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

[Blackstar]

18 minutes ago, Uncle Bob said:

Yeah, I'm sure it's part of the concept to make Melissa turn into some bearded male anime character that has a little man on his shoulder for a milisecond.

I don't know, maybe it's supposed to symbolize something, like, for example, that everyone has a "monster" and a child inside them.

[Free Bird]

1 hour ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

I was specifically talking about the quality of the releases - of course people will prefer the band in it's prime, but the blu ray was very well done, and the selects looked and sounded like they were quickly thrown together with little care. That's the difference.

Even with Perhaps, it's not the best music video or anything, but it's well done. Anything 'created' by AI shows how little they care.

 

 

Like I said earlier, maybe the video will be mostly live footage - I hope it is. I can't really judge it until they release the full thing. But Creative Works posting about it makes it seem like it'll be heavy on AI animation, and the clip we've seen looks like what I'd expect from shitty, cheap AI. Did you not notice literally any details like extra limbs, parts of the characters constantly changing, etc? Of course you didn't notice, but just keep calling anyone who points out very obvious flaws 'whiners'.

The band can absolutely afford to produce better stuff than that, and of course a cheap video for a b-side song isn't a big deal. But if they release shit, then people will bitch about it.

You just don‘t get it. Keep whining about what ever your imagination is telling you 😂

[Uncle Bob]

6 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I don't know, maybe it's supposed to symbolize something, like, for example, that everyone has a "monster" and a child inside them.

It could even symbolize that Melissa is transgender! Do you think the way their looks, backgrounds and random people appear here symbolizes something? It's just an automated tool, it's not that deep, it's just an AI being requested to turn an already existing footage into whatever they wrote, in a very rough way.

[Blackstar]

2 minutes ago, Uncle Bob said:

It could even symbolize that Melissa is transgender! Do you think the way their looks, backgrounds and random people appear here symbolizes something? It's just an automated tool, it's not that deep, it's just an AI being requested to turn an already existing footage into whatever they wrote, in a very rough way.

Could be. Like I said, I don't know...

[Gordon Comstock]

3 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

You just don‘t get it. Keep whining about what ever your imagination is telling you 😂

 

Maybe you're reading my posts as more 'serious' than they are, idk. A cheap video for a throwaway song really isn't a big deal, but it's all we've got to discuss so that's what we're doing.

You think I'm imagining the sloppy details in AI animation? Take a closer look at the clip then.

There's some weirdo's on here who jump on any criticism as 'whining' or 'hating'. The clipping in The General should've been addressed before it was released, but those who point it out are 'bitching'. Sloppy AI shit from a band that absolutely could afford professional animators deserves criticism, but those who point it out are 'whining'. Give me a fucking break

[Uncle Bob]

8 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Could be. Like I said, I don't know...

example of how these can be made
maybe in 2 years these could make some sense. For now this works for shitposting and memes.

And there is no effort in doing these like someone has kept on saying on numerous walls of text

 

Edited January 21 by Uncle Bob

[Jw224]

28 minutes ago, Uncle Bob said:

It's just an automated tool, it's not that deep, it's just an AI being requested to turn an already existing footage into whatever they wrote, in a very rough way.

Yep!

Edited January 21 by Jw224

[evilfacelessturtle]

14 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

 

Yes, because all the best works of art are just descriptions of reality and do not take any artistic license for exaggeration or anything. /s

 

That's what makes the videos iconic and interesting to watch. I love the Estranged video especially. The definition of epic.

 

If you want boring, uninspired live footage, watch a live performance.

 

5 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

I was specifically talking about the quality of the releases - of course people will prefer the band in it's prime, but the blu ray was very well done, and the selects looked and sounded like they were quickly thrown together with little care. That's the difference.

Even with Perhaps, it's not the best music video or anything, but it's well done. Anything 'created' by AI shows how little they care.

To be fair, the Ritz show was filmed for release with a director and high end cameras and everything. The Selects are basically just live screen rips. And despite that, they have been pretty well mixed. Fortus is always nice and audible.

[Gordon Comstock]

12 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

To be fair, the Ritz show was filmed for release with a director and high end cameras and everything. The Selects are basically just live screen rips. And despite that, they have been pretty well mixed. Fortus is always nice and audible.

 

Some of the selects were in mono ffs But that's not really the point, of course the Ritz was better, it's a great release and was praised on here. Most selects seemed half-assed and got a mixed response. My point was that when the band releases something good, the responses are positive.

