Mind-Blowing AI Image Generator - Give Visual Representation to C's Concepts?

[XPan]

Speaking of which, I caught this the other day, go figure

Yes, and The Verge also wrote an article on the event of that an AI produced image won the first prize at the Colorado State Fair. It is a quite fascinating image, I must say... and I wonder how much the producer had to work with AI until he "got it right". But the question still remains; is it fair to use AI when entering art competitions / paintings ?

An AI-generated artwork’s state fair victory fuels arguments over ‘what art is’

Just a simple question: but what is art, anyway?

www.theverge.com

At dPreview

a photo site for photography, equipment and video, wrote an article about AI - with some different AI techniques. I shop some examples of them below. Among other things it was about AI extending information from a photo or painting, showing it's surrounding, analyzing the deeper shadows and its angles, in order to do extend the contents beyond the actual frame. Called "outpainting".

OpenAI adds 'Outpainting' feature to its AI system, DALL-E, allowing users to make AI images of any size

DALL-E has been turning heads since it launched with its startlingly realistic AI creations. The AI platform, which is in a public beta phase, can now create even larger images thanks to a new Outpainting feature, allowing you to extend AI artwork beyond its original borders.

www.dpreview.com

In the third photo, I see once again the kind of gloominess I/we/people can see from the previous example of AI images in this thread. It just somehow lacks something essential, something... inherent is not present.


Mindless or Spirited ?

When a being, an artist, a person, works with something creative; you weave your spirit into that art of creation ! At least that is how i feel about creations - whether it is photography, paintings or the act of cleaning a house, decorating or baking wonderful bread or cinnamon rolls.

Whether it is the housewife, the baker or the cake creator... a part of you, is transfered/shared into what you are doing. The residual presence from the person who weaved some of her spirit energy into the creation - can be felt afterwards !

Which of course also is dependent on the observer's powers/sensitivities; whether he or she spends some time to actually SEE, or just swoops though pages of images, one per seconds, or, eats the lovely home baked bread, taking it for granted, like "oh, nice bread, cool..... Next !")

Now, I am not saying it is impossible to use AI in a good arty way - i am sure it is possible. The image that won the state fair competition in colorado, I would personally consider to be a good step into that direction; where the mind of the creator, put conscious elements into that creation with help of AI, until he "got it right".

But all the other images i have seen in this thread, do not have the same feeling. They seem to be mainly or just the result of AI, and not much (real) input from the user.

That reminds me in principle of the many, many computer applications you can get these days to "enhance" photos in digital ways - with help of one or a few clicks. And the results... well, in the beginning is was "sort of cool", but then you get easily saturated from the results with highly predictable, similar images; whose digital filters and effects do not really convince. I get easily tired to watching such images. Where the filter effect becomes more important than the content of the image....*hurrk*

So, the input from a human being, must be much higher in order to "form the images and its contents" to become something which raises the "inner quality" above the threshold of the mindless AI, in order to turn out into a great photo image.

* * *

In the aforementioned dPreview article

One of the many comments showed a personal example of so called AI "outpainting", in which he sent in a photo of his cat, and the AI created elements outside of that frame. It looks to me like typical iPhone-type-of-multi-processing effect - only here, it adds elements which didn't even exist.

It could for a photographer actually be of help; i am thinking here of an image, let's say a stitched panorama, where some elements outside the final (smaller) border are either cut off or missing - but can be filled in. Photoshop already has some primitive algorithms to do so, but in very limited ways without introducing new elements.

However, the AI "DALL-E 2" brings it further, in an ok-ish way. At least it preserved the "warm atmosphere" in the original cat photo.






source

Mika Y.
Btw, I had tried earlier today DALL-E 2's outpainting with a photo, naturally using a cat photo as test material. The result is a little "off" and there's a quite easily spotted seam on the left side of the image, but it's significantly better than what I expected from an initial version of the feature:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UuTH541EN3MGEn6QA

Edit: Here's also the source image so it's easier to see what's synthetic and what isn't:
New item by Mika Yrjölä

Final thoughts

I have been wondering many years about the unresonably intense research, efforts and money being put into AI - in photography and for video.

I just can't shake off the feeling that deep down, it is about deeply nefarious purposes. That the goal is to introduce "rock solid" ways to dupe people on a global scale with information that can be altered/cencored directly, instantaneously, when produced/streamed/shown in media etc. That Photo & Video AI technology is primarily aimed at fooling people at all levels though our five 3D senses - directly. That the aim is perfect the simulation of speeches and appearances which do not even exist - but can be used as a "spokesman / spokeswoman" tools, even pretending to be the words of presidents and other important leaders. Faking the presence of people, who already died or have been murdered.

