It’s why it’s so so so popular with conservatives (and fascist now). There is something about having skill in art that makes you a lot less likely to be conservative. It’s about the material circumstances that lead people to become artists, I’d guess.
So now all these Nazis can make Trump memes by typing something stupid into a prompt. It’s ugly. It’s not intelligent or creative but it’s just enough to spread their hateful propaganda. AI art is awful. But it’s 100x better than what these fascist could ever hope to create.
Seriously. I feel like the only real use case for AI art right now is making awful fascist propaganda. At least it’s the only area of “art” that is actually seeing “improvement” from it.
Which tells you a lot about how these fascist idiots complain about “culture” so much but have actually no culture or art of their own.
If you need a gross example just search for the AI Trump Gaza video. The purpose isn’t art. But it’s still serving the role that art plays in propaganda.
As someone with the fine motor control of someone made of all elbows, who couldn’t hope to ever draw anything and who leaves that up to people with talent and work ethic for money, all of the cool things in my head that die there because they’re better in my imagination than I could ever express through words or art.
Didn’t Beethoven use little wires hooked up to his head connected to a part of the piano so he could kinda “feel” the music as he played it when he went deaf?
Give digital art programs a try. There’s plenty of free alternatives to the big subscription model vultures out there, there’s GIMP for image editing, Krita for drawing, Blender for 3D, DaVinci Resolve for video editing, Audacity and Pro Tools Free for sound recording and editing, you can even make modular synths using VCV Rack. And if you like rum and eye patches theres versions of the big players out there too.
I am absolutely shit at drawing, but professionally I make 3d animations, having drawing skills helps, but it’s not necessary to learn any one of these.
It def takes some practice to get into these programs but many of them have really good tutorial series geared toward beginners. As far as my experience, in Blender you have the Donut Series put out by Blender Guru that takes you from “I’ve never even heard of blender” to “I’ve made a really good looking donut.” By the end of the series.
I wish to formally apologize for offering friendly advice on the internet, maybe I should have been even more of an apparent prick than I was and told op to give up forever on their desire to be more creative and told op to eat shit and die.
I don’t think less of OP, if I did, I wouldn’t be be giving suggestions for freely accessible digital art programs of all different kinds and not even limiting myself to just visual mediums.
All I want to do is offer words of encouragement to go and try some of these. They’re free programs, what’s the harm in encouraging someone to give them a try?
Sorry, I assumed you were one of the people who doesn’t think using AI tools is a valid way to express one’s self. In hindsight, you never said things to that effect.
You aren’t one of the pricks I was referring to, I should have checked before replying to your comment. But you gotta admit, there are a lot of people who think anyone who uses AI tools is a loser, and will say all kinds of things to invalidate those who use AI.
I’m 47. I have tried. My problem isn’t inputting pixels, I can do that. I’ve done drafting with paper and pencil and with CAD tools (I’m an engineer). My problem is knowing where to put the pixels/lines for the thing I want to create (which I can do for a schematic, but not for anything that is to have any realism. I’ve never had a problem with schematics. I can make a drawing that is very clear in terms of all functional aspects).
I have ideas, I am simply not good at implementation. AI tools allow me to express my ideas. And if you think I’m less than for that, you can bite my shiny metal ass, because I’m not creating for you. I’m creating for me, and sometimes for people I’m close to (usually to make them laugh).
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Creative skill and imagination. It is inherent to art.
Even the shittiest executed art is art. Your perception of art is skewed by the commodification of it through capitalist societies. I sincerely implore you to take up any kind of art that does not require AI if you’re truly interested in expressing yourself.
It really is just persistence and accepting a certain amount of “I’m so bad at art” for eternity. Just make something, draw, paint or whatever. Look for things that motivate you to make stuff and learn to do it anyway, sucking is the first step to being kinda good at something.
Have you considered collage? You just need some mod podge, a few foam brushes, and magazines/random print material. There’s still lots of room for skill and exploration, but there’s not a technical barrier to entry.
I never realized it, but isn’t a collage basically the analog version of AI art, except in this case it’s using the literal other art of people rather than learning from it and blending to make something new? Literally using other pictures to make a picture.
