Well put! The future of AI art really is just going to be another tool in the artist's arsenal. Right now, AI prompts can indeed be very arcane, almost like computer code; the ability to manipulate the prompt and tailor it to the specific engine will be a skill just as much as wielding a brush.
In reference to your first point, I agree that the AI is not showing us anything new; it is simply reflecting something of our own back at us. So many people are getting the AI to draw them something "in the style of" van Gogh or Dalí, but the AI can't generate something entirely new on its own, as evidenced by this little trick I played on Nightcafé recently: https://twitter.com/william_collen/status/1552044584838070272?s=20&t=cWSzHPipXodrA7Gij4Srwg
I'm among those in the no big deal camp, largely because I don't actually think there is anything new here. But you inspired me to express my reasons for optimism, looking at fiction rather than painting: https://gmbaker.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-novelist?sd=nfs
I was eagerly waiting to hear your thoughts on this and I wasn't disappointed. You make some great points. What makes art special is the hidden meanings, human stories, and conscious decisions behind each piece. I don't think DALL·E will replace artists the way we initially expect when discovering these tools. It could even have the opposite effect: if AI-generated art becomes so accessible and ubiquitous, will it make human-made art more unique and valuable?
If some craven creature tried to pass off AI-generated art as their own, would you be able to tell better than a coin toss? Has anyone tried this experiment in real life?
That's a good question. So far, the tech is shiny and new enough that everyone is still gaining clout by associating themselves with it-- "look at this art I made *using AI*!" Once the hype dies down a bit, Dalle gets released to the common masses, and boredom begins to set in, we might indeed see the situation you describe.
Well put! The future of AI art really is just going to be another tool in the artist's arsenal. Right now, AI prompts can indeed be very arcane, almost like computer code; the ability to manipulate the prompt and tailor it to the specific engine will be a skill just as much as wielding a brush.
In reference to your first point, I agree that the AI is not showing us anything new; it is simply reflecting something of our own back at us. So many people are getting the AI to draw them something "in the style of" van Gogh or Dalí, but the AI can't generate something entirely new on its own, as evidenced by this little trick I played on Nightcafé recently: https://twitter.com/william_collen/status/1552044584838070272?s=20&t=cWSzHPipXodrA7Gij4Srwg
I'm among those in the no big deal camp, largely because I don't actually think there is anything new here. But you inspired me to express my reasons for optimism, looking at fiction rather than painting: https://gmbaker.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-novelist?sd=nfs
I was eagerly waiting to hear your thoughts on this and I wasn't disappointed. You make some great points. What makes art special is the hidden meanings, human stories, and conscious decisions behind each piece. I don't think DALL·E will replace artists the way we initially expect when discovering these tools. It could even have the opposite effect: if AI-generated art becomes so accessible and ubiquitous, will it make human-made art more unique and valuable?
Hmm, that's a possibility!
If some craven creature tried to pass off AI-generated art as their own, would you be able to tell better than a coin toss? Has anyone tried this experiment in real life?
That's a good question. So far, the tech is shiny and new enough that everyone is still gaining clout by associating themselves with it-- "look at this art I made *using AI*!" Once the hype dies down a bit, Dalle gets released to the common masses, and boredom begins to set in, we might indeed see the situation you describe.