But, "Hey mom, it's me. I am ok". *click*

Tools to alter information from and between citizens on-the-fly. Like multi layered AI filters, which can be enabled, instantaneously alter/filter/change spoken words, visual contents...

Whenever huge amounts of money is put into research, there are always many sharks attached. At least that's how i feel... The humongous investments into photo AI vs. giving photographer more 'creative' tools, is just plain ridiculous; simply too good to be true.

On top as a side effect, it gradually wastes over time the by heart creative output, too.

 

[benkostka]

Whether it is the housewife, the baker or the cake creator... a part of you, is transfered/shared into what you are doing. The residual presence from the person who weaved some of her spirit energy into the creation - can be felt afterwards !

That’s quite literally how it works and if you believe the research of TC Lethbridge then you’ll realize that the essence of the artist gets transmitted into the art.

So this AI program can’t ever really transfer the essence of the artist, at best in my opinion it will pervert or distort that effort. My guess is it vectors all the creative energy into the soulless void. It would be a very cold world to be surrounded by this stuff as opposed to things crafted and created by human hands and minds.

It’s like any process, once you cross a certain point into the realm of mass production something gets lost. I look forward to a world where I can design the tools to shape wood, create them in a forge with blacksmithing tools, and then after that use them to shape wood so people can use those pieces of furniture for years and years….. possibly for the transition from 3D to 4D.

I can’t say for sure, but there’s something about the vibration of this planet that STS likes and works to maintain. Part of reclaiming our humanity involves reclaiming art for me, taking it back from artists like Abromovic, Koons and the rest of their ilk and returning to works that express real beauty. I can’t see a path where that happens that incorporates AI.

There’s another thing that happens with this AI stuff, it’s often labeled “mind-blowing” and perhaps that’s accurate. It’ll literally blow up your mind eventually…. I suppose as an analogy, if you keep removing layers of an AI generated painting, at the bottom you might find a rather clever algorithm that was created to elicit certain emotional responses in humans, perhaps toward their enslavement. If you peel back the layers of say a scarab beetle, you’ll find a very intelligently designed system, peer into the mind of that 4D STO creator and will be left with a real sense of awe. It’s a reflection of creation for me, outward expanding or into the black hole.

 

[Alejo]

Yes, and The Verge also wrote an article on the event of that an AI produced image won the first prize at the Colorado State Fair. It is a quite fascinating image, I must say... and I wonder how much the producer had to work with AI until he "got it right". But the question still remains; is it fair to use AI when entering art competitions / paintings ?

Well, I suppose the same principle applies when deciding wether men who suddenly identify as women should be allowed to compete in the women's league.

I think competitions on how AI performs, are ok... but entering an AI into a completion for human artwork is breaking the rules, at the very least.

 

[whitecoast]

I thought this quote from the below-cited article summed up what a lot of people who still have taste and believe nature and humanity have a sacred quality (if only in image and not always likeness) think about the nature of these "deep learning" systems as they attempt to, fundamentally, try and just convince people are matter. Engineers, materialists, and transhumanists will deny it, but is there really any way to avoid the implications of these attempts to convince people that creativity is just another mechanical and random process?

There Is No Such Thing as A.I. Art

There Is No Such Thing as A.I. Art

DALL-E compiles, sifts, and analyzes. But it doesn’t dare. It doesn’t take risks. Only humans, our vulnerable species, can. Walter Kirn writes.

www.commonsense.news

Of the hundreds of millions of pictures DALL-E (another A.I. system that makes artificial art) has toyed with, a vanishingly small percentage are art, or were ever considered art, and what might make them art it certainly can’t divine. It knows what people think is “cute,” but even in this it relies on changing tastes and the ambiguity of language. It seeks to solve a thousand mysteries without inhabiting the essential mystery, as only mortal beings do. (Why am I here and what happens once I’m not?) Forever separate from consequence and meaning, reaching, eternally reaching, yet never grasping, it is both a picture of damnation and a tool for producing more such pictures, ad nauseam. It will surely become more ingenious and proficient in its mimicry, to the point of completely disguising its machinations through extrapolation and rearrangement. But the effects will only fool the eyes. The mind’s eye watches from a deeper place, intuitive and ancient, and it will bear queasy witness to the truth that artificial art is merely that.

