How do you guys feel about the fact that art will be one of

oh no D: !!

>>2995143
>fact

>>2995143
wtf i hate machines now

>the first thing
More like the last thing. Art is least important.

The end goal is to have everyone in their little cube of happiness, having all the time in the world to do a whole bunch of nothing.

>>2995143
By the time its perfected, me along with half the human population will dead so I could give less of a shit.

>>2995155
there are actually already lots of papers on image generation and a lots of interest in it.

Thats because image recognition(and its semantic analysis) is the first step towards intelligence, and image recognition and generation are closely linked.

It will be the first since its the easiest to do.

good for you the link doesn't work, fewer people will see the scripts in question produce laughable photobashed looking garbage

File: PaintsChainer.png (448KB, 1167x709px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1167x709px

So this.... is the power... of neural networks... woah...

>>2995167

eh i fucked up try it without the www.

https://affinelayer.com/pixsrv/index.html

>scripts in question

not a script exactly. its a neuronal net trained on that shit.

Also I didnt say we're there yet but the link is a proof of concept that shows potential

>>2995143
Not every picture is art, m8.
If art is an idea and ideas are a byproduct of consciousness, then machines are incapable of it. You need self awareness to produce art.

>>2995143
It's very unlikely that robots will be able to develop the mental capacity that artists have in the next 10-20 years and even if that was the case who gives a shit? I might not even be alive 10-20 years from now. What matters is the present, not some hypothetical event that is very unlikely to happen.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 600x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x357px

I expect that machines could produce very fine backgrounds for anime and manga. You could sit at your desk and tell a robot to retrieve certain reference photos for example, and then have them faxed back to you at your desk.

Another set of machines might be able to work up sketches in the office, but would you leave them to do character designs?

File: Bitch.jpg (65KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x960px

This is actually a pretty interesting thought. I bet that emulating a certain style will become really easy. Like:

"I want a cyborg with four arms done in the style of Pixar movies from the early 2000's"

And the machine will spit out about 20 designs that look exactly like that. Then you just hone in and get the final design.

The tweaks are still going to be done by real people and companies will still need to have actual human art directors. If it goes to that I hope I'll be good enough to be at a semi high position at my job in 20 years. I'm pretty sure I can get there in about 20 years. If I can't I'll just breathe in some nice fumes from some rental car while masturbating furiously to child/animal pornography and call it a day...

>>2995191

Also people will always value shit that's done by actual people. Maybe this will just open more doors for expression when the technical side can be covered by machines.

The same shit that happened when photography came along.

I dunno. I'm just drunk...

That's right guys, not only are you ways off from gitting gud, it's a race to git gud before the machines take over and make all your efforts meaningless.

>>2995143
>one of the first things

Right now China is buying thousands and thousands of robots for its logistic. Art is low on the radar when we have an opportunity to enter a new age where menial physical work will mostly be done by machines.

To answer your question, it feels good. Means that those machines will help me to go ten times faster and produce a better final product.

Imagine how fast for example a mangaka could draw if instead of 2 angry assistants he had machines inking and coloring for him.

Or an abstract painter if a machine memorized his every moves on 100 paintings and then could paint new ones for him.

We're not there, clearly, but fun times are ahead, with a few terrorist bombings in between.

>>2995196
>caring about making things for other people when you can just have machines feed you with an endless torrent of VR porn tailored to your specific tastes

>>2995196
>Imagine how fast for example a mangaka could draw if instead of 2 angry assistants he had machines inking and coloring for him.

They propably wouldnt even need to draw, they just had to describe each scene and have a machine compute it.


>art is low on the radar

Sorry but you are wrong, alone thise year the machinelearning community released hundreds of papers on image generation.
There is a huge academic interest in this because of image recognition/classification and generation is a hot topic right now. More so than logistics.

kill the scientist's art war now

In recent past General Electric developed technology to assist surgeons and memorize the "perfect move". Now that this technology is less costly, they're adapting it to logistic/transport and various stuff.

I've seen prototypes which are able to learn by themselves, weighting new parts and watching them from all angle before carefully putting them in a box of its choice (with the most correct dimensions).
It's totally different from what we are used to (machines programmed to take parts all weighting exactly 10 pounds and putting them in a box which is exactly like all other boxes). You don't need 3 shifts when a never-sleeping bot with 4 arms is doing the job faster and with less errors.

They will replace warehouse workers or truck drivers long before the technology is sufficient to replace artists - by opposition to assisting them.

