Post-apocalyptic arcade (and AI art)

[RandyT]

Ok, so I've been screwing around with AI and have prodded it into doing my bidding to create some arcade artwork.  What it creates can be absolutely stunning...or the stuff of nightmares.

Thought I would share a few images in this thread.  I'll start it off with an interesting one which I have formatted for use as a 1080p desktop wallpaper.

I'll put some more up later if anyone is interested in seeing them.

[RandyT]

I call this one "Man Cave" 

[lilshawn]

i really dig all the AI pics i've been seeing. computers are getting too smart for us.

i should start planning pulling the plug and living in the woods eating bark.

[Zebidee]

To me, all AI art always lacks something, something that is difficult to define.

These pictures are visually interesting and impressive. They demonstrate applied knowledge, style and technique, but the deeper layers are missing. I can see connections between the elements, but not the meaning or relevance to the subjects artist. It is like a procedural skimming of impressions that only goes skin deep. I feel that the "artist" does not understand what they are painting. There is no story.

When I look at art, even banal everyday art, I hope to find a tiny window into the soul or mind of the artist, as they were at that time and place. Even with very abstract art. AI art, not so much.

It is not without value. For example, I could see this kind of work being used for computer generated backgrounds in games, virtual reality, anime or even big movies. Stuff where you want more interest and details, but don't have the time.

Human artists will continue to find more work into the future, though they will probably always be struggling

I don't mean to sound negative. Also sorry to sound a bit like an art wanker. They are nice pictures and I enjoy them, but I see algorithms not artists.

I won't say that they aren't art - it is a kind of art here, even in the selection of parameters for the AI. Also because I don't even want to start down that rabbit hole.

[BadMouth]

AI understands that "Arcade" is not a single machine.  I like this AI.

[RandyT]

To me, all AI art always lacks something, something that is difficult to define.

If I didn't tell you that AI was the artist, I'll bet you would still be looking for that "deeper meaning" and probably find one.  Art is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder seldom gets the meaning of the artist correct.  But if you did, then it probably isn't "great art" as it is meant to evoke a personal response.

AI art would not be possible were it not for the collective works of incredible human artists.  It is a reflection of them and us.

Maybe we should talk about whether art can be accidental and/or incidental.  I would argue that most art is.  Artists tend to work from inspiration and what is inspiration if not something which is incidental to the artist? How much art exists which started as one direction but went in another as the artist progressed further into the work? When using AI, the user tends to take the role of an "art director".  Instead of having a team of artists with limited styles and abilities who listen really well, you have access to hundreds or more with their own styles which can be blended together.  But they sometimes (often) do as they wish.  As this technology is in very early stages, I expect it to become easier to wrangle the AI as time goes on.

But this deviation from explicit direction can sometimes lead to very interesting and compelling works.  As in real life, it is up to the "art director" to decide if the deviation is an upgrade to the vison or idea.  If so, it becomes an improvement, otherwise it is simply discarded and "the team" is instructed to "try again".   But in some cases, the resulting piece is able to stand on it's own as something equally compelling, even if unintended.

The real artists out there are frightened, and justifiably so.  Right now, it's difficult to control details and absolute direction.  Some things also just turn out far more abstract and inaccurate than what would be expected by someone commissioning a specific piece of work.  But again, we are in the fledgling stage and as the AI learns more pieces of the puzzle, even that will be possible.  Then the artists may need to find a different trade.

But honestly, the very talented probably have little to fear.  I remember when vinyl cutters hit the market in the sign trade.  They were and still are very popular.  They deliver near perfection and allow untrained individuals to offer and create signage, unfortunately to the detriment of the "art" as many are terrible.  But there are those who still demand hand-lettered painted signs from those who are very skilled.  We are about to be awash in imagery.  Some amazing, but a lot which is just crap.  It will be up to the "art directors" and artists who use AI as a starting point now to create high-quality works.

