This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The best video concerning this issue is still on the metaphor of Lace.
Or as Kasparov said: let us become centaurs! Let the computer handle tactics, and I'll oversee the broad strokes of the Strategy! He has always been arrogant.
But this metaphor is lacking, isn't it. Because there's only so much you can do to make lace fancy. It's always been a pure show of skill. Art is deeper.
What you're discovering with Stable Diffusion is that it's a low-level skill prosthesis: very good at rendering, silly at composition, near completely unable to work with concepts. This is the rough pattern of automation in a given field: the technology begins with eating the routine technique. Abstractions follow. Technique on the level that is aesthetically pleasing is so hard for humans to master, it's the subject of such envy and crab mentality, that the development of style (in gwern's definition, «some principled, real, systematic visual system of esthetics») is, among serious artists, from what I can tell, roughly synonymous with the mastering of techniques, and artists have come to scorn «idea guys». For the most part I believe they're stupid doomed crabs who struggle to trace coomer "art" over photos of their onlyfans colleagues of the opposite gender, Stable Diffusion is the great equalizer, and ideas matter a lot more than technique; but with passage of time, the role of centaurs and chimeras and man-machine collaboration will shrivel up, as stronger models master radically more abstract and large-scale skills – from rendering technique to composition to coloring to «taste» to... As in chess and go, so in art: at some point, one machine makes the Move 37 and that's it.
So in writing. I've read this today, a work of greentext prose by GPT-3, prompted by Connor Leahy (h/t gwern). It's perfect «metamodernism», oscillating from clownery to sincerity, scarily compelling, at times haunting. At times painfully lame – but I've seen flesh-and-blood writers fail harder, especially in sci-fi. I recommend you check it out.
...it's crucial, though, that real ideas aren't «options». They aren't even «choices». They are, to put it naively, transcendent events, grasping entire insights from beyond the distribution. Artists have a point. There is a difference between pro-consuming, deigning to snap together a minimal viable element of novelty, a medium-tiddy anime PLUS impressionism DOG! girl with BURGERS in some harder pose, like most anons on 4chan are content to do, – and a creative act, even if expressed in largely the same behaviors. Perhaps creative acts can be mastered starting with this play. Perhaps artists are right and you need the pain of the grind to earn the key to creativity. Perhaps it's only given to some, but is given irrevocably. This almost feels Gnostic. As an Idea Guy, I'd like to believe the latter. But even if I arrive at a visual idea – how do I prompt it? How does one summon into existence this, before it is drawn by Syd Mead? Is spoken language humans can realistically use even expressive enough?
Most «artists» are illustrators, and most illustrators can be replaced by a guy who's mastered Stable Diffusion (realistically, SD+ that's been pumped to Midjourney V4 level) plus a couple of inpainting/img2img/prompt2prompt techniques, like me and you, because most illustrations are trash. But that's not very interesting. There does exist original art, it's qualitatively different from this, and it remains to be seen if AI tools will reveal any Idea Guys as real artists who have been merely technique-deficient. As far as patterns go... The prior art is not encouraging.
(Both «Idea guy» and «creative choice» are terms @FCfromSSC has used a couple of weeks ago. I've written half a post, been procrastinating to respond to him and now it's probably too stale.)
I know that feel. You should finish it, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
A big advantage of the grind is that it works from both ends of the chasm. Working problems gives you a clearer, more systemic understanding of their solutions, and also a language with which to communicate those solutions, while also increasing your ability to actually implement solutions yourself. Ideally, you end up in an area where you can both show and tell, and both the showing and the telling cover for each others' deficiencies. Frequently, there's a problem that I'm having trouble putting into words, so I make a quick sketch. Or the opposite, there's a sketch I can't get right, but I can describe what I'm going for. The grind gives me a deeper understanding of the structure of art, a whole multitude of hooks to hang different concepts on so I can think about them in an organized fashion.
I think that Syd Mead picture is in fact expressible in words. But it would take a whole lot of words, where some form of meta-collage would be vastly easier and clearer. The video you linked of the guy doing step-by-step infilling and editing, we both recognize that's baby steps. Something more mature would be a 3d-volume with a camera, where you can position elements, each of which have their own prompt-identity, and then apply an overall prompt to the scene as a whole. fine control over elements and composition, blending to overall control of the style, lighting and so on.
I enjoyed this quite a bit, but I enjoyed your plantae story below quite a bit more. I think you sell yourself a bit short, sir.
