Grok Imagine is SUPER!

[battlewraith]

Just now, biostem said:

Just as cars automated tasks that horses or other such beasts of burden used to perform, Photoshop and other such tools automated manual art/editing techniques.  AI is just the next step in that evolution.  

 

Wow, as someone who has been using Photoshop since the 90s, I didn't know it automated art and image editing. Maybe you can point out the hot key that will tell it to do my work for me, I must have missed it somehow. 

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Wow, as someone who has been using Photoshop since the 90s, I didn't know it automated art and image editing. Maybe you can point out the hot key that will tell it to do my work for me, I must have missed it somehow. 

Take the actual physical photo and edit it without a computer, like people used to do...

[battlewraith]

Just now, biostem said:

Take the actual physical photo and edit it without a computer, like people used to do...

 

Both would be examples of me editing a photo. Neither are automated processes. 

Same with art. I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw on the computer as well. Neither case is automation. 

[biostem]

1 minute ago, battlewraith said:

Both would be examples of me editing a photo. Neither are automated processes. 

Same with art. I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw on the computer as well. Neither case is automation. 

Actually, they are.  You can undo something you don't like - automation.  You can have it save your work at set intervals - automation.  You can change colors, layers, hide some objects, and so on - all tasks you could not do by hand - all automation.  They are different degrees of automation, but in the end, it is a person providing input and the computer processing that input to produce a result.  You are just unhappy with the degree to which AI performs those tasks vs what you have deemed acceptable.

[battlewraith]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

Actually, they are.  You can undo something you don't like - automation.  You can have it save your work at set intervals - automation.  You can change colors, layers, hide some objects, and so on - all tasks you could not do by hand - all automation.  They are different degrees of automation, but in the end, it is a person providing input and the computer processing that input to produce a result.  You are just unhappy with the degree to which AI performs those tasks vs what you have deemed acceptable.

Non-destructive editing is not automation. The only thing that you mentioned that would qualify would be auto saving, assuming you were using an application set up to do that. 

Undoing something you don't like is automation...really? So my pencil is a form of automation because it has an eraser on the back?

 

Computers run automated processes to execute code. That doesn't mean that non-AI digital art applications are automated to create art or do editing. Any more than the gears that automatically turn on a bicycle mean that it's self-propelling. 

 

AI is bad for artists, actors, musicians, etc. It robs people of the benefits of actually developing artistically instead of having something do the work for them.  Fortunately it's not about what I deem acceptable. Most creatives hate it and it cannot function without scraping their work. Even non artists are getting tired of the slop and fake videos of cute animals bouncing on trampolines, etc. 

 

 

[biostem]

1 minute ago, battlewraith said:

Non-destructive editing is not automation. The only thing that you mentioned that would qualify would be auto saving, assuming you were using an application set up to do that. 

Undoing something you don't like is automation...really? So my pencil is a form of automation because it has an eraser on the back?

You really don't know what automation is, do you?  Go ahead and crop a physical photo, then undo it.  Go paint something on a canvas then undo something you've painted a few minutes ago.  An eraser literally ablates material off of the surface - it actually is destructive.  It might be minimal, but it exists.  As I already said - you have just accepted a certain level of automation, and find anything beyond that as distasteful.

 

5 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

AI is bad for artists, actors, musicians, etc. It robs people of the benefits of actually developing artistically instead of having something do the work for them.

Some people are just not capable of certain types of art, so use various tools in order to achieve their ends.  It is no different than using a long lever to lift or move something that you couldn't move otherwise.  Do you complain when a computer program scans your registry for errors instead of having to go through it manually?  Do you complain if an automatic transmission "robs" the driver of "developing" that perceived skill?  Art programs literally "do the work for them" - again, it's just the degree to which it does so that you have a problem with...

[biostem]

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

the gears that automatically turn on a bicycle mean that it's self-propelling

A person cannot propel themselves to the same speed as with the bicycle - they just provide the input and steering, similar to prompting an AI.

 

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Most creatives hate it and it cannot function without scraping their work.

And most artists cannot learn without "scraping" the methods and techniques of those that came before them.

 

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Even non artists are getting tired of the slop and fake videos of cute animals bouncing on trampolines, etc. 

And just like early art programs were very rudimentary and took years to develop, such is the case with AI.  

Edited 7 hours ago by biostem

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

The difference here is we're not making money off their work, no one here is, except Grok.