I posted a project on c/artshare which is chunks of a Christian courtship manual which I drowned in paint and then chopped out the most fucked up parts from. I don’t think that is something AI would do trained on a model of pop Christian literature - that’s something I a person with context and reactions to that literature would do. An AI can create pictures that might look nice, but they don’t have meaning. Art for me prioritizes meaning. - but I’m the kind of weirdo that burst into tears when I saw the replica of Fountain at the Tate.
But you were talking specifically about a static medium, not video or music, which are not static mediums. We were also discussing image gen AI, not video gen etc.
Most people also don’t consider video or music edits collage either, and call them something else. Because they use different skills and are different mediums.
Also, you do realize we’re still talking about current AI generation right? There doesn’t exist an AI that executes processes on it’s own (maybe) yet. So your whole thing wasn’t relevant either, really, in any way more than saying a piece of paper will spontaneously draw something on itself.
That said, you can, using prompts, training, guidance steps, etc, actually do exactly what you did in a digital format, using a diffusion image generation AI. You can get more specific by using it + Gimp.
Edit: and I mean, you still are using someone else’s art to create what you made.
I guess - ultimately, as a pragmatic/materialist person, I’d like to see something material. An example of good AI art. Something creative, something unique, something conveying some kind of deeper idea. Something like Hannah Höch?
Here’s a current collage project of mine that is maybe 25% done. The design of the coloring pages, the Lisa Frank stickers, the patterns on the paper - these are all not mine in design. But I think they have been demonstrably altered in a way that make them different.
I guess the old adage in literary endeavors is “show, don’t tell.” I want to see someone really use AI as an art form, but I’m just not seeing things that really come across as having much thought in them.
I’m bad at visual art also (always was into audio) but for me the best thing is to take a couple pictures, and start modifying them with gimp. This is a lot easier than starting from nothing. I make all my album covers this way, usually from A few irl pictures I took and then added effects to. They often end up pretty sweet
Isn’t creating art despite those obstacles meaningful though? Art is always going to be an imperfect copy of what is in our head and absolutely nothing about generative AI can possibly change that. But artists have intent and all their experience in every line they make - that’s part of the joy and tragedy of it and what makes it so human.
I don’t feel like that’s actually an argument against it. Why would everyone need to learn to draw? Why if I need some random background asset or prop should I spend months or years learning to do something I don’t enjoy? The alternative is to pay an artist, but in many cases it literally doesn’t make sense to waste that kind of money on a trivial thing. It can have its uses.
should I spend months or years learning to do something I don’t enjoy?
Okay. If you don’t even like drawing, why should I care to see it, then?
Is this like when casual acquaintances who don’t like each other pretend to make weekend plans they both know they’re going to cancel if either one of them ever brings it up again?
I’m not saying this is something that should be used to crank out slop to sell as posters or paintings or idk. I’m saying it can help e.g. indie devs, people making random powerpoints, making a customised meme, stuff where the art isn’t the main point but is sometimes still necessary.
Yes, but what I’m asking about is why you feel an indie game needs that. People generally find the effort made by someone less skilled way more charming than they do a technically proficient AI-thing, anyway.
Like, you’re describing background assets as if they were a handshake the two of us are required by social contact to perform as part of our greeting ritual—why is it necessary? If you’ve got shaky hands, we could just… not do it. You know?
There is literally no fucking such thing as talent.
Talent is just the excuse of the ignorant and stupid to downplay training and hard work.
Generative ai tho DOES make art more accessiable to people with physical disablities, people who already spend their time learning and training in other skill sets.
Such as poor coders being able to make simple art for their project. No artist would be hired reguardless and it can provide a reasonable and useful method of obtaining art.
The current glut of companies running ai, training them and stealing copyrighted work should all burn in hell. Go bankrupt and have their ceos sent to jail for enabling and profiting off theft.
But lets be angry at the right thing here. Generative ai is a tool, asshole people stealing is the problem.
Sorry the concept of “talent” really just sends me.
What a crock of shit. You clearly haven’t lived with talented people. I’ve had roommates that I got to observe their daily habits and while they did work and practice, much of their skill came from how their brains and muscles were wired. Talent is very real. To assume every accomplishment that out shines another is simply a product of greater training and effort is an excuse of the ignorant.
I’d also suspect there are things that may not be “learnable” – if you don’t have great spatial perception or colour vision, that might not really be a skill than can be practiced.
