Almost no one knows how SD works. That’s not the point. He’s not contrasting it against some other GenAI concept to compare training cost. He’s looking at it based on the results. You don’t have to know how to build a CPU to compare benchmarks for ones built by someone else.
Except how AI works is pretty crucial to the entire anti-AI argument.
The amount of people that claim AI just collages together pieces of existing “stolen” art and use that as an argument against AI is ridiculous.
And your CPU example isn’t great since you would be comparing CPUs to other CPUs, it would be more apt to talk about someone who doesn’t know how a computer works to demonise computers in general and advocate doing maths by hand instead.
Actually, yeah, that’s a bad metaphor from me. Comparing benchmarks would be comparing AI models.
He’s not comparing benchmarks. He’s comparing results, so it’s more about maybe error rate than processing speed.
I guess it’s like comparing the result of an approximation versus an explicit computation. GenAI makes an approximation of art. It very quickly spits out something that looks a bit like the intended answer. It even gets you close enough to be totally satisfactory for some purposes, in the same way 3 can be a usable approximation of π for some purposes. However, the picture is not the full purpose of creating art. Art is a form of communication, transmitting something from one mind to another using indirect means because telepathy isn’t available. AI is not trying to communicate anything. It’s just an approximation of something someone could say.
Miyazaki is someone with years of experience in creating art so he understands the ‘language’ of art better than some. He has ‘fluency.’ AI images hit the uncanny valley for artists because they are attuned to the difference between what an art is supposed to look like vs what the imitator approximates. They have the fluency to spot the fake the same way you might be able to spot someone speaking your native language as a mother tongue vs out of a phrasebook. Because he is ‘fluent’ in art, people take his words on art seriously, just as one would generally take a born-and-raised German’s words seriously regarding German grammar.
Art is a form of communication, transmitting something from one mind to another using indirect means because telepathy isn’t available. AI is not trying to communicate anything.
That’s like saying photography isn’t art because a camera isn’t trying to communicate something. Like AI it’s a tool uses by people to convey that idea.
Like when I use AI generation, I have an idea or specific image in my head and I do my best to come up with a prompt that will produce what I want, or more usually, I use photoshop, so piece piece several pieces together and edit it a bit so the match is more accurate. At a fundamental level, if you consciously try to clear your mind of any existing biases regarding AI, then it’s not really any different to photography or photoshop as an artform.
AI images hit the uncanny valley for artists because they are attuned to the difference between what an art is supposed to look like vs what the imitator approximates.
That is a somewhat valid point, but there are AI models for specific tasks, say generating human faces, that co trolled experiments have found that people can’t distinguish between the AI content and the real thing. There is also plenty of traditional art that hits the uncanny valley or simply doesn’t look right, but that doesn’t make it any less art, does it?
Because he is ‘fluent’ in art, people take his words on art seriously, just as one would generally take a born-and-raised German’s words seriously regarding German grammar.
Good analogy, but there’s still a barrier between the type of art miyazaki is fluent in and AI art. Like imagine a British person saying your English is wrong because you’re using American English or AAVE. Would you take them as an expert because and denounce those variations because they are not British English? Or would you consider their ignorance of the other side limiting to their expertise?
And also, I feel I should add, Miyazaki is famously not a fan of digital art. Should we take him as an expert on art and view digital art as less than traditional art? Or should we just roll our eyes at the stubborn old man stuck in his ways?
…when I use AI generation, I have an idea or specific image in my head and I do my best to come up with a prompt that will produce what I want, or more usually, I use photoshop…
Therein lies the difference. You have an intended target and use tools to create it. The artistry is in the skill and effort put into communicating your internal concept. To my knowledge, people generally aren’t saying AI is useless in a creative process, just that typing in a few words and hitting ‘generate’ until you get something cool, or just running a filter over an image to make it look like a drawing, isn’t artistry.
…there are AI models for specific tasks, say generating human faces, that co trolled experiments have found that people can’t distinguish between the AI content and the real thing.
I failed to communicate my idea clearly enough. I’m not talking about the artefacts that sometimes make images look weird. I’m talking about the deep brain sense that one can develop that can tell the difference between someone acting vs emoting, singing vs lip synching, etc. An ingenuous performance has a different character to it that can be said to fall into the uncanny valley.
There is also plenty of traditional art that hits the uncanny valley or simply doesn’t look right, but that doesn’t make it any less art, does it?
That depends. If hitting the valley is intentional and done using skill, that’s just normal art. If it has intent but not skill, it’s incomplete art. It’s failing to communicate as intended, much like I failed with words above. It’s part of becoming good at something to screw it up, though, so it’s to be expected sometimes. If it has skill but no intent, that’s craftsmanship rather than artistry. Craftsmanship is great but has a subtle difference in how it is experienced.
there’s still a barrier between the type of art miyazaki is fluent in and AI art.
That’s not so good as an analogy. AI imagery isn’t art by itself. Even in your example of your own work, it’s materials, at best. Saying AI image generation is artistry is like saying hiring someone else to paint a picture makes you an artist. Even ‘prompt engineering’ at its finest makes one an artist as much as project management makes one a programmer. So, the general argument comes from the pretense rather than the tool. Bringing your sentence closer to the mark would be something like
‘There is a barrier between art, which Miyazaki is experienced in, and this particular type of tool one can use.’ It’s an apples to oranges comparison, like comparing the field of astronomy to a camera.
