[HN Gopher] The AI Art Apocalypse ___________________________________________________________________ The AI Art Apocalypse Author : nkurz Score : 56 points Date : 2022-08-16 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (alexanderwales.com) (TXT) w3m dump (alexanderwales.com) | nperez wrote: | My gut feeling is that artists will be the primary users of these | tools and there will be a large market for those who are very | skilled at producing, curating, tweaking, and post-processing the | results. Some jobs will be lost due to clients who do it | themselves, but there will be enough people who don't want to | learn the tools no matter how simple they are. I also think the | tools will become more complex. | bsenftner wrote: | Actually, truthfully, AI is merely a complex tool. Any "art" | created by an AI with no human interaction is pure rubbish. It is | the humans operating the AI that knowingly discard the rubbish, | and after significant effort entailing a lot of trials and random | experimentation they manage to get something their human mind | comprehends is integrated with the goal they have in their | imagination. It is the human curating and editing the AIs | generations that produces the "art" and not the software. The | software is merely a sophisticated idiot savant, and I | significantly stress the idiot part because they are innately | capable of zero art themselves. | lfnoise wrote: | Try to get an AI to render an upside down face. In my attempts, | they can't do it at all. Deformity results. It is outside the | training data. | aaroninsf wrote: | Disclaimer: I love MidJourney. It's the most provocative and | addictive tool I've played with on a computer for many a year. | | Largely agree with AW the OP, but think the question of "what art | are we talking about" needs more air. | | A lot of the turmoil around these tools appears to be about the | threat they pose to the careers of artists and designers (and | soon, most related domains). But some of the simple versions of | this story (not this one) overlook the nuances IMO. | | Some of those being, | | - the distinction between "fine" art in the commercial "art | world" gallerist sense, and graphic | design/illustration/commercial art - that professional commercial | artists are going to adopt and exploit these tools with the same | intrinsic advantages they have using with other tools - that in a | very short time there is already an explosion of work that uses | these tools as one (large) element to produce synthetic work | across media that would have been prohibitively expensive/time | consuming without them | | Even as a bystander, but with a background and interest as a | serious and modestly successful artist in a different medium, | | it's been remarkable to see just how quickly people with fewer | kids, better ideas, and more time than me, seized upon these | tools not as simple image-making widgets, but as sophisticated | tools to exploit to generate a stream of imagery to be applied to | create Other Things, both as proofs of concept, commercially, and | as yes "real art" in the gallerist sense. | | These things are quite obviously disruptive in a way most VC only | dream of. | | Idle other comments: | | The "eerie" uncanny sense that scaling up the visual cortex | abstraction stack toward "grandmother neurons" that these systems | has, is IMO considerably more unsettling than the impact on | specific industries. What we can see (literally) in these systems | is a visualization (in the data viz sense) of how much further | along towards AGI these things may soon be. | | Their failure modes are more interesting to me than their | successes. The ramifications for how they fail and how they are | of course unaware of their own failure, is a true cautionary | tale. | | IMO those failures offer an excellent basis for "cautionary | tales" and illustration to the general public of why we need | oversight and governance for the deployment of these systems. | It's one thing for them to produce "nightmare fuel" when asked to | create kittens in the kitchen; it's another for a comparable | (smaller less tuned closed-source closed-training-dataset...) | system to be put in service approving mortgages, assigning credit | risks, or (as made ProPublica famous) assessing whether someone | is a candidate for bail. | | (Highly recommended: The Alignment Problem) | | Anyway. The singularity is already here, it's just unevenly | distributed. | samfriedman wrote: | Without this technology, if I want to procure a concept-art | quality image to promote my video game, I need to pay at least an | amateur artist for their time and skill. With this technology, I | can simply run some generations and maybe tweak or combine the | output in Photoshop. I don't see how AI won't gobble up the | bottom X% of the visual art industry almost immediately. | | Fine arts, contemporary artists showing in galleries, mediums | that can't be printed on photo paper (sculpture, canvas | paintings, etc) will be more resistant to