It doesn’t mean you can’t do art either. Art is not only “faithful representations of reality”. Heck, that is probably the most boring and useless definition of art one could think of.
Edit: nevermind, just read another comment equating art’s value to its financial success. Now, that is an even more boring definition of art.
Disabled people can make great art. They can also hire someone else to help them; people who work succeed more together than apart.
I also think that having someone make a nice image is not worth the sheer amount of electrical energy and water cooling needed to power the datacenters.
People have aptitudes. The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive. But yes, even with talent a person has to work hard and practice. The word “talent” implies that the person worked hard to develop the skill. I agree we shouldn’t downplay the amount of work that goes into specializing, but let’s not pretend that means there’s no such thing as talent. Some people have a knack for things that others don’t, I’ve seen this firsthand on so many occasions. These knacks are what can be turned into talents.
So let’s not downplay a person’s natural aptitude by saying “well you just worked super hard, anybody can do that.”
In my work place we hired an intern who was pivoting careers and wanted to learn a new skill. The company was doing well, so we kept her on so long as she was trying. We patiently worked with her for years, but the skill NEVER clicked. She came from a robust background, so she was clearly capable, but we eventually figured out that she didn’t have the talent for it. She eventually decided that career wasn’t for her and left for another company - and in her new position she picked up on the different and required skill super quick. Our brains are elastic, sure, but they’re also hardwired in all different ways.
The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive.
Put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and the 1 student that likes the subject the most will be the best student.
There’s different levels of interests between the students. A student that is very invested in the subject is going to learn more than a student that wishes they were doing anything else. That’s what happens when something “clicks” - when a student goes above and beyond the taught material because they’re always thinking about it. “Talent” is indistinguishable from enthusiasm.
Sure, there are literal cognitive differences between people, but 99 times out of 100 “talent” is just passion imo
People who are “talented” might start out at a better point in a field than others but they’ll hit a wall where they have to actually put in work to go further, that comes all at once instead of in small steps.
I can’t visualize things in my head so generative ai can help me “see” my thoughts in a way i couldn’t otherwise. Are there artists with aphantasia? I’m sure, and kudos to them. I took several art classes and could never really do well unless i was trying to recreate someone else’s work.
But absolutely agree with your point. I would love for the future to have art licensed for genAI use so artists get their royalties and i can use it. I don’t like all the theft in current LLMs so don’t use them anymore
Ok so i do know there are some people with aphantasia who do art but didn’t want to get into a long rant about this but congratulations your comment has triggered me by sharing the first search result with no commentary (did you even read it?).
First off, yes, art comes in many forms. I use my artistic expression in my writing. But abstract art can still be visualized in advance by artists, something i literally cannot do. Can i still make art (abstract and otherwise), yes, but it takes longer than someone else who can visualize. Also telling me i can just do abstract art is like telling someone who can’t use their legs that they can still walk if they use some hands crunches and drag their legs along. Is it possible? Maybe! Is it something that will be enjoyable? Probably not. I don’t feel people would respond to a handicapped person this way but maybe they do. They do respond this way to me, all the time. Maybe they think they are helping, but it’s not helpful.
Anyway, the animator. So if you actually read the article it talks about the difference between seeing it describing things. I cannot see my wife in my head, but i have studied her face countless times over the decades. If i were to describe her face to you it would be a series of long lists about each feature of her face. This is what i would compare to someone’s job as domain knowledge. If you do something many times, you have experience with this. If i were an animator for a company then yeah i could have domain knowledge and get by doing that since i have prepared long lists of different characters, objects, or general setting characteristics for new things (it will still be harder than someone who can visualize since they don’t need to iterate as much).
Now if you ask me about something else though, the details i can recall are much less. If i want to draw a cthulu-esque monster combined with two humanoid legs then i could try to recall details about these things but my cthulu piece is just a blob, i don’t really know much besides describing tentacles. Of course i could look things up but then im just back to copying things.
But what if i just want to make my own original art? Well, i need to describe it in my head first. Describe it in great detail and then hope the words i have used to describe it match how i actually want it to appear for my writing.
