Put in the tags how many you got right. I got 21.
Just by choosing the worse image, you'll probably be able to get most of the right. 🤦♀️
5 notes
·
View notes
Ah yes. MIRO's classic game "MAROMARO"
0 notes
i genuinely don't care how good a piece of ai generated art or writing looks on the surface. i don't care if it emulates brush strokes and metaphor in a way indistinguishable from those created by a person.
it is not the product of thoughtful creation. it offers no insights into the creator's life or viewpoint. it has no connection to a moment in time or a place or an attitude. it has no perspective. it has no value.
it's empty, it's hollow, and it exists only to generate clicks (and by extension, ad revenue.)
it's just another revolting symptom of the disease that is late stage capitalism, and it fucking sucks.
10K notes
·
View notes
some before-and-after pictures of how I’ve been using AI generated images in my art lately 🤖
I share other artists’ concerns about the unethical nature of the theft going on in the training data of AI art algorithms, so I refuse to spend any money on them or to consider the images generated by them to be true art, but I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts on using it for reference and paint-over like this?
my hope is that with proper regulation and more ethical use, AI could be a beneficial tool to help artists - instead of a way that allows people to steal from us more easily.
93 notes
·
View notes
I think there's plenty of ethical concerns re: AI art but most people criticizing it fundamentally don't understand how the image generation processes work and are imagining it as very literal 'theft', or are operating on kneejerk reactions about """""Real Art""""" that aren't fundamentally different than any other attempts to separate 'true art' from 'fake lazy art' throughout history, so the conversation is kind of doomed to be bad and annoying from the start
22 notes
·
View notes
Here is a screenshot of a misspelled tag (relating to AI art) that is popular enough to show up automatically, in case anyone was under the impression that porn bots are the only ways people spam Tumblr.
For context, Tumblr forgot all of my tags across all platforms a week or two ago. I know at least one other person whom this happened to. I have never (to the best of my memory) used this tag, and certainly not in the last two weeks. I tag AI art "algorithmically generated images" when I reblog it, because I'm a contrarian and I have compunctions against image generators.
This tag is the result of someone who is creating many posts with this tag. And a quick search yeilds that the blog @ai-pin-up-art has been rapid-firing posts for a few months recently, stopping only in July and going completely dead silent. I'm willing to bet the whole blog is automated; the misspelt tag seems like a scripting mistake.
A few other blogs have used the tag only once, which could either be mistypes, or clicking on the same misspelt suggested tag that I was given.
I wrote all this for a few reasons:
1) I went on a little sleuthing expedition and wanted to record my findings.
2) I think that one blog's actions influencing the mechanisms of Tumblr to that degree is both illuminating and kind of spooky.
3) I suspect that AI images are currently being astroturfed into all major social media ecosystems, alongside honest posts from actual adopters. This blog could be run by a technologist who just automated one of their blogs, which just so happens to post and reblog exclusively algorithmically generated porn. Maybe.
8 notes
·
View notes
they can't algorithm me into looking at my screen 24/7 because i'm autistic. don't care how many tiktok boom sounds and other engagement tactics you use. if it's not about my special interest – i'm clicking away. boring.
3 notes
·
View notes
tbh i think that the "is ai generated content art" argument is roughly the same as "is Duchamp's Fountain art". i think that the argument of if its art is what makes it art, because it is invoking some kind of feeling. starting a conversation. if that makes sense?
that being said, absolutely there is a time and a place for it (ie not replacing the work of paid artists). and it should only be trained on artsts who have consented to it.
i dont want to read fiction made by ai bc if you didn't take the time to write something, why should i take the time to read it? and for non fiction, it'll be riddled with incorrect facts because an algorithm "decided" that this word is the most likely to go next in the sentence based on what it's database says, even if its factually incorrect.
one of my favorite pieces of art is an ai image that was sent to a company that makes paint-by-numbers, and then filled out by a person. the artist, tumblr user rigatonidanza, asks "is this art? at what point does it become art? can it never be art because its ai, or because its paint by numbers? is it art because it elicits a response from the viewer?"
the point of art is to make you think, and to make you feel. does it stop being art if its not made by human hands, the way algorithmically generated images are? is it not art if its something mass produced, made for intentions other than what the artist uses it for, like Fountain? even if looking at it makes you feel something? anything? even if that "something" is a negative emotion?
all that said. if you use generative algorithms as an excuse to not pay real artists, you are a human tar pit. may you always immedeatly stub your toe after it stops hurting from the last time you stubbed it.
4 notes
·
View notes
Dynamic Blend of Colors
This image is a dynamic blend of various colors and brushstrokes, creating a textured visual effect. The image showcases patterns and color variations that give an impression of movement. It combines cool tones like blues and greens with warm tones such as yellows, creating a striking contrast. The brushstrokes vary in direction and size, adding to the complexity of the composition. It’s a beautiful piece that seems to invite the viewer to interpret its meaning in their own way.
0 notes