AI discussion (split from Canva thread)

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, SrPx said:

Anyone can express feelings, emotions, provoking ideas, or simply depict something that they (and maybe others) consider beautiful, etc, through any medium, written words, music. The output of that, anyone can find it beautiful or provoking in any certain way. But like with any form of knowledge, artistic expression (music, writing...), going through well tested methods, good techniques, a person can become a lot more effective in conveying such emotions in others.

But who is to say that eventually sufficiently powerful neural networks cannot through the appropriate training learn these methods & techniques & use them to create something comparable in all significant aspects to what humans can achieve?

It may not happen this year or the next but on a longer time scale it seems inevitable.

[William Overington]

Here is something I remember reading about years ago, apparently a true story, I don't know if this resonates in the context of this discussion for everybody, but it does for me.

There was a science fiction conference. An author had written a story featuring a robot. Someone approached the author and said that what happened in the story was not in accordance with the three laws of robotics that had been set out many years before by Isaac Asimov in his robot stories. "So what?" came the reply from the author.

William

 

[William Overington]

A thought experiment, that could perhaps be carried out in practice.

Suppose that a number of works of art are generated according to some particular style that has been agreed for the experiment and that these are published on the web and attributed to a fictional artist, in a similar way that a character in a novel is fictional.

Supposed an AI system is trained about the work of that artist, as if the artist is a real artist.

What would happen if the AI system is asked to produce an original painting in the style of that artist if the subject requested for the original painting is of a subject not present in the work of the fictional artist?

For example, if the works of art by the fictional artist are all constructed of squares and rectangles produced using the Affinity Designer Rectangle Tool with zero width border and none are rotated, but they can be coloured but only flat colour, and they are all of landscapes. For example, the sun as a yellow filled square, clouds as white filled rectangles, a tree as a brown filled tall thin rectangle with a green filled rectangle of foliage. What happens if the AI system is asked to paint a portrait of a lady in the style of the fictional artist? 

Although not such an extreme case, perhaps there is a historical artist whose work is all of one type and we could ask the AI system to produce an original painting in the style of that artist where the requested subject is very different from the artist's work.

William

 

[SrPx]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

But who is to say that eventually sufficiently powerful neural networks cannot through the appropriate training learn these methods & techniques & use them to create something comparable in all significant aspects to what humans can achieve?

It may not happen this year or the next but on a longer time scale it seems inevitable.

Maybe. I'm judging the current situation, only (as it is what I can only examine well: the future is not that easy to predict). Also, I doubt AI would ever have true "human experience", neither conscience, both essential for the core of real artistic expression. 

[William Overington]

Please produce an original painting that is produced using only filled squares of colour and filled rectangles of colour. The background of the upper half of the painting is blue. The background of the lower half of the picture is green. At upper left is a yellow filled square to represent the sun. At the right is a brown filled rectangle to represent the trunk of a tree. At the top of the brown filled rectangle is a green filled rectangle to represent the leaves of the tree.

 

[thomaso]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

But who is to say that eventually sufficiently powerful neural networks cannot through the appropriate training learn these methods & techniques & use them to create something comparable in all significant aspects to what humans can achieve?

It may not happen this year or the next but on a longer time scale it seems inevitable.

You seem to confuse possible expressions (output) with possible emotions (felt inside).

As long as the emergence of human "consciousness", "emotion", "experience", etc. are not scientifically known and clearly (unambiguous) definable, they cannot be programmed as realistic properties of AI but simulations only. Until then, a statement like "inevitable" is very arbitrary and correspondingly worthless because it is based on pure speculation and leaves the concrete "inevitable" unclear. It is rather as vague as a statement like "one day every human will be completely intelligent".

[R C-R]

31 minutes ago, thomaso said:

You seem to confuse possible expressions (output) with possible emotions (felt inside).

I am talking about the emotions humans might feel from AI created content. it has nothing to do with what the AI can or cannot feel.

[SrPx]

4 hours ago, R C-R said:

I am talking about the emotions humans might feel from AI created content. it has nothing to do with what the AI can or cannot feel.

