#that's real enough to me and much more quantifiable than things i can't prove or know for sure.

[sunieepo]

tbh i've purposefully avoided posting anything about AI art onto any of my public accounts because i just know my opinions on it wouldn't be popular. and i'm saying this as someone who is really, REALLY passionate about art - creating and critiquing art are literally my lifelong passions. but so much of this AI art debacle has become about people making bizarre declarations about what is or isn't "real art" - defining it using nebulous metrics like "the soul" and such.

the ethical issues with AI art as it currently exists are undeniable, and i wish people would focus on that instead of trying to define what "real art" is. because the thing is, gatekeeping the definition of "real art" has been going on for centuries! there are still people today who think video games aren't real art, even. a few decades ago, there were people who thought movies (cinema, film) couldn't be real art! the definition of art evolves and grows, and i resist and question any effort to suppress that.

some thought exercises for people who think they can define "real art" so simply:

is animal-created art real art? are pufferfish nests real art? are elephant paintings real art? does an animal have to reach a certain threshold of intelligence in order for its creations to be considered art?

is duchamp's fountain real art? for those unaware, this was a mass-manufactured urinal that the artist signed and submitted for an art exhibition as is, with no alterations aside from signing it with a marker.

is digital art real art? remember that digital art comes from machines translating human input into pixels on a screen. is this an acceptable use of machine intervention in art creation because the software performing these actions was not created using machine learning? is it because the human has more perceived control over the output?

is photography real art?

is music real art? is music composed using digital software real art? if a song utilizes a heavy amount of sampling, is it still real art?

many digital artists use software that allows them to create layers with filter options that adjust the colors of the layers beneath them using an algorithm (overlays like multiply, screen, etc). in this case, the colors of their images have been digitally altered by a piece of software in ways that most artists don't fully understand. is the image created as a result of this process still real art? can the artist claim full human ownership of the colors, which were digitally altered using a machine algorithm? would your opinion on this change if the machine algorithms behind overlay layers were created using machine learning?

some digital artists make use of "pen stabilization", a type of software algorithm that manipulates tablet pet inputs into a steadier curve to remove jitter. are lines drawn using heavy amounts of stabilization still the artist's? can the artist claim human ownership of lines drawn using near 100% stabilization?

many digital artists will use stamp brushes to get past having to repeatedly draw a static pattern, such as to fill the leaves in a tree. this is essentially a glorified version of copy and pasting repeatedly, except that a software algorithm introduces semi-random rotations and color jitter to give a more natural appearance. is a tree drawn using this process still real art? does your opinion on this change if the artist created the stamp themself, vs downloading it from another artist? does it change depending on how granular the artist was with making manual adjustments to the stamp outputs?

what proportion of an image is allowed to come from stamps, filters, and software tool usage before it stops being real art? is photobashing real art? what percent of an image has to come from freehand drawing for it be considered real art?

are edits of other people's art real art? does your opinion on this change if the editor had the original artist's consent? what percentage of the pixels has to have been changed by the editor before it is worthy of being considered real art?

one popular usage of "AI art" is to apply an "AI filter" over an existing image, which takes a drawing and then utilizes a machine learning based model to alter the image pixels. is an image created using this process real art?

if a person generates an image using a machine learning model, such as stable diffusion, and then draws over that image, is the resultant drawn-over image real art? what percentage of the pixels has to come from a human hand for it be considered real art? what if it was only 1 or 2 pixels that were manually manipulated? what if the only thing a human adds is an overlay filter?

if a person generates an image using a machine learning model, such as stable diffusion, and has very strong intent and emotion about how they want the resultant image to look, tweaking their prompts and specifically trying many different options before the output is in accordance with their vision, why is this not real art? is it because they did not specifically intend on every single pixel in this image? what percentage of pixels in an image has to have specific human intent for an image to be considered real art?

in 3d animation, physics simulations are used to calculate the positions of moving objects, and then artists manually adjust the outputs in accordance with their desired product. spider-verse, for example, was partially created using a combination of "traditional" software and some in-house created machine learning models. is the animation created using this software real art? does it only become real art once a human has gone in and reviewed it? is an individual frame of animation that hasn't been reviewed by a person and was generated via software and simulations not real art? would your opinion of this change if the machine learning models had not been created in-house? would it change if the training datasets had been acquired unethically?