displacement. But the | massive majority of commodity art & visuals - adverts, | billboards, book covers, article images and so on - will | definitely be displaced in the very near future. | i_am_proteus wrote: | Yes, and: as the space evolves, human artists will figure out | what AI art is bad at doing and find new niches. | | And then software will "learn," and the arms race will | continue. | mysterydip wrote: | Right now, I think the winning move for artists is feedback | and iteration: "make his head tilt more to the left. make his | tie a lighter shade of blue." etc kind of modifications that | aren't easily parseable by an AI. | | That being said, I'm quite enjoying generating pixel art to | stand in for my programmer art before I commission artists. | notart666 wrote: | For most works using this as concept art would be deceptive and | out right fraud in worse cases. The FCC doesn't pursue it so | you'd probably be fine but this is not a replacement for an | actual concept art unless you are working on a low quality or | low poly game and even then this would be very | misrepresentative. This has no real use case outside fraud. | astrange wrote: | What do you think concept art is? Any picture seems like it'd | work as concept art. Even an uncreative illustrator AI would | help if the person using it just can't draw. | stu2b50 wrote: | I'm extremely confused. The situation illustrated was that of | an indie game dev using Mid journey or whatever to generate | concept art. | | _Who_ exactly is being defrauded? Is the dev defrauding | themselves? Their future customers? How would anyone even | know? It 's not like concept art is used for anything | external? | c3534l wrote: | Generally, if you make something cheaper, people want more of it. | The world will change around the new economic fact that art is | cheap. | | Besides, the art apocalpse already happened over a hundred years | ago. There's not much demand for technically accurate paintings | since photography. People aren't now, nor in the future, | primarily concerned with narrowly accurate representations. | TacticalCoder wrote: | How are these systems trained to make sure they're not polluted | with images created by AI already? | | I can see how it's semi-easy to have a database of images up to a | certain date (before AI generating algo existed), but what about | if you want to train the AI with modern data? | | For example, say if I want to query, in 2035: _" Flying hippos in | the style of McGrundsBulle"_ where McGrundsBulle is an artist who | only started producing art in 2025... How is the AI then not | going to trained with "flying hippos" generated between now and | 2035 by AI like DALL-E 2 / midjourney / etc.? | | I'd argue it wouldn't make sense to train better AIs using | current AI's generated pictures for many of them are the stuff of | nightmares and it doesn't seem to be because they've been trained | by nightmarish datasets. They're just creepy due to how the | current AI works and many details are obviously off, which makes | them very creepy to humans. | ethav1 wrote: | Datasets can be manually curated to contain primarily original | images if this becomes a real issue. For example, classifiers | can predict whether an image is generated or not. You could | adapt the process used to create laion-aesthetic[0] to remove | generated images. | | [0]: https://github.com/LAION-AI/laion- | datasets/blob/main/laion-a... | VHRanger wrote: | Classic luddite argument at the core of the article. | | Technology both displaces jobs and enhances jobs. It's impossible | to tell a priori the economic effect. | | It's just as possible that artists leveraging these tools are | paid more because they're incredibly more productive than the | overall demand for art somehow being sated and reducing artist | employment | lxe wrote: | I always reference "The Ontology of the Photographic Image" | (https://archive.org/details/Bazin_Andre_The_Ontology_of_Phot...) | by Andre Bazin, who expressed similar observations about | photography entering the scene. | | I've been "successfully" creating AI art for a few months now, | and although there are some staunch opponents (mostly on Reddit), | the medium has been generally very well received by both the | audiences and many artists in the established community. | oraphalous wrote: | Have you noticed that young people use music less and less as a | signalling device? That is to say they care far less about | whether or not the music is cool and signals their affinity to | some kind of subculture... and more about whether or not they | just like the sound. | | This is because access to music has become cheap. Discovery of | music has become cheap. Signalling behaviours though rely on the | costliness of signalling through a particular medium. Costly | signalling is the theoretical framework you want here to | understand what is going to happen to art if the tech is as good | as it is currently being hyped. | | We like to think of art as this inherently communicative act - as | the author says. But the main psychological motivation is | signalling. We would not waste so much energy as a species on | such behaviour if it didn't have some kind of evolutionary | benefit. So I expect much of the energy that goes into the | artistic signalling medium will be redirected toward more costly | mediums. | mushufasa wrote: | Yes, I think the tech evolution of music has a lot of parallels | here. In the 60s-70s, production and distribution were | expensive, so there was scarcity. In the 90s-early 2000s DAWs | on laptops made it easy to self-record/produce, so there was a | a lot more music made, then in the 2010s legal distribution | became cheap through streaming. | | Nowadays there's more music being created and consumed than | ever, but the musicians don't make nearly as much money as in | the golden days of the CD. The mega-stars like Billy Eillish | still make a good amount through brand deals / live shows, but | the 'middle class' of musicians has fallen away. | | I think lower barriers to entry through creating art via AI | assistance will mean more art available, but it probably will | make it harder to make a living as a professional artist. That | said, I don't think anyone who chooses to be an artist today is | primarily motivated to earn money. | booleandilemma wrote: | I wouldn't have predicted artists, so-called "creatives", would | have been the first to get displaced by AI, yet here we are. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | I just completed a "show" of some of my art at my regular cafe | that hosts local art on their wall for one month each. | | I need to write about this experience (mostly so I can feel | "done" about it), but my show was titled "Is This Art?" and | consisted of around a dozen images generated by VQGAN/VQGAN+CLIP. | I sold almost every single piece! Not bad for a non-artist, | frankly. | | Anyways, I think the key to my "success" was two fold: One, most | images took an input image, all were photographs I took in the | local area. Second, I was brutal in my curation of what I | actually decided to print and include in the show. The keystone | piece was actually a warped image of the coffee shop itself! In | an art medium without clear constraints, my challenge was to | define those constrains for myself. Not exactly a knew problem | for artists. | | I also chose to overlay the output image and original photograph | in some cases, and unmask the photograph in certain locations in | the image. I used this opportunity to touch up the output in | photoshop, and add/remove artificers and details. I was limited | by my lack of digital art skills here, but this was the fun part. | | Final thought, a good eye for color and composition helps any | artistic endeavor, and the same is true for this medium. | delusional wrote: | No need to call yourself a non-artist. To me it sounds like | you're an artist :) Congratulations on the successful show. Is | it possible to see the final results anywhere on the internet? | DiggyJohnson wrote: | Thanks! And I've actually been joking that now that I've sold | something, I'm an artist. "Art is whatever you can get away | with," someone once said. | | I don't yet have the curated pieces available online, but | that's on my TODO list. I really appreciate you asking, | though, especially now that I've got the physical part | figured out, over, and one with. :) | astrange wrote: | Context being that another AI art model (StableDiffusion) knows | the names of many popular artists and can create images that sort | of kind of look like their work. This terrified a lot of artists | on Twitter who've now gone around harassing AI developers and | claiming they're plagiarists, then simultaneously posting things | like "umm this is all uncreative and ugly collages" and "this is | going to take all our jobs". | | Oddly, the main instigator turned out to be a "Pokemon in real | life" fanartist who didn't notice he's already a professional | plagiarist. | | > So in that context, saying "horses stuck around when the | automobile came" is true, but if you went up to a painter and | said "hey, within your lifetime painting will see a 90% decline, | stop being taught formally, disappear from daily life or | awareness". | | The issue with this claim isn't automation replacing artists | (though I don't think that will happen either due to Jevons' | paradox) - it's just that AI generated images don't replace | paintings because they aren't paintings! Print shops already | exist and may have replaced you though. | | > I've had a lot of struggles with this. I have a specific image | in my head, I'm trying to prompt for it, and the AI just does not | want to do it. The most trouble that I've had so far has been | with trying to get a tavern running across the plain with chicken | legs. | | There's a general unfixable problem here, which is it's hard to | be aligned with silly prompts without giving you silly output for | "normal" prompts. That's also why they're complaining the model | output has