[HN Gopher] Turds in AI Generated Art
___________________________________________________________________
Turds in AI Generated Art
Author : luu
Score : 70 points
Date : 2023-05-30 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (novalis.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (novalis.org)
| severak_cz wrote:
| This is just a noise in similar way how earlier AI generators
| cannot do fingers and piano (and computer) keyboards.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| A bizarre post that points out the flaws of AI generated content
| without providing any sort of salient point about it. Capping it
| off with "I don't want to hear about the fixes for this" is the
| icing on this particular "turd" cake.
| arroz wrote:
| I thought they were actual turds
| yantrams wrote:
| Hold my beer. [1]
|
| NSFW of the revolting kind. No nudity / violence / gore but they
| are a bit disgusting depending on your taste. They aren't turds
| but sorta look like them.
|
| [1] https://imgur.com/a/7cwzlrk
| zendaven wrote:
| Most of the mistakes pointed out in the 4 images are things I
| would've never noticed.
| winkelwagen wrote:
| Think people didn't get the link turd to polished turd in this
| blogpost. Is what you get when you ask a beginner artist without
| any guidance to create something, and instead of making something
| that has the right competition, perspective, proportions, colors
| and values etc, they tend to over render the image. Making it
| look "pretty", the issue that it tries to compensate shitty
| foundations with glitters and sparkles, widgets, shadows and
| highlights.
|
| Ultimately it often doesn't have the right impact.
|
| Ai art falls in the same category for me. Polished turds, bad
| writers, bad ideas, bad concepts, boring subjects.
|
| I'm hoping it mostly inspires a generation to make cool shit and
| enjoy it. If you take a skilled artist to use ai art, the results
| are good, if you take beginners and give it tools you get
| polished ai art turds. Things that looks cool but ultimately
| missing the foundation to make it work.
|
| At the same time, perhaps it doesn't matter, and people want to
| have polished turds regardless.
|
| Compare this to a game like unpacking, carefully crafted rooms
| and smart storytelling. Or vampire survivor, addictive gameplay
| loop with assets that almost seem like they come straight out of
| some gamemaker pack. In the end, it's all about intend, and no
| amount of polish is going to fix
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> In the end, it's all about intend_
|
| Precisely, and it doesn't matter how you realize it - by hand
| or with something more automated (digital manipulation), or
| with matte painting/photobashing (the most recent resentment
| target), or with any ML tool.
|
| If you don't have the eye, taste, and rigor, you're going to
| create something boring. If you do, you'll create something
| interesting. The issue with the examples in OP is not the tool
| - it's the creators who were sloppy (and also incredibly
| rushing as it's just a tech demo created in 72 hours).
| andybak wrote:
| I can't help but feel we've moved to quickly from astonishment to
| disappointment.
|
| Lots of people queueing up to pour cold water on generative AI
| when it's still something I have to pinch myself to remind myself
| it's actually real.
|
| (And yeah. I'm not denying the drawbacks. It's functionally
| useless for many (or even most) proposed applications. But can we
| still pause for a moment to be impressed it actually exists?)
| joe_the_user wrote:
| A talking dog is very impressive when it first appears. When
| suddenly talking dogs are everywhere, drown out the people I
| want to talk to, then they are annoying.
|
| Moreover, it's not at all strange that people learned what
| generative AI looks. When I see it in "in the wild", it
| instantly in my mind becomes "generated thing". And exactly
| because the images are created by a process of averaging, once
| I'm used to them, they have a "nothing special or interesting
| here" feeling, which isn't a good feeling for many thing, for
| example accompanying illustrations.
| andybak wrote:
| I don't think you can tell AI generated images from real
| images anywhere near as much as you think you can.
|
| I'd bet good money you couldn't achieve more than say 60% in
| a properly controlled test
| __loam wrote:
| It's usually pretty obvious.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Welcome to the hype cycle!
|
| As I've gained more experience with it I feel I've seen the
| boundaries of what it's good at, what it isn't good at, and
| what it isn't useful for. It's good at like 80% of something.
| But there's so many things in that other 20%.
|
| In the right places it will make certain individuals more
| productive in may ways but I don't feel the way I did 6 months
| ago.
