• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    AI has no concept of the technical concepts behind art, which is a skill people appreciate in terms of “quality,” and it lacks “intent.” Art is made for the fun of it, but also with an intrinsic purpose that AI can’t replicate.

    I generally agree with you, AI can’t create art specifically because it lacks intent, but: The person wielding the AI can very much have intent. The reason so much AI stuff is slop is the same reason that most photographs are slop: The human using the machine doesn’t care to and/or does not have the artistic wherewithal to elevate the product to the level of art.

    Is this at the level of the artstation or deviantart feeds? Hell no. But calling it all bad, all slop, because it happens to be AI doesn’t give the people behind it justice.

    (Also that’s the civitai.green feed sorted by most reactions, not the civitai.com feed sorted by newest. Mindless deluge of dicks and tits, tits and dicks, that one).

    AI is replicating the art in its training set

    That’s a bit reductive: It very much is able of abstracting over concepts and of banging them against each other. Interesting things are found at the fringes, at the intersections, not on the well-trodden paths. An artist will immediately spot that and try to push a model to its breaking point, ideally multiple breaking points simultaneously, but for that the stars have to align: The user has to be a) an artist and b) willing to use AI. Or at least give it a honest spin.