Technology

I often hear AI enthusiasts say that AI democratized art. As if art weren't already democratized. Most anyone can pick up a pen, draw, write, type, move a mouse, etc. What AI democratizes in art, is the perception of skill. Which is why when you find out a piece of art was made by inputting some short prompt into a generator, you become disappointed. Because it would be cool, if the person actually had the skill to draw that. Pushing a few buttons to get that, not so much.

Edit:spelling and spacing

I think this is completely missing the point when it's talking about "the minutiae of art". It's making two claims at the same time: art is better when you suffer for it and the art is good whether or not you suffered. But none of that is relevant.

When Wyeth made Christina's World, I don't know if he suffered or not when painting that grass. What I do know is that he was a human with limited time and the fact that he spent so much of his time detailing every blade of grass means that he's saying something. That The Oatmeal doesn't draw backgrounds might be because he's lazy, but he also doesn't need them. These are choices we make to put effort in one part and ignore some other part.

AI doesn't make choices. It doesn't need to. A detailed background is exactly the same amount of work as a plain one. And so a generated picture has this evenly distributed level of detail, no focus at all. You don't really know where to look, what's important, what the picture is trying to say. Because it's not saying anything. It isn't a rat with a big butt, it's just a cloud of noise that happens to resemble a rat with a big butt.

What a beautiful read. I feel the same about AI art and I remember a longer talk I had with my tattoo artist: 'I need the money so I will do AI based tattoos my clients bring to me. But they have no soul, no story, no individuality. They are not a part of you.'

I feel the same.

Also I like Oatmeal's reference to Wabi Sabi: The perfection of imperfection in every piece of art.

I appreciate this bit out of context:

Also loved the shoutout to Allie Brosh!

"Yes, but I'll be quick, I promise."

Isn't quick.

As a passable quality 3D artist who does it for a living I've found AI art (which can do 3D now to some degree) has kind of narrowed the scope for me. If you want generic Unreal style pseudo-realism or disney toon then AI can do that for you* I've had to focus much more on creating a unique style and also optimizing my work in ways that AI just doesn't have the ability to do because they require longer chains of actual reasoning.

For AI in general I think this pattern holds, it can quickly create something generic and increasingly do it without extranious fingers but no matter how much you tweak a prompt its damn near impossible to get a specific idea into image form. Its like a hero shooter with skins VS actually creating your own character.

*Right now AI models use more tris to re-create the default blender cube than my entire lifetime portfolio but I'm assuming that can be resolved since we already have partially automated re-topology tools.

I was kinda against their argument at first, then I was with them and continued reading. But then they went into all sorts of detail, weighing pros and cons etc., and after reading more than half I evtl. gave up.

It seems all "why AI is bad" articles seem to go this way.

It seems all "why AI is bad" articles unwillingly even support the hype.

Fuck AI "art", it's not art you morons, it's automation, which takes away real people's jobs. The current implementations made by greedy companies also very obviously steal. 'nuff said.

I forgot how loooong Oatmeal cartoons are. I don't think I have made it to the end of one in years.