I think you need the pain of a grind. I'm not sure it matters much what you're grinding. You need to learn that there's good ideas and bad ideas, and to gain the ability to discern between them. And to do that, you need an understanding of the underlying mechanics of your chosen medium, so that you can think and talk meaningfully about it. I have zero doubt that AI tools can provide this grind, because the core questions remain the same: "is this good? Why or why not? how do I make it better?" If you're asking that, you're an artist already.
I'll leave aside img2img and inpainting and other gimmicks, because ultimately they do not allow fine control of pixel values of the finished product, and using a normal editor to get there is just the stone soup route.
To the first approximation, promptgrinding and drawgrinding are similar in that one internalizes reproducible patterns of affecting the medium, and with any luck, gets closer to transferring imagination onto the canvas. But under scrutiny this charitable analogy breaks down, which is why /ic/ crabs feel in their gut (but can't explain without appealing to SOVL and bashing pajeets etc.) that «this is not art» as normally conceived, not even digital illustration art.
The thing is simply that drawing is the realm of continuous effects, iterating over a smooth isomorphic fitness landscape towards perfection; one can make a gotcha with pixel art, but usually digital environments emulate the truly continuous traditional medium. This is how we learn, this is how we perceive getting better, minimizing the deviation. Prompting, like text generation, are discrete procedures. It's not an accident that «AI art» tends towards gacha rolls: there's the ease of getting good-enough stuff, there's the low bandwidth of prompting, but the fundamental issue is that combinatorics of token interpretation are inherently jumpy, so the feedback is discontinuous, and such a surface is qualitatively much harder to master on a level that's deeper than memorizing cheap rules of thumb – for our natural learning algorithm, at least. And perhaps for any learning algorithm, seeing as image diffusion generation (continuous process) runs circles around autoregressive next token prediction in terms of wow effect per FLOP.
We're making progress in diffusion for text, though – perhaps making text gen more human-like (at least I sort of feel the diffusion of meanings when I write). And we're making progress on interpreting the black box gacha mechanic and controlling its attention maps. With a few more tricks, such as bringing back latent space exploration (that was developed for GANs), I hope to see a qualitative breakthrough in interfaces that will finally fit like a glove and improve on traditional continuous-effect GUI editors, rather than on CLI programs with output to a GUI plugin.
But it's a serious ergonomic design challenge, maybe on par with creating GUIs as a concept, so for now it's fair to say that prompting is not a human-worthy way to learn to do art, even if it's a great shortcut to illustrating concepts.
Then again, I take issue with drawing too. Prompting is unnatural bullshit in a whole another dimension.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting here. Are you envisioning a future where you just tell the AGI "make me something" and it handles everything from conceptualization to planning the story beats to the final rendering?
There is some limit, somewhere, to how much visual information you're able to encode in text. Otherwise, it seems plausible to imagine that a written description of an image would be an acceptable substitute for the image itself. But, it's not. You have to actually look at the thing to know what it looks like.
The appropriate thought experiment here is to imagine that you have a true AGI, and it can draw better than any human artist. Your own personal artist-slave at your beck and call, 24/7. Could you truly communicate to it everything that's in your head using only words, no images? Not even crude MS Paint sketches to indicate the sort of composition or mood you want? I suppose that's partially dependent on what's in your head and how much specificity you desire, but I think plenty of people would still find reason to communicate with the AGI in images and sketches, and not just purely in words.
Many years before AI art existed, I would see game programmers say things like "I just want to be able to draw well enough to get my ideas across to an artist, so he can finish them". It seems they also had the intuition that they wouldn't be able to fully communicate their visual ideas in words alone.
Seems like as good a time to ask as any.
I know you've talked in the past about how you're excited about the possibility of SD to level the playing field of visual expression, and enable people to express political and philosophical messages that they weren't able to before. Do you have any projects in mind that you want to accomplish with SD? Have you been playing around with it?
This will be done at some point, assuming no political hurdles. Taken literally, this will amount to a gacha roll, hardly any different from current prompt combinatorics. «Make me something with the quality of Netflix slop, but a better fit for my data-mined profile» plus a few tags to taste – I'd say it's more commendable than consuming Netflix propaganda, but it's not an artistic act on your part, indeed any more than ordering a dish and asking for it to be extra spicy makes one a chef.
