One thing I wish image generators would do: add a chat interface, where you chat back and forth with the tool about the images you're generating, with it asking leading questions or offering suggestions if you seem to be getting frustrated. Add to that the ability to select areas to work on, or sketch in ideas - ideally while talking about the ideas, like "I want a small crowd of people here, all facing a prophet type figure standing over here preaching to them."
Putting this in a separate comment because it's way simpler: Curation is probably one of the most important factors of what is and isn't art, and very few people have been trained to treat "curation" as an art. The only field I can really think of that does are fashionistas, where a lot of their work involves combining existing garments for very precise purposes. Next closest thing I can think of are art directors / editors, where a lot of the work is examining a work and giving feedback on how it can be improved and often having to do the work to demonstrate the possibly improvement. But usually a writer's editor is not described as an editor and an art director is treated more like a "boss" than an artist.
1:00:57 “Yeah, I think they are based in Tasmania, so you can draw your own conclusions. No offense, Tasmanians, but everyone knows the facts.” I’m not even in Australia but somehow I found this really funny. 😂
"Art is inspired by other art" yes, I generally agree with that sentiment personally. Every artist is kinda taking in their internal inspiration/filter from the collective experience of everything they've seen and lived through and dreamed, and then they almost always pick a couple of specific references to use for new serious works. But I think you're way overthinking the procreate thing. It really is as simple as "the guy with the influence is pissed off about big tech feeding them BS about Generative Machine Learning tech so they don't want it in their product". And that happens to align with the perceived existential threat of *many* artists who have historically made barely minimum-wage type pay for the amount of work they put in. It putting them in the news cycle for now is be fortunate benefit for them. Buuuuut really this is just loop, what, 5? Of "Store-bought paint? That's not real art!" "Photography isn't real art!" -> "Digital art isn't real art!" -> "3D Animation isn't real animation!" -> "Diffusion Art isn't real art!" They definitely have a _bit_ of justified fury with people having their data sucked up secret and used to put them out of work. But I think the _real_ underlying reason this kneejerk continues to persist over decades is as the floor quality of work rises rapidly and it becomes difficult to tell how much quality of the work is from the artist VS the tool, people start getting worried about getting tricked by people passing mostly generated work as their own personal skill. Like, imagine if somebody bought a pack of construction paper from the store, bur the construction paper is so pretty that they went and sold that to other people as their own art. Doing that straight from the packet? Kinda sus. Cutting it into fancy shapes made to order for people who like the look of the paper? Sure, that's kinda fine. Doing a lot of tweaks and composition on top of the paper to make something distinct to that person's curated tastes and goals? That's kinda just what art has always been.
What is then? Testing the way each model interprets prompts is fundamentally a fair way to test as that is part of the user experience. It's like saying you can't compare cars because you aren't an expert in driving each distinct brand of car.
![[June 2022] Will AI really make graphic designers obsolete?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LMT-RO-_TbA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[June 2022] Will AI really make graphic designers obsolete?](/img/tr.png)
Loved waking up and seeing Ideogram inisde Simtheory today. Very cool. @1:01, Chris Mentions a Tasmania youtuber. Have you got that channel link?
www.youtube.com/@tokyospliff
I don’t know how you guys can consistently crank out these Boom Factor 5.0 episodes!
One thing I wish image generators would do: add a chat interface, where you chat back and forth with the tool about the images you're generating, with it asking leading questions or offering suggestions if you seem to be getting frustrated. Add to that the ability to select areas to work on, or sketch in ideas - ideally while talking about the ideas, like "I want a small crowd of people here, all facing a prophet type figure standing over here preaching to them."
Yes. Agreed.
Enjoying using Sim theory, thanks for adding Ideogram support - can't wait to check it out.
Putting this in a separate comment because it's way simpler:
Curation is probably one of the most important factors of what is and isn't art, and very few people have been trained to treat "curation" as an art. The only field I can really think of that does are fashionistas, where a lot of their work involves combining existing garments for very precise purposes.
Next closest thing I can think of are art directors / editors, where a lot of the work is examining a work and giving feedback on how it can be improved and often having to do the work to demonstrate the possibly improvement. But usually a writer's editor is not described as an editor and an art director is treated more like a "boss" than an artist.
Add legit DJs, music Producers/Remixers as well
1:00:57 “Yeah, I think they are based in Tasmania, so you can draw your own conclusions. No offense, Tasmanians, but everyone knows the facts.”
I’m not even in Australia but somehow I found this really funny. 😂
Another average episode! Thanks guys. Keep up the average work.
segment anything by meta. that's wild so could be applied to layers?
Ideogram 2.0 is great:) I use AI not for productivity boost I use it for worflows that I am not able to do by myself:)
An average pod but with no k-nearest neighbours in sight ❤
I love the censor button you've got! It's the only censorship I really like!
perfectly average boom factor on this one
"Art is inspired by other art" yes, I generally agree with that sentiment personally. Every artist is kinda taking in their internal inspiration/filter from the collective experience of everything they've seen and lived through and dreamed, and then they almost always pick a couple of specific references to use for new serious works.
But I think you're way overthinking the procreate thing. It really is as simple as "the guy with the influence is pissed off about big tech feeding them BS about Generative Machine Learning tech so they don't want it in their product". And that happens to align with the perceived existential threat of *many* artists who have historically made barely minimum-wage type pay for the amount of work they put in. It putting them in the news cycle for now is be fortunate benefit for them. Buuuuut really this is just loop, what, 5? Of "Store-bought paint? That's not real art!" "Photography isn't real art!" -> "Digital art isn't real art!" -> "3D Animation isn't real animation!" -> "Diffusion Art isn't real art!"
They definitely have a _bit_ of justified fury with people having their data sucked up secret and used to put them out of work. But I think the _real_ underlying reason this kneejerk continues to persist over decades is as the floor quality of work rises rapidly and it becomes difficult to tell how much quality of the work is from the artist VS the tool, people start getting worried about getting tricked by people passing mostly generated work as their own personal skill. Like, imagine if somebody bought a pack of construction paper from the store, bur the construction paper is so pretty that they went and sold that to other people as their own art. Doing that straight from the packet? Kinda sus. Cutting it into fancy shapes made to order for people who like the look of the paper? Sure, that's kinda fine. Doing a lot of tweaks and composition on top of the paper to make something distinct to that person's curated tastes and goals? That's kinda just what art has always been.
The ink doesn’t look realistic at all, sorry. But I like the fact that ideogram outputs more average looking people.
I had the same impression. In fact, the hand doesn’t look realistic. It looks like it’s covered with a skin-tight film.
Same prompt in different models is not a comparison
What is then? Testing the way each model interprets prompts is fundamentally a fair way to test as that is part of the user experience. It's like saying you can't compare cars because you aren't an expert in driving each distinct brand of car.
It's pronounced more the way "idiot" is pronounced at the start. I'm not sure why just about the whole world is saying it wrong.
Average !
i deo o gram? id eo gram.