5 ms·
Agree on the substance, but hate the way things ended up colloquially called. AI art is human art. It is based on human intent and choices (and in non-trivial
by drdaeman 1mo ago
Agree on the substance, but hate the way things ended up colloquially called.
AI art is human art. It is based on human intent and choices (and in non-trivial cases it’s a lot of effort to get the machine to produce something that resembles a artist’s mental image), and the rest is mathematically sourced from human art.
I strongly suspect the only difference is in level of decision making, where details that aren’t explicitly planned are randomly generated rather than chosen (consciously or not). Or unable to be planned - refining the generation results is the most difficult part. Which translates to that “sloppy” image.
Humans can detect sloppiness, not “AI”.
- vintermann 1mo agoHumans detect mode collapse. If there was one artist making art in the style of AI (by hand), he'd be no more annoying than say Reg Mombassa, Guy Delisle or Tony DiTerlizzi or anyone else drawing in an idiosyncratic, easy to recognize way.
- drdaeman 1mo agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but I think this would be true if "AI" art would have a limited set of distinct styles - and it surely does not. I agree - there are a few distinct neuroslop styles from major models, and those trigger aversion. But that's not the full picture. There's an insane amount of fine-tunes out there (be it base models or LoRAs), that drastically vary in styles they produce. "AI" art can look very different, and I still think the only common property to it is sloppiness, lack of intentional attention to the fine details.