too safe composition - the developers are lucky they | even got it to do that, it's better than random blobs of color | and body parts like older models would generate. | | But the picture they want probably is hiding somewhere in | Midjourney's latent space; it's just a matter of finding a prompt | that recreates it. | | One way to do that could be to sketch the picture you want some | other way and run it through a reverse image-to-text notebook | like https://github.com/pharmapsychotic/clip-interrogator. | | Another would be prompting it with your sketch so that you can | get an image in its "house style" - which doesn't seem very | appealing for most models, but Midjourney has a pretty strong | one. | mkaic wrote: | As an artist (music, film, 3D modeling/rendering, creative | writing, portraiture) and an AI engineer, I'll admit I have a lot | of uncertainty about the future of art. Some days I'm very | scared, other days I figure I'll just "go with the flow" and not | worry too much about a future I can't control. | | I read the papers. I see the pace of progress. I understand how | these models work on a technical level and I am blown away by how | quickly they are being iterated on. I expect little to no digital | art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for | profit by human artists 10 years from now, and the only reason I | haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street | art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough | robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably | come soon as well). | | People _love_ to bring out the painting-and-photography example | as a defense for why AI is not actually going to bring an end to | the art market, but I just don 't see it as a valid analogy. | Photography and painting both survived because they're | fundamentally different things and can be easily distinguished in | cases where their respective artists choose to differentiate | themselves. AI art is different, because its entire purpose is to | replicate, and no matter what human artists do with the medium of | digital images, the AI will always be right there to gobble up | the new wave changes and learn to replicate them. | | Whereas the advent of photography was never _meant_ to kill the | painting industry, these AI algorithms are very much _meant_ to | kill the image industry, whether that was the intention of the | researchers or not. | karpierz wrote: | > I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, | music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 | years from now, and the only reason I haven't extended that to | physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't | know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those | yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as | well). | | I would 100% take you up on this bet. | | > People love to bring out the painting-and-photography example | as a defense for why AI is not actually going to bring an end | to the art market, but I just don't see it as a valid analogy. | | I think that painting-and-photography is the wrong analogy; | stuff like DALLE is a continuation of Photoshop. Compilers | didn't put programmers out of business, it just moved them one | layer up. | yunwal wrote: | > Photography and painting both survived because they're | fundamentally different things and can be easily distinguished | in cases where their respective artists choose to differentiate | themselves | | I think there's a good argument to be made that photography | killed photorealism in painting (or at least, it's an ever- | shrinking niche). Photorealism was cheapened, and in response, | Modern Art was created. | | What's getting cheapened now is transforming works into | digitally-defineable idea-spaces. Create a new idea in art, | give a machine enough representations, and it can endlessly | generate new works within that space. | | What's not getting cheapened yet is 1) New idea-spaces -> I've | yet to see an AI generate something that could be defined as a | new art "movement" 2) New mediums -> I'm sure that something | like Dall-E will exist for 3D CAD files sooner or later, but | there are a lot of mediums that won't be physically reproduce- | able by a computer (think James Turrell). Works in these spaces | will remain valuable or even increase in value. And while AI | might be able to generate new ideas in these spaces, there will | need to be people to decide to put in the effort to execute | them. 3) Curation and "found art" -> Deciding which ideas | (generated or not) deserve attention. | nmat wrote: | Many successful artists don't paint, sculpt or build anything. | It's not about the technique. Art is about sending a message, | it's about what the artist is trying to say. It's about what the | public feels and thinks when exposed to their work. | | AI has a place as a tool to produce content in a fast and cheap | way. And yes, as a result of that certain jobs will likely | disappear. But art will continue to exist and great