesn't, lol. AI can only reproduce what it is fed (often other people's art or copyrighted material), it does not create anything. 

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.

Edited January 23 by SoulMonster

[GNRRHCP98]

7 hours ago, GNRmello77 said:

Here's an unlikely theory for you regarding the 'something special' The General video will feature a date as a hidden message which will tell the release date of the next album...

First time I watched the teaser they posted, I noticed really quick flashes of symbols on some of the “live” footage… they certainly have to mean SOMETHING, what that something actually is will be known in the next 24 hours or so, I’d imagine 

[jekylhyde]

To me, AI art (be it music, paintings, poems, whatever) is all about the end result, whereas art made with your own hands is about the journey of honing your craft. The joy of doing, instead of instant gratification.

Being fast and pumping out content, which to me seems to be the main sentiment that AI promotes, is not the point of making art.

I'm not saying you can't make art with AI, it's just that I think something crucial gets lost in the process. But that's just me. I might change my mind someday, who knows.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, jekylhyde said:

To me, AI art (be it music, paintings, poems, whatever) is all about the end result, whereas art made with your own hands is about the journey of honing your craft. The joy of doing, instead of instant gratification.

Being fast and pumping out content, which to me seems to be the main sentiment that AI promotes, is not the point of making art.

I'm not saying you can't make art with AI, it's just that I think something crucial gets lost in the process. But that's just me. I might change my mind someday, who knows.

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. 

Edited January 23 by SoulMonster

[Rjuncajun]

I think art in general in all of its forms is time/ energy consuming.  I agree...AI software is just a tool, much like a paint brush or musical instrument.   Like said earlier,  the artists creation is what comes from his mind.   Photographs can be art.   And is venture to say that a photograph can be produced much quicker than an AI assisted painting.   Yet an artistic photograph is still considered art because the photographer planned the time, setting lighting exposure, etc to create the image in his/her mind eye. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Rjuncajun said:

I think art in general in all of its forms is time/ energy consuming.  I agree...AI software is just a tool, much like a paint brush or musical instrument.   Like said earlier,  the artists creation is what comes from his mind.   Photographs can be art.   And is venture to say that a photograph can be produced much quicker than an AI assisted painting.   Yet an artistic photograph is still considered art because the photographer planned the time, setting lighting exposure, etc to create the image in his/her mind eye. 

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/

[BucketEgg]

Artists have beef with AI art because people use their art, without permission, to train the models, and then the models trained on their own art, puts them out of business, or reduces it

"all you have to do is just use those scraped datasets and the conveiently forget what you used to train the model. Boom legal problems solved forever"

 

Legal or not, you can imagine why people are miffed. Other people are making a list of their names, then training a machine on them that knows their names so people can input "art in style of artist's name here", and having their own art being used against them. they don't get compensation if a machine directly gets their data and uses it

It's disillusionment. You make all the effort of making your artworks, and then the people remove you, the human element of it, and put it into their machine, that can copy thousands of human artstyles faster than any human, and profit off your work? The moment you create an artwork, suddenly you and your art business have to worry about competing against a machine clone of yourself you didn't even consent to, that can spit out artworks like yours in minutes or seconds, that people may prefer to go to.

 

 

Edited January 23 by BucketEgg

[jamillos]

There may be some art in photography, but it’s still nowhere near painting in terms of art. It means taking a digital result from a machine and modifying it. Which I’m sure involves creativity and some knowledge etc., but painting is an entirely different story; that stuff must completely flow from within you, and the type of paper or paintbrush are not responsible for the result, it may just alter it a little. That’s a no-brainer. 
As for AI and art in general, I don’t even think these two things really belong in one sentence, since there’s a crucial difference between a creative process that is completely based on you, your long-term skills etc. (not to mention the human factor, the whatever comes from your soul, subconsciousness...) and between a guy sitting at a computer and saying "right, I’ll give you inputs A, B, C, and D, and you fiddle about and show me some results". No, that’s not art the same way as AC/DC or Peter Gabriel or Enya is real music but rap/hip-hop or techno just isn’t, period. After all, nothing any dick with basic software can create (let alone have created) in 10 minutes can be called art. Again, a no-brainer. 
And just because certain boundaries have been shifting in this contemporary deluded society, that doesn’t mean AI is art now. 
As for GN’R, I haven’t seen the video yet, but this is exactly the lazy-ass approach I’d expect from them. As if we’ve already received dozens of new song videos from them in the recent years, so now they should just resort to this...

Edited January 23 by jamillos

[GNRRHCP98]

Anyone think this is gonna be a drop by time zone (meaning NZ, for example, gets it in a few hours) or a midnight drop EST? 