I'll end this with another interesting piece I like.  See if you can extract some meaning from it .

[Zebidee]

If I didn't tell you that AI was the artist, I'll bet you would still be looking for that "deeper meaning" and probably find one.  Art is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder seldom gets the meaning of the artist correct.  But if you did, then it probably isn't "great art" as it is meant to evoke a personal response.

Like you say, art is in the eye of the beholder. For this reason it is impossible to interpret the art incorrectly. As to the meaning of the artist, often they don't know it themselves. Often they just make something to express an inner idea they don't have words for. Often they don't know what it means. Sometimes they are hoping for insights from an audience.

I fully agree that art can be accidental or incidental to what the artist intended.

I also don't think that human artists, at least those with any talent, have anything to fear.

I like your analogy of the user being the "art director". I would just call them the artist. They are the ones choosing the variables and parameters for the algorithm. They are the ones cherry-picking the best results from the outputs. The AI is simply another artist's tool, like a paintbrush, spraygun or potter's wheel.

I'll end this with another interesting piece I like.  See if you can extract some meaning from it .

Thanks for asking.

It is somewhat interesting, yes. I see the parameters for the algorithm fairly clearly. I see the limitations of the AI too, for example in terms of depth of experience and interpretations. Maybe a deeper "skim" might make me feel that more.

I notice that all these cabs, and in the pics earlier, seem to lack control interfaces. Maybe gamers of the future don't need joysticks and trackballs, but seems like an oversight. Some of the cabs look like a mish-mash of video game and pinball. None of the game names are legible, nor are the designs distinctively recognisable. This adds to my feeling that the image is a skim-sample of random impressions.

There is definitely a "fantasy" input to this image. I might draw a connection between the fantasy of arcade games and the actual "fantasy" genre, but not sure I see anything intended there.

Alluding to what you mentioned before, one of the most interesting parts of the image, to me, is how the grass from outside seems to penetrate inside the window, for a short distance. My human mind chooses to interpret this as symbolising a blending between the fantasy in the game and the fantasy just outside, with the person as the interface. So you might interpret a blending of human perception, fantasy, reality and gaming.

I know this is probably accidental, which is great. On the other hand it may simply be reflecting the parameters fed into the algorithm. Which is somehow less great, but still OK. Randomly meaningful art is still art.

Windows are often used to symbolise different things, including reality and possibilities, also as windows into the soul itself. Maybe the AI deliberately chose it for this reason. Or an input parameter. Or maybe it is an accident. Maybe it doesn't matter.

In some ways I see the different elements as represented in a clumsy, cliched way. On the other hand, I do like this blending, accidental or not.

[RandyT]

Windows are often used to symbolise different things, including reality and possibilities, also as windows into the soul itself. Maybe the AI deliberately chose it for this reason. Or an input parameter. Or maybe it is an accident. Maybe it doesn't matter.

You are missing the forest by too much focus on the branches of the trees.  The machines are merely representative examples of a class of device, i.e. you pretty much understand what they are, so their inaccuracies aren't of import.  One could, however, interpret some of those inaccuracies as intentional and apply a reasoning for them.  Ambiguity isn't always a bad thing.

I believe the AI did select most of the elements intentionally, including the one you pointed out.  The decorations on the walls, the state of the machines, the stuff on the floor all have contribution to the "story".  There is even a surprising subliminal element to the piece which I have to believe is purely accidental.  It does, however, contribute to the over-arching theme if "seen" in a certain way by the viewer.

[Xiaou2]

As to the meaning of the artist, often they don't know it themselves. Often they just make something to express an inner idea they don't have words for. Often they don't know what it means. Sometimes they are hoping for insights from an audience.

 As an Artist myself (and also, knowing many other artists) ..I dont agree with that.

 Countless artists works, are in fact, very well planned out... with regards to both Composition,
and their intended Meanings.