artists will | still be followed and admired by the public. | dsign wrote: | I don't think that AI is going to replace those artists, but if | it does, maybe some will be convinced to become AI researchers | :-) ? | | These art AIs are very good at driving the point home that our | DNN AIs are seriously capable. But those capabilities need to be | nursed by ever-growing armies of people. True, maybe there is a | limit to the amount of people needed to profit from coloring | pixels in images, and maybe, just maybe, that ceiling is going to | go down the more these artist AIs are used. But AI has the | potential to break open areas we can't even imagine now. I for | example have trouble imagining that in the time of the horses, | there was an industry for traffic signals, another for | transporting horse fuel between countries (but maybe there was?), | another for teaching teenagers to drive the carriages and get | their horse-driving licenses, and so on and so on. Although I | don't know much about those days, maybe it was popular to be | young and to horse around on top of a good steed. | | Maybe we will be teaching our kids about how to survive in the | jungle of wild AIs we have created for them, and teachers will be | needed. Maybe we will hemorrhage AI-produced content, and in | twenty years, there will be an industry for certifying that | something is human-made (maybe a lesson to learn about how chess | survived in the age of incredibly capable chess-playing computer | programs?). Or maybe something else we can't quite see yet. | notart666 wrote: | A bit too speculative. Even though this can generate images at | a rapid pace the creative space does not. Rapidly prototyping | is not really that useful when it comes to things in concept | design, nor does it fill the niche of making an entire scene. | Realistically, it's only practical uses are in doing things | most artists are not able to do well, such as defining | characteristics of individuals to prop and assert generation | which in the current scenario it is quite useless for but it | isn't to condemn the entire GAN space it will likely never | replace artists. Nor the human centered design. | colechristensen wrote: | Right now it is new, but soon people will start to see the common | sorts of failures that AI generated art has (and will have a very | difficult time getting rid of) will become obvious and seem tacky | and cheap. | | Look at the coins with the dragon and his horde for example. The | newness will wear off, people will become sensitized to the | flaws, and AI "art" will find a niche which is quite a lot | smaller than people impressed with technology imagine. | | Art and artists aren't dead, AI is not at all "creative" just | derivative. It will be one influence among many for actual | artists, become a tool for some, and for the rest of us, take the | place of "art mill" art for the kinds of places that want to look | fancy without putting any effort into it. (I'm looking at you, | "luxury" apartment building with the exact same bad, inoffensive | abstract print on every floor's elevator lobby) | mkaic wrote: | >AI is not at all "creative" just derivative. And humans are | not derivative? Every image human artists make is based off of | something that artist has seen or experienced before. _All | creativity is derivative_. | somethoughts wrote: | Perhaps its just because its early innings but a lot of the early | examples of AI generated art seem to be in that uncanny valley | stage. A bit dystopian - like from an unpleasant dream. | | I'm curious whether thats just the text descriptions people are | putting into the generators to get clicks or inherent in the AI | art generation techniques used. | | I'll also throw out that for most of the history of art - "art" | has always been cheap to produce. My pre-schooler created "art". | Its really only the outliers that we remember. And really the | ones who make it do it through verbal communication of their | ideas or have some mechanism for conveying a consistent, | overarching theme/narrative. [1] | | A professional AI "artist" might need to figure out how to become | more of a visual creator/curator - ushering the generated images | into coherent story that can be shared via discussions at gallery | showings, etc. | | Perhaps real professional visual artists need to find the | equivalent of a live show that has kept music viable as a career | or a live book reading that makes an author relatable. | | [1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/the-hidden-side-of- | the-... | bambax wrote: | > _So, would people stop making art?