And that’s the type of art i care about. And that’s the type of art genAI can help me visualize if i use it (again, i don’t anymore). But imagine that handicap person who can’t walk now getting some robotic assisted crutches. That’s what i imagine it felt like for me to visualize things with genAI. I could just feed it lists of details and it effortlessly showed me approximations of what my detail-lists are. I could “see” my thoughts for the first time. Could i do all of this myself without genAI? Yeah if i spent enough time on it. It just isn’t fun for me.
And what do you do for work or hobbies? Do you do anything that you’re dogshit at? Do you do something that you do have a physical or mental disadvantage in? Ive done hobbies to push myself in other areas of my life, but not this one. Like i said, it isn’t fun for me. And telling me to do other kinds of art isn’t helpful either.
And to be clear, I’m not using any of this as a justification to use genAI on unlicensed work. My original comment expressed my desire to have models with licensed work. Because i do want to just effortlessly “see” my thoughts like everyone else. That’s it.
My point is that anyone can do art. If you can make marks, you can make art. I would worry about leaning too much on the “imagination” of the computer, and I do not consider AI generated images art.
It makes it more accessible to the lazy and talentless.
It’s why it’s so so so popular with conservatives (and fascist now). There is something about having skill in art that makes you a lot less likely to be conservative. It’s about the material circumstances that lead people to become artists, I’d guess.
So now all these Nazis can make Trump memes by typing something stupid into a prompt. It’s ugly. It’s not intelligent or creative but it’s just enough to spread their hateful propaganda. AI art is awful. But it’s 100x better than what these fascist could ever hope to create.
Seriously. I feel like the only real use case for AI art right now is making awful fascist propaganda. At least it’s the only area of “art” that is actually seeing “improvement” from it.
Which tells you a lot about how these fascist idiots complain about “culture” so much but have actually no culture or art of their own.
If you need a gross example just search for the AI Trump Gaza video. The purpose isn’t art. But it’s still serving the role that art plays in propaganda.
As someone with the fine motor control of someone made of all elbows, who couldn’t hope to ever draw anything and who leaves that up to people with talent and work ethic for money, all of the cool things in my head that die there because they’re better in my imagination than I could ever express through words or art.
I feel seen.
Art is not about the destination. It’s about the journey. Deaf compositors made music knowing they would never hear it.
Didn’t Beethoven use little wires hooked up to his head connected to a part of the piano so he could kinda “feel” the music as he played it when he went deaf?
There are a bunch of things that I want to put into this reply, but I know that it will just be read as defensive.
I’m more interested to hear why you think, what you wrote, is important to this conversation, because you had a point and masked it in a question.
I just have a tendency to do that. I’m a history nerd who like random history facts.
That’s pretty much it.
Give digital art programs a try. There’s plenty of free alternatives to the big subscription model vultures out there, there’s GIMP for image editing, Krita for drawing, Blender for 3D, DaVinci Resolve for video editing, Audacity and Pro Tools Free for sound recording and editing, you can even make modular synths using VCV Rack. And if you like rum and eye patches theres versions of the big players out there too.
I am absolutely shit at drawing, but professionally I make 3d animations, having drawing skills helps, but it’s not necessary to learn any one of these.
I am even more terrible at those than I am with physical media.
It def takes some practice to get into these programs but many of them have really good tutorial series geared toward beginners. As far as my experience, in Blender you have the Donut Series put out by Blender Guru that takes you from “I’ve never even heard of blender” to “I’ve made a really good looking donut.” By the end of the series.
You’re not alone. Sorry all these pricks think you just haven’t tried.
I wish to formally apologize for offering friendly advice on the internet, maybe I should have been even more of an apparent prick than I was and told op to give up forever on their desire to be more creative and told op to eat shit and die.
Or you could not think less of someone for using a tool that you don’t need to express their creativity.
I don’t think less of OP, if I did, I wouldn’t be be giving suggestions for freely accessible digital art programs of all different kinds and not even limiting myself to just visual mediums.
All I want to do is offer words of encouragement to go and try some of these. They’re free programs, what’s the harm in encouraging someone to give them a try?
Sorry, I assumed you were one of the people who doesn’t think using AI tools is a valid way to express one’s self. In hindsight, you never said things to that effect.