| ronsor wrote:
| This happens with every innovation. Once something becomes
| sufficiently commonplace, it becomes boring and a larger target
| for criticism.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| It's a testament to how quickly humans can set a new baseline
| at their circumstances. I try to remember to say "WHAT THE FUCK
| THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE" at least a few times a day when using GPT
| and MidJourney, but it's much easier to be irritated that
| ChatGPT lost the context of the code it was helping me write
| than to be blown away that I can just casually use one of the
| greatest technical achievements in the history of mankind while
| I'm sitting here in my underwear.
| daveguy wrote:
| > "...one of the greatest technical achievements in the
| history of mankind..."
|
| ... is doing a lot of work here.
|
| This is why expectations are exceeding reality. That said,
| the reality of these generative AIs is pretty damn
| impressive. I just wouldn't put it up against computers,
| cars, planes, boats, nuclear energy, medicine, chemistry or
| any of the other technological advances that did change the
| world. Not until the grounding problem is solved. After that,
| maybe.
| basicoperation wrote:
| The first car didn't change the world, nor did the first
| plane, etc. At least not directly.
|
| But they did pave the way for the examples that did change
| the world.
|
| No different here. Generative AI will change the world.
| Doesn't mean these models will in and of themselves.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Most of us aren't playing with multi-modal models yet. Text
| can describe any world, but when it starts coming AI
| watching live video feeds for learning, can it base itself
| in reality with that?
| version_five wrote:
| It's like when you hire a smooth talking guy who makes a great
| first impression but actually that's his main skill and he
| doesn't perform very well.
|
| I'm a natural contrarian and always used the worst first. I
| feel like I've warmed up a lot to generative AI (text
| particularly) but understand the limitations. People who came
| in from the other end thinking it was more than it is are
| naturally going to be let down when they see its performance in
| the sober light of day. I think more people are in this
| category because a big strength I see is for generative AI to
| produce stuff that superficially looks really great, but
| doesn't hold up if you actually want to do your own thing with
| it.
| mock-possum wrote:
| It's only disappointment now after evangelists promised
| astonishment in the first place - I'm no AI-naysayer, I'm just
| not a true believer and I have no interest in becoming one.
| It's new, it's cool, it's not perfect, it's not magic, it's not
| a silver bullet. It is what it is.
| jade-cat wrote:
| I think it's pushback due to how AI is being sold as the
| ultimate tool that will replace
| artists/programmers/writers/whomever.
|
| Because the technology has been making big leaps over the past
| couple of years, the comparisons are now being made not with
| what used to be before, but with what is being promised. And in
| that regard, things do fall short.
|
| Basically the hype builders hyped things up so much they
| started hurting the hype.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| This is the a false conclusion so many seem to be falling
| for. YOU couldn't write or do art like a professional before,
| and now you can do 90% of it with some caveats. That's a
| major headwind that pros will be trying to deny
| understandably. When the digital camera then iPhone came and
| out obliterated the vast majority of professional
| photography, pros nitpicked in forums like this till kingdom
| come, but it didn't change anything.
| __loam wrote:
| I think we're comparing apples (heh) and oranges a bit
| here. iPhone cameras are essentially the same thing as
| digital camera and now anyone can use them. Maybe amateurs
| are messing up their lighting or exposure or composition or
| whatever, but they are doing the same thing a professional
| photographer once did. It's also pretty difficult to tell
| professional photography from amateur stuff.
|
| AI isn't drawing like a human artist does. It's a
| completely distinct process from someone putting marks on a
| page. The caveats, or turds as the author of the original
| article put them, are pretty difficult to fix without
| having actual training and skills in art, and acquiring
| those skills is a lot harder than learning to take photos.
| jprete wrote:
| If I draw a picture of a fantasy-world bedroom, it might
| not be very detailed or well-shaped, because I am
| emphatically not a professional illustrator. But I can tell
| you what every single object is supposed to be, why I
| thought it belonged in a fantasy-world bedroom, and why I
| put it in its particular spot in that bedroom.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| sure, and AI could draw a better picture without those
| things, and most people would prefer the better
| illustration to the conceptually flawless composition
| pixl97 wrote:
| >but I can tell you what every single object is supposed
| to be, why I thought it belonged in a fantasy-world
| bedroom, and why I put it in its particular spot in that
| bedroom.
