You can ask to use it, and they respond to you in a short time, sending you an invitation to use it. Then you can buy a different Membership, which gives you more use.
Thanks, i tried that but didnāt receive any invitation from them.
I will check later
Hi,
normally, you need to wait some times,
but that comes on day.
Other i can send a invitation to you, if you send to me your email !
Greetings
Claudio
1 Like
Iām not an artist. Iām really far from that.
Butā¦ I still think this is sort of sad.
In short time, we can no longer believe/know if an artist really have good fantasy/imagination on its own or he/she is just ācleaningā or āretracingā over an AI generated piece.
Or, when an artist have a really strange/abstract/dirty style, people will start to see his/her works as AI pieces, losing credit/credibility. (I think of Blame! mangaā¦ most of scenarios are so dirt and randomic that it feels AI generatedā¦ and that indeed is the plot too 
)
I hardly see this as success.
Itās a technical success for the creators of those āAIā, a entrepreneurial success for the investors, sure.
But not a success for the artistic field.
ā¦ what is your opinion about those āAI generated artā ?
2 Likes
The same was said about CAD back in the late 80ās early 90ās 
One thing is for sure, there is no going back.
2 Likes
I donāt really agree with the CAD comparison.
CADs made designing simpler, but you still have to create your piece āmanuallyā, be it simpler/faster or not.
With easily-accessible programming tools like GH now the āaverage joeā can achieve stuff like Penrose tiling or voronoi with little to no effort, while it took much more work for the original creators.
But in both cases you need know geometry rules (not as much as paper designers, yeah) and learn the software for some time before getting some decent results.
Those AI art pieces sometime really go very near a āfinished productā, while the user bought the service 5 minutes ago and just entered a string of 5 wordsā¦
Not the same thing.
Iām confident the service would work with me too, and Iām an artist as much as a rock under a layer of asphalt.
We can now render a photographic representation of a cad file in seconds, or even experience it live in vr. AI will assist in many ways in the future, like artists have scultors working for them. A photographer relies on digital cameras an uploads instantly to sosial media, with filters and autotuning etc. Lots of art these days are badly crafted anyway, so I think itās more about defining whatās Ā«artĀ» and whatās not.
I still think itās radically different.
Iām more interested on my original question.
Itās a tool like any other art tools like translation between languages, donāt give us the perfect result but help us to get what we need in short time.
Sometimes we have ideas but we canāt draw anything, with this ai tools we can get what we imagine and develop it. But the real art with real hand is always at the top.
Thank you @claudiofeldman , i appreciate that.
I will send you my email
It actually was a direct response to your initial question. My opinion on āAI generated artā is that an image, a drawing, a photography, a rendering or a painting is just āthatā until somebody defines it as art. IMO the most important voice in that regard is the creators. And AI doesnāt have a voice so what it outputs is just images. AI doesnāt make art. The artist is a hybrid between the art director (the prompter, the imaginator, the seeder, call it what you want) and the tool. The artistry is coocking up an idea, refine it and choose it as a wall-worthy piece.
Personally I prefer the AI generated images that are not too photorealistic, that are creative and dreamy, because they bring a level of something unfamiliar to the table, and then when they are touched up by a human artist, cropped for a better storytelling and presented in the correct environment. Then it is worthy of the art label IMO.
I guess it boils down to whether you think Congoās (1954ā1964) paintings are āartā too.
A real painting it is for sure. But what makes this different from other human āaccidentalā painters like Polloc?
1 Like
Hereās a meta question for you:
I just had this generated on my local installation of Stable Diffusion and used a string that someone else used to make some great images. This image is unique, but I would not classify it as art, or at least not MY art.
But if someone else print it out and frame it and hang it on the wall and then someone else came and looked at it and though it was a great piece of art, then what is it? IMO we have to start there, with the classification of what āartā is. None the less, it is a nicely lit and positioned portrait of a woman that in many cultures would classify as beautiful, made with a fascinating technology that surely will evolve while it blurs our ability to distinguish real from generated (or fake if you like).
1 Like
ā¦ āWhat is art?ā is an old question, and I am not able to answer nor I am interested in that argument.
