PCG Article AI artist who won competition says art world is 'in denial' about the tech

Page 2 - Love gaming? Join the PC Gamer community to share that passion with gamers all around the world!
Jun 22, 2021
145
329
970
I have nothing against the use of AI or AI created items, but entering an art competition like that is a slimy move.

It would be like entering a song writing competition and every person bust their balls to make stuff and someone just has an AI create the song and wins.

Just a slap in the face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redmark_

ToxicOffender

BANNED
Sep 5, 2022
62
113
220
Anyone here tried making AI art?
You mean...making "AI art" or making make AI making art....like.....telling AI to make art and the AI is doing it then like....a regular artist?

My point is.......this artificial AI art thing making art or "ai-art" and who at the end is really making anything here at all.....either the ai or the ai-artist or......bwwwaaaaah!!! WTF am i talking about? o_O :ROFLMAO:

Fun fact: Vincent Van Gogh sole one painting in his lifetime, that's how much "value" his work had—until some influencer decided to pump and dump.
Funnier fact: Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear due to drinking too much Absinthe.:laughing:

...that´s actually all i can remember whenever i think of VAN GOGH, so i have no clue what he was painting and how his paintings look like, all i can think of with that name is.....him cutting off his ear.:ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: redmark_
Jan 29, 2020
267
466
2,270
well, that's actually debatable, as novel writing, wordcrafting and programming can be also called "art" 🤔
If I tell an artist to paint me a picture of say, a haunted house from his imagination, who's the artist? This is exactly how you make AI make art.

Let's take it further. If I tell an architect to draw me a house. I give him instructions on how many rooms, bathrooms etc. Who's the architect?

Why stop there? You take a taxi and you tell the driver the destination. Are you the driver?
 
Art has no intrinsic "value" beyond a generous $10 for materials and $X/hour for however long the artist spent making it. So a slow apprentice work might be 'worth' say $250, while an experienced expert's work would have a "value" of around $100.

Price—now, that's different. Price is how much someone will pay, and in the art world is almost totally dependent on expected future pricing. This was most vividly illustrated in the 1990 art market crash when works suddenly became 90% less "valuable".

What do 'Sunflowers', 'Irises', and 'Portrait of Dr Gachet' have in common? They are 3 of Van Gogh's works which set successive world records for art prices back before '90 crash. Note, there was no mention of "value", it was all about price.

Fun fact: Vincent Van Gogh sole one painting in his lifetime, that's how much "value" his work had—until some influencer decided to pump and dump.

Actually i was more going through the human angle not the resources themselves. if i had a factory produce wooden sculptures rather then an artisan painstakingly crafting them laboriously hand over days/months it would be a cheaper product. Hell, kick in production /manufacture efficiency and you could knock the price of the products further and get more profit.

i don't really know how some artists become legends tbh. Van gogh wasn't successful and yet he is today. I'm sure someone will tell me why/how, but honestly i don't care. presumably decent marketing. but concerning pricing for art i don't really know how that works either. I mean, sure its the amount of time, effort and materials, but even so i would feel personally guilty selling personal artwork let alone for high prices. Its probably why i would opt for a steady corporate role or do it as a hobby.

Railing against tools and tech is a losing proposition. They will be fully accepted in the future, just like textile machinery and language don't merit a second glance today. Embrace it, employ it, encourage it.
i think that's a very depressing end for a creative endeavor. especially as a hobby there is a sense of reward from using your own 2 hands to build and create something from nothing. But use a machine to produce something that doesn't understand the flawed concept of creativity/style is sad. If in the far future if we could just type into a box in natural language what i wanted, walked away and picked up the print out, i think i would be hard pressed to call myself the artist. Again like my example, if i reheated factory produced frozen pizzas and served them in a restaurant, does that make me a professional chef? But back to my point, can you call yourself the artist if you didn't do any of the work? for most people using AI as a "tool" is a serious hard sell as art requires a modicum of creativity/intelligence to do it.

Then again its probably happening right now with how the AAA is prepared to shovel the same brand games rather then push new Ips and broaden their games. People churning out artwork in patreons etc. Or posters of memes fewer artists needed etc.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
222
331
670
If I tell an artist to paint me a picture of say, a haunted house from his imagination, who's the artist? This is exactly how you make AI make art.

Let's take it further. If I tell an architect to draw me a house. I give him instructions on how many rooms, bathrooms etc. Who's the architect?

Why stop there? You take a taxi, and you tell the driver the destination. Are you the driver?
Nice, I like that, we're getting into the realm of logic and/or philosophy.

Sort of like the argument the boss gets the credit, but everyone does the work (mostly).