As an already existing example: UPS drivers are using a software which calculates the best way to deliver their parts. Its algorithm is different from the classic ones we have in our cars, for it takes more things into account (traffic, consumption, but also history of the same deliveries by other drivers).
Basically taking the decisions out of the driver's hands, now the years of experience of the driver are replaced by the cumulated years of experience of a hundred brown trucks.
It's still assistance, but from there we aren't so far to replace those hands by mechanical ones.

>>2995143
Give me a dataset of undrawn styles and untold stories. Then I will be concerned.

>>2995178
This anon gets it. Machines don't have creativity, and they won't till they have sentience, by which point, you've essentially created artificial life/consciousness.

The day a machine can appreciate a sunset or song, and be inspired by it to create a work of art is the day I start getting worried.

The first jobs to go will be all the menial labor, and service, the last to go will be all the creatives.

>>2995359
What kind of art would AI produce?
Apart from the fact that it would obviously raise interest, would it be that different from what an independent artist could make on his own? And I don't mean this in the technical sense but creatively.

>>2995143
To think this sort of artificial intelligence is capable of doing art is to have no understanding of what art is.
Any machine incapable of making conscious decisions is simply a tool. With no educated decision making to back it up none of this is a replacement for an artist. A lower entry bar perhaps at most.

By the time artificial intelligence replaces artists they are going to be replacing us in all aspects of life.

>>2995364
It would be incredibly derrivative, as AI will lack creativity until it develops true self-awareness.

The art of actual artists is already derrivative, derrivative from their influences, who derrive from nature. Every artist is in a way a mix of all the artists who influence them out of personal taste. So for an AI to do this, it would to have the ability to connect with something, and CHOOSE. "I like this because it appeals to me, and it resonates with who I am." That's the pinnacle of AI development, forget the Turing Test, you wanna know when you've got truly human-like AI? Test for that. That is core evidence that an AI has a sense of SELF. Something that's thus far, exclusively human.

No animal is able to identify with specific pieces of art and music, and use those as influence to be creative.

>>2995184
This

File: AMAZING computer generated art.jpg (248KB, 1200x775px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1200x775px

oh look, it's the monthly, "technology is going to automate art thread." shouldn't you be on /g/ talking about coding? pathetic. this ones especially weak bait but I'll bite.
>Give it 10 or 20 years and nuronal nets trained on the best artists of the world will churn out great art indistinguishable from what you guys are producing here.
lol what? you just invalidated your own statement. whatever program would still need input by human artists.
go buy some more RAM you nerd.

>>2995164
so you are worried about it then?

>>2995449
no one is worried about this. computers will automate almost every other job before art.

>>2995143

See it like this: it isn't man vs machine.
As long as a man assisted by a machine will be better than the machine alone, artists will have a job. Artists of old had their assistants and atelier, we will have our automation.

Then if the day finally comes where machines can outsmart us, I guess we will end in an Asimov kind of world, where the everyday man needs no job and is doing art because he wants to, having his pieces executed by his robots.

> Robots will probably talk shit behind our back
> "Needs more Loomis"
> "No Spark in that fleshy one"
> "His ligameme is soft"

File: FB,6684,72,eti-topkek-meyveli-40gr-24-lu-koli-biskuvi-kraker-urunleri-eti.jpg (24KB, 446x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 446x500px

>>2995560
> Robots will probably talk shit behind our back
> "His ligameme is soft"

If you draw random stoner art, sure.

If you actually express something, nope. Then it's as hard as any human communication.

>>2995143
there's more to art than the process of how it's made, as is oft said: no rules, just tools

More like other people having their jobs taken by machines will turn them towards smut art as an easy online income. Or if you're all optimistic and shit about universal income commie utopias, then it'll leave people with lots more free time and hobbies to pursue, e.g. learning to draw themselves rather than commissioning us.

>How do you guys feel about the fact that art will be one of the first things that is automated by machinelearning?

Definitely not one of the first, truck / taxi drivers, fast food, factory workers etc. are fucked long before us.

Also seeing as the photograph didn't render art irrelevant neither will machines, not for a long time. If it does, oh well, by that point machines will have rendered most of us unemployable anyway and we'll either have a dystopia where nobody can get a job and businesses pocket all the profits, or a utopia where nobody has to work because robits do it for us.

>>2995143
I do cartooning so maybe I'm safe. Machines can do photorealism but they can't stylize

I doubt machines will ever be able to create professional, meaningful Art in the near future.
If you understood how a Painting is done then you'd realise how complex it is and how creative someone has to be to pull off a good paining.