|
| I mean post ad hoc the machine could do that too. In
| fact, that is the only way your brain can explain
| anything.
| a_shovel wrote:
| Huh? Are you saying human artists don't consider
| composition while creating their works?
| esafak wrote:
| The problem is that customers did not necessarily
| appreciate the difference between their amateur creations
| and the professionals' enough to pay for it. I feel like
| there is going to be a rerun of the decimation of the
| professional photography market with designers,
| illustrators, writers, etc.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| I agree entirely, and I weep for it, I was even laid off
| myself. But I'm not going to waste any more time than
| that and am going to get onboard with where things are
| going.
| esafak wrote:
| Which creative field did you work in, photography?
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Interaction Designer @ Google, pretty senior too
|
| And was a photographer long ago, double luck huh.
| ithkuil wrote:
| "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the
| short run and underestimate the effect in the long run,"
|
| -- Roy Amara
| visarga wrote:
| We also tend to underestimate AI hurdles in the short run,
| especially in other fields than our own.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| As far as I can tell, AI is about 10 years ahead of where
| experts were forecasting in ~2015.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I don't think it's being sold that way.
|
| It's a very complicated subject with several meta-
| conversations, and things being the way they are, a lot of
| people need to project arguments onto "They"
|
| Here, we see a misinterpretation: its not "it's going to
| replace profession wholesale", it's a simple causal chain
| "hey you do 30% more work with GPT" => well then you need
| ~30% less workers => affect employment.
|
| And we can run out a centithread of chastising any number of
| groups under the sun of maximalist claims, ex. from here,
| directly spin into "well _some_ people argue for complete
| replacement of artists", spin that into AGI doomers, etc.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > AI is being sold as the ultimate tool that will replace
| artists/programmers/writers/whomever
|
| I see a potential risk here.
|
| This is HN, so let's consider programmers in isolation for a
| moment. Today, I can issue the following prompt to ChatGPT
| and get a solution that works:
|
| > Using Python, generate an example unit test that uses
| monkey patching.
|
| That gives me a runnable, valid example test. I can then ask
| it to refactor it to use pytest instead of unittest:
|
| > regenerate the above code sample using pytest instead of
| unittest.
|
| Here's the resultant code: # A simple class
| that we want to test class Calculator:
| def add(self, a, b): return a + b
| # Monkey patching the add method to subtract instead
| def mock_add(self, a, b): return a - b
| # Test the monkey patched method def
| test_add_with_monkey_patching(): # Create an
| instance of the Calculator class calc =
| Calculator() # Monkey patch the add
| method of the Calculator instance calc.add =
| mock_add.__get__(calc, Calculator) #
| Test the monkey patched method result =
| calc.add(5, 3) # Assert that the result
| is what we expect assert result == 2
|
| It _works_, but it completely misses the point. The test case
| is testing whether or not the monkey patching works as
| expected - not testing something using monkey patching to
| isolate a side effect in the method under test, which was my
| intention.
|
| Here's where I think there is a potential major issue: As
| someone who is currently a "Senior Staff Software Engineer"
| and has been doing this sort of work for two decades now, if
| you had given me the same prompt my first response would have
| been "use monkey patching to do what?". ChatGPT doesn't do
| that. Instead, it gives you a response that best fits the
| question. It includes a half dozen paragraphs explaining the
| code, what it does, and what monkey patching is, sure... but
| it doesn't even touch on _why_ you 'd want to use monkey
| patching, when it is or is not the best approach, or any
| alternatives. In short, ChatGPT lacks the intuition that a
| human programmer will develop over the course of a career.
|
| It's getting better. A few months ago I could have asked
| ChatGPT the same question and probably 30% of the time gotten
| a result that would even run. In the past couple of months I
| don't think I've run into that at all.
|
| The "intuition" thing is a big deal, though. ChatGPT is a
| great tool in the hands of a competent engineer who has the
| experience to examine the output with a critical eye. Today,
| I could see it replacing a junior engineer in a professional
| setting. We should _not_ use it in that way.