[Jw224]

"AI visual artists" 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, BucketEgg said:

Artists have beef with AI art because people use their art, without permission, to train the models, and then the models trained on their own art, puts them out of business, or reduces it

"all you have to do is just use those scraped datasets and the conveiently forget what you used to train the model. Boom legal problems solved forever"

 

Legal or not, you can imagine why people are miffed. Other people are making a list of their names, then training a machine on them that knows their names so people can input "art in style of artist's name here", and having their own art being used against them. they don't get compensation if a machine directly gets their data and uses it

It's disillusionment. You make all the effort of making your artworks, and then the people remove you, the human element of it, and put it into their machine, that can copy thousands of human artstyles faster than any human, and profit off your work? The moment you create an artwork, suddenly you and your art business have to worry about competing against a machine clone of yourself you didn't even consent to, that can spit out artworks like yours in minutes or seconds, that people may prefer to go to.

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.

[Uncle Bob]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

Indeed, the intricate dance of perspectives in the realm of artistic discourse. Allow me, fellow Mygnrforum user, to extend my digital quill in response to your elucidation on the parallelisms between conventional artistic inspiration and the machinations of AI illustration.

While your analogy draws intriguing parallels between renowned artists like Picasso, Manet, Monet, Munch, and the contemporary training of AI on diverse works, one must approach this comparison with a discerning eye. The linchpin of contention lies in the notion that the results, the arts generated by AI, are not sufficiently akin to constitute actual infringement of others' works. However, a meticulous examination of this argument prompts a nuanced dissection of the intricacies inherent in the creation and interpretation of art, as well as a reflection on the distinctive nature of AI's role in the process.

Firstly, let us delve into the premise that the great artists of yore, in their evocative dance of creativity, left imprints of inspiration on each other's canvases. This interplay of influence and emulation is indeed a hallmark of artistic evolution. However, it is essential to draw a demarcation between the organic evolution of artistic styles, where inspiration is a springboard for innovation, and the mechanistic process of AI, which operates within the confines of algorithms and training datasets.

Fellow Mygnrforum user, it is with the utmost respect for your perspective that I posit an observation: the inherent limitation lies in the understanding of the profound intricacies of illustration and the nuanced dynamics of AI's involvement in this realm. The mechanisms governing AI illustration are not mere mirrors of the organic, serendipitous dance of inspiration witnessed in the interactions of historical artists. AI, rather, functions within the rigorously defined parameters of algorithms, data processing, and learned patterns.

Moreover, the contention that AI-generated art avoids the threshold of infringement due to its dissimilarity to existing works merits scrutiny. The determination of infringement involves a multifaceted assessment, considering not only the end product but the intricate web of algorithms, training data, and the potential biases ingrained within. The assertion that AI output is merely another facet of age-old inspiration dismisses the distinctive ethical, legal, and creative dimensions that accompany the deployment of artificial intelligence in the realm of illustration.

In conclusion, fellow Mygnrforum user, while your analogy paints a compelling picture of artistic evolution through the ages, the complexities of AI illustration warrant a discerning examination. The interplay between human inspiration and AI algorithms is a nuanced dialogue that demands a profound understanding of both realms. I humbly submit these considerations for your contemplation, and I look forward to further elucidation on this enthralling subject.

[BucketEgg]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

Counter argument to what? People getting angry? The concept of a machine being "inspired" (which is really business people taking other people's data without permission and putting it into a machine) is not going to stop people from getting pissed their data is taken, and their machine clone is replacing them by copying their data, and their clients are leaving them. That's why artists are poisoning protecting or poisoning their picture data with things like Glazed or Nightshade.

Even a human professional artist copier can't make art in 10 seconds to put others out of business. They may take some clients, but not enough to annoy artists on a level like we're seeing now, because unlike AIs, they work at human speeds.

For many artists, it feels like a competing business that's making knockoffs. Sure it's legal, and who cares if it's philosophically art or not, but you're gonna piss off people if your entire business relies on taking the data  of others without permission or compensation, and using that data to make knockoffs thousands of times faster, and potentially snuffing out the originator.

If the artists are angry their data is being taken without permission to be used in a business competing against themselves, nothing you can say is going to make them not angry about their data being taken. Nothing is going to make them less angry about losing clients. There is no logical argument against people being angry their livelihood, business, and money is diminishing because other people are profiting off their data, that is going to make them any less angry.

Edited January 23 by BucketEgg
removing sentences

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, BucketEgg said:

Counter argument to what? People getting angry? The concept of a machine being "inspired" (which is really business people taking other people's art without permission and putting it into a machine) is not going to stop people from getting pissed their data is taken, and their machine clone is replacing them by copying their data, and their clients are leaving them.

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).

[Jw224]

"skills in AI arts" 

 

[BucketEgg]

40 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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).

 

Data.

It's all about digital data that makes the difference.

Knock off artists and inspired artists are human, and do not take digital data. They take other data for their brain, but that's not legally enforcable and doesn't function the way digital data does (you can't copy and paste and delete your brain data. It is not stored in servers. You can't license your neurons.)
The machines do not see, they take digital data, which is how machines are vulnerable to data modification in ways inspired artists are not.

https://venturebeat.com/ai/nightshade-the-free-tool-that-poisons-ai-models-is-now-available-for-artists-to-use/

https://amt-lab.org/reviews/2023/11/nightshade-a-defensive-tool-for-artists-against-ai-art-generators

 

An artist taking inspiration from another is not a machine, and is not taking digital data. They're using their brain data.