 If you are speaking about so called  "Modern Art" ...that stuff is largely a scam, to Launder large sums of Money.
At best, there are some randomly modern art pieces, that are just pleasing to the eye.. that have Zero intention
at all.  (And really... Whos going to interpret paint splashes, as having some sort of deep inner meaning?!)

 Are there cases of actual pieces where the artist had zero story to tell, and the items in the painting could be
interpreted as various stories?  Sure... but, IMO, such creations are rare, compared to Intentionally driven
art.

 Now... There are some artists out there, that intentionally hide things within their works, and they refuse to
reveal the true intended meanings, for whatever reasons they have for doing so.  Some of them, are
cultists.. and it relates to secret teachings / meanings...etc.

to express an inner idea they don't have words for

 Who doesnt have words to describe something?  Other than a person with a limited vocabulary...
When you paint a facial expression... that very expression, can be Happy, Sad, Somber, Angry...etc.
As they say... A Picture is worth a Thousand Words.  Its a way to express things without having to
use language... but... that said... anyone with language can describe what they are seeing... and
what they are feeling from seeing it.   Such as, for example.. seeing a painting of a person being
impaled via "Scorpions" Rope Dart weapon.

 Music is actually far more difficult and abstract, to describe...IMO.   I mean, how do you describe
the wailing riffs of Van Halens guitar?  Or the ever changing landscape of a Classical Orchestral piece?

 Yes, you can say that parts of musical pieces could be described as: Aggressive, Fast, cheerful, heavy, sad,
ethereal, magical..  but in total... there are certain emotions that you "Feel",  that cant be completely put
into words.

 Where as with a painting, you can see, and easily describe:  "Woman petting a Cat, as the sun is setting,
on the porch".  And all of the related feelings and descriptions, related to this very normal human event.

 We know how such a thing would feel (as long as you are not a cat hater,  or had never petted a single
animal in your life).   But with music... it has no exacting relation to anything to tie it into.  Its very
abstract... and yet... can easily represent certain ranges and ways of feeling.

[leapinlew]

I'll end this with another interesting piece I like.  See if you can extract some meaning from it .

Clearly it represents that woman, during the golden era of video games were shunned. The left arm of this woman is deformed and worthless in a world dominated by joysticks. The games are devoid of controls to represent the futility to even try and the absolute certainty of failure. The only escape is into the gray unknown.

Clearly...

[Zebidee]

...The machines are merely representative examples of a class of device, i.e. you pretty much understand what they are, so their inaccuracies aren't of import.  One could, however, interpret some of those inaccuracies as intentional and apply a reasoning for them.  Ambiguity isn't always a bad thing.

I believe the AI did select most of the elements intentionally, including the one you pointed out.  The decorations on the walls, the state of the machines, the stuff on the floor all have contribution to the "story".  There is even a surprising subliminal element to the piece which I have to believe is purely accidental.  It does, however, contribute to the over-arching theme if "seen" in a certain way by the viewer.

Yes.

I see value for this kind of AI art - original, but delivered in response to input parameters. It is art, of a kind. I can see it becoming diffused or blended with non-AI art, or used to stimulate ideas during the creative processes.

Creativity works better when it is given some kind of scaffold or framework to form upon. The creative process transforms this seed into a tree. Something like that anyway.

If the lack on controls on the cabs is an error, that will improve as the AI models for such things improve.

I also see potential in places like VR sector where worlds can be huge, and making many different parts unique a challenge.

I used to do game level design back in the Wolfenstein/DooM/Quake era, and as a designer (or player) you got pretty tired of the same limited set of textures. Like, the same bloodstains and tiles on every wall. If you had some AI, it could re-arrange the tiles and blood differently each time. That kind of thing.

Heck they are probably doing it already, I don't play modern games much anymore.

Is it really art? The question doesn't matter. If the viewer finds meaning then I guess it is. Even if the AI or artist is completely ignorant to it.