In this context āartā is anything, even a stock photo of a ādesk with some paper and pencilsā.
Letās just use the word āartā to support the dialogue. (make sense?)
Specifically speaking about AI generated images (be them āartā or not), those engines are āassemblingā or āmixingā other images (be them āartā or not), not really creating something completely original from scratch.
Those algorithms were fed with human-made pictures.
Is the result seemingly original? Probably. Thatās the purpose.
Iām trying to discuss the āāmoralityāā of all of this.
Iām surely not an artist, and yet this make me sad.
How long since any piece of āgenuine human-made artā can be accused to be just AI generated instead? (And so the artist accused to be a hoax/lazyā¦ even if it is not true!)
How long since those algorithms will be fed with manually-cleaned AI generated pieces?
I honestly canāt find anything good about thisā¦ apart the great programming success, indeed.
Iām sorry for going OT. Those images are really incredible.
1 Like
Art is in my view a process of developing the spirit that connects the body with the soul the result is awareness.
The value of art is for me developing the spirit to realise the self beeing.
The āmoralityā comes in my view from the value for the consumer (time, money, object) or if a creator has the goal to sell.
I guess AI will do everything in the future where money is involved, till none can earn money and where everyone needs to ask themself is my selfdefinition āto haveā or āto beā.
If i paint with my setup outside most poeple ask questions about object values (how much? , can you sell it, are you a profesionell etc.) only a few are interested in learning processes
but sometimes i get a whole story about the things that i paint because the person is connected it.
Example:
While painting a house with a tree in front of it, a women with two kids aks me if i sell it because its her house and she have a painting hundred years old. She showed me the painting
and the artist stood exactly at the same position hundred years ago incredible experince.
Setup:
1 Like
Donāt excuse yourself. Nothing is really off-topic! Sometimes people ask questions, but only want to hear specific answers. In this case, they donāt like to āseeā different views of the āgreater pictureāā¦
And yes, those images are incredibly good. At least if you make a connection to one of those mentioned painters or styles.
If you like it, then print it out and make your living room a nicer place. Itās nothing wrong about that. Iām painting in my free time to feel better. For me, there is no point in āauto-generatingā art except inspiration.
But for someone with no ambitions to produce art, this is an interesting solution to create something unique for your own well-being. There is nothing sad about that!
In the end, itās also a technical demonstrator. The question about uniqueness is quite tricky. Even the greatest artist were influenced by othersā art/work. Basically mixing/blending other ideas into something unique, just as this algorithm does.
However, a neural network, is not (yet) clever in the broader sense. There is nothing like true self-reflection. You can basically see that if you look into the details, and this is the major difference to (good) human made art. A human would pay more attention to detail and words meaning:
E.g. No human would have painted a 33 on the side, while putting a 93 in reverse on the engine hood. Also, itās clearly mixing more than one car together, and you can see that the car contains many inconsistent features (like the weird wheel housing)ā¦
Overall, itās still impressive, and Iām sure this will become better. But I personally donāt see a machine doing better than a trained professional at this point, and this has a lot to do with how we humans communicate, and how we interpret sentences.
2 Likes
Once the novelty wears off I suspect there will be a backlash to AI generated design, where people wonāt want computational inspired projects and will ask for traditional (which of course AI can generate 100ās of those too), just pick your option, no need for someone to design.
1 Like
That make sense. Thatās an optimistic hope I look forward to, too.
But how will we ātrustā an artist is really making art by itself and not āretracingā an AI generated one? (Not a real question, Iām being polemicā¦)
as far as i can see it, ai art/architecture is generated from a persons or group of peoples algorithm plus the input the user brings along.
i can not see it as a tool in full length because of that, the result becomes too much of an interpretation of what could be instead of what maybe should be. humans needs always change and progress, an algorithm does this at most only by its own interpretation and as far as the algorithmic inputters layed it out.
creations of any kind for humans by humans will always be more on the human side without dead ends or one ways for human kind. a program that might outsmart us but might define its own idea of our destiny is not what i am after. amen.
the results do look amazing, no doubt, but let these not blind you.