Despite some oversensitive people thinking this place is full of haterz, the criticism of using AI is valid.

[Zeppelin]

5 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Maybe you're reading my posts as more 'serious' than they are, idk. A cheap video for a throwaway song really isn't a big deal, but it's all we've got to discuss so that's what we're doing.

You think I'm imagining the sloppy details in AI animation? Take a closer look at the clip then.

There's some weirdo's on here who jump on any criticism as 'whining' or 'hating'. The clipping in The General should've been addressed before it was released, but those who point it out are 'bitching'. Sloppy AI shit from a band that absolutely could afford professional animators deserves criticism, but those who point it out are 'whining'. Give me a fucking break

Of course it’s whining. Meanwhile, GNR could post a video on social media of a dog shitting out a log that somehow looks like the AFD album cover, throw The General on over it, and you’d get the same posters saying the same thing: “At least we’re getting something! Better than nothing! Whiners!”

[Free Bird]

8 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Maybe you're reading my posts as more 'serious' than they are, idk. A cheap video for a throwaway song really isn't a big deal, but it's all we've got to discuss so that's what we're doing.

You think I'm imagining the sloppy details in AI animation? Take a closer look at the clip then.

There's some weirdo's on here who jump on any criticism as 'whining' or 'hating'. The clipping in The General should've been addressed before it was released, but those who point it out are 'bitching'. Sloppy AI shit from a band that absolutely could afford professional animators deserves criticism, but those who point it out are 'whining'. Give me a fucking break

And you still don‘t get it . I won‘t argue anymore until they release what ever they wanna release. 
Just one thing. You could adress the clipping in the demo of The General. Back then nobody knew it will be as prominent on the final release. It is but you couldn‘t knew AS YOU CANT KNOW WHAT THEY RELEASE NOW 😂😂😂

Other than that:

“Don't know what to tell you now
It's never really what they tell you, now“

 

[tboneman]

Linkin Parks video for their previously unreleased track "Lost" is probably one of the better AI music videos. At least what I have seen. In the end (hehe) AI is just a tool, it's the people who use it who are responsible for good or bad results with it.

 

[JimiRose]

13 hours ago, janrichmond said:

Hey some of us are just wankers! 

Is wankers even a word in america? Definitely remember using wanker and tosser to americans and them getting very confused. Using fag for cigarette also caused quite a stir once, when asking for a smoke in a bar in Louisville 

[Jw224]

2 hours ago, tboneman said:

Linkin Parks video for their previously unreleased track "Lost" is probably one of the better AI music videos. At least what I have seen. In the end (hehe) AI is just a tool, it's the people who use it who are responsible for good or bad results with it.

 

This still looks awful lol. Just pay artists to do stuff. No need for AI unless you just would rather not spend the money and don't care about quality. 

Edited January 22 by Jw224

[D4NNY]

On 1/21/2024 at 2:36 AM, eggers said:

Bunch of whiny wankers in here.

You complaining about the “whiny wankers” inadvertently makes you a whiny wanker… welcome to the group! 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, tboneman said:

Linkin Parks video for their previously unreleased track "Lost" is probably one of the better AI music videos. At least what I have seen. In the end (hehe) AI is just a tool, it's the people who use it who are responsible for good or bad results with it.

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. 

[Jw224]

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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. 

You do realise that AI doesn't create anything new, right? I feel you don't understand why artists have a problem with it and are just speaking about it like you do anyway.

[Uncle Bob]

38 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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. 

Salutations, esteemed fellow mygnrforum user! It's truly fascinating to delve into your insights on the intersection of AI and art. Your viewpoint posits AI as nothing more than a tool, a technique that purportedly crafts visualizations and strives to democratize the world of visual arts. According to your perspective, the intricacies of painting and drawing skills are seemingly rendered obsolete, with individuals now able to embark on artistic endeavors through the enchanting realm of AI-assisted rendering. However, you contend that effective direction of the AI remains paramount. Should one lack proficiency in this aspect or utilize subpar software without subsequent post-production finesse, the results, as per your narrative, risk being lackluster, akin to the outcome of deficient drawing or painting skills.

A central theme in your discourse is the juxtaposition between AI-generated art and traditional art, emphasizing a perceived inability to appreciate the intricate techniques of AI creations. Despite this, you maintain that one can still admire the outcome, as AI art purportedly continues to fulfill the fundamental purpose of evoking emotions and intriguing its audience.