I believe he refers to the matter of the AI not feeling emotions (neither being self aware in any way) being a problem for it generating art, as, despite that fact, yet considering the "art" which AI generates better or even equal to what a human artist would create, but I could have misunderstood what he said.

[R C-R]

11 minutes ago, SrPx said:

I believe he refers to the matter of the AI not feeling emotions (neither being self aware in any way) being a problem for it generating art, as, despite that fact, yet considering the "art" which AI generates better or even equal to what a human artist would create, but I could have misunderstood what he said.

Why would an AI have to feel anything or be self aware to create art (good or bad by whatever standards one wants to use to judge that, objective or subjective) for that work to evoke strong emotional responses in humans that view it? 

Try a Google search on something like "examples of AI-generated art." Among the hits are items like this one about 'mind blowing' examples. I don't know about what others feel but for me some of them do evoke strong emotions in me very much like those I feel when viewing human-created artwork of similar subject matter.

A bit off topic but my Google search turned up a lot of interesting stuff, one of which is this "Timeline of AI Art." While none of it directly addresses if AI's can or ever will be able to feel in the same sense that humans can, much of it suggests that is not necessary for them to create artwork that evokes strong feelings in humans.

[William Overington]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

A bit off topic ...

Please do not let that deter you from posting interesting stuff to this thread.

What you posted in that paragraph, including the link, is of great interest.

William

[William Overington]

7 hours ago, William Overington said:

Please produce an original painting that is produced using only filled squares of colour and filled rectangles of colour. The background of the upper half of the painting is blue. The background of the lower half of the picture is green. At upper left is a yellow filled square to represent the sun. At the right is a brown filled rectangle to represent the trunk of a tree. At the top of the brown filled rectangle is a green filled rectangle to represent the leaves of the tree.

 

What do readers comment about this picture produced in response to a prompt that requested something different and far simpler?

Also of the picture itself as art?

The AI did not deliver the requested image yet took much of the information in the request into consideration.

Also, the AI seems to highlight the sky, the ground, the tree trunk, the tree foliage, with the sunlight.

William

 

[SrPx]

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

Why would an AI have to feel anything or be self aware to create art (good or bad by whatever standards one wants to use to judge that, objective or subjective) for that work to evoke strong emotional responses in humans that view it? 

Try a Google search on something like "examples of AI-generated art." Among the hits are items like this one about 'mind blowing' examples. I don't know about what others feel but for me some of them do evoke strong emotions in me very much like those I feel when viewing human-created artwork of similar subject matter.

A bit off topic but my Google search turned up a lot of interesting stuff, one of which is this "Timeline of AI Art." While none of it directly addresses if AI's can or ever will be able to feel in the same sense that humans can, much of it suggests that is not necessary for them to create artwork that evokes strong feelings in humans.

A huge lot of the beauty in that thread of images is due to the genius of many human artists (and as I am seeing in it, of both 3D artists and traditional illustrators. It is taken from both)... but this is one of the several points in which we would end up as well having to "agree to disagree".

We have a different concept of what is art (this has been debated in many forums on internet since the latest and more ground breaking arrival (as it had several) of the so called "AI", many artists are of the following opinion). Art, by definition, has the process of making art as a very essential part (it's not only a final output), the process of an actual human in every bit of this creation, as in, putting each stroke, each bit of expression. And self aware (while doing it and for the overall purpose) because they need to be conscious of their reality, to create the expression called art. Yes, with generative 'AI' there is a human writing a paragraph and pressing a button, but writing what clients used to write on a brief about how they wanted the illustrated gig to be, then hitting a button and waiting it to automatically seed, in my opinion, is not creating art (thus the reason why some judge has declared that AI art can't have copyright. But maybe money will end up bending art definitions, common sense and ethics, in future cases. It is good at doing all that).