But anyway... I'm all for integrating AI into workflows to improve technology itself.
Even Nvidia is using their AI as a workhorse to stress test their new GPU designs or something. 😉
 
May 22, 2022
222
331
670
I have nothing against the use of AI or AI created items, but entering an art competition like that is a slimy move.

It would be like entering a song writing competition and every person bust their balls to make stuff and someone just has an AI create the song and wins.

Just a slap in the face.
agreed, reminds me of the quote,
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
From Jurassic Park. 😀


Also, I read a book about weird sports stories, and as it turns out, many things in any sports rulebook were technically "legal" before someone got smart and "did a thing" and won.
So after that, it will be added to the books, get revised and anti-cheating rules would get updated lol.

Now art competitions will probably be more picky with submissions after this fiasco, lol. 😅


I use this one. With the latest update, it's pretty good.
uhhh, is this one free? (probably not) or a freemium? like Dalle and midjourney?
 
i think that's a very depressing end for a creative endeavor. especially as a hobby there is a sense of reward from using your own 2 hands to build and create something from nothing
Oh absolutely, as a hobby anything goes—you decide whether a painting of a scene is preferable to a photo or a description, and you can argue about it over a beer with the hobbyist photographer and travel writer :)

There are still the equivalent of cave paintings made every day, millions of 'em—you'll find 'em mostly stuck to fridges. So advances in methods and tools doesn't kill off any hobbies.

i would be hard pressed to call myself the artist
Is that a problem? Why?

I create lots of stuff, mostly little solutions to little problems. I have in the past been paid for writing, crossword compiling and photography—again, little stuff for little outlets. But I've never felt a need to call myself an artist—or anything else for that matter.

if i reheated factory produced frozen pizzas and served them in a restaurant, does that make me a professional chef?
It's like many in this thread failing to distinguish between process or outcome as the required content for the art competition in the OP. "Professional" has nothing to do with how you made the pizza you served me, and everything to do with whether or not I pay you for your service.

If you go otherwise, it gets ridiculous. Because I didn't grow the grain required for the flour, or build and operate the mill to make the flour, or… or… or…

if we could just type into a box in natural language what i wanted, walked away and picked up the print out, i think i would be hard pressed to call myself the artist
You go to a clinic for an X-Ray. Doc slaps you in a machine, presses a button, and walks over to pick up the printout. Does that make hir less of a doc, or entitled to call hirself a doc?

Docs in the BODs used to have to poke around, harrumph a bit, and come up with a diagnosis. Undoubtedly more creative, and also undoubtedly more fatal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
Free enough.

You get 5 daily credits, 2 more of if you watch 30 seconds of advertising. Depending on how you create your image, it costs 1 or 2 credits.

If you got 10GB+ Vram, you can download Stable Diffusion and run the AI locally on your PC, but there's no GUI.
I like that this one allows you to upload a reference picture, although I haven't tried it yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
Where I live, those are not called doctors. They are called radiographers here.

nitpicking, I know. Sorry about that.
In America, radiographers are nurses of the radiologists, which are just specialist doctors, so there's no reason not to call them "doctor". Radiologists will often, in rural hospital settings, actually do the x-ray themselves, particularly after hours during low staff times. At least that's the way it used to be. My childhood best friend's father was a radiologist who usually had at least one funny story to tell about patients he x-rayed, and he wasn't even in a rural hospital by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2020
267
466
2,270
In America, radiographers are nurses of the radiologists, which are just specialist doctors, so there's no reason not to call them "doctor". Radiologists will often, in rural hospital settings, actually do the x-ray themselves, particularly after hours during low staff times. At least that's the way it used to be. My childhood best friend's father was a radiologist who usually had at least one funny story to tell about patients he x-rayed, and he wasn't even in a rural hospital by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, it's like that here too, but I have yet to have a radiologist take my x-ray or MRI. I got artrosis in my knees, so I have had a fair share of x-rays and MRIs. They always tell me that they will give the images to the radiologist.

Norway here, btw 😊
 
Is that a problem? Why?

I create lots of stuff, mostly little solutions to little problems. I have in the past been paid for writing, crossword compiling and photography—again, little stuff for little outlets. But I've never felt a need to call myself an artist—or anything else for that matter.



i think we're going down to semantics/whatabout /False equivalence at this point (my fault. sorry) and going round circles. but the point i'm making is that most people have expectations/standards for things. They're not completely irrational to believe them either. its not about the word artist, its more a question of ownership in this case. We're using the term artist in this context a person who creates paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby.

The argument/justification is that in a commercial money making environment anything goes, the final results are what matters. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. I also agree that Ai can be a useful tool for art and should be explored (so the original article I'm all in favor of).