Should we take him as an expert on art and view digital art as less than traditional art? Or should we just roll our eyes at the stubborn old man stuck in his ways?
That’s an obvious false binary. People are perfectly capable of being right about one thing and wrong about another. You give his words weight because of his expertise. That doesn’t mean you have to take them as gospel, but ignoring all of an expert’s opinions because you dislike some of them, or some implications of them, is a terrible idea as well.
Yeah maybe, but I would be willing to bet a lot of money Miyazaki couldn’t tell you how stable diffusion worked if his life depended on it.
Almost no one knows how SD works. That’s not the point. He’s not contrasting it against some other GenAI concept to compare training cost. He’s looking at it based on the results. You don’t have to know how to build a CPU to compare benchmarks for ones built by someone else.
Except how AI works is pretty crucial to the entire anti-AI argument.
The amount of people that claim AI just collages together pieces of existing “stolen” art and use that as an argument against AI is ridiculous.
And your CPU example isn’t great since you would be comparing CPUs to other CPUs, it would be more apt to talk about someone who doesn’t know how a computer works to demonise computers in general and advocate doing maths by hand instead.
Actually, yeah, that’s a bad metaphor from me. Comparing benchmarks would be comparing AI models.
He’s not comparing benchmarks. He’s comparing results, so it’s more about maybe error rate than processing speed.
I guess it’s like comparing the result of an approximation versus an explicit computation. GenAI makes an approximation of art. It very quickly spits out something that looks a bit like the intended answer. It even gets you close enough to be totally satisfactory for some purposes, in the same way 3 can be a usable approximation of π for some purposes. However, the picture is not the full purpose of creating art. Art is a form of communication, transmitting something from one mind to another using indirect means because telepathy isn’t available. AI is not trying to communicate anything. It’s just an approximation of something someone could say.
Miyazaki is someone with years of experience in creating art so he understands the ‘language’ of art better than some. He has ‘fluency.’ AI images hit the uncanny valley for artists because they are attuned to the difference between what an art is supposed to look like vs what the imitator approximates. They have the fluency to spot the fake the same way you might be able to spot someone speaking your native language as a mother tongue vs out of a phrasebook. Because he is ‘fluent’ in art, people take his words on art seriously, just as one would generally take a born-and-raised German’s words seriously regarding German grammar.
That’s like saying photography isn’t art because a camera isn’t trying to communicate something. Like AI it’s a tool uses by people to convey that idea.
Like when I use AI generation, I have an idea or specific image in my head and I do my best to come up with a prompt that will produce what I want, or more usually, I use photoshop, so piece piece several pieces together and edit it a bit so the match is more accurate. At a fundamental level, if you consciously try to clear your mind of any existing biases regarding AI, then it’s not really any different to photography or photoshop as an artform.
That is a somewhat valid point, but there are AI models for specific tasks, say generating human faces, that co trolled experiments have found that people can’t distinguish between the AI content and the real thing. There is also plenty of traditional art that hits the uncanny valley or simply doesn’t look right, but that doesn’t make it any less art, does it?
Good analogy, but there’s still a barrier between the type of art miyazaki is fluent in and AI art. Like imagine a British person saying your English is wrong because you’re using American English or AAVE. Would you take them as an expert because and denounce those variations because they are not British English? Or would you consider their ignorance of the other side limiting to their expertise?
And also, I feel I should add, Miyazaki is famously not a fan of digital art. Should we take him as an expert on art and view digital art as less than traditional art? Or should we just roll our eyes at the stubborn old man stuck in his ways?
Therein lies the difference. You have an intended target and use tools to create it. The artistry is in the skill and effort put into communicating your internal concept. To my knowledge, people generally aren’t saying AI is useless in a creative process, just that typing in a few words and hitting ‘generate’ until you get something cool, or just running a filter over an image to make it look like a drawing, isn’t artistry.
I failed to communicate my idea clearly enough. I’m not talking about the artefacts that sometimes make images look weird. I’m talking about the deep brain sense that one can develop that can tell the difference between someone acting vs emoting, singing vs lip synching, etc. An ingenuous performance has a different character to it that can be said to fall into the uncanny valley.
That depends. If hitting the valley is intentional and done using skill, that’s just normal art. If it has intent but not skill, it’s incomplete art. It’s failing to communicate as intended, much like I failed with words above. It’s part of becoming good at something to screw it up, though, so it’s to be expected sometimes. If it has skill but no intent, that’s craftsmanship rather than artistry. Craftsmanship is great but has a subtle difference in how it is experienced.
That’s not so good as an analogy. AI imagery isn’t art by itself. Even in your example of your own work, it’s materials, at best. Saying AI image generation is artistry is like saying hiring someone else to paint a picture makes you an artist. Even ‘prompt engineering’ at its finest makes one an artist as much as project management makes one a programmer. So, the general argument comes from the pretense rather than the tool. Bringing your sentence closer to the mark would be something like ‘There is a barrier between art, which Miyazaki is experienced in, and this particular type of tool one can use.’ It’s an apples to oranges comparison, like comparing the field of astronomy to a camera.
That’s an obvious false binary. People are perfectly capable of being right about one thing and wrong about another. You give his words weight because of his expertise. That doesn’t mean you have to take them as gospel, but ignoring all of an expert’s opinions because you dislike some of them, or some implications of them, is a terrible idea as well.