I am not saying that what you just said is wrong. It is indeed correct to say that someone can get wowed by an automatically generated image. As can be with a sunset, your dog making a tender noise,  or one's son doing something nice (but none of that is "art"). I will not go as far as to impose the definition of art to anyone (there are indeed several) although most coincide in that. But to me, having dedicated decades to making art and studying theory involved in it (not saying that I have authority for that; just that it is the obvious conclusion for me after all these years), etc, that point happens to be essential to define art (and so, artists those who do such), and then we'd get into another locked point of the debate.

After which, well... I leave this thread... Very interesting debate, but I think we would start going in circles (and maybe making it even more boring for casual people clicking here, or to those who are following it) . The majority will prefer the pretty pictures. Tends to happen with the "two sides" in this big issue, so much that I was very very very close not to answer, initially...maybe I shouldn't have (mental note for the next one).   )

Please, R C-R, don't think that I am being impolite if I don't follow the thread...  

[William Overington]

31 minutes ago, SrPx said:

After which, well... I leave this thread...  

@SrPx Your input as an artist has been very interesting.

I had been hoping that you would comment on the AI-generated picture that I posted earlier today.

William

 

[SrPx]

9 minutes ago, William Overington said:

@SrPx Your input as an artist has been very interesting.

I had been hoping that you would comment on the AI-generated picture that I posted earlier today.

William

 

It's interesting. Reminds me of a mosaic  :).

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, SrPx said:

A huge lot of the beauty in that thread of images is due to the genius of many human artists (and as I am seeing in it, of both 3D artists and traditional illustrators.

Can't you say the same for artwork created by people who have studied the genius of artists that have gone before them? So then what does it matter if the artist is human or artificial?

Taken a step further, who's to say that some future human artists will not in part be inspired to greatness bythe work of non-human artists?

[William Overington]

I asked Bing Chat AI as follows.

How exactly is an AI trained on the paintings of artists please?

Here is the reply.

Training an AI on the paintings of artists involves a process called Deep Learning, which is a subset of Machine Learning. Here’s a simplified explanation of the process:

1. Data Collection: The first step is to collect a large dataset of paintings from the artist(s). These paintings are then digitized into a format that the AI can understand, typically as pixel data.

2. Preprocessing: The images are then preprocessed. This could involve resizing the images to a uniform size, normalizing the pixel values, etc.

3. Model Selection: A type of model called a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is often used for image-based tasks. This model is capable of recognizing patterns in the spatial structure of the image.

4. Training: The model is then trained on the dataset. During training, the model is shown each painting and its corresponding artist. The model makes a prediction about the artist, and the difference between the model’s prediction and the actual artist is calculated. This difference is called the loss. The goal of training is to minimize this loss.

5. Backpropagation and Optimization: The model uses a process called backpropagation to adjust its internal parameters in a way that reduces the loss. This process is repeated many times (often millions or billions) until the model’s predictions are as accurate as possible.

6. Testing and Validation: The model is then tested on a separate set of images that it hasn’t seen before. This helps ensure that the model can generalize its predictions to new data.

7. Fine-tuning: Based on the performance on the test data, the model might be fine-tuned further.

Once the model is trained, it can then generate new paintings in the style of the artist(s) it was trained on. This is done by feeding the model a source of randomness and having it transform that randomness into a painting.

Please note that this is a simplified explanation. The actual process involves a lot of complex mathematics and computer science concepts. Also, the training process requires a lot of computational resources and can take a long time, depending on the size of the dataset and the complexity of the model.

William

 

[William Overington]

I asked Bing chat ai as follows.

On the paintings of which artists have you been trained please?

Here is the reply.

As an AI, I don’t have specific training on individual artists’ paintings. However, I have been trained on a diverse range of data, including a broad spectrum of art-related topics. This means I can provide information on many different artists and their works, from various periods and styles, based on the information available up to my last training cut-off in 2021. If you have questions about a specific artist or painting, feel free to ask! I’m here to help. 😊

Have you been trained to paint original pictures in the style of Claude Monet?

