My ethical qualm with AI generated art is that it is trained using art from artists who have not given consent, and then distills it down without adding a human voice, which for me is what makes art interesting. The images can look super cool but it takes away potential business from human artists. One can argue that any art is informed by all art that came before it, and this is true. There is nothing new under the sun. But the expression of art as filtered through a human mind and creativity cannot be duplicated by a machine.
Actually, I think the ability of AI to duplicate it is the main fear. As for the business end...I think that is already under greater attack by our economic systems and cultural perversions than AI can possible duplicate as a threat.
I’m in agreement beat for beat. For instance, knowing the circumstances around your fortuitous discovery of the art that graces the cover of The Seven Madmen and The Flamethrowers adds substantially to my treasuring of the book. I don’t have my copy on me so I can’t give the artist credit here, but this demonstrates that mere awareness of the human dimension is invaluable… even, so to speak, worth its weight in international shipping costs.
AI Art is certainly an interesting and complex issue. I agree with Wendy's comment about how precarious this technology came to be and would like to add that by using AI Art you are inadvertently including the tastes, preferences, and biases of whoever programmed these tools into your artistic output. I've seen a wide array of AI Art and most of it is not really my thing. That being said, I have seen some projects that are AI generated that are interesting, not necessarily in their visual appeal, but in their commentary on what art is and how it is created. As well as the surreal nature of memory and the uncanny when it comes to how many of these programs really are just an amalgamation of hundreds, if not thousands, of previously existing ideas. I'd be interested in hearing more from Zach as to why this was a part of his creative process for this cover. I agree that his covers are often a highlight of Corona/Samizdat output and there are a multitude of reasons why AI was implemented. Whether it be for saving time, artistic style, or creating something that he was limited in doing manually.
I’m intrigued by the book; the title alone grabbed me, more so than the art. But one look at the art and it was pretty obvious that it was AI generated. It looks fine but I don’t like AI-generated art, for a variety of reasons.
...and unfortunately most people (not you Rick, not I) will find what AI creates perfectly acceptable for drowning out the voices in their head. And that means that the corporate MACHINE of Capitalism is salivating over the possibilities coz PESKY HUMANS? NO NEED ANYMORE WOOT WOOT WOOOOT PROFITS AWESOME (and just to make clear: I LOVE technology IF it is 100% in the HANDS OF THE CREATIVE WORKING CLASS! This is ALL about incentives made by capital!)
addendum: Rick you will NEVER be replaceable with an AI no matter how fast tech progresses = your tangents are more unpredictable than a Frank Zappa guitar solo so THANK YOU!!!!!
My ethical qualm with AI generated art is that it is trained using art from artists who have not given consent, and then distills it down without adding a human voice, which for me is what makes art interesting. The images can look super cool but it takes away potential business from human artists.
One can argue that any art is informed by all art that came before it, and this is true. There is nothing new under the sun. But the expression of art as filtered through a human mind and creativity cannot be duplicated by a machine.
Actually, I think the ability of AI to duplicate it is the main fear. As for the business end...I think that is already under greater attack by our economic systems and cultural perversions than AI can possible duplicate as a threat.
I’m in agreement beat for beat. For instance, knowing the circumstances around your fortuitous discovery of the art that graces the cover of The Seven Madmen and The Flamethrowers adds substantially to my treasuring of the book. I don’t have my copy on me so I can’t give the artist credit here, but this demonstrates that mere awareness of the human dimension is invaluable… even, so to speak, worth its weight in international shipping costs.
And Randall Leong sounds like an exciting writer.
The artist is Vasco Vidmar.
Vasko, and thanks for giving the credit.
AI Art is certainly an interesting and complex issue. I agree with Wendy's comment about how precarious this technology came to be and would like to add that by using AI Art you are inadvertently including the tastes, preferences, and biases of whoever programmed these tools into your artistic output.
I've seen a wide array of AI Art and most of it is not really my thing. That being said, I have seen some projects that are AI generated that are interesting, not necessarily in their visual appeal, but in their commentary on what art is and how it is created. As well as the surreal nature of memory and the uncanny when it comes to how many of these programs really are just an amalgamation of hundreds, if not thousands, of previously existing ideas.
I'd be interested in hearing more from Zach as to why this was a part of his creative process for this cover. I agree that his covers are often a highlight of Corona/Samizdat output and there are a multitude of reasons why AI was implemented. Whether it be for saving time, artistic style, or creating something that he was limited in doing manually.
Zach just followed the author's wishes, as is our policy. This is the first time ai came up.
I’m intrigued by the book; the title alone grabbed me, more so than the art. But one look at the art and it was pretty obvious that it was AI generated. It looks fine but I don’t like AI-generated art, for a variety of reasons.
AI has sooo many issues but the main one is exploitation of people who are already not making ANY money :(
...and unfortunately most people (not you Rick, not I) will find what AI creates perfectly acceptable for drowning out the voices in their head. And that means that the corporate MACHINE of Capitalism is salivating over the possibilities coz PESKY HUMANS? NO NEED ANYMORE WOOT WOOT WOOOOT PROFITS AWESOME (and just to make clear: I LOVE technology IF it is 100% in the HANDS OF THE CREATIVE WORKING CLASS! This is ALL about incentives made by capital!)
addendum: Rick you will NEVER be replaceable with an AI no matter how fast tech progresses = your tangents are more unpredictable than a Frank Zappa guitar solo so THANK YOU!!!!!