[qnleigh]

I would really love to see examples of creatives using modern AI/LLMs to make quality art, and it feels like this should be happening, but I can't think of any examples yet. Maybe there's so much low-effort slop that the good works are lost in the noise. Or maybe most artists don't use AI on principle.

I would love to see examples if anyone has any. I saw a few things on r/AIVideos that I sort of liked, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them quality art.

[ChrisGreenHeur]

When it happens they won’t tell you about it

[fragmede]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm9codc_zwk is my pick, but it's not for everybody.

[peab]

Look at this one: https://x.com/Zahri_10i/status/2078211494349537447?s=20

[neuralhawke]

Look up a Kenneth Anger or Maya Deren film.

You probably won't be impressed and these are legendary figures in experimental film making either.

There is no audience or market for what these tools would be good for.

These videos in the examples are laughable uncreative trash to me but so are big budget super hero human slop.

The main constraint with AI art is that I think the models have been overfit to a very narrow range of visual expression. Midjourney in 2023 could produce the absolute most fucked up images I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of fucked up visual art. That has all been washed out of the model at this point towards a statistical average of what people think is "beautiful".

Also no nudity allowed. What we have is nothing like a model trained to output the sensibility of Hieronymus Bosch or Francis Bacon with nudity. We have literally the opposite of that.

It is the difference between an artist and a "creative". These models are for "creatives", the conformist corporate bullshit version of the artist.

Instead of Hieronymus Bosch we have the statistical average infinite pretty portraits of the virgin mary because we are good people and good corporate citizens.

[doug_durham]

I don't think you can make the absolute statement that there is no audience or market for these tools. I enjoyed watching all of these videos. They are far from banal crap. They are deranged. They are not intentionally deranged, it is limitation of the tool. If a video artist were to employ these tools not to save effort, but instead to create an aesthetic it would be proper and good use. Just like non-AI video editors or color grading tools.

[userbinator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M9r6PZPaIo (slightly NSFW)

[js8]

I have enjoyed Craft (1979). Artistically might be dubious, it's a sort of genre/style parody but I think writing is better than the actual Minecraft movie.

[onemoresoop]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zX-e9LRR_ko&list=PLF-4qeBB9YHk-P...

[ndriscoll]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PlfOoKTFcAE seems pretty good to me?

[delusional]

I don't agree, but this is exactly why AI is the technology of this century. We will never be able to agree, because we have no common ground.

I think it's pointless dribble. There's no punchline that it's working towards other than "pigeon dumb"

[Marha01]

> I would really love to see examples of creatives using modern AI/LLMs to make quality art

Look up "The Chronicles of Bone". It's pretty good.

[peab]

I've seen a few that have been shared - I'll link them here if I can find them.

I think right now most people here and on twitter have no taste, and post slop that were just sort of one shotted.

But there are people using these tools in a sort of hybrid way, which I think has incredible potential. You can use it to do CGI on existing footage, in a way that's orders of magnitudes faster and cheaper than current CGI methods.

I also think that the most viable models will be video-to-video, and audio-to-audio.

If you've read A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, I think you might get what I'm saying. But essentially, you can capture a lot of emotion, expression, etc, using a cheap camera and a single actor, and then use AI to "stylize" it in a really cheap effective way, while keeping the emotion/expression. Adding lighting for example, upscaling the quality, changing the voice timbre while keeping the pacing, etc.

[chhxdjsj]

The suno produced AI world cup country songs were far more exciting and viral than any of the “real” slop produced by the event

https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS

[marysol5]

They really slap for Social Media, but not real life.

[flir]

Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/@Gossip.Goblin

He (they?) have a vision, and are trying to get it on the screen via AI tools. I don't think the tools are quite there yet, so I wouldn't call it "quality art", but I think it shows the direction of travel, and it shows somebody trying to use those tools to say something (ironically, the message is that the tools are kinda bad news).

I'm reminded of the tipping point when a generation of bedroom producers got tools "good enough" that they didn't need studio time any more. We got some creative music and a lot of slop out of that change. But hey, 80% of everything is crap, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

[camillomiller]

It just does not feel original, or novel, or actually weird. I dunno it’s impressive but… so empty?

[flir]

I think its feet stand more in written SF than filmed SF - I haven't seen anything quite like it in film, but I can point to books that seem to have influenced it. In that respect, I think it's novel. I agree with the emptiness comment. Maybe it's empty because it's so relentlessly shiny - there's not much "tonal variation".

But I do think it's a harbinger of things to come: bedroom auteurs with new tools (although they'll be surfing an absolute tidal wave of slop). The tools are going to get better; early synthesizers were pretty primitive.

[easyThrowaway]

It won't happen for the intrisc nature of (current-gen, at least) AI of being forced within the limits of their training, which deprives the artist of intent - that is, specifically the ability of questioning in some way what came before him.

The point of art isn't "I made it pretty so it has value now", it's "This is how I see the world, am I the only one who feels this way?".

And yes, this is valid even for absolute jerks who couldn't care less about that the other people were thinking at the time, Like Lou Reed for example. The questions in his music were rhetorical and directed at himself in that case. Unfortunately, as Pablo