In considering the concerns of traditional artists, you acknowledge potential reservations stemming from the perception that AI renders their techniques somewhat redundant. Yet, you posit a silver lining, asserting that this technological advancement empowers those lacking manual skills to partake in artistic endeavors, thereby championing the democratization of visual arts.

Acknowledging the potential pitfalls, you concede that AI-generated art may fall prey to a lack of soul if improperly executed. However, you firmly contend that if approached purposefully—where artists utilize AI as a mere tool to realize a vision and meticulously edit and control the results—therein lies little cause for concern. The only caveat you acknowledge is the looming specter of increased competition for visual artists in an already fiercely competitive industry, a consequence you somewhat dismiss as an inevitable facet of progress.

The term "Luddites" becomes a significant part of your narrative, serving to categorize opponents of AI, a classification you find fitting. You even share a personal connection to the discourse, claiming to have delved into the mystifying world of AI for hobby projects. Your alleged astonishment at the boundless possibilities that unfolded before you takes center stage, as you prophesy a future where artists must adapt to incorporating AI as an indispensable tool in their ever-expanding repertoire. Supposedly, the crème de la crème of artists will, as has always been the case, be those who adeptly utilize the tools at their disposal to craft works that both intrigue and awe us mere mortals.

In conclusion, fellow mygnrforum user, your exploration of AI's impact on the art world offers a rich tapestry of perspectives, stirring contemplation on the evolving dynamics between technology and artistic expression. The intricate layers of your narrative invite further discussion, and I eagerly await your thoughts on this compelling subject.

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

You do realise that AI doesn't create anything new, right? 

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.

13 minutes ago, Uncle Bob said:

Salutations, esteemed fellow mygnrforum user! It's truly fascinating to delve into your insights on the intersection of AI and art. Your viewpoint posits AI as nothing more than a tool, a technique that purportedly crafts visualizations and strives to democratize the world of visual arts. According to your perspective, the intricacies of painting and drawing skills are seemingly rendered obsolete, with individuals now able to embark on artistic endeavors through the enchanting realm of AI-assisted rendering. However, you contend that effective direction of the AI remains paramount. Should one lack proficiency in this aspect or utilize subpar software without subsequent post-production finesse, the results, as per your narrative, risk being lackluster, akin to the outcome of deficient drawing or painting skills.

A central theme in your discourse is the juxtaposition between AI-generated art and traditional art, emphasizing a perceived inability to appreciate the intricate techniques of AI creations. Despite this, you maintain that one can still admire the outcome, as AI art purportedly continues to fulfill the fundamental purpose of evoking emotions and intriguing its audience.

In considering the concerns of traditional artists, you acknowledge potential reservations stemming from the perception that AI renders their techniques somewhat redundant. Yet, you posit a silver lining, asserting that this technological advancement empowers those lacking manual skills to partake in artistic endeavors, thereby championing the democratization of visual arts.

Acknowledging the potential pitfalls, you concede that AI-generated art may fall prey to a lack of soul if improperly executed. However, you firmly contend that if approached purposefully—where artists utilize AI as a mere tool to realize a vision and meticulously edit and control the results—therein lies little cause for concern. The only caveat you acknowledge is the looming specter of increased competition for visual artists in an already fiercely competitive industry, a consequence you somewhat dismiss as an inevitable facet of progress.

The term "Luddites" becomes a significant part of your narrative, serving to categorize opponents of AI, a classification you find fitting. You even share a personal connection to the discourse, claiming to have delved into the mystifying world of AI for hobby projects. Your alleged astonishment at the boundless possibilities that unfolded before you takes center stage, as you prophesy a future where artists must adapt to incorporating AI as an indispensable tool in their ever-expanding repertoire. Supposedly, the crème de la crème of artists will, as has always been the case, be those who adeptly utilize the tools at their disposal to craft works that both intrigue and awe us mere mortals.

In conclusion, fellow mygnrforum user, your exploration of AI's impact on the art world offers a rich tapestry of perspectives, stirring contemplation on the evolving dynamics between technology and artistic expression. The intricate layers of your narrative invite further discussion, and I eagerly await your thoughts on this compelling subject.

Aside from the satire, did you actually have a point? 

[Jw224]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

Yeah, you don't understand how it works at all I guess.

[Uncle Bob]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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? 

Ah, the age-old query of whether there was a point beyond the veil of satire. Let me embark on an odyssey through the vast landscape of words to deliver a response of intricate verbosity.

