blog
blog
Out of context: Reply #74078
- Started
- Last post
- 76,751 Responses
- oey_oey1
I was ignoring this DALL-E thread all the time cause it didn't ring a bell at all and I was not curious to check what it was about until yesterday when I found out about Midjourney...fucking hell!
That was my first reaction, but I really don't know what to think about it cause on one side I find it super interesting and remarkable how things develop, and the advances in technology especially in AI on the other hand I ask myself towards which direction is society and humans evolving and in this particular case creatives.
Well, I guess I'll have to wait to see.
- I like how (hopefully) it's making people question themselves if they are artists, cause a machine can do what they think they're so special at doing.palimpsest
- I like how it easy it is for AI to make something in the style of Greg Rutkowski but not in the style of Julia Weist.
There's levels.palimpsest - Thought I believe people are not hiring Rutkowski for his visual style but rather for his creative output. Concept artists serve to sell ideas.palimpsest
- Conceptual artists are selling the ideas themselves.palimpsest
- @pali Nah not even close - all the outputs are full of errors and you need to spend A LOT of time to get anything useful from any of the models********
- I've spent the last month testing all the models and none comes even near an actual artist that can produce final production artwork********
- These AI models are cute as tech toys and can help with concepting, but nothing much of else
and no I don't think they can be improved, testing the limits alre******** - everyone should try it - as a tool its quite surprising how it informs your practice. i don't think it's a toy, a watchmakers tool isn't a toy.kingsteven
- on next gen hardware, realtime, i think theres a chance the current gen of model could have many more applications than several generations of AI advancementkingsteven
- research will favour chasing the tech and there are limits particularly in language models and processing power. so it's interesting to see development branchkingsteven
- off sideways in to unique creative tools given the recent accessibilitykingsteven
- @grafician
No. The proof is the pudding.palimpsest - The actual pudding.
If you ain't getting results you're doing it wrong.palimpsest - My grandma still can't Google.palimpsest
- @grafician
Post a prompt result with a Julia Weist like work and prove me wrong.palimpsest - @palim - when you say that "we think we are so special at doing" and then point out that AI needs human artistic inspiration... I'm like what the what?canoe
- Where am I pointing out "artistic inspiration"? Show me on the doll.palimpsest
- Otherwise just show me how AI can produce a Julia Weist like work. The prompt is not complicated.palimpsest
- Unless you prove me wrong, the answer is that it cain't*. Because maybe Julia Weist makes something that is beyond retinal.palimpsest
- Which doesn't mean Rutkowski is useless or can be replaced but that his work is more than a graphic style. His work has a purpose.palimpsest
- AI may be able to replicate his graphic style but he provides more than that. And this is why I welcome AI because it poses these questions.palimpsest
- Rutkowski & Weist are both artists. But when we talk about AI generated art we are talking about a specific kind of "art". Can art be really made by machines?palimpsest
- I really hope that one day it can be.palimpsest
- Sorry what? Any of the models barely outputs realistic faces not to mention details, eyes, symmetry, full bodies and so on - at this stage, they are all useless********
- And about Julia Weist "art", what you want the AI to produce - a shed?!
Ffsake******** - If you can show me reliable consistent prompts that output full body wide angle shots AND hands, we'll talk more********
- Why would I want a full body wide angle shot when I can a drawing of shed?palimpsest