The Oatmeal is always good. He really does keep in touch with the human aspect. I feel like AI art occupies a weird place in people's heads, and everyone is different. I think AI art can be...
The Oatmeal is always good. He really does keep in touch with the human aspect.
I feel like AI art occupies a weird place in people's heads, and everyone is different. I think AI art can be interesting and a way for people without technical art skills to make something beautiful. As long as they remember that all they did was write a prompt and adjust things, that's fine, but sometimes people get weirdly possessive about it, as if they actually did work.
I have just one example where I clashed with someone over their AI art. They had taken a fairly well known cartoon, run it through some AI, and added an extra frame with a drawing and punchline of their own idea, also drawn by AI, and art style similar to the original cartoon. They left the name of the original artist intact: they did not indicate it had been chewed on by AI. Anyone who's a big fan of the OA and his style could probably tell it was not the original. However, if you were not super familiar, you wouldn't know. And my acquaintance did not put his own signature on it.
To me these were points of offense. Typically when cartoonists use or recreate another's work, they credit with "hat tip to" or "apologies to". I often see the characters of Charles Schulz and Bill Watterson get tweaked with, and even then with such nationally and even globally known cartoonists, they still get the "hat tip to" or "apologies to". To not indicate that this was an adjustment of the OA's work, to leave the OA's name there, and to not put his own name on it, felt wrong.
I made my argument, he said giving credit to OA was enough, then accused me of hating AI (which was a bit of a leap of faith there; I make fun of AI but have never gotten fire and brimstone about it). But he took the cartoon down, which was to me a satisfactory course of action, though if he had just added the hat tip stuff and his own name, I would have been fine with it too. But the whole interaction bothered me, and still bothers me. Why did he get so emotional and angry with me? Maybe people just hate being told they did something the wrong way?
Definitely that second part, and it's possible your friend heard it that way even if you didn't say it that directly. But also I believe there's often more to reactions like that. I believe it's...
Why did he get so emotional and angry with me? Maybe people just hate being told they did something the wrong way?
Definitely that second part, and it's possible your friend heard it that way even if you didn't say it that directly.
But also I believe there's often more to reactions like that. I believe it's because the expectations of people are massively misaligned.
Think of a child who makes a child level drawing and shows it to an adult. Every adult can clearly see that it is not "good", it's scribbles or barely identifiable stick figures. But most (not all) adults also know to praise and encourage a child who shows them a drawing so that they will keep doing it and enjoying it.
Now transpose that interaction onto college age people. Each of those students will arrive with varying levels of skill and self confidence. If they begin their classes by being told their art sucks, a lot of people would probably drop the class and maybe go get an MBA. Teachers know this, and most artists know this, and a lot of them are very encouraging. Great art is grounded in emotion and is also emotionally evocative. It takes a lot of support and encouragement to be able to express some of your deepest inner thoughts to other people.
So to bring it back to my assertion that expectations are misaligned. Someone who creates something with AI is creating art. But it's child art. It is often shallow thoughts and feelings that through AI has been given the form of something with far more depth and consideration. And so we often call it out for what it is, and rightfully so. At the same time, we are also crushing that child's crayon drawing and telling them their drawing is slop.
Am I advocating we be nicer to people making slop, and pat them on the head and pin it to the fridge? No definitely not. But I also don't think we should crumple up all their crayon drawings*.
* I'm mostly taking about speaking to individual friends and family or coworkers. Anyone operating at a mass level (techbro, influencer, content mill, etc) can all go kick rocks
What if you don’t have the same aesthetic reaction to AI art that Inman has? I found it quite fun to generate AI art for a while, though it would have been more fun to iterate with if it didn’t...
What if you don’t have the same aesthetic reaction to AI art that Inman has?
I found it quite fun to generate AI art for a while, though it would have been more fun to iterate with if it didn’t take so long. I have a collection. But I probably won’t share them, since people don’t seem to like them.
The Oatmeal is always good. He really does keep in touch with the human aspect.
I feel like AI art occupies a weird place in people's heads, and everyone is different. I think AI art can be interesting and a way for people without technical art skills to make something beautiful. As long as they remember that all they did was write a prompt and adjust things, that's fine, but sometimes people get weirdly possessive about it, as if they actually did work.
I have just one example where I clashed with someone over their AI art. They had taken a fairly well known cartoon, run it through some AI, and added an extra frame with a drawing and punchline of their own idea, also drawn by AI, and art style similar to the original cartoon. They left the name of the original artist intact: they did not indicate it had been chewed on by AI. Anyone who's a big fan of the OA and his style could probably tell it was not the original. However, if you were not super familiar, you wouldn't know. And my acquaintance did not put his own signature on it.
To me these were points of offense. Typically when cartoonists use or recreate another's work, they credit with "hat tip to" or "apologies to". I often see the characters of Charles Schulz and Bill Watterson get tweaked with, and even then with such nationally and even globally known cartoonists, they still get the "hat tip to" or "apologies to". To not indicate that this was an adjustment of the OA's work, to leave the OA's name there, and to not put his own name on it, felt wrong.
I made my argument, he said giving credit to OA was enough, then accused me of hating AI (which was a bit of a leap of faith there; I make fun of AI but have never gotten fire and brimstone about it). But he took the cartoon down, which was to me a satisfactory course of action, though if he had just added the hat tip stuff and his own name, I would have been fine with it too. But the whole interaction bothered me, and still bothers me. Why did he get so emotional and angry with me? Maybe people just hate being told they did something the wrong way?
Definitely that second part, and it's possible your friend heard it that way even if you didn't say it that directly.
But also I believe there's often more to reactions like that. I believe it's because the expectations of people are massively misaligned.
Think of a child who makes a child level drawing and shows it to an adult. Every adult can clearly see that it is not "good", it's scribbles or barely identifiable stick figures. But most (not all) adults also know to praise and encourage a child who shows them a drawing so that they will keep doing it and enjoying it.
Now transpose that interaction onto college age people. Each of those students will arrive with varying levels of skill and self confidence. If they begin their classes by being told their art sucks, a lot of people would probably drop the class and maybe go get an MBA. Teachers know this, and most artists know this, and a lot of them are very encouraging. Great art is grounded in emotion and is also emotionally evocative. It takes a lot of support and encouragement to be able to express some of your deepest inner thoughts to other people.
So to bring it back to my assertion that expectations are misaligned. Someone who creates something with AI is creating art. But it's child art. It is often shallow thoughts and feelings that through AI has been given the form of something with far more depth and consideration. And so we often call it out for what it is, and rightfully so. At the same time, we are also crushing that child's crayon drawing and telling them their drawing is slop.
Am I advocating we be nicer to people making slop, and pat them on the head and pin it to the fridge? No definitely not. But I also don't think we should crumple up all their crayon drawings*.
* I'm mostly taking about speaking to individual friends and family or coworkers. Anyone operating at a mass level (techbro, influencer, content mill, etc) can all go kick rocks
I saw this today (from a post on Mastodon) and almost shared it here!
What if you don’t have the same aesthetic reaction to AI art that Inman has?
I found it quite fun to generate AI art for a while, though it would have been more fun to iterate with if it didn’t take so long. I have a collection. But I probably won’t share them, since people don’t seem to like them.