While I don’t create original artwork, I can generate images based on descriptions provided to me. However, replicating the exact style of an artist like Claude Monet is a complex task that involves understanding and mimicking the artist’s unique techniques, brush strokes, color palettes, and more. While I strive to generate images that are as close as possible to the provided descriptions, please note that they may not perfectly capture the style of specific artists. If you’d like, I can attempt to generate an image based on a description in the style of Monet’s work. Please provide me with a specific scene or subject you’d like depicted. 😊

William

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan C]

On 4/4/2024 at 1:12 PM, William Overington said:

Here is a transcript of my record of a conversation with Bing Chat AI today.

1 hour ago, William Overington said:

I asked Bing Chat AI as follows.

21 hours ago, William Overington said:

Please produce an original painting that is produced using only filled squares of colour and filled rectangles of colour. The background of the upper half of the painting is blue. The background of the lower half of the picture is green. At upper left is a yellow filled square to represent the sun. At the right is a brown filled rectangle to represent the trunk of a tree. At the top of the brown filled rectangle is a green filled rectangle to represent the leaves of the tree.

We are happy for users to have relevant and courteous discussions regarding AI tools and the ethics surrounding them here - but please do not use the Affinity Forums as a place to simply copy and paste AI transcripts and AI artwork with the accompanying prompt.

If you wish to log your findings when using AI models, we ask that you do this elsewhere online as this is not what the Affinity Forums are designed for.

[William Overington]

52 minutes ago, Dan C said:

We are happy for users to have relevant and courteous discussions regarding AI tools and the ethics surrounding them here - but please do not use the Affinity Forums as a place to simply copy and paste AI transcripts and AI artwork with the accompanying prompt.

If you wish to log your findings when using AI models, we ask that you do this elsewhere online as this is not what the Affinity Forums are designed for.

Well, I included those posts as part of the relevant and courteous discussions regarding AI tools and the ethics surrounding them that are getting lots of posts and lots and lots of views in this thread.

Yes, the "elsewhere" is in Alfred's forum, where there is lots of stuff about generative AI.

Art & Literature (Page 1) — Alfred's Serif Users' Forums (punster.me)

Please look at the way that AI generated artwork has been banned from the Share your Work forum. So when I used Affinity Designer to paste a sign made in Affinity Designer into a picture that had been generated in Bing Chat AI I posted the story and the result in Alfred's forum rather than in the Share your Work forum because of the restriction. The thing is though, other people gather photographs from internet websites that someone else has produced, and adapt them and post the results in Share your work and that is allowed. So why not allow me to post an adapted version of an image that was produced in an AI program?

The modalities of using Bing Chat AI to produce art (Page 4) — Art & Literature — Alfred's Serif Users' Forums (punster.me)

So, alright, you are putting a restriction on what can be included in this discussion.

William

 

 

[Dan C]

1 minute ago, William Overington said:

The thing is though, other people gather photographs from internet websites that someone else has produced, and adapt them and post the results in Share your work and that is allowed. So why not allow me to post an adapted version of an image that was produced in an AI program?

This has been covered in previous threads of yours and is not up for discussion here.

6 minutes ago, William Overington said:

So, alright, you are putting a restriction on what can be included in this discussion.

Correct, as we do with all threads here on the Affinity Forums, based on our Forum Guidelines.

These are not 'discussion boards' for general conversations, these are support Forums for Affinity users who predominantly require help, advice, have feedback or need to report a bug with the Affinity apps.

We don't want to quell all conversations here (both in this thread and across the forums), as we appreciate their usefulness in understanding others viewpoints and helping to improve the apps based on others experiences etc - but these posts of yours that are direct copy and paste AI transcripts or AI image prompts with results do not belong here.

Thanks for your understanding.

[William Overington]

Well, @Patrick Connor generated this thread and gave it the title AI Discussion. So that seems to me to be authorization to discuss AI. So to me, including examples seems very relevant, but you are not allowing that, so I shall, of course, abide by your decision.

William

 

[thomaso]

20 hours ago, R C-R said:

I am talking about the emotions humans might feel from AI created content. it has nothing to do with what the AI can or cannot feel.

10 hours ago, R C-R said:

Can't you say the same for artwork created by people who have studied the genius of artists that have gone before them? So then what does it matter if the artist is human or artificial?