I find myself wanting to compare this to discussions about AI chatbots like Google's Lamda

Anyone remember Eliza from the late 1970's/early 80's? We had a port of Eliza, named Ralph the Psychotherapist, on our TRS-80 clone.

It was great fun for a while, until the conversations started going in circles because ultimately Ralph didn't have anything new to say.

I recall trawling through the code (good old BASIC), and even adding new stuff for Ralph to say, but limited by the 32kb memory and the fun wore off soon.

Back to modern bots like Lamda, which I see as simply a more sophisticated Eliza/Ralph, people like to talk over their coffee about whether they really are intelligent, or just fancy calculators.

Reflecting on our conversation above, I am inclined to say: if you can't tell the difference, does it really matter?

[Zebidee]

Clearly...

Heh 

[Zebidee]

As an Artist myself (and also, knowing many other artists) ..I dont agree with that.

lol, well I certainly didn't mistake you for a scientist.

Many people have also accused me of being an artist too. Sometimes I agree with them.

I think that getting a room full of artists to agree is a bit like herding cats. Yet that never seems to bother them.

I also know a lot of artists. I literally grew up in art studios, galleries and workshops. Art and art books all over the house. I know where the most prominent artists in my area are. They come to my house from time to time, or vice-versa. My house is designed by a very famous local artist who is also a very good friend (you see big coffee table books about him at airports).

Yes despite all that, I can't find a decent painter for my house. Local tradies don't understand the materials, they don't know how to work paint in with a brush, they don't even know how to sand properly. They don't put any heart (or much of anything else) into it.

Countless artists works, are in fact, very well planned out... with regards to both Composition,
and their intended Meanings.

This is true, but many of these will still have extra meanings added to them, intentionally or otherwise. Many works are not so well planned out, and I'm not just talking about abstract expressionism. Sometimes the artist just picks up the brush and paints without thinking too much.

Who doesnt have words to describe something?

Is this rhetorical? There are a great many things we all find difficult to describe in words, and for which a picture may reveal things we don't even know we want to say. You said it yourself, a picture says a 1000 words.

For those who are very good at conveying ideas, meaning, feeling, "art" with words, I think we call them "Poets".

[RandyT]

I'll end this with another interesting piece I like.  See if you can extract some meaning from it .

Clearly it represents that woman, during the golden era of video games were shunned. The left arm of this woman is deformed and worthless in a world dominated by joysticks. The games are devoid of controls to represent the futility to even try and the absolute certainty of failure. The only escape is into the gray unknown.

Clearly...

While not the intended meaning of the work, I like this a lot.  The fact that you went in that direction, and it fits, tells me that the work really has earned the classification of "true art."

But you did pick up on some of the feelings being conveyed.

[DaOld Man]

I like it, but it saddens me that arcades didnt make it through the pre-apocalyptic era.
Maybe their demise was the apocalypse???

[RandyT]

No arcade machines in these.  Try as I might, I couldn't get the AI to incorporate them into this type of work.  So, I went for the "happy little trees" instead.  I think the companies with oil-paint printers, who crank out generic living-room paintings, are about to fire their art staff

[Zebidee]

I'm sure they must be trembling and losing sleep!

There will be changes, some will need to adapt, but "real" artists will have as much job security as they have ever have. That isn't always saying a lot.

Technology, art and artists move along together.

[RandyT]

Technology, art and artists move along together.

I think Greg Rutkowski understands the biggest concern for great artists (he is definitely one), and that is name dilution on the internet.  With artists, their name is their brand.  In one sense, he has now basically become a household word in less than a month, when few outside of aficionados knew who he was prior.  That's a pretty amazing feat.  But if you search for him now on the web, you'll get a few proper hits and likely millions of AI generated works tagged with his name. 

They say emulation is the greatest form of flattery, and that is true.  But it can destroy the very thing being emulated.

