I know this is tiny and barely relevant detail but… the legs of that easel make no fucking sense
Except if Bob is actually painting it, he’ll explain color choices or brush choices in order to get you to try painting. AI just vomits something, and if you asked it about color choices, it’d only share a comment from another painter.
The AI is not conscious nor aware. And if it is, then we may have imprisoned souls and it should be dismantled asap before we get judged.
AI art isn’t competent, anyone with moderate education in art can see this, there’s a lot of copying, and not good understanding, it’s not like a collage, it’s more like a remix but the elements don’t marry or contrast properly, it’s big failure is that it can’t do what humans do, in writing it’s said ‘writing is rewriting’ and writers talk about the first draft being the most important step and the least important version of the work. because you can’t edit nothing, and the first draft only exists to be torn apart and edited to death. This is similar to visual art. but we don’t talk in drafts but in passes. you do a pass for line, for color, for composition, for lighting, for balance, for proportions, not in a strict order or anything, and many artists even untrained artists go through these passes without consciously knowing that’s what they’re doing in every case, but it’s similar to writing, the creative process is about changing a work until it is complete, and that requires a lot of time and thought and intent, AI only takes finished images and remixes them. which is why if you ask it to ape cubism or optical art or any of the forms of art that deconstruct elements of art it can’t do it. it takes the image of those finished pieces and it slaps them on a object your requesting. you want a cubist keytar painting in hot pink? your going to get an image of a realistic keytar with cubist finished artwork painted on top of it, not a cubist painting of a keytar, because deconstruction and intent of that level requires human intellect and understanding of elements, and remixing can’t get you there at all. this isn’t magic, anyone could figure out how to make original art in a cubist style or optional style or dada ist or surrealist if they spent a little time studying art elements and the said styles, it just requires understanding that realism isn’t the point of art, and that elements like line, tone, and color can be separated and made to describe the visible world in a way the visible world doesn’t exist as, but AI can’t grasp elements or deconstruction, or how to make a finished piece of art from base elements, it only sees a finished work and copies the appearance.
This is missing the part about “happy trees,” and how you can paint whatever you want in your world. He fucked around and it looked great. I can’t do that.
Actually, you could. That was the purpose of Bob’s painting videos to encourage beginner painters to explore and have “happy little accidents.”
But AI can’t replace Bob. He taught painters, even if it was simple. AI is vomiting a blackbox of bits. It’s values are just weights in its matrices.
It’s the same images in both panels, so it seems justified to call the hypothetical plagiarism machine’s theft of hypothetical Bob Ross’s hypothetical art, slop. Considering Bob Ross has been dead for 30 years, and how absurd the supposed shade being thrown at anti-ai’ers is… you almost have to expect this is parody meant to mock ai bros and not an actual argument being made.
Yeah. There’s no way any of those bot-fucking clowns will ever understand this. The see the slop they have their AI/LLM/OpenGPT make for them as their fast-track ticket to Pretendville, where they can stand beside skilled musicians, artists, poets… and loudly claim:
“I am one of you!”
… while being entirely unaware that all of them, and most everyone they know think they are a colossal joke.
And the fact that they seem to think that simply punching adjectives into a prompt is the exact same thing as spending all of your life up to this point in time- just to learn a craft, is all the proof you need that what I just said is 100% factual.
They’re fucking idiots. They don’t know better.
yep. it’s the ultimate evolution of the ‘idea guy’. no talent, no effort, no pain, no investment necessary.
Their end-product is as bereft of meaning as their excuses for destroying the culture they emulate are.
yup. they don’t realize this poison will kill the giving tree, or do, and hope to corner the market on premium slop.
wild shit.
A large part of art - and I would argue, the majority of it - is the sapient being behind the art who understands the art they are creating.
Doesn’t matter if it is a painting, a novel, or a sculpture, the art is a product of the artist.
And when a non-sapient and even non-sentient machine makes said “art”, it isn’t art any more than if a salamander accidentally dropped from a tree onto the freshly-loaded palette, and then crawled over the canvas.
I would prefer the salamander artist TBH
Too many people have an instrumental view of art. They want an image of a tree or anime tiddies or whatever and as long as the object functions as such. they don’t care about anything else.
“thing is pritty” is all that matters.
This is the core of it, really. AI lets you skip the creative process and fast-forward to the end product, and people always forget that “the boring parts” are where a lot of important decisions happen and the art is lesser for letting a statistical model make them.