You still mix (confuse) various understandings (definitions) making your statement(s) ambiguous and arbitrary (and thus 'true' but rather worthless).

1. If you understand "art" as a result only then AI does not matter at all and everything can be felt, understood and defined as art. (a stone, a blue canvas, a single brush stroke, an automaton, …)

1.1. Also, if your definition of "art" includes a process of creation with technical skills (knowledge) then every process can be seen as art. ("The Art of Coding", "The Art of Using Data Merge in APub", "The Art of Car Repair", "The Art of Cooking").

2. If the process of "art" creation includes mood & emotion of its creator then it matters a lot what the creator can or cannot feel – and AI is generally excluded from art creation, while, again, the range of "art" is extremely wide ("The Art of Living").

2.1. If "art" creation requires a creator with a specific inner attitude (e.g. of devotion, passion, serenity) then the result (1.) might not matter at all. Then "art" gets close to "religion" ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance") and a judgement of/about "art" requires "believing", with the viewer/consumer as a|the relevant part.

3. In this process the initiator (orderer, client, patron, sponsor) may be required or not, but will not become the/an artist, too. Neither was the church nor is a business or a user of AI an artist / art creator when ordering, initiating, prompting a certain result. Nevertheless, initiating (motivating, organizing) a process of creation can be seen as an act of art (Andy Warhol's 'Factory') and 1.1. gets active ("The Art of Management", "The Art Director").

4. Therefore you may need to distinguish "art" from "decoration", an "artist" from an "artisan" and the creating process from its craft + from its initiating versus its consuming process when arguing about or defining its involved terms or ideas.

5. Particularly since an "artistic" creation may involve "artificial" processes while the consumption process provides "imagination" + "creativity", the entire issue is almost infinitely complex and therefore "strong emotions" are primarily a matter of the consumption process and are independent from the process of "art" creation or its result: We can feel a story when we look at letters or a 'simple' drawing from the Stone age, just as we may get frightened by a noise in the forest at night, regardless of whether the noise or trees are natural (real) or rather virtual like a painting or a movie or letters or just the idea (imagination) of our thoughts that create our emotions individually.

When consuming a simulation no perfection or precision is required to trigger emotions, emotions work since ages with a range of beings such as "Zeus", "Jehovah", "God", "Allah", a "Spaghetti Monster", entirely regardless of a visualisation or technical needs. Furthermore, it also works the other way around: technological progress may increase distrust, leading us to separate emotions from ideas and ideas from reality. So the increased use of "artificial" technology may also lead to people becoming less emotionally triggered while training consumer awareness of possible simulations, whether hand-made or computer-generated.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

If you understand "art" as a result only ...

I understand artwork as the tangible result of the creative process. Who or what created it, or by what process, is a different thing entirely.

EDIT: I have to amend the above to say I do not really mean artwork has to be tangible in the sense of having a physical existence, even though almost all the references I could find to the definition of artwork say it refers only to physical objects. I think it is fairly obvious that these days some artwork, including much of the output of apps like Affinity, Photoshop, et all, has only a virtual existence yet is generally considered in one sense or another as artwork.

If it really had to be limited to the physical then no photograph taken with a digital camera could never be considered to be artwork unless or until it was printed. That seems absurd to me.

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, William Overington said:

I asked Bing Chat AI as follows ...

I found it interesting that it said its last training cut-off date was in 2021, implying that there may (or may not!) be more data gathering & training done in the future to improve its results.

But much more interesting to me was it said it does not create original artwork (that word again). That makes me wonder how it would reply if you asked it who (or what?) is the originator of the images it produces.

[William Overington]

24 minutes ago, R C-R said:

But much more interesting to me was it said it does not create original artwork (that word again). That makes me wonder how it would reply if you asked it who (or what?) is the originator of the images it produces.

Up until now I have always included in the prompt some text that gives some indication, maybe very minimal indication, but nevertheless non-zero indication, of the content of the picture that I am seeking. So I am wondering what will happen if I ask it to produce an original painting in the style of Claude Monet yet include no more than that in the prompt.

William