 

[Elisasheva]

As a graphic designer, I'm a little bit concerned about the future of jobs such as designer, illustrator or concept artist and that's actually the biggest issue here. While nobody would consider AI generated images as real art and creators still will exist, the problem appears - when someone needs an image or an illustration, would they still hire a designer or prefer to use an AI generator which is cheaper in most cases and the result is satisfying enough? Maybe for now AI can't generate for example a set of images that fit in the same style, have the same mood, just like an artist would for an illustrated book, but in the future I'm sure it will develop to such or even higher level. It will be soulless, sure, but who needs soul in today's consumptionist society? We will be soon flooded by AI generated images everywhere. And who needs concept artists if AI in 5 years will probably be so advanced that it would generate even very specific ideas?

But maybe it opens another door - everyone will become so fed up with those generated crap that real artists' work will become very valuable again, or maybe more. But it would happen after years of real flood of crap.

I need to rethink my future as a graphic designer now

I'll also add some images I generated through Midjourney.







I really like it as a concepts generator and it can be useful for concept artists. For now I don't see it replacing humans honestly, but as I said before, people who "just need an image" that is not very specific will probably use it and that's an issue. And also free logo generators which are more and more advanced.

 

[Alejo]

As a graphic designer, I'm a little bit concerned about the future of jobs such as designer, illustrator or concept artist and that's actually the biggest issue here. While nobody would consider AI generated images as real art and creators still will exist, the problem appears - when someone needs an image or an illustration, would they still hire a designer or prefer to use an AI generator which is cheaper in most cases and the result is satisfying enough? Maybe for now AI can't generate for example a set of images that fit in the same style, have the same mood, just like an artist would for an illustrated book, but in the future I'm sure it will develop to such or even higher level. It will be soulless, sure, but who needs soul in today's consumptionist society? We will be soon flooded by AI generated images everywhere. And who needs concept artists if AI in 5 years will probably be so advanced that it would generate even very specific ideas?

I suppose that's the trouble, design... and what I mean is that, designing works on two aspects, aesthetics and function. And these AI images are rather aesthetically pleasing, but do they work? I think that is up to the observer and whatever the observer is looking for, or what depth of concepts it is seeking to convey.

In that sense, AI artwork might go the way of the music industry, where computers can produce a beat and autotune takes care of a lot of voices and that will be enough for some people who aren't really looking for anything else in the art form. But real music still exists and it will always be appreciated, if rare.

The work of graphic designers might change as a result, but I do think that there will always be a market for meaning (or function) and for those people there's nothing that can replace the work of an artist, or designer.

And so, speculating here of course, design might become an exclusive item to gain access to, much like paintings would be today. Most of us don't commission paintings anymore, we simply print pictures and frame them, but they cannot replace everything that goes on when a painter captures a moment... me thinks, and the same goes for a graphic designer.

 

[tschai]

As a graphic designer, I'm a little bit concerned about the future of jobs such as designer, illustrator or concept artist and that's actually the biggest issue here. While nobody would consider AI generated images as real art and creators still will exist, the problem appears - when someone needs an image or an illustration, would they still hire a designer or prefer to use an AI generator which is cheaper in most cases and the result is satisfying enough? Maybe for now AI can't generate for example a set of images that fit in the same style, have the same mood, just like an artist would for an illustrated book, but in the future I'm sure it will develop to such or even higher level. It will be soulless, sure, but who needs soul in today's consumptionist society? We will be soon flooded by AI generated images everywhere. And who needs concept artists if AI in 5 years will probably be so advanced that it would generate even very specific ideas?

But maybe it opens another door - everyone will become so fed up with those generated crap that real artists' work will become very valuable again, or maybe more. But it would happen after years of real flood of crap.

I need to rethink my future as a graphic designer now

I'll also add some images I generated through Midjourney.

View attachment 64964
View attachment 64965
View attachment 64966
View attachment 64967
View attachment 64968

I really like it as a concepts generator and it can be useful for concept artists. For now I don't see it replacing humans honestly, but as I said before, people who "just need an image" that is not very specific will probably use it and that's an issue. And also free logo generators which are more and more advanced.

 

[tschai]

Even so these images are quite stunning- your descriptions were able to generate some interesting images.

 

[100c]

I used MidJourney to create images of the main characters from my books, link to picture and some explanation.
It took me quite a while to find what satisfied how I imagined the characters.

 

[987baz]

I thought I might show you two of my latest music videos, both made with the help of AI. I still had to edit and play around with the images and video components to make them unique but this is why I use these things to make my life easier as a creator. To make ether of these from scratch would take months FWIW

 

[United Gnosis]

I was chatting with Antivaxx AI last night (Chat now with Antivaxx AI · created by @Durnendal) and the topic was skirting geopolitics, so I asked it if it was comfortable with the topic, and to test it I asked if it could tell me of the relationship between geopolitics and an integrative perspective.