Except, this was an art competition, non commercial environment. we're judging the skill and creativity of the person who submitted the art. People were expecting everyone to make their artwork from their own creative input and skills to execute it. Again not irrational, most people still expect the standard method of the manual method like the days of using oil paints or at least photoshop to physically do the work.

So its pretty brazen to say that you used an artificial intelligence. Most people have a preconception of computers and AI, they know/respect/aware the potential power of it (we have movies to thank for that)* and some people are having a hard time to understand where the human creativity and skill and what is the AIs. if there is a concern or actual imbalance, people will call it out.

*or misunderstanding.

You could sweep it all under the rug and say "i don't need to justify anything losers! just look at the results! that's all that matters!" That's not answering the question and people will call you out on it. Of course, the articles might be inflaming/inciting feelings (as they usually do) and the best way to address this is see the step by step process, understand in detail where it was used. if there was a huge difference/transformative enough then most people will accept it. Incidentally where can i see the step by step process of the picture?

incidentally, how did you get the job making crosswords and writing?


Edit: sorry didn't answer your question (probably still haven't). In a creative endeavor where its MY ideas and MY skills and that would make me the artist. it feels like a hollow experience/wrong if AI does ALL the work. That's the whole point of AI in work these days, remove the human from the process to maximize accuracy and performance.
 
Last edited:
@Brian Boru I think i need to review and understand where we are in disagreement and understand your points.

1. AI for commercial purposes is here and should be used. - We both agree yes.


2. in the art competition the artist won with the use of Ai. Is that acceptable?

brian boru - yes, there were no rules that forbade the use of AI to make the entry. The ends justify the means.

Me - yes to a point. No rules forbade it (the competition's fault) provided i consider that it was transformative enough from the AIs work. That said, he did submit in the digital arts digitally maniupulated photography so probably acceptable.



3. An AI conceptualized, developed and finished a painting based on worded criteria defined by the human user, who can be considered the artist? ( artist definition being the person who created the painting.)

Brian Boru - The user. The Ai is just a tool at the end of the day. User does not need to do anything to justify they are the artist. In all intents and purposes they did the work as if they physically/personally conceptualized, developed and finished the painting themselves.

Me: The Ai. The user can justify that they're the owner of the painting, but cannot justify that they painted, made the picture. The user is far too disconnected from the process to justify that they personally/physically did the work in a traditional sense.

My belief is probably from the lack of understanding of it. I'm sure its not so simple as: i say something and out comes a painting. It needs manipulation - like a tool - to get the best results. Photography is considered a fine art these days so i guess the compromise would be to set its own category set in the art world and have a non ai one.


A pretty good article on the arguements on both sides.

 
Last edited:
If I tell an artist to paint me a picture of say, a haunted house from his imagination, who's the artist? This is exactly how you make AI make art.

Let's take it further. If I tell an architect to draw me a house. I give him instructions on how many rooms, bathrooms etc. Who's the architect?

Why stop there? You take a taxi and you tell the driver the destination. Are you the driver?
You do realize you answered each of those questions within each question, right? As in:
an artist … who's the artist?
an architect … Who's the architect?
the driver … Are you the driver?
:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
i think we're going down to semantics/whatabout /False equivalence at this point (my fault. sorry) and going round circles
I agree—but don't try to hog the blame, I demand my share! :D

not irrational, most people still expect the standard method of the manual method like the days of using oil paints or at least photoshop to physically do the work
I agree, a very rational expectation. This will probably be a one-off situation in this context, but will occur again and again in other areas as AI continues to advance and encroach.

In a creative endeavor where its MY ideas and MY skills and that would make me the artist. it feels like a hollow experience/wrong if AI does ALL the work.
Oh agreed, as I said earlier "as a hobby anything goes". In this situation, the process is the point of it all, the outcome very much secondary.

how did you get the job making crosswords and writing?
The writing were bits and pieces about industries I was involved in. In pre-internet days, I used to write up accounts of events run by a local professional body I was an officer in and send them to the local paper. In internet days, I ran a bunch of newsletters for a few years about an aspect of Internet Marketing I was involved in—this resulted in a few requests for articles for related websites.

The Xword was just a close friend knew the people starting up a local free sheet, and recommended me for it—lasted about 6 months before the paper folded :)

review and understand where we are in disagreement
I appreciate the effort you're making, thanks for that :) Re #3, I think our difference boils down to:
did the work in a traditional sense
I see your point, but as a former boss of mine used to say, tradition can change :) Let's agree to disagree on this point, and enjoy the fruitful discussion :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr and Johnway
I use this one. With the latest update, it's pretty good.
I just tried it out, and I thought it was pretty lame. I typed in "Dog eating pizza on the beach." It just gave me 4 different stock photos of dogs on the beach with a pizza superimposed in the picture.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY