pouët.net

I don't think it's lame if it's credited and if it serves a creativity/productivity purpose.
In the same way it's cool when a coder make a prod using a royalty-free soundtrack (instead of NO PROD).

I don't like AI interfering in human activity at all. I'm reminded of this exchange in an old movie:

"Computers are just machines, they can't think."
"But programs will be thinking soon."
"(chuckles) Won't that be grand? The computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop."

This is from Tron, Disney, 1982. How prescient is that? It's coming true already.

It leaves a very bad aftertaste to see that AI generated stuff in that Amiga demo and as it seems kind of against the compo rules...and at least declare it! That said, I'd love to have a totally separate thing were you have let's say 300 words or something to describe the picture for your AI like you create it in ChatGPT and both could be judged. Could be done in a way a fast intro was done before with like 3 keywords or something. Because that's creative in it's own way and the text is up to your imagination. I tried with friends and it was fun. Is it really art ? I guess the text yes, the art, not, ...no clue...

AI "art" should never be tolerated in the scene. Not even as a source of inspiration. Period.

@OlaHime: Don‘t think so. Artist always use inspiration, like other art, google image searched etc. Why not use AI generated art as a inspirational base for your own work. It would be like a paintover.

And there’s another thing with AI. Now it‘s a buzzword and everything is labeled AI, even when it’s a toaster. But sometimes in the future a lot of software will have AI integrated and it‘s just a tool. (Like contextual image-filling in photoshop).

Meanwhile, at Revision oldschool graphics competition: link

Without mentioning the usage of AI, one suggests having it all done themselves.
Honesty is key to an 'fair' competition.

isnt the tools discussion ages old? where does "AI" begin? photoshop filters get better and better too, do you want full disclosure which effects were used? where to draw the line?
if you let an AI master your compo-track instead of using your own ears, is that cheating?
the list is really endless and in the end i think its about the result. if it looks like generic ai stuff just dont vote it high? is an image pixeled in dpaint with 100+ hours of work automagically better than a better looking image done using modern tools in 5 hours with the same limitations?

if you want a really fair game i guess you have to put people in front of pre-installed computers at party time and give everyone the same chance and requirements.

AI generated "content" is a piss and a shit in the face of creativity, and allowing it in compos is to piss and take a shit in the face of people that value creativity.

It’s quiet funny that the art-stealing-discussion takes place in a culture where it seems totally okay to ripoff other artists by pixeling their art without giving credit or take movie-scenes and make them realtime while copying the whole image composition and/or colors.

Sorry, I take that back.
Taking a piss and a shit in someones face would actually involve some kind of creativity. Using AI generated content doesn't.

ah great, the "there is no creativity involved" argument. well, that settles the discussion.

you can say a lot of things about AI generated content: it takes less work for a person to generate something, it possibly infrings on someones copyright until its properly regulated, or that you just dont like it an will never use it.

but it does most definitely imply _some_ creativity to use applied to your objectives. sure it's much easier to say it's none. and insultingly funny to say shit and piss is more creative. but then you're also implying photography has no creativity compared to painting. or driving a car has no creativity compared to riding a horse. or internet has no creativity compared to sending disks in the post. it's a fucking tech paradigm shift. you can't compare apples and oranges. or well, you can, but then you're making a fool of yourself. AI generated content is not 0 creative value. it can be a lot of bad things, but please stop insulting the millions of people who use it creatively every day just because you don't like it. makes you look stupid.

I'm going to start submitting scat porn to compos.

For those who claim that there is no creative process generating something using AI: Maybe it's time for you to just try it out yourself. Most of you have moved away from dpaint by now, too, right? And steam locomotives also aren't regarded as an evil force anymore, either.

It's a tool. It can be used in a lame way, it can be used in a creative way. Like all the other tools we have.

I think it's time that we get some seminars offered by scene artists who have been using AI in creative processes.

Again, personally, I just want to know what tools have been used on a production so I can judge it better when voting. Everybody can decide for themselves if something still is considered an achievement. Yes, I do judge something done in cables or notch differently than an amiga demo coded in assembly, breaking boundaries. But that's up to me. I just need to know "ah, this is a 'demo' done with ... hahahaa NODEJS!", and I'm good. :)

Assuming that people that doesn't like AI generated stuff just need to try it out themselves is... stupid. I have used it myself as a tool, and the technology is extremely cool in itself, and I have nothing against the technology. It have it's place and use, for sure, but that doesn't mean that I like every kind of use.
The human body is fucking cool, but I don't like to eat shit and I see no meaning in participating in scat gang bangs or watching scat porn. I have no problem with others doing stuff like that, but I personally have no interesting in enjoying all textures and tastes in a steaming turd.

@scamp: But to just name the AI-tool isn’t solving this problem. Because you said it yourself, you can use these tools in lame ways or in creative ways. So if someone mentions Midjourney for example you don’t know if a complete image was used created by AI or it was just used to get inspiration and create something totally new.

Adding to psenoughs point, there’s also the problem with music created with a computer. There are people out there that don’t see this as real music because it isn’t played on real instruments. And this list of comparisons can go on and on.

I wouldn't say that generated music isn't music, but that doesn't mean that I want generated music in music competitions.

...wait, what the fuck?

Like, do you genuinely think that riding a horse (or driving a car, for that matter) requires creativity?

'cos that would explain A LOT.

there seems to be a willful denial going on here where people attempt to equate "computer DAWs and synthesizers" or "photoshop filters" with what's going on w/ image synthesis algorithms trained on 1000000000 pictures. like surely you guys have to recognize there's a difference here, right?

You can ride a car (or a horse) creatively:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/0c/cb/ac0ccbfa234cc729b99f5f3b61720319.jpg

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_horsing

As an introduction to "AI" / machine learning (ML), I found @blackle's ShaderToy entry quite interesting. She also recorded a YT video (see link in the entry description) which explains what's going on / how it's done.
The shader mainly consists of the network's tensor matrices / activation functions (sin) and is generated by a script.
The input is the screen position and the output is the (approximated) signed distance to the 3D object the network was trained for.
It's a good example because it is rather simple (on a side note: the original, uncompressed object file is ~22mb uncompressed, the (naively, just for testing) 7z -mx9 compressed, model-specific GLSL code (scene() function) is ~2.5kb)

TL;DR: train your own networks

@hornpipe2: I didn’t equate computer music to AI-use. Read again. I was referring to psenoughs post where he lists for example photography vs. painting. All of this is art. Computer music or with real instruments. And so AI can be used for art too. But this does not automatically mean that everything created using AI is art. But the other extreme aka „nothing“ also isn’t true.