You aren’t one of the pricks I was referring to, I should have checked before replying to your comment. But you gotta admit, there are a lot of people who think anyone who uses AI tools is a loser, and will say all kinds of things to invalidate those who use AI.
Everyone is terrible when they start. You can get better if you practice over time.
You might not ever draw the next big masterpiece, but if you practice you will get better.
All it takes is 15-30 minutes a day.
I’m 47. I have tried. My problem isn’t inputting pixels, I can do that. I’ve done drafting with paper and pencil and with CAD tools (I’m an engineer). My problem is knowing where to put the pixels/lines for the thing I want to create (which I can do for a schematic, but not for anything that is to have any realism. I’ve never had a problem with schematics. I can make a drawing that is very clear in terms of all functional aspects).
I have ideas, I am simply not good at implementation. AI tools allow me to express my ideas. And if you think I’m less than for that, you can bite my shiny metal ass, because I’m not creating for you. I’m creating for me, and sometimes for people I’m close to (usually to make them laugh).
There are definitely exceptions
(He’s 2 years old)
Creative skill and imagination. It is inherent to art.
Even the shittiest executed art is art. Your perception of art is skewed by the commodification of it through capitalist societies. I sincerely implore you to take up any kind of art that does not require AI if you’re truly interested in expressing yourself.
It really is just persistence and accepting a certain amount of “I’m so bad at art” for eternity. Just make something, draw, paint or whatever. Look for things that motivate you to make stuff and learn to do it anyway, sucking is the first step to being kinda good at something.
A class or two can help. The feedback from an instructor can help you figure out where you are going wrong.
It’s also 100% accepting that you will be terrible. It just has to be fun even when it’s terrible.
Yeah, self-critique is important but you can never see everything
Have you considered collage? You just need some mod podge, a few foam brushes, and magazines/random print material. There’s still lots of room for skill and exploration, but there’s not a technical barrier to entry.
I never realized it, but isn’t a collage basically the analog version of AI art, except in this case it’s using the literal other art of people rather than learning from it and blending to make something new? Literally using other pictures to make a picture.
The art and challenge of collage is changing the context. Consider how the Avalanches work is entirely samples - but there’s something there that was not in the constituent parts.
Or video collage. YouTube Poops are another example of that kind of finding something new in what was already there - what about Robotnik’s PINGAS.
I posted a project on c/artshare which is chunks of a Christian courtship manual which I drowned in paint and then chopped out the most fucked up parts from. I don’t think that is something AI would do trained on a model of pop Christian literature - that’s something I a person with context and reactions to that literature would do. An AI can create pictures that might look nice, but they don’t have meaning. Art for me prioritizes meaning. - but I’m the kind of weirdo that burst into tears when I saw the replica of Fountain at the Tate.
But you were talking specifically about a static medium, not video or music, which are not static mediums. We were also discussing image gen AI, not video gen etc.
Most people also don’t consider video or music edits collage either, and call them something else. Because they use different skills and are different mediums.
Also, you do realize we’re still talking about current AI generation right? There doesn’t exist an AI that executes processes on it’s own (maybe) yet. So your whole thing wasn’t relevant either, really, in any way more than saying a piece of paper will spontaneously draw something on itself.
That said, you can, using prompts, training, guidance steps, etc, actually do exactly what you did in a digital format, using a diffusion image generation AI. You can get more specific by using it + Gimp.
Edit: and I mean, you still are using someone else’s art to create what you made.
I guess - ultimately, as a pragmatic/materialist person, I’d like to see something material. An example of good AI art. Something creative, something unique, something conveying some kind of deeper idea. Something like Hannah Höch?
Here’s a current collage project of mine that is maybe 25% done. The design of the coloring pages, the Lisa Frank stickers, the patterns on the paper - these are all not mine in design. But I think they have been demonstrably altered in a way that make them different.
I guess the old adage in literary endeavors is “show, don’t tell.” I want to see someone really use AI as an art form, but I’m just not seeing things that really come across as having much thought in them.
I’m bad at visual art also (always was into audio) but for me the best thing is to take a couple pictures, and start modifying them with gimp. This is a lot easier than starting from nothing. I make all my album covers this way, usually from A few irl pictures I took and then added effects to. They often end up pretty sweet
Have you tried pixel art?