|
| If we do, in a few years we'll get to the point where the
| current generation of senior engineers are retiring. If we've
| replaced the majority of our junior engineers with AI, we'll
| be left without people who can use the AI-generated results
| effectively.
|
| There has to be a way to balance the savings represented by
| these tools (in terms of both time and money) with the fact
| that the people who are able to most effectively use it today
| only got to that point because they've spent much of their
| adult lives developing the exact skillset that we're
| proposing to replace with them.
| IanCal wrote:
| I told it that it was a senior engineer and I was a random
| client and asked the same thing. It explained what monkey
| patching was for, creates an example where a function pulls
| from an API and we patch it. Depending on runs or prompts
| you can see more or less explanation. I like getting it to
| first reason about its role and task, then it has that in
| its context when replying.
|
| Have you tried telling it who it is? You're coming at it
| with context about how it should act without telling it -
| it can role play a lot of things. I spoke to a teacher
| dealing with kids doing their homework too well with it,
| and showed you can just say "write X as a student with
| middling English" and get realistic mistakes.
| __loam wrote:
| I hate that every time someone adds a nuanced view to
| these discussions, someone comes in to ask if they're
| "using it right" and asks them if they're typing words
| right as if that actually stops this thing from
| hallucinating bullshit all the time.
| IanCal wrote:
| It's fine to not want to learn to use a tool, but it
| doesn't really add much to the conversation to get angry
| about people talking about how to use it.
|
| > as if that actually stops this thing from hallucinating
| bullshit all the time.
|
| This has nothing to do with hallucinations though. It's
| about giving something a poorly specified problem and
| then complaining that it gives a valid answer but doesn't
| act like a particular persona _when that persona was not
| explained_. This is a very general problem with a general
| approach to fixing it. Want it to challenge you on what
| you 're asking it to do? Tell it that.
| 7speter wrote:
| >If we do, in a few years we'll get to the point where the
| current generation of senior engineers are retiring. If
| we've replaced the majority of our junior engineers with
| AI, we'll be left without people who can use the AI-
| generated results effectively.
|
| I mean, you might not look at job postings for Jr.
| Engineers anymore, but they all ask for someone who can
| lead and mentor teammates less senior than they are so it
| seems like there won't be many replacements for senior
| engineers retiring in the next decade regardless of ai's
| existence.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Jr level job requirements in the future "Must have at
| least 75,000 GPU hours of experience"
| tlrobinson wrote:
| I'm reminded of Louis CK's rant " Everything Is Amazing and
| Nobody Is Happy": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBLkX2VaQs4
|
| Like, nothing like this was remotely possible a year ago. I'm
| sure we'll hit a wall at some point, but you certainly
| shouldn't dismiss things as not possible because they're not
| _currently_ possible.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Seems overly petty and nitpicky article for a gamejam game.
| DethNinja wrote:
| Are shadows really that annoying, I'm willing to bet that most of
| the gamers would just glance over these defects.
| starkparker wrote:
| Previously:
|
| - https://novalis.org/blog/2022-12-05-i-am-frustrated-with-sta...
|
| - HN discussion of that post:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33902248
|
| - The author's response to HN comments on that post:
| https://novalis.org/blog/2022-12-10-response-to-some-hacker-...
|
| FWIW, the author didn't submit that post, or this one.
| derefr wrote:
| Seems strange to me to prompt an AI to generate this kind of
| stylized isometric video game art that's clearly intended to look
| like it's made out of uniform, reusable "object assets"... but as
| a single-shot "gestalt" of each scene. (It's like doing an oil
| painting of a Minecraft world, and expecting the voxels to look
| voxel-y.)
|
| For the sake of artistic coherence, wouldn't you rather those
| same tables and chairs and beds to be reused everywhere else you
| need a table/bed/chair in the game?
|
| Which is to say: wouldn't it make more sense to ask the AI to
| generate individual objects; select the best ones, over many
| iterations; put those together into an asset library (i.e. a
| tileset/spritesheet); build some training-data tilemap "scenes"
| out of those objects for few-shot training; and then ask the AI
| to generate you more tilemaps, with the tileset provided as part
| of the input? (In other words, to do the same thing for levels
| that it's doing for music when it generates MIDI.)