if a traditional artist closes their eyes and splashes paint at a canvas, is the resultant splash of paint real art? if the artist had no emotion or specific intent when casting the paint across the canvas, is this still real art? are pollock paintings real art?

can a mistake be real art? if an artist tips over a can of paint and creates a beautiful spill, could they present the canvas as is with no further alteration, and that resultant image be considered real art?

can art styles be "stolen"? do artist own their art styles?

do you support copyright law? how much inspiration is allowed to be taken from something before it is considered plagiarism vs derivative, and should derivative works be punished?

what is the precise difference between the way ai art "steals" art styles, vs the way a human being takes inspiration from them? remember that many machine learning models take directions and instructions from humans, and often do not learn in a vacuum devoid of human intervention.

some very popular artists, who i will not name, have been accused of having "soulless" art. these artists "mass-manufacture" their images to look very similar and consistent and have seen a lot of financial success as a result of their repetitive works. is their "soulless" art still real art, even if it was made completely without the use of AI technology?

were you bothered by images generated by dall-e, back before stable diffusion became popular? did you consider images generated by dall-e to be art? did you consider dall-e to be unethical?

what is it about machine learning models that separate any software derived from it from software made without the use of machine learning? why is the usage of an art program that did not come from machine learning seen as ethically superior? what is ethically wrong with machine learning models? is it only if the training dataset was scraped without acquiring explicit consent? is it only if the learning was performed supervised vs unsupervised?

can software itself be art? can you find artistry in the way a program has been written - in the lines of code created by a human? in the intent and emotion of the programmer who crafted a piece of software?

please note i'm not trying to be condescending by asking these, and don't assume you know my answers to these questions, either. these are questions i asked myself when i was chewing through these debates and trying to quantify exactly what i found so objectionable about many of these "what constitutes 'real art'" takes.

reblogs off because i don't want to engage with strangers on this topic. i'm open to debate but only if you're going to be civil about it. please remember that i'm an artist too.

[only-lonely-lovers]

08.02.2022

Bird is あ / Avvy is つ

あ：This thing keeps happening (and has been happening for weeks) where my brain kind of scrundles things and procures me a chronically ill Amane at age like 9-11 being assisted by Tsukasa and i have to catch myself like - ? …. [walk it back] like I don't mean to make an AU, it feels like if i'm not paying attention something goes fuzzy and i'm in some to the left universe. but unlike making an AU it's like i'm just having out of place memories of a different world. but i have to be like wait i think there's some sort of hiccup… something somewhere btwn homura and amane gets made as a result

I'm not like trying to develop a canon or play in a space, it's more like. thoughtlessly recollecting on something. but then being like wait. ……..?

As if I'm reflecting on some childhood memories. tsukasa my guide dog

つ：cute… interesting. It's nice to think about Amane becoming more…. used to, amicable to caretaking, if he were to become stable/healthy ENOUGH to not be in constant almost-dying hell, but still not 100% cured.

as it is he can't appreciate much, due to his sheer burdens, at 4, how much it's hurting. if only homura could lend the nurse fantasy to the old timey boy who can't have a surgery

I think tsukasa would get good at it over time u.u he's so only 4 when we see and he's very impressive at it all, as it is!

あ：It does feel like ah if only we could give amane this binkie… the ah concept of not being like LYING IN BED DYING but rather getting winded at the park and needing tsukasa nearby to help you with cool down times

つ：I always like the idea of a caretaker with that kind of temperament, more competent than you think and yet generally airheaded and absent-minded/distractible. its like how i'm good enough at taking care of bird but i walk into any room and idk waht i was doing. left the room to do something for bird but come back having done 3 other things and then be like AH--!!!! HIS SNACK!!!

あ：i do have faith in tsukasa's capabilities!!!!!!!

it's like i wish to grant tsukasa this experience too wwww like needed so very much like this still… continue fetch questing things always

if amane just had to submit to getting juice brought to him. cuz it's not worth proving a point every time

つ：get good at coming out ahead of a desire become a little princesssy about it all. well but i AM tired. i DONT want to walk more. fine

あ：claps hands In a way, I worry a lot of tsukasa's potential misery in canon will be a sense of… inability to offset burden, not being quantifiably helpful. if amane is healthy now, this new issue presented of, now you're just fail sibling who falls on face and who is causing tension at home. with no future

つ：indeed.. what does tsukasa, do….? for amane? by being here?