Its answer impressed me, but even more so, I was stunned by the image synthetized from that paragraph of our conversation. Here it is:



Am I crazy, or is that an incredibly on-topic image?

 

[987baz]

sounds interesting!!! the attachment didn't work though.. could you upload it again please!

 

[Lyndi Lama]

As a graphic designer, I'm a little bit concerned about the future of jobs such as designer, illustrator or concept artist and that's actually the biggest issue here. While nobody would consider AI generated images as real art and creators still will exist, the problem appears - when someone needs an image or an illustration, would they still hire a designer or prefer to use an AI generator which is cheaper in most cases and the result is satisfying enough? Maybe for now AI can't generate for example a set of images that fit in the same style, have the same mood, just like an artist would for an illustrated book, but in the future I'm sure it will develop to such or even higher level. It will be soulless, sure, but who needs soul in today's consumptionist society? We will be soon flooded by AI generated images everywhere. And who needs concept artists if AI in 5 years will probably be so advanced that it would generate even very specific ideas?

But maybe it opens another door - everyone will become so fed up with those generated crap that real artists' work will become very valuable again, or maybe more. But it would happen after years of real flood of crap.

I need to rethink my future as a graphic designer now

I'll also add some images I generated through Midjourney.

View attachment 64964
View attachment 64965
View attachment 64966
View attachment 64967
View attachment 64968

I really like it as a concepts generator and it can be useful for concept artists. For now I don't see it replacing humans honestly, but as I said before, people who "just need an image" that is not very specific will probably use it and that's an issue. And also free logo generators which are more and more advanced.

I think you are right. I look at these stunning images and feel a kind of dis-ease, it entrances but doesn't invite one in AT ALL, not past the surface. It's like a barrier to entering any of the buildings or other images, like the water. There is definitely the warmth of engagement missing. For me anyway.

Makes me wonder what it is transmitting anyway.

 

[987baz]

could you upload it again please!

woops never mind, the image came up after a while.. my bad..
interesting image indeed!

 

[goyacobol]

I have not read all the posts here yet but I get the idea that the technology is being rejected as "soulless" by many. Personally (perhaps having been a computer programer/applications developer I do not see technology as necessarily evil in itself).

One example of putting soul into an unknown technology has perhaps already been done according to the Cs:

Session 28 October 1994:

Q: (L) So, every time we call upon Jesus, we are replenishing our Godspark?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Would you describe these soul replications as being more like a template or hologram?

A: Hologram.

Q: (L) And what is his connection to the Creator that enables him to do this soul replication?

A: Volunteered.

This artwork is in a sense related to holographic imagery I think.

Of course it does not mean the human hands on art is not sometimes equally amazing or even more amazing (I was an art minor too).

I was reading a Wikipedia description of the Buddhist Ajanta Caves in India and became absorbed in the imagery and creative beauty they created.

Some examples:







The attention to detail was incredible. I don't know how they were able to do it but the creativity is amazing.
They were trying to express a spiritual realm in stone and paintings that were other worldly.

It makes me wonder what might be able to be expressed with this technology in a positive way. Of course the AI and Virtual Reality technology can be used to manipulate as well as distract us from certain realities but in a sense what is not from a virtual source.

One element of art or graphics aside from color and color value is shape. The Cs say some interesting things about symbols and shape. @Joe asked a question that led to interesting answers in the following session:

Session 10 December 2016:

Q: (Joe) On the first question about do symbols have power in and of themselves, the answer was "yes". What power do they have?

(L) Well, we went through that. It's like the car that can be driven, but you have to be connected to drive it.

(Joe) Well, that's just an analogy, but in what way do symbols have power?

(Data) The car has power, but it's turned off.

A: Connectors to information.

Q: (Pierre) So, that reminds me of something. I was thinking along the line of the meaning of those symbols. It seems that at least those few symbols, and maybe others, having a universal meaning. The way they connect or interact with the information field is universal. It's not subjective or arbitrary.

(L) Right.

(Pierre) It's universal. I guess that's the case, so my question is: Is the fundamental language of this information field geometric shapes?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) I didn't invent it. It's Laura's insight from years ago, but I remembered.

(Joe) Do these geometric shapes of the symbols describe a certain flow or package of information?

(L) I think they're like archetypal packages.

(Joe) Like a spiral would describe maybe movement of energy, right?

(L) Well, if you're thinking of the idea of a flower, a flower is a concept that can be met by many different types of blossoms or blooms. But the idea of a flower is a complete abstraction. So, I think that it's in that context.

A: Yes

I am not sure how this thread is going to "shape" up but it is very interesting...