|
| (Heck, you might even be able to train it to do both steps at
| once -- train it on screenshots of a tilemap-editor UX (e.g. RPG
| Maker or Tiled), where the tileset palette and the resulting
| tilemap are visible at the same time; and where the screenshots
| are composed such that the tilemap only uses tiles available in
| the tileset. You'd expect it to learn both to invent nice
| reusable tiles for you, and also to use those tiles to build you
| a scene.)
| starkparker wrote:
| Better context for those questions from the creators of the
| game jam entry referenced in the post:
| https://blog.luden.io/generated-adventure-the-postmortem-of-...
| GaggiX wrote:
| That image of the dragon seems pretty old, also as the article
| mentions most of this stuff can be easily remove with inpainting.
| andreyk wrote:
| "But I feel like something that gets lost in the discussion of
| AI-generated artwork is the turds."
|
| You know, we already have a word for this... "flaws". Does the
| notion that AI-generated artwork has flaws really get lost in the
| discussion? Midjourney not being able to do hands until recently
| was a whole meme...
| mcphage wrote:
| It's a specific _kind_ of flaw--an indistinct, unexpected
| object in the image.
| graypegg wrote:
| I guess the retort here would be, you had to circle the turds for
| someone to notice. JPEG encoding creates lots of turds, actually
| the entire output image is riddled with them. Tons of little
| artifacts.
|
| If you expect perfection out of it you're going to be
| disappointed but it's pretty astonishing that it's as difficult
| to be nit picky as it is currently.
| jprete wrote:
| If I glance at an AI-generated image of an imaginary object or
| space, the overall impression looks correct. If I engage my
| brain at all, the turds are really obvious really fast, whether
| someone points them out or not.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Delta between AI and artist is reducing but non-zero. This is a
| good outcome.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is my take on most AI discussion
|
| Many are like "Oh yea, AI isn't at good as us doing..."
|
| And my response is "Thank fucking god, we aren't ready yet".
|
| Sudden society changing events aren't great, especially when
| they start coming rapid fire. You can go from "there's a few
| angry starving artists" to "why are people rioting in the
| streets" pretty damned quickly.
| AndrewPGameDev wrote:
| I want to emphasize something that other comments seemed to have
| missed - when a human artist makes a mistake, I have a sense of
| sadness, or pity. But when an AI makes a mistake, the types of
| mistakes it makes are _revolting_. I can 't watch that beer AI
| video because looking at it for a couple of seconds makes me want
| to throw up.
|
| That's the real problem with the "turds" in AI art - they're just
| close enough to pass first inspection, but you only realize
| afterwards how messed up they really are.
|
| I honestly think for now I'd rather just deal with my own
| inadequacies as an artist than try to bargain with the little
| freaky demon in the computer to draw actually nice images.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Hallucinations. Larger, better trained, multimodal models are
| needed. All current image generation models are too small to be
| usable in serious settings.
|
| Until you have all that, you can minimize the hallucinations in
| the result. I have some tips to share (not for the music though).
|
| -1. You still have to know how to draw, otherwise you won't have
| the eye to spot the "turds" nor skills to fix them. It will still
| be faster than drawing absolutely everything by hand.
|
| 0. Don't use Midjourney for anything complex. It hallucinates
| well and gives good first impression, but it's simply not suited
| for anything that has complex composition and lots of meaningful
| detail that need to be controlled like the examples in the
| article.
|
| 1. Finetune your model on its own output and your own work.
|
| 2. Use higher order guidance, not just text. Besides the fact
| that current models don't understand the natural language well
| (let alone your intent), text is inherently unsuited for
| explaining artistic intent. Use controlnets on your sketches,
| latent noise spatial composition, and other similar tricks - they
| are just better at that, faster, and more precise.
|
| 3. Don't generate everything in one piece, photobash. Make
| complex compositions out of simpler objects. The model can't keep
| the track of too much stuff. Use automated workflows to save time
| (otherwise what's the point?). Check out ComfyUI for a powerful
| node-based editor - create a pipeline once and use it many times.
| Use plugins for the common software like Photoshop, Krita,
| Blender, Houdini etc.
|
| 4. Fix your errors manually. If your work is complex, it will be
| faster.