But as for the art itself, I think some out there aren't seeing the true potential for what they have been given.  Artists can now do a fairly complete simulation of an art idea before ever laying pencil to paper, and that in only a few minutes.  After about an hour, they could be presented with 100 potential compositions for that idea to choose from.  Out of that 100, there will likely be 10's of compositions they hadn't or wouldn't have ever considered.  Someone like Greg has an amazing advantage.  The AI already knows him and he didn't need to do a thing to make that happen.  Their "productivity" will get a boost that they probably can't now imagine, which will be good because I believe that demand for their works will increase, rather than decrease.

There's a good parallel to be drawn from the music industry.  Record labels used to spend huge amounts of time and money schmoozing with every dinky radio station across the entire country.  Few know this, but those giveaways handed out by the stations in the form of contests, etc.  are mostly freebies from the record companies.  They can't literally pay the station to play their music, so there's a lot of "one-hand-washing-the-other."  "Hit" songs don't just happen, they have to be created.  And this happened not in the recording studio, but in the radio studios.  The more often a song is heard, the more it burrows into the brain of the consumer.  And once the neural pathways form to provide enjoyment to the listener from that song, the more likely it becomes that the listener will seek out other works from the same artist.  Do that to enough people and the money valve opens wide. 

I can imagine that at some point in the near future, mostly average people will look at a painting in someone's collection and say to the owner "Is that a real Rutkowski?...  Wow!" 

[Mike A]

Few know this, but those giveaways handed out by the stations in the form of contests, etc.

Wait a minute. Those dinky radio stations didn't buy front row tickets to concerts with their own money?

Or all of the albums and swag?

Gee Randy, Tell us all more secrets that everybody already knows.

Derp.

"Few know this"

Seriously. Get over yourself.

[RandyT]

Seriously. Get over yourself.

I worked in a radio station hand-in-hand with the station's program director as a computer programmer responsible for generating playlists, so I KNOW this.  You ASSUMED it.

BTW, were you born a jerk or did it take years of practice?

[Mike A]

I worked in a radio station hand-in-hand with the station's program director as a computer programmer responsible for generating playlists, so I KNOW this.  You ASSUMED it.

I know it as well.

Why do you think I assumed it?

Is it because you are a giant ---meecrob--- nozzle?

The answer is yes.

Oh. And whenever you are tempted to use the phrase "Few know this...", just know that it means you are going to look like a giant ---uvula---.

[RandyT]

Oh. And whenever you are tempted to use the phrase "Few know this...", just know that it means you are going to look like a giant ---uvula---.

Everything looks that way to a turd.   

[Mike A]

Let's use Randy logic on this statement.

Only people with direct knowledge can know anything.

Randy knows how things look to a turd.

Randy must be a turd.

I think I have got the hang of this now.

Thanks Randy.

[RandyT]

Thanks Randy.

You are most welcome.  Feel better about yourself now?

[Zebidee]

Greg Rutkowski...

I had to look this guy up Fantasy, dragons n heroes n stuff. Cool.

I see his style has been exploited by AI art algorithms, and he fights back. Good on him. Copyright is an important issue. Can you copyright a style?

I used to paint D&D figurines and was pretty good. No time for it now though. Doing a single figure (properly) could easily take a full day.

But as for the art itself, I think some out there aren't seeing the true potential for what they have been given.  Artists can now do a fairly complete simulation of an art idea before ever laying pencil to paper, and that in only a few minutes.  After about an hour, they could be presented with 100 potential compositions for that idea to choose from... 

Yes. This is what I meant, a while back on this thread, when I said

the AI is simply another artist's tool, like a paintbrush, spraygun or potter's wheel.

Some artists will struggle, but if all they were doing was painting pine trees against mountains and lakes then I don't think that anybody is really losing anything.

I can imagine that at some point in the near future, mostly average people will look at a painting in someone's collection and say to the owner "Is that a real Rutkowski?...  Wow!" 

An original painting isn't really 2D. If you look closely you can see the brushstrokes, the paint built up by layers. Even the backing canvas, mistakes, framing... You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes. I guess these things can be faked too, but it takes a lot of effort and experts can still tell the difference.