Isn’t creating art despite those obstacles meaningful though? Art is always going to be an imperfect copy of what is in our head and absolutely nothing about generative AI can possibly change that. But artists have intent and all their experience in every line they make - that’s part of the joy and tragedy of it and what makes it so human.
Yes.
In the same way that some people are satisfied with fast food, AI folks are satisfied with fast art - despite that they may be poisoning themselves.
I don’t feel like that’s actually an argument against it. Why would everyone need to learn to draw? Why if I need some random background asset or prop should I spend months or years learning to do something I don’t enjoy? The alternative is to pay an artist, but in many cases it literally doesn’t make sense to waste that kind of money on a trivial thing. It can have its uses.
Okay. If you don’t even like drawing, why should I care to see it, then?
Is this like when casual acquaintances who don’t like each other pretend to make weekend plans they both know they’re going to cancel if either one of them ever brings it up again?
You shouldn’t care, you’re right!
Yet here we are in a community that’s all about b*thing about it.
I’m not saying this is something that should be used to crank out slop to sell as posters or paintings or idk. I’m saying it can help e.g. indie devs, people making random powerpoints, making a customised meme, stuff where the art isn’t the main point but is sometimes still necessary.
Yes, but what I’m asking about is why you feel an indie game needs that. People generally find the effort made by someone less skilled way more charming than they do a technically proficient AI-thing, anyway.
Like, you’re describing background assets as if they were a handshake the two of us are required by social contact to perform as part of our greeting ritual—why is it necessary? If you’ve got shaky hands, we could just… not do it. You know?
Is that for your D&D campaign?
There is literally no fucking such thing as talent.
Talent is just the excuse of the ignorant and stupid to downplay training and hard work.
Generative ai tho DOES make art more accessiable to people with physical disablities, people who already spend their time learning and training in other skill sets.
Such as poor coders being able to make simple art for their project. No artist would be hired reguardless and it can provide a reasonable and useful method of obtaining art.
The current glut of companies running ai, training them and stealing copyrighted work should all burn in hell. Go bankrupt and have their ceos sent to jail for enabling and profiting off theft.
But lets be angry at the right thing here. Generative ai is a tool, asshole people stealing is the problem.
Sorry the concept of “talent” really just sends me.
I am one of those poor coders that need simple art for their project and i know a better solution than AI
https://itch.io/game-assets
Counterpoints:
This 2 year old
This 19 month old
This 5 year old
A 6 year old
Cringe news station, but 3 years old
And lastly, for now, Chloe Chua at 9 years old with decades level violin mastery (she can also play the piano).
What a crock of shit. You clearly haven’t lived with talented people. I’ve had roommates that I got to observe their daily habits and while they did work and practice, much of their skill came from how their brains and muscles were wired. Talent is very real. To assume every accomplishment that out shines another is simply a product of greater training and effort is an excuse of the ignorant.
I’d also suspect there are things that may not be “learnable” – if you don’t have great spatial perception or colour vision, that might not really be a skill than can be practiced.
It doesn’t mean you can’t do art either. Art is not only “faithful representations of reality”. Heck, that is probably the most boring and useless definition of art one could think of.
Edit: nevermind, just read another comment equating art’s value to its financial success. Now, that is an even more boring definition of art.
The most impressive art is when people learn the rules well enough to ignore them.
Where?
Disabled people can make great art. They can also hire someone else to help them; people who work succeed more together than apart.
I also think that having someone make a nice image is not worth the sheer amount of electrical energy and water cooling needed to power the datacenters.
People have aptitudes. The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive. But yes, even with talent a person has to work hard and practice. The word “talent” implies that the person worked hard to develop the skill. I agree we shouldn’t downplay the amount of work that goes into specializing, but let’s not pretend that means there’s no such thing as talent. Some people have a knack for things that others don’t, I’ve seen this firsthand on so many occasions. These knacks are what can be turned into talents.
So let’s not downplay a person’s natural aptitude by saying “well you just worked super hard, anybody can do that.”
In my work place we hired an intern who was pivoting careers and wanted to learn a new skill. The company was doing well, so we kept her on so long as she was trying. We patiently worked with her for years, but the skill NEVER clicked. She came from a robust background, so she was clearly capable, but we eventually figured out that she didn’t have the talent for it. She eventually decided that career wasn’t for her and left for another company - and in her new position she picked up on the different and required skill super quick. Our brains are elastic, sure, but they’re also hardwired in all different ways.