|
| _> But I feel like something that gets lost in the discussion of
| AI-generated artwork is the turds._
|
| No, it's not. It's the major obstacle in the current models, and
| gets a lot of attention.
| MisterTea wrote:
| I clicked the article expecting to see humorous little piles of
| steaming excrement inserted into images. Am I to assume turds in
| this context mean artifacts or out-of-place mistakes?
| 4dregress wrote:
| I was expecting the same, highly disappointing, but I guess we
| could whip some up in no time!
| fassssst wrote:
| Yea it's not fully automatic yet, but that's what Photoshop
| Content Aware Fill (and now Generative Fill) and Healing Brush is
| for.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I've only see GF on photographs; does it work for anything else
| yet?
| GaggiX wrote:
| Yes, https://twitter.com/8co28/status/1661197544914063362
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| We call this "inpainting" here.
| vsareto wrote:
| >But the shadows are still going to be annoying, and the
| iteration time is painfully slow.
|
| I seriously doubt this can be described as painfully slow
| compared to an average artists making the equivalent assets,
| especially if you get into the local UIs that have tools like
| inpainting/masking, plugins, loras, checkpoints, and all that
| jazz.
| klyrs wrote:
| I was looking for actual turds in the picture. Disappointed.
| permo-w wrote:
| yeah I was looking at the bushes in the plant pots and thinking
| "are these the turds?" until I found out that the author is
| just being extremely picky. I do like to imagine a future
| dominated by AI where we get weird emergent patterns like the
| AI just secretly including turds everywhere it can though
| __loam wrote:
| I don't think they're being picky at all. These are obvious
| mistakes.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| Me too! Damn clickbait.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I don't understand the apparent expectation that AI tools
| generated _perfection_ , every time.
|
| People don't create perfection. If you hired a graphic artist to
| create an image and gave them the same prompt, there would almost
| certainly be things that you'd want changed.
|
| So far, AI seems to do very well with ambiguous prompts that give
| it enough latitude to "do what it does best". Areas of an image
| where there is a lot of source images to work from end up great,
| while areas where there is little - or where there is a lot of
| variability in the source images - don't do so well.
|
| Maybe we'll get to the point where AI generates acceptable (or
| even excellent) results the first time, every time. Maybe it'll
| even be soon, but we're not there yet. For now, AI is a very
| useful tool that can multiply the productivity of professionals
| and let amateurs fake being entry-level.
|
| For now at least, there is a huge gap between "entry level" and
| "professional". Because of that, we'll need professionals for the
| foreseeable future.
| jordanpg wrote:
| > I don't understand the apparent expectation that AI tools
| generated perfection, every time.
|
| The more interesting part of this for me is the degree to which
| this intermediate conclusion has translated into: because it's
| not perfect now, it therefore cannot replace humans at doing X.
|
| In fact, I expect LLMs, etc. to improve at a breathtaking pace,
| and whatever nitpicking "turds" people find with them now, will
| be trivially fixed.
|
| I agree with your overall point that professionals will still
| be needed in some, perhaps changed, capacity for some time to
| come. But if you think your job, as it exists today, is safe
| because LLMs, etc. can't do it exactly perfectly right now,
| then there is probably a failure of imagination happening.
| itake wrote:
| The other huge frustration with AI tools is getting them to
| "professional" level requires extra professional level time to
| fix those problems.
|
| If those images were created with layers in PS, it is easy to
| modify and swap out and correct those issues.
|
| With generative AI, you could in-paint until it generates a
| good enough version, but who has time for that. Recently, I
| generated an image with an extremely malformed hand. After 4
| attempts to repaint failed, I gave up and cropped the image
| out.
| ivanbakel wrote:
| The article isn't really asking for perfection. I think the key
| point being made is that these are basic mistakes that even a
| non-artist can easily recognise (the hallucinated objects being
| a particularly bad example), and which are a big obstacle to
| taking AI-generated work seriously.
|
| Who cares if the work that AI produces is great, or even good,
| if it can't stop generating nonsense at the same time? The
| article even mentions this - you can try to work out the turds,
| but then productivity takes a big hit, and you're still not
| guaranteed any consistency. So what's the benefit of the AI at
| that point, from the perspective of a professional, or even an
| entry-level?
