Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        That’s not a tool. A tool is something a mind uses to make something. AI is a generator in and of itself, requiring nothing from a mind.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Of course it does. An AI generator does nothing without a prompt. Give it a bad prompt, and it looks boring and uncreative.

          The idea that you can throw anything (or nothing) into a generator and get something good out is a misconception. I’ve played around with generators, and can’t get much “good” out of them. But I’ve seen amazing looking stuff created by others.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            08 months ago

            yea I’ve also seen amazing stuff created by others. But that’s not what we’re talking about here

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              28 months ago

              It literally is. The person I replied to explicitly said it’s a good tool but has no creativity. I said the creativity comes from the users skill.

              If it’s a tool requiring a user to bring it to its full potential… then again thats what is being talked about.

              These tools do literally nothing unless a user is involved. Be it setting up auto responses to certain text, or explicitly handing it instructions and tweaking as they go.

    • Dangdoggo
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      Yeah and there are tons of angles and gestures for human subjects that AI just can’t figure out still. Any time I’ve seen a “stunning” AI render it’s some giant FOV painting with no real subject or the subject takes up a 12th of the canvas.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah and there are tons of angles and gestures for human subjects that AI just can’t figure out still.

        Actually less so because it can’t draw the stuff but because it doesn’t want to on its own, and there’s no way to ask it to do anything different with built-in tools, you have to bring your own.

        Say I ask you to draw a car. You’re probably going to do a profile or 3/4th view (is that the right terminology for car portraits?), possibly a head-on, you’re utterly unlikely to draw the car from the top, or from the perspective of a mechanic lying under it.

        Combine that tendency to draw cars from a limited set of perspectives because “that’s how you draw cars” with the inability of CLIP (the language model stable diffusion uses) to understand pretty much, well, anything (it’s not a LLM), and you’ll have no chance getting the model to draw the car from a non-standard perspective.

        Throw in some other kind of conditioning, though, like a depth map, doesn’t even need to be accurate it can be very rough, the information density equivalent of me gesturing the outline of a car and a camera, and suddenly all kinds of angles are possible. Probably not under the car as the model is unlikely to know much about it, but everything else should work just fine.

        SDXL can paint, say, a man in a tuxedo doing one-hand pullups while eating a sandwich with the other. Good luck prompting that only with text, though.