Technically there isn't; after all, images are 0s and 1s as well. But my point is more that natural languages do not lend themselves naturally to describing very specific visuals. Imagine Syd had his hands crushed in a road accident, but was otherwise intact. Would he be able to create an equal piece of art using an «art slave» as you put it, or simply a very responsive AI, talking about tones and shapes and reflections and such, especially not referencing prior work? I get that text is the universal interface, but eh... sounds bothersome. And leaving aside subtleties lost in translation – how much of the original image even was in Syd's head, imagined ex nihilo, versus discovered serendipitously through actual work of drawing the piece, stroke by stroke, both «at inference time» and over the decades of «training the network»? Also, how well could that iterative process be substituted in collaboration with a command-interpreting «slave»? Great painters offloaded much of their work to assistants, but they could do the job of any given assistant even better… Then again, high-level imagination can be lost in the work, or perhaps exposed as a half-baked incoherent dream…
Those are not obvious questions to me. I do not wish to look down on manual technique, no matter how much /ic/ type artists beclown themselves with shitty arguments. It's a travesty that humans have to do art in such an inefficient manner (animation is the worst sort of bullshit – 1D acts to construct a 4D object!), but in practice it appears to be either very important or fully necessary to build one's creative ability.
It isn't sufficient, though, so some crabs clearly have no legs to stand on while they bash prompters.
I have, but playing around is the right way to put it.
My excitement was vicarious, on behalf of young people who haven't had the time or the insanity to acquire technique, yet believe they have something to show. It'll be more than a bit ridiculous to ape being a Creative now. This was a self-deprecating use of the term; I used to be an Idea Guy, but my Ideas are shriveled up and dead, visual or otherwise, just a dust-collecting folder with drafts. I'm not good at technique either. Sometimes I test it. For example, two months ago when I was dining out and saw this writingprompts thread «When humanity went extinct... Earth is now dominated by sentient trees» obviously baiting environmentalist nuts, and quickly wrote this , in the dry style of gwern prose.
It'd be relatively easy to expand my sketch into a larger-scale story, and illustrate with SD or Midjourney; I can envision most separate pieces. It'd communicate some of my politics and philosophy too. What would be the point, though? Even for better concepts of my own invention – who would need it? This tech is wasted on me, I admit it freely.
But there are other people.
What's the point of writing posts here? Communication and creation are their own rewards. Making something that you and others can enjoy is a delightful thing.
I find myself in much the same position. My head was once full of fascinating ideas, mostly abandoned now that I have an actual job. But it still has some of them, and I still grind a bit now and again trying to express them, and derive enjoyment thereby. Maybe I'll get around to pushing them out someday. The future is not closed until we are dead and gone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Credit where credit is due, I got a full two - three dozen lines lines into the story before the uncanny valley effect killed it. I feel like that might be a record for GPT-N generated text, though part of it might be the performative inhumanity of the green-text format masking the inhumanity of the machine.
Regarding the rest, I think that one of the great triumphs/tragedies of modernism has been the shift in emphasis from message to technique. IE once upon a time it was widely understood that the mark of great art, was the ability to convey complex messages to as broad an audience as possible. But lately the consensus has shifted towards esotericism. the more inaccessible and obscure a work the greater the value. I'm remain deeply skeptical of current machine-generated art at least at this stage in large part because it's pretty clear that it has nothing to say. But I have to thank you because reading your description here I think I am beginning to grasp why so many people are freaking out about it. To the degree that ML enables laymen to duplicate previously difficult techniques it completely upends the modern artist's entire worldview/business. They're mid level portrait painters suddenly recognizing that photography is about to make the jobs of all but the most gifted portraitist obsolete. After all, Why pay [deviant artist] for colored pencil drawings of different characters from Harry Potter fucking each other when you can roll your own.
Those sorts of ideas are considered old-fashioned (and elitist! and racist!) in the high art world now.
In literary circles, it's all about elevating previously marginalized voices, writing about the sorts of things that marginalized people like to write about, in a language that marginalized people can easily understand. Just look at who's winning awards, who's getting positions and grants from universities, and who's getting assigned on college syllabuses.
As for visual arts, this year's Documenta was more akin to a street festival than a traditional art exhibition. Imposing and inscrutable works of high modernism replaced with food stands, half-pipes for skateboarding, and graffiti murals.
Certainly even the "high" art world isn't a monolith, but pursuing obscurity for its own sake is generally considered suspicious now; it's an abdication of "social responsibility".
:doubt:
They might make pleasing mouth noises about "elevating marginalized voices" but what does the high art world do? what is their nature?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link