| l33tman wrote:
| You've obviously never used the AI image generators :)
|
| It takes me 2 minutes to generate a bunch of iterations of an
| AI image, masking out and replacing elements as I iterate of
| whatever might be undesired. The result is an image that
| would have taken weeks to do otherwise (or impossible if I
| lack the talent).
| __loam wrote:
| I hate the self assured smugness everyone in the AI art
| communities seem to operate with.
|
| "You _obviously_ never used the AI image generators
| _passive aggressive smiley face_ "
|
| Like, why are you guys so obnoxious when you talk about
| this crap?
| rhdunn wrote:
| I see AI tools as being useful for getting a first draft of
| something (art, code, text, etc.) which the artist, writer,
| etc. can use to edit and refine into a product.
|
| It can also be useful for experimenting with/iterating on
| concepts. For example, getting the tool to create 4-5
| concepts you can use for inspiration.
| mid-kid wrote:
| Last time I tried github copilot to see if the "using AI to
| get a draft" workflow worked, I ended up with too many
| situations where I'd spend time reading and tweaking the
| generated code, to the point I had essentially rewritten
| the entire thing. This wasted a lot of time compared to
| just writing it like I wanted to in the first place. I'm
| really not sure how to incorporate it into my workflow.
|
| I really care about code being correct and looking similar
| in both style and thought process to the rest of the
| codebase. People have an easier time reading code that has
| internal consistency in the way it does things.
|
| I wish it worked better, because it's already very good at
| picking things up from context.
| Vvector wrote:
| Here is more nonsense shadows by AI. Oops, not AI, but famous
| paintings by famous artists.
|
| https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-art-of-the-shadow-
| how...
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| * * *
| pixl97 wrote:
| >So what's the benefit of the AI at that point,
|
| So, really we're going back to about 1750 at this point and
| asking the question "What is the point of making this machine
| that makes mistakes pretty often and is slower than a human"
|
| And then 2 centuries later we would answer the same question
| in "Why the hell would a human do that, a machine is a
| thousand times faster"
|
| It's not going take us another two centuries to go from first
| machines to automation powerhouse. Hell, I'm not sure if it's
| going to take us another two years to get past most of these
| problems.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > I think the key point being made is that these are basic
| mistakes that even a non-artist can easily recognise
|
| Sure, I can recognize them.
|
| I _can 't_ draw at anywhere near the level of the output in
| the article, though.
|
| AI (e.g., MidJourney) lets someone like me, who has neither
| the ability to create art on my own nor the time/motivation
| to acquire it, make whatever I need. If I see a "turd", I can
| regenerate that portion of the image until I'm happy.
|
| To put it another way: AI makes _different_ mistakes than an
| artist would, at any skill level. The strengths and
| weaknesses of humans and AIs seem to be similar in scale, but
| they 're not in the same areas.
| dingnuts wrote:
| >If I see a "turd", I can regenerate that portion of the
| image until I'm happy.
|
| Assuming the API is free, and you have unlimited time,
| sure. But if the API costs money for each generation, turd-
| free or full of turds, then at some point the cost of
| calling the API over and over and throwing away the turds
| starts to approach the cost -- both in time and money -- of
| just paying an artist to do it right in one iteration.
| rcoveson wrote:
| You're off by so many orders of magnitude that I'm forced
| to ask if you've looked into text-to-image generation
| prices versus artist commision prices, as well as
| completion timeframes.
|
| There are a lot of things that AI text-to-image just
| can't do, like generate really novel or even uncommon
| configurations of objects that look like they're still
| obeying the laws of our universe. Plenty of use cases
| remain, for now, where it's true you do want a human
| artist.
|
| ...But underneath the (expanding) umbrella of things that
| you _can_ do with AI, you simply cannot compare the
| costs. Humans are just absurdly expensive and slow
| compared to GPUs.
| echelon wrote:
| AI tools are in their infancy. People are so scared and
| threatened that they're calling AI outputs "turds".
|
| What's been accomplished thus far has been mostly pure
| research. Now billions of dollars and human engineering hours
| are going into this problem to optimize into ease of use,
| speed, productivity, and utility.