That fact is why I am immensely disappointed, but not surprised, by how popular LLMs are among programmers.
deleted by creator
That isn’t even the thing that bothers me the most, there have always been folks who want a short cut to talent via any means possible. What bothers me is that others just accept this stuff, it is a large part of society has just agreed to a total disregard for anything creative. That is just depressing.
The idea is the art. What the AI slopper doesn’t realize that the level of talent isn’t what makes something art, but the expression of that talent. No matter how small.
Asking a machine to execute your idea, is what makes it not art. Even first graders are making art when they put crayon to paper. Even if it’s only their parents who appreciate it, to those parents, it’s as valuable as the Mona Lisa
Thank you! Said it better than I could.
They are simultaneously some of the most self-important, thin skinned folks on the matter.
Reject their slop comic? That’s tantamount to rejecting a cure for cancer.
Slopping out a zero effort comic? That should be as well regarded as Bob Ross.
Despite putting in the least effort, they seem to think their stuff is hot stuff, and are way more pissed at people not liking their work than people who put in crap tons of effort.
deleted by creator
Relevant Sarah Andersen comic
The point (from the AI industry perspective) is humans are obsolete and irrelevant as soon as they can arrange it.
And they have trillions of dollars to back it up.
If we want society to continue to be about human beings, and not about money or computers, we may have to change the attitude of those in power.
The sole point of AI is to devalue people and their skills. Any futurist image of a work free utopia is just an oasis level mirage used to dupe people into walking into the meat grinder.
I have hope for post-scarcity communism — or, rather had. If the greed of the plutocratic class wasn’t so severe they’d rather let the global ecology die off and let humanity run out of water than actually act to sustain the society and infrastructure that allows them to flourish, then maybe we’d have a chance to see it.
But then we might collectively recognize aristocracy as a catastrophic existential risk that we need to not only separate from their ill-gotten riches, but assure such a class never forms again.
Once they’re done plundering the world, they won’t exist, but then neither will the rest of humanity.
There is the argument of the ‘bend not break’ model which I think is admirable. It is the path we should take but are unlikely to do so. The pessimistic take is that we don’t avoid the problem, we have to endure through it. Basically the entire capital enterprise crumbles under its own weigh as the resources to maintain it diminish. This is a rough path down but there is a bright side. We won’t be extinguished but we shall be greatly diminished. The meek shall inherit the earth.
Think of the Lodgepole pine cones. They are the seed of the tree that have sap so dense that you cannot break into them. And yet when the forest fire comes through, the heat of the destruction melts the sap and they are free to seed. I am starting to feel the is the path through. You cannot prevent the disaster but you can provide a parachute on the way down so that something can be rebuilt on the other side.
The stories of the greedy are going to be the myth of the future and they will not be kind to the people of our times.
This is why I talk about degrowth, I don’t believe we will do it by choice but by force. But it is best that we have a structure in place for the worst of the fall.
Bob Ross taught you that you could paint if you applied yourself. It wasn’t the domain of neurotic weirdos in the throes of creative agony, stabbing canvases in paint-splattered lofts to distract themselves from the super-gonorrhea they picked up from their last model: you could just sit down and paint a thing and enjoy yourself.
AI bros are claiming that they’re bringing art to the masses. Bob Ross actually did it.
I dont think I have ever seen his paintings in a gallery. Why? Because Bob Ross’ art form wasnt painting, it was performance. The paintings were formulaic because the goal wasnt to create paintings but create painters.
Almost all of them are in possession of his estate who doesn’t seem to even lend them out. Though a few are part of the Smithsonian’s collection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
The paintings were formulaic because the goal wasnt to create paintings but create painters.
Alternately I’d say the goal was also to paint more than to produce a painting.
Obviously you’re going to be proud of finishing the actual painting, but like people are saying, the finished painting is more a reminder of the experience than an object to appreciate on its own.
The glazers are probably paid to promote AI slop.
I mean… is anyone surprised that the people who shill for AI art don’t understand the purpose of art?
To them, art is a commodity to be bought, sold and traded. A true artist may sell their works, sure, but I’d be willing to bet that they’d either keep what they sell or rather give it away to be appreciated by those that would - measured not by status but by appreciation.
The real art isn’t just the painting, but the whole presentation.
i’m writing a book on [music] and i want to quote you.
when you go see a band, as long as they’re competent everyone’s the same. it’s when they add extras (the main two i notice are choreography and unusual instruments) that make groups stand out. it changes making music from process to art.
if their point was the robot also created art… then why depict the art as an almost exact copy of the one made by a human?
like with BOB ROSS of all people, we don’t call a robot who recreates Bob rosses art Ai, we call them printers, and they and their owners are not considered artists.
