How AI art killed an indie book cover contest

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's not the same as humans inspired by other humans.

The obvious (but quite relevant) answer to this is: "says you."

Nothing you've said on the subject has inspired me to believe you are correct. Saying what you say repeatedly does not make it an objective truth. It's still only subjective opinion that--clearly--not everyone shares.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I've never written that.

Don't conflate tools, even ones using AI as branding, and these ecologically damaging AI enabled by content scraped of the internet.

It's not the same as humans inspired by other humans.

You tend to write very long blowhard posts. But you don't show that you read posts against yours very carefully, if at all.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

...

Don't conflate tools, even ones using AI as branding, and these ecologically damaging AI enabled by content scraped of the internet.

...

Ecologically?

[Dsharma]

The way I see it, the use of AI in any form of artistry shouldn't be considered a drawback or a cheat; rather, it should be seen as an extension of the tools at an artist's disposal. Technology has been an integral part of art throughout history - be it the advent of photography, Photoshop, or now AI. Each of these tools presents a unique opportunity to push the boundaries of creativity.
The book cover situation is indeed a bit unfortunate, especially if the contest guidelines were clear about not using AI tools. But at the same time, we need to evolve with the times. Just like the Tron situation you mentioned, it's necessary for contests, awards, and audiences to adapt and understand the potential these new tools carry.
However, I understand the other side of the argument too. AI's potential to completely auto-generate content can be worrisome. But a line needs to be drawn between fully AI-generated work and work where AI was used as a tool, among others, in the creative process. Perhaps the latter should be welcomed and encouraged.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by John F

Ecologically?

These LLM AI programs like ChatGPT use more electricity than all of bitcoin. And that, many claim, is bad for the environment.

As for the art - who cares as long as it's good?

The problem I have with AI is that it produces boring stuff. Yes, the art, voices and written material is "impressive", but it's not something I'd want to watch, listen to or read, so I don't see the point.

[John F]

Originally Posted by kandwo

These LLM AI programs like ChatGPT use more electricity than all of bitcoin. And that, many claim, is bad for the environment.

...

So the AI used in producing something (say the art cover discussed in this thread) uses more electricity then a person producing the same thing not using the AI?

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by kandwo

These LLM AI programs like ChatGPT use more electricity than all of bitcoin.

Link?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by kandwo

These LLM AI programs like ChatGPT use more electricity than all of bitcoin. And that, many claim, is bad for the environment.

Not more than bitcoin, which uses as much as Switzerland. But "Training" is a severe use of electricity. Many datacentres also use up water. The Register mention 5 litres of waste water on a Chat GPT query.
Some "AI" systems are quite acceptable. One test is can it run on a PC / Mac / Raspberry Pi, or does it need a substantial data centre with power hungry GPUs?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

So the AI used in producing something (say the art cover discussed in this thread) uses more electricity then a person producing the same thing not using the AI?

It depends on the kind and scale of AI. An image that can only be produced by a system hosted and trained in a datacenter may use 1000s of times the energy of an "AI" plugin running on your own computer.
Note, I'm not just making up opinions, but what I've written on the subject is based on decades of programming, R&D, study of AI or Expert Systems and research of more technical websites, not hype gasping media.

It's not simple, but follow the money. Look behind the curtain at what resources are needed to train and deploy and who is backing / financing. Is a tool only via a corporate data centre or can it run on a computer in the office, stand alone?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Is a tool only via a corporate data centre or can it run on a computer in the office, stand alone?

It's not limited to either/or. What they need to run is not relevant to whether or not they can be accurately called "tools." Whether or not they can accurately be called tools is not relevant to discussions about whether they are good/bad/neither.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It depends on the kind and scale of AI. An image that can only be produced by a system hosted and trained in a datacenter may use 1000s of times the energy of an "AI" plugin running on your own computer.
Note, I'm not just making up opinions, but what I've written on the subject is based on decades of programming, R&D, study of AI or Expert Systems and research of more technical websites, not hype gasping media.

...

Let's take the worst case: a system hosted and trained in a datacenter. How does that compare to the ecological effects of an artist professionally trained and producing without the tools. If you are talking about training, don't forget the cost of all the "training" going into an artist.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's not limited to either/or. What they need to run is not relevant to whether or not they can be accurately called "tools." Whether or not they can accurately be called tools is not relevant to discussions about whether they are good/bad/neither.

What they are called is irrelevant. It's how they are made and deployed that counts.
AI itself is a very broad term almost devoid of meaning.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

AI itself is a very broad term almost devoid of meaning.

Again... to you. The rest of us are pretty clear on what we mean when saying/hearing it.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

Let's take the worst case: a system hosted and trained in a datacenter. How does that compare to the ecological effects of an artist professionally trained and producing without the tools. If you are talking about training, don't forget the cost of all the "training" going into an artist.

My mother was a trained artist. Initially my grandfather taught himself then taught her some basics before she went to art college. My grandfather continued to paint for another 50 or 60 years.

My daughter is self-trained professional fine art painter, that is very computer literate, but uses real paint, canvas, board and brushes. Sells loads of paintings.

I've studied calligraphy and did it for about 10 years, including pens made from rook feathers.
<< Avatar (famous illustration from Twa Corbies)

A daughter-in-law did excellent digital based art for years.
A friend's daughter does all kinds of art and crafts.

My father had degrees in Geography and maths. Ended up teaching English, (Head of Dept) and then a Vice Principal. Mostly he did charcoal sketches of birds and watercolour landscapes (for nearly 70 years). Later after he retired he auctioned paintings. I guess he taught himself before I was born. I never saw him study art, except books on photography. He was a far better artist than my mum or grandfather.

I was in charge of R&D in a company that had data centres, and though not directly responsible I knew as much most working on them and the NOC.

An artist is consuming as much food and electricity whether they work or not (maybe less food when working!). A person's lifetime would not consume as much energy as some data centres use in a month.

I can't see that Apple computer my digital Artist in-law used ate significant amount more energy than my daughter's laptop.

My grandfather only used oils (mum used mostly acrylic) and never had a computer.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Quoth

My mother was a trained artist. Initially my grandfather taught himself then taught her some basics before she went to art college. My grandfather continued to paint for another 50 or 60 years.

My daughter is self-trained professional fine art painter, that is very computer literate, but uses real paint, canvas, board and brushes. Sells loads of paintings.

I've studied calligraphy and did it for about 10 years, including pens made from rook feathers.
<< Avatar (famous illustration from Twa Corbies)

A daughter-in-law did excellent digital based art for years.
A friend's daughter does all kinds of art and crafts.

My father had degrees in Geography and maths. Ended up teaching English, (Head of Dept) and then a Vice Principal. Mostly he did charcoal sketches of birds and watercolour landscapes (for nearly 70 years). Later after he retired he auctioned paintings. I guess he taught himself before I was born. I never saw him study art, except books on photography. He was a far better artist than my mum or grandfather.

I was in charge of R&D in a company that had data centres, and though not directly responsible I knew as much most working on them and the NOC.

An artist is consuming as much food and electricity whether they work or not (maybe less food when working!). A person's lifetime would not consume as much energy as some data centres use in a month.

I can't see that Apple computer my digital Artist in-law used ate significant amount more energy than my daughter's laptop.

My grandfather only used oils (mum used mostly acrylic) and never had a computer.

You understand, though, that the data center is doing a *lot* more than just assisting the artist with that book cover? You do know that, right?

Shari