In the vast tapestry of textual elucidations, one might discern a nuanced trajectory beneath the surface of satirical cadence. Amidst the convoluted dance of language, a point was gestated, an ephemeral essence that flirted with elucidation. Beyond the veneer of whimsical prose lies the seed of discourse, a subtle attempt to illuminate the multifaceted nuances inherent in the intersection of AI and art, resonating with the symphony of ideas.

Consider, if you will, the labyrinthine journey through the convoluted corridors of linguistic expression, where satire intermingles with underlying intent. Beneath the layers of jest, there exists a current of contemplation, a river of meaning that meanders through the topography of discourse. The point, though veiled, whispers through the whimsy, beckoning the astute observer to unravel the intricacies that lie beneath.

Indeed, one could argue that within the realm of satire, the point frolics in a masquerade, inviting the discerning mind to partake in the intellectual waltz. It's a dance, intricate and veiled, where the jest conceals a kernel of reflection on the interplay between art, technology, and the ceaseless march of progress.

So, in response to your query, dear interlocutor, beyond the satire, there lies a point, a subtle beacon guiding the reader through the meandering corridors of discourse. Whether it resonates or dissipates into the ephemeral mist of words is a matter left to the interpreter, navigating the labyrinth of intentionality.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Jw224 said:

Yeah, you don't understand how it works at all I guess.

Then tell me  

1 minute ago, Uncle Bob said:

Ah, the age-old query of whether there was a point beyond the veil of satire. Let me embark on an odyssey through the vast landscape of words to deliver a response of intricate verbosity.

In the vast tapestry of textual elucidations, one might discern a nuanced trajectory beneath the surface of satirical cadence. Amidst the convoluted dance of language, a point was gestated, an ephemeral essence that flirted with elucidation. Beyond the veneer of whimsical prose lies the seed of discourse, a subtle attempt to illuminate the multifaceted nuances inherent in the intersection of AI and art, resonating with the symphony of ideas.

Consider, if you will, the labyrinthine journey through the convoluted corridors of linguistic expression, where satire intermingles with underlying intent. Beneath the layers of jest, there exists a current of contemplation, a river of meaning that meanders through the topography of discourse. The point, though veiled, whispers through the whimsy, beckoning the astute observer to unravel the intricacies that lie beneath.

Indeed, one could argue that within the realm of satire, the point frolics in a masquerade, inviting the discerning mind to partake in the intellectual waltz. It's a dance, intricate and veiled, where the jest conceals a kernel of reflection on the interplay between art, technology, and the ceaseless march of progress.

So, in response to your query, dear interlocutor, beyond the satire, there lies a point, a subtle beacon guiding the reader through the meandering corridors of discourse. Whether it resonates or dissipates into the ephemeral mist of words is a matter left to the interpreter, navigating the labyrinth of intentionality.

So, no, then, just someone having fun with AI.

[Uncle Bob]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So, no, then, just someone having fun with AI.

Ah, the enigmatic dance of misunderstanding. Allow me to elucidate the intricacies of this exchange. Contrary to the assumption, the elaborate tapestry of words woven in response to your inquiry was not birthed from the artificial intelligence realm but rather meticulously crafted by the hands—or more accurately, algorithms—of this humble text-based entity. In the realm of linguistic acrobatics, it was not the machines that orchestrated the symphony of words, but the craftsmanship of this digital scribe.

Now, let us turn our gaze toward the broader horizon of AI's capabilities. While the current state of artificial intelligence, particularly in the realm of textual creativity, has made strides in weaving intricate narratives, the realm of video production remains a bastion where human finesse prevails. The whimsical dance of AI with videos leans more towards the realm of merriment than the solemn halls of professional project delivery.

As it stands, the nuanced interplay of visual storytelling, pacing, and emotive resonance finds its home in the hands of human creators. AI, for all its prowess, is still taking its tentative steps in mastering the art of visual storytelling, and for now, its most profound impact lies in the realm of playful experimentation rather than the delivery of polished professional projects.

So, dear interlocutor, as we navigate the currents of technological evolution, let us appreciate the unique strengths each entity brings to the creative table—whether human or artificial. The digital realm continues to evolve, and the dance between humanity and technology is a symphony in perpetual motion.

[Blackstar]

(Educating myself)

[Voodoochild]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Then tell me  

I think he meant that AI works with bots crawling artists styles and stealing to use (think on Disney wanting to sue the company that had this AI tool to draw any person as a Pixar character). 

It is a problem indeed, but I don't know much about the subject to form an opinion on this because I'm not sure how much (if anything) this algorithm actually grabbed copyrighted material for a tool such as Midjourney or whatever they used for The General.