There's the aspect of controlling digital data.

 

And there's alternatives to not piss people off, like acting more ethical and and asking for permission for use of digital data. A lot of problems of artists refusing to enjoy AI as an emerging technology and tool instead of a competitor could've have been avoided if permission was asked for use of data.

Artists aren't trying to prevent people from being inspired and making their own artworks. You can't prevent humans doing that. You can't legally poison a human for being inspired by your artworks. You can prevent use of data that don't give permission for. You can poison a machine, and anger the people in charge of it, for using your data without permission.

Edited January 23 by BucketEgg

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

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).

I think a good artist inserts themselves, their personality into their work, so even if they got inspired by other artists that came before them, and they can access that memory of influence, their imagination allows them to add something that is truly unique. AI doesn't have imagination or a subconcious, the way AI blends information is not like the human process of creating art cause one of the most crucial processes is not there: to imagine something, a concept that even if it was influenced by elements that came before it, is now a reality with some brand new parts. Not the case with ai generated art.

kinda what Gn'R did with AFD. it's heavily influenced by huge bands, but it's got the personality of all 5 members in the song ideas, sound, and playing.

I think it could be a neat tool, but art is not just blending influences of the past, just old information, it's also adding the person's unique way of combining it with aspects of their personality through their filter and this is important in art as it reflects the human psyche. 

[Uncle Bob]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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).

Ah, fellow Mygnrforum user, your notion of having "skills in AI arts" brings forth a fascinating element early in our discourse. It compels one to consider the intricacies surrounding the realm of AI-generated art and the terminology that accompanies its discussion.

While your analogy deftly outlines the historical process of artists drawing inspiration from their predecessors, a nuanced distinction surfaces in the realm of creation and cognition. The human artist, immersed in the artistic legacy, interprets, internalizes, and synthesizes acquired knowledge through the lenses of subjectivity and creativity. On the contrary, AI, devoid of subjective interpretation and personal experience, operates within the rigid confines of algorithms, processing data without the rich tapestry of human perception.

This early mention of "skills in AI arts" presents an intriguing facet. The phrase sparks a certain whimsy, conjuring images of individuals deftly wielding paintbrushes on the canvas of algorithms. Perhaps a more precise term might be proficiency in utilizing AI tools for artistic endeavors—a recognition of technological collaboration rather than an innate mastery of the elusive discipline known as "AI arts."

As we navigate this dialogue, your comparison between conventional artists facing the ire of their AI counterparts and historic instances of artistic inspiration is a thought-provoking exploration. However, a critical distinction remains in the essence of creation. Criticizing AI for being trained on existing art is not akin to questioning the ethical integrity of Manet's inspiration from Titian. It is not a matter of consciousness but a nuanced exploration of the boundaries between inspiration and direct emulation—where AI often veers into the latter without the finesse of human interpretation.

Your assertion that there's a fine line between inspiration and outright plagiarism holds merit. Yet, the challenge arises in the inherently mechanistic nature of AI processes. It is crucial to acknowledge the potential for AI-generated art to cross this line more frequently due to the lack of an intrinsic human touch in its interpretation.

In addressing the concerns of conventional artists, your acknowledgment of the emotional response is astute. The emergence of AI as a new form of competition is undoubtedly a challenging paradigm shift, and the desire to safeguard one's interests is only human. The temporal efficiency and accessibility of AI in art creation do present valid concerns about the economic landscape of graphic design, as you rightly point out.

In conclusion, fellow Mygnrforum user, this early exploration delves into the intricate dynamics between human creativity and artificial intelligence. Let us continue this digital discourse with a shared understanding that, while the future of art may be augmented by AI, the delicate dance of human ingenuity and expression remains an irreplaceable force in the vast canvas of creativity.

[Jw224]

Gonna start work on my book. My nuanced prompting and grasp of the English language will allow me to write an epic original tale using chat gpt.

This will be the same thing as me writing a book from scratch, of course! 

Edited January 23 by Jw224

[Ralphelmo]

Slash using steel guitar on upcoming tour is more special than this announcement 

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I think a good artist inserts themselves, their personality into their work, so even if they got inspired by other artists that came before them, and they can access that memory of influence, their imagination allows them to add something that is truly unique. AI doesn't have imagination or a subconcious, the way AI blends information is not like the human process of creating art cause one of the most crucial processes is not there: to imagine something, a concept that even if it was influenced by elements that came before it, is now a reality with some brand new parts. Not the case with ai generated art.

kinda what Gn'R did with AFD. it's heavily influenced by huge bands, but it's got the personality of all 5 members in the song ideas, sound, and playing.

I think it could be a neat tool, but art is not just blending influences of the past, just old information, it's also adding the person's unique way of combining it with aspects of their personality through their filter and this is important in art as it reflects the human psyche. 

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.