_ | | An analogy that TFA curiously doesn't touch is the advent of | photography. What did it do to painting? | | Painting became less and less figurative as photography became | more and more accurate. The point of painting was to represent | reality; but as photography became so much more accurate, that | point became moot. | | And so, painting went into a different direction. Represent not | reality, but feelings, what the artist feels when looking at | reality; something that's out of reach of photography. | | AI is trying to conquer this as well. Human art needs to go | further. Something weird that AI cannot touch. | delusional wrote: | Art has already been there for ages. I went to see Copenhagen | Contemporary's exhibit of light & space and I'd never actually | FELT art like that. It was quite exhilarating. Suddenly i | understand what people say they feel when they connect with | art. | | That's not what people mean when they talk about AI art though. | AI art is Commercial Art. What Horkheimer and Adorno famously | called "The Culture Industry". | pdntspa wrote: | If anything, painting has become more stylistic and figurative | since photography; impressionism was a direct response to the | photorealistic style of painting popular during the | renaissance. | | It freed artists of having to focus on realism, if they wanted | to do so. | badloginagain wrote: | It also pushed art to the niche. Painted images explicitly for | children has been a massive industry for decades- also one that | mature AI generative art could absolutely dominate. | | I'd love to see this technology aimed at concept art for games. | I don't think this would hurt employed concept artists, I do | think it will be a tool concept artists can use to quickly | thumbnail significantly more versions of a vision. | | That artist will then refine the results into something | supremely engaging to humans. | | Really I see this as an incredible tool for artists to help | refine truly innovative ideas. | bsenftner wrote: | Art that human beings actually care about is not the commercial | art many people are referencing here. Art is not pretty | pictures. Art is not a expensively produced media. Art is a | human communication concerning the realizations of finite life. | However, Art being Art, it does not communicate these issues in | immature direct language, Art communicates through richly | layered metaphor. | | Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the | capabilities of artificial intelligence for a large number of | reasons, chief of which because it is a communication between | beings aware of finite existence. | | Note, I am not saying the consumer markets will not be flooded | with cheap mimicry of art as pooped out by ignorant | noncomprehending AIs. That will most definitely happen. And a | generation of would be fine artists will never pursue their | innate vocation thanks to the misconception that AI is capable | of creating Art (which it cannot.) | | However, you do not have to fall for the stupidity most are | caught. If you have an artistic vocation, realize that | indirection and metaphor are your human creative super powers | that AI cannot touch. Metaphor requires comprehension and often | complex interwoven comprehensions, which is so far out of AI's | reach it is laughable the general pubic believes otherwise. AIs | are idiots when you know them well. They have zero capacity to | create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a | form other than how they appear. | dqpb wrote: | > Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the | capabilities of artificial intelligence | | It's easy to test. Show people "real" art and AI generated | art and see how often they can tell which is which. | bsenftner wrote: | That won't work. Art is also not a popularity contest. | bsedlm wrote: | I'm still wating for music to react to recording technology in | the way painting reacted to the photographic camera. | beckingz wrote: | Listen to some drum and bass. | delusional wrote: | I'd argue that Hyperpop is a more direct response to the | commercialization of music. | crumpled wrote: | I've been dabbling with text-to-image generation quite a bit | lately. I also do graphic design, drafting, and occasionally | doodle with a pen or pencil. | | I really enjoy generating images, and I really enjoy drawing even | though I'm not really good at it. I like to draw with my five- | year-old, but I've also exposed him to Dalle-Mini. I think | showing him dalle-mini was a mistake, and I'm going to avoid | repeating it. (We are a low-media household.) | | My concern about AI art has to do with children learning art | skills. Will it be hard to encourage developing art skills? If a | person can just ask for an image rather than learning how to make | one, will they be motivated to do the work to build the skill? Or | will it suddenly become a waste of time to the young mind? | elefanten wrote: | Is that much different from being able to find ready-made | images to look at in various media? | | I could see a difference in the case of wanting to see a custom | image and being able to summon it via description vs. needing | to learn to produce it. I'm not particularly artistic and never | developed any such skills... so I don't know: how crucial is | that particular motivation to those who acquire art | (production) skills? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-16 23:00 UTC)