Digital waterprinting and related security become more important here, especially for digitally produced art.

Then you have the problem where the AI doesn't really get the artist's style and/or techniques right.

Friend showed me an AI Monet few weeks back and, while I recognised that it emulated the Monet style, it was wrong.The blobs of colour were too far apart, not "colliding" with each other. There was not enough of the intricate little background details I expect from Monet, even in a "still life". That, and I doubted that Monet would ever paint a cat. Least not that particular cat.

I will leave you to enjoy one of my favourite paintings of mountains, trees and waterways. No pine trees.

[RandyT]

IANAL, but at least for the moment, you can't copyright a style.  I think where things get sticky and complicated is where an artist's name, and therefore his/her brand is being used without their permission.  But there are common cases of using brands and even product names outright, that seem to fall under the radar.   Ever see a fragrance named something like "Smells like Polo"?  Or advertising claims which name the competitor directly?  The thing which seems to trigger action in these uses is if the consumer of said goods is reasonably misled into thinking the copy is the real deal.  Of course, there are other angles which could be pursued, like the use causing damage to a brand, etc.  Almost all of that type of stuff happens civilly though, so all it really takes is a judge willing to hear the case and a sympathetic jury to get restitution.

Then you have the problem where the AI doesn't really get the artist's style and/or techniques right.

Friend showed me an AI Monet few weeks back and, while I recognised that it emulated the Monet style, it was wrong.The blobs of colour were too far apart, not "colliding" with each other. There was not enough of the intricate little background details I expect from Monet, even in a "still life". That, and I doubted that Monet would ever paint a cat. Least not that particular cat.

I will leave you to enjoy one of my favourite paintings of mountains, trees and waterways. No pine trees.

I totally agree.  In the nature images I generated, I was trying really hard to get it to do a proper "Bob Ross" because, why not .  While it did a fairly decent job with composition and his tree structures, there is still something missing.  The interactions of the paint and tools he typically used weren't really present.  It ends up looking more like a generic painting, than if it was even just a photo of one of his works.  For that reason, I think the AI, at least in it's current form, is more well suited to digital art than it is analog.  It makes a certain amount of sense, though, as it was trained on digital representations of painted work which may not have had easily discernible examples of all those small details.  It could also be that the model just hasn't yet been trained enough to get to that level.

I do like the style of that painting.  Though, I did have to look at it for a bit to appreciate it.  I have to admit that I like pine trees, or really any trees in art.  The structure of them is complex, and just the way the artist deals with that complexity can set the mood for the entire piece.  Well, that and the fact that there's a lot of them where I live so I can relate

[javeryh]

How does someone mess around with generating AI artwork?  Do you need a fancy computer or some crazy program or is this all done on a website somewhere.  The images that have been posted are pretty neat.

[RandyT]

Do you need a fancy computer...

If you want to run it locally, which I would recommend, then the answer is "no, but it helps a lot".  It can be used with a vanilla laptop using CPU, but it will take a long time to generate images.  Any Nvidia GPU (currently) with at least 4gb will help that along tremendously, but the better it is and the more NVRAM it has on board, the faster things will go and the higher the resolution you can generate.  Right now, the best bang-for-buck is an RTX 3060, due to it's 12gb of NVRAM.  With this card and 512x512 images, a 50 iteration image only takes 5-7 seconds. That same image will take about 20 minutes+ using CPU only. 

or some crazy program

Yes, the free one is called "Stable Diffusion 2.0".  There are a number of "one-click-installs" and custom GUI's out there for both Windows and Linux.

or is this all done on a website somewhere.

Also yes.  The company (StabilityAI) who created and released SD into the public domain also offers a service called DreamStudio.  It's in beta and offers time for free at the moment, but it is/will be a pay service.  There are also sites like huggingface where it can be run remotely on their machines.  Obviously, you get what you pay for with these.