|
| In four years these people will all be using AI or they will
| be out of jobs. Period.
|
| Don't use AI => Go extinct like a butter churner.
| dimgl wrote:
| > In four years these people will all be using AI or they
| will be out of jobs. Period.
|
| > Don't use AI => Go extinct like a butter churner.
|
| There's a great reason to be scared of this. With enough
| automation, you won't have a job. Without jobs, there can't
| be an economy. And therefore it's game over for society as
| a whole.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Surely you've seen the chart of radiologist jobs vs. time?
|
| (Hint: still hiring)
| runarberg wrote:
| Isn't there something about how getting 90% takes much less
| effort than the last 10%. I have a feeling AI will never
| become perfect, there will always be trivial mistakes such
| as these. There will be fewer of them for sure, and perhaps
| they'll become even less obvious as the technology matures,
| but there will always be mistakes made by AI which would
| make a professional deeply embarrassed.
|
| Also the notion of "Use AI or loose your job" sound kind of
| ridiculous when it is considered a tool in the toolbox of a
| professional. It is like saying that cabinet makers should
| use routers or be out of job, or statisticians should use
| Kalman filters or loose their jobs. Sure there are times
| where an artist will use AI in their $dayjob, there
| probably already are, but that artists which don't will
| loose their job, that is a weird prediction.
| theLiminator wrote:
| It's similar to a secretary who refuses to use a
| computer. Maybe you can find a few odd examples of that
| working out in the real world, but you're largely going
| to be out of a job if you don't minimally learn how to
| use a computer.
|
| There are going to be many white collar jobs where if you
| refuse to use ai tooling, you're going to be an order of
| magnitude slower than your peers who do use it.
| runarberg wrote:
| The job of a secretary does not offer nearly the same
| creative outlet as the job of a graphic designer or an
| illustrator, let alone an artist. Also a computer is a
| way more general purpose tool than AI generation.
|
| The job of an illustrator is to return a finalized
| product, how you get there is less important, and
| sometimes the quality of the product, the unique style of
| the artist, etc. is way more important to a customer than
| the speed in which it is created. The work of a secretary
| does not have this aspect. I think the secretary analogy
| does not work in the same way as a woodworker analogy, a
| clothes maker analogy, or even a programmer analogy.
| theLiminator wrote:
| Let's not pretend most white collar work is deeply
| creative or extremely logically rigorous. Sure the top
| 1-10% of the field will still be doing deeply unique work
| that requires a lot of human input, but there's a ton of
| (code|graphic|marketing|etc.)monkey work out there that
| is what most white collars professionals do. If you're
| one of these professionals, you'll most likely be forced
| to adapt to these new tools under the implicit
| understanding that those who don't will soon be far less
| valuable and as such get replaced by those who do
| (adapt).
| samtho wrote:
| The article is not calling generative work as a whole
| "turds" but rather it's being used as a punchy term to
| describe the tell-tale smells of AI generated content. I
| didn't get the impression that the author wanted to throw
| it all out, on the contrary, they are trying to identify
| and give names specific weirdness precisely because AI is
| in its infancy and we don't have names for all this newly
| AI generated content. The blog post is a little hand-wavey
| about it, but it's not meant to be a technical blog post
| either.
|
| This kind of work, as fluffy as it feels, is important to
| progress new and not fully-formed innovations. If the turds
| the article points out ends up being a long-term problem
| for AI generated art, then we have a name for it already.
| If it gets stomped out once and for all in a future version
| and people figure out how to make this work in a general
| sense, then this word "turd" as it describes these
| artifacts just won't ever catch on because it won't be
| needed.
| naillo wrote:
| > And yes, you can paint out the turds in Midjourney and tell it
| to fill in the area again until it gets it right. But the shadows
| are still going to be annoying, and the iteration time is
| painfully slow.
|
| Just cleaning things up in photoshop and a tablet pen (or ipad)
| is much faster than drawing this from scratch.
| nomel wrote:
| > and the iteration time is painfully slow.
|
| Yeah, that's pretty hilarious. It show how incredibly far and
| fast the goalpost has moved. Two years ago, you would have to
| hire someone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-30 23:02 UTC)