 

Then you're part of the problem, aren't you?  You're taking advantage of them all by a using product that isn't paying any of the artists who inspired the genre the game is based on.  Unless you'd care to post some details about residuals checks you're sending to the estates of Jerry Seigel and Joe Schuster and Jack Kirby and Stan Lee?  Why aren't you paying them for using a product inspired by their work if it bothers you so much?

Edited 6 hours ago by Excraft

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, biostem said:

Actually, they are.  You can undo something you don't like - automation.  You can have it save your work at set intervals - automation.  You can change colors, layers, hide some objects, and so on - all tasks you could not do by hand - all automation.  They are different degrees of automation, but in the end, it is a person providing input and the computer processing that input to produce a result.  You are just unhappy with the degree to which AI performs those tasks vs what you have deemed acceptable.

 

Take this even further and ask why they're even using a computer to begin with.  Using a computer puts the craftsman who make paper, canvases, frames, pastel pencils, paints, charcoal, watercolor or whatever other art mediums out of a job.  Where's the concern for the craftsman keeping the art industry alive?

 

19 minutes ago, biostem said:

And most artists cannot learn without "scraping" the methods and techniques of those that came before them.

 

Exactly.  Bob Ross learned (some say he "stole") from Bill Alexander.  Should Ross' estate pay the Bill Alexander estate for any money Bob Ross made off of using the wet on wet technique?  Is any artist today who paints impressionistic style paintings forking over any money to Monet's estate?  I guess its acceptable for one artist to copy another artists' style or work and sell it for money because they're all artists, so that's makes it ok.  

 

Here's a funny thing with this - I follow a couple of artists using traditional mediums and methods to create different kinds of art, and most of them have been saying they're busier than ever because of AI.  The demand for traditional handmade crafts is going up, not down because people prefer handcrafted things.

[battlewraith]

5 minutes ago, biostem said:

You really don't know what automation is, do you? 

 

You come across as someone who doesn't understand art production or automation in this context. If I crop something, either physically or digitally, I'm making a decision and taking action on it. Digital work is definitely more flexible, but so what? You think artists don't make changes on physical paintings or drawings? You're fixating on one aspect of the process of image making and thinking that makes it equivalent to AI, that's ridiculous. You give AI some tokens and it gives you results based on what it's model thinks those tokens mean. You have no hand in the actual image making.

 

18 minutes ago, biostem said:

Some people are just not capable of certain types of art, so use various tools in order to achieve their ends.  It is no different than using a long lever to lift or move something that you couldn't move otherwise.  Do you complain when a computer program scans your registry for errors instead of having to go through it manually?  Do you complain if an automatic transmission "robs" the driver of "developing" that perceived skill?  Art programs literally "do the work for them" - again, it's just the degree to which it does so that you have a problem with...

 

You can make all these inane comparisons all day long but it's pretty easy to demonstrate the difference here. If you can't draw at all--Photoshop is not going to help you. All those layers and undoes will not make a difference. But you could go to Midjourney and tell it to make a portrait in the style of Norman Rockwell and it will do just that. 

 

23 minutes ago, biostem said:

And most artists cannot learn without "scraping" the methods and techniques of those that came before them.

 

The scraping involves breaking down the formal characteristics into a kind of vector math that is associated with tokens and filtered through a model. It's actually nothing like how a human artist actually learns and it's completely contingent on existing work that people have done. The AI doesn't ever learn anything and it can only be derivative because it's doing a pastiche of datapoints from it's dataset. Non artists trying to defend AI scraping don't understand the difference between that and a human being having influences. 

[Clave Dark 5]

31 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Then you're part of the problem, aren't you?

Yeah, no.  😄

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Yeah, no.  😄

 

Cool!  So you're sending money to the families of all the artists who created the superhero genre this game is based on?   What about the people who originally created all of the digital assets and code for this game?  I assume you're sending them money too?

Edited 5 hours ago by Excraft

[battlewraith]

11 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Exactly.  Bob Ross learned (some say he "stole") from Bill Alexander.  Should Ross' estate pay the Bill Alexander estate for any money Bob Ross made off of using the wet on wet technique?  Is any artist today who paints impressionistic style paintings forking over any money to Monet's estate?  I guess its acceptable for one artist to copy another artists' style or work and sell it for money because they're all artists, so that's makes it ok.  

 

 

This is a weird argument. People get sued for copyright infringement. You can look into court cases and see what types of things constitute infringement. 

A style or technique alone is generally not something that an individual owns (eg. Monet doesn't own impressionism).

[battlewraith]

1 minute ago, Excraft said:

 

Cool!  So you're sending money to the families of all the artists who created the superhero genre this game is based on?  

If it was identifiable as their distinct creations, yeah they or the IP owners would expect compensation --hence rules in this game about using copyrighted characters. Beyond that, this argument is just silly. Nobody owns genres, despite the fact that they may have been popularized by certain creators.

[biostem]

52 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You come across as someone who doesn't understand art production or automation in this context. If I crop something, either physically or digitally, I'm making a decision and taking action on it. Digital work is definitely more flexible, but so what? You think artists don't make changes on physical paintings or drawings? You're fixating on one aspect of the process of image making and thinking that makes it equivalent to AI, that's ridiculous. You give AI some tokens and it gives you results based on what it's model thinks those tokens mean. You have no hand in the actual image making.

"Automation" is contrasted with what?  Doing things "by hand" or manually.  Using the myriad of functions built in to most modern art programs... get this... "automates" many of those operations.  As I've said over and over, it's the degree to which the automation is carried out that you seem to have a problem with.  Don't move the goalposts.

 

54 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You can make all these inane comparisons all day long but it's pretty easy to demonstrate the difference here. If you can't draw at all--Photoshop is not going to help you. All those layers and undoes will not make a difference. But you could go to Midjourney and tell it to make a portrait in the style of Norman Rockwell and it will do just that. 

"Drawing" is not the end-all be-all of creativity.  A program that can turn my words or designs created via other means, into a reality, are no less valid.  The only difference here is that you have a personal stake in this particular method of someone being able to realize their designs potentially obsoleting your craft.  I can respect that, but it doesn't invalidate the tool, nor does it justify your apparent disregard for how other tools have invalidated other people's crafts in the past.

 

57 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The scraping involves breaking down the formal characteristics into a kind of vector math that is associated with tokens and filtered through a model. It's actually nothing like how a human artist actually learns and it's completely contingent on existing work that people have done. The AI doesn't ever learn anything and it can only be derivative because it's doing a pastiche of datapoints from it's dataset. Non artists trying to defend AI scraping don't understand the difference between that and a human being having influences. 

That may very well be true with the current generation of such AIs, but to say that humans don't learn by some process of breaking down the art and related methods/techniques/media into some digestible/reproduceable process is laughable.

[Excraft]

3 minutes ago, biostem said:

That may very well be true with the current generation of such AIs, but to say that humans don't learn by some process of breaking down the art and related methods/techniques/media into some digestible/reproduceable process is laughable.

 

It's not just laughable, it's pathetically laughable and a joke.  Humans going to art schools, take art classes where they specifically study the work and techniques of famous artists who came before them.  They do this to learn, practice, expand and refine their skills and technique.  AI is learning by studying the works of artists to hone its results and improve itself.

 

Individuals or companies hire artists to design things for them.  They give the artist prompts to provide an idea of what they are looking for, and the artist creates what they were asked for.  Someone can now go to Grok or ChatGPT or wherever, give the AI prompts to provide an idea of what they are looking for and the AI will create it.  

 

I think it safe to say that everyone can understand that some people are scared of being replaced by AI.  I get that, it's totally relatable.  With that said, AI is a tool just like every other tool or invention or technology that replaced the work of a human being since humans have existed.  These same people crying about are also going to be the first in line to take advantage of any life saving medications or medical procedures that AI helps develop, no matter how many human beings were replaced in the process.  

[macskull]

Jesus christ this thread is an absolute dumpster fire.

[Jacke]

4 minutes ago, macskull said:

Jesus christ this thread is an absolute dumpster fire.

 

That's what you get when billions of dollars are spent trying to drive a technology beyond its normal development and into things well beyond its proper current use.

 

An industry that will need 2 Trillion Dollars per Year to break even.  Won't happen.  It's a bubble that's going to pop.  We will suffer.  The basterds who caused it won't.  😠

 

 

[Wobegone]

AI slop is a travesty.  It allows mediocre people to simulate art and literature 'in the style of' famous artists and writers.  It doesn't take talent.  It barely takes imagination.