あ：it might feel too much like you're just constantly being indulged and basking in glorious amane-times by clinging to him everywhere but not 'giving anything back'

つ：is it even possible to feel so confident in value in circumstances where you are being doubted as even real….. mm it is indulgent for both to think about an ill/reliant amane and a dutiful tsukasa…. the indulgence timeline

あ：It would be indulgence timeline. stablizing out into something… reaping the benefits of being caretaker but amane still being able to live life

[angeloncewas]

Some people, when interacting with covid and it’s guidelines, tend to not take it seriously because they think they’re invincible and that both they and the people around them will be fine even if they did somehow catch it. Does that give them an excuse to ignore the guidelines? No, but it is an explanation of why some people would not follow them or not wear masks

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this situation is that most of these people know technoblade, the guy who has cancer and is also immunocompromised. Like they know someone who, if he gets covid, has a high likelihood of landing in the hospital and/or dying

They interact with someone who can prove to their little brains that people can be badly affected by this covid thing but they at most seem to be slightly inconvenienced by it. It just annoys me that they seem unwilling to think about how their shitty actions can affect others really really badly, especially when they have someone right there as proof of that

(I’ve sent something similar to this to someone else but I’m curious about your opinion on this)

I wanna preface my answer with two things - 1. I don't really feel comfortable talking about the Techno of it all. No shade to you and I welcome any opinions/questions as always, I'd just rather leave that topic as it is. I do understand the ways it pertains to everything going on, but it just strikes me as too personal for my type of discussion. + 2. I'm gonna try to speak in really general statements here because I think most people are tired of cc crit and while I stand by everything I said there is a lot more going on than just these specific people yk.

Okay, so -

COVID revealed a lot of things about a lot of people, both in the public eye and in my (and I'm sure many other peoples') personal life. I have a bit of a cynical opinion on society compared to others (Joker moment), so while a lot of the selfishness and similar disregard wasn't really surprising, it's still interesting to look into.

I wouldn't say it's not that percieved invincibility that keeps people from taking COVID seriously (and I don't mean in terms of right now, I mean throughout the pandemic) but I do think there's more to it than just that. People have a very short attention span, especially when it comes to serious topics. There's this statistic I always think about regarding gun violence; how after every tragedy there will be a huge wave of calls for reform that fizzles out as soon as people get distracted. I don't have enough technical psychology knowledge to know if it's a quantifiable thing, but it's definitely observable. COVID strikes me as a lot of the same. I had a decent amount of friends - generally smart and kind people - who got less and less diligent about following the guidelines as time went on. Be it due to their home situation or their mental health or just some kind of urge, they went back to going out and not wearing masks and so on and so on.

In a similar vein, there's also the sort of... unreality of it? Like obviously it's real and damaging and needs to be taken seriously, but I feel like a lot of people have trouble truly understanding something that they've not experienced semi-firsthand. It's not "that would never happen to me" so much as "it can't be that bad" or "well no one I know has gotten it" (which you touch on - sorry I'm rambling a bit) and that makes all the gears click into okay to proceed as normal in their head. It can even happen with people who do have somewhat hands-on experience with it; one of those aforementioned past friends of mine has a heart condition and therefore is very at risk with this whole thing - and yet she was out and about more than anyone else I know because that was the choice she was deciding to make.

And I think one of the big things with COVID is the ability (or lack thereof) to see outside of ourselves. She was making that choice for herself and while I don't think that was right, she has that kind of autonomy. But it wasn't fair for her to be making a choice for every person she interacts with - at-risk essential workers and people who have to go out for x y and z - they're not choosing to risking their lives, their lives were being risked by others. And I think it really requires a person to do that cliche thing of stepping into the people around you's shoes to fully understand that; not even in regards to death tolls or hospital fullness but just on a basic human level.

(I don't think this is quite the answer you were looking for, sorry ;; but thank you for the ask <3)