Put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and the 1 student that likes the subject the most will be the best student.
There’s different levels of interests between the students. A student that is very invested in the subject is going to learn more than a student that wishes they were doing anything else. That’s what happens when something “clicks” - when a student goes above and beyond the taught material because they’re always thinking about it. “Talent” is indistinguishable from enthusiasm.
Sure, there are literal cognitive differences between people, but 99 times out of 100 “talent” is just passion imo
People who are “talented” might start out at a better point in a field than others but they’ll hit a wall where they have to actually put in work to go further, that comes all at once instead of in small steps.
I’m with you on all of your points actually (it’s photography all again), but you did post it in /fuck_ai 😁
I can’t visualize things in my head so generative ai can help me “see” my thoughts in a way i couldn’t otherwise. Are there artists with aphantasia? I’m sure, and kudos to them. I took several art classes and could never really do well unless i was trying to recreate someone else’s work.
But absolutely agree with your point. I would love for the future to have art licensed for genAI use so artists get their royalties and i can use it. I don’t like all the theft in current LLMs so don’t use them anymore
One of the animators behind The Little Mermaid had aphantasia.
There’s also experimenting with more abstract forms - playing with color and shape. Art doesn’t have to be a picture of something.
Ok so i do know there are some people with aphantasia who do art but didn’t want to get into a long rant about this but congratulations your comment has triggered me by sharing the first search result with no commentary (did you even read it?).
First off, yes, art comes in many forms. I use my artistic expression in my writing. But abstract art can still be visualized in advance by artists, something i literally cannot do. Can i still make art (abstract and otherwise), yes, but it takes longer than someone else who can visualize. Also telling me i can just do abstract art is like telling someone who can’t use their legs that they can still walk if they use some hands crunches and drag their legs along. Is it possible? Maybe! Is it something that will be enjoyable? Probably not. I don’t feel people would respond to a handicapped person this way but maybe they do. They do respond this way to me, all the time. Maybe they think they are helping, but it’s not helpful.
Anyway, the animator. So if you actually read the article it talks about the difference between seeing it describing things. I cannot see my wife in my head, but i have studied her face countless times over the decades. If i were to describe her face to you it would be a series of long lists about each feature of her face. This is what i would compare to someone’s job as domain knowledge. If you do something many times, you have experience with this. If i were an animator for a company then yeah i could have domain knowledge and get by doing that since i have prepared long lists of different characters, objects, or general setting characteristics for new things (it will still be harder than someone who can visualize since they don’t need to iterate as much).
Now if you ask me about something else though, the details i can recall are much less. If i want to draw a cthulu-esque monster combined with two humanoid legs then i could try to recall details about these things but my cthulu piece is just a blob, i don’t really know much besides describing tentacles. Of course i could look things up but then im just back to copying things.
But what if i just want to make my own original art? Well, i need to describe it in my head first. Describe it in great detail and then hope the words i have used to describe it match how i actually want it to appear for my writing.
And that’s the type of art i care about. And that’s the type of art genAI can help me visualize if i use it (again, i don’t anymore). But imagine that handicap person who can’t walk now getting some robotic assisted crutches. That’s what i imagine it felt like for me to visualize things with genAI. I could just feed it lists of details and it effortlessly showed me approximations of what my detail-lists are. I could “see” my thoughts for the first time. Could i do all of this myself without genAI? Yeah if i spent enough time on it. It just isn’t fun for me.
And what do you do for work or hobbies? Do you do anything that you’re dogshit at? Do you do something that you do have a physical or mental disadvantage in? Ive done hobbies to push myself in other areas of my life, but not this one. Like i said, it isn’t fun for me. And telling me to do other kinds of art isn’t helpful either.
And to be clear, I’m not using any of this as a justification to use genAI on unlicensed work. My original comment expressed my desire to have models with licensed work. Because i do want to just effortlessly “see” my thoughts like everyone else. That’s it.
I am sorry if the article offended you.
My point is that anyone can do art. If you can make marks, you can make art. I would worry about leaning too much on the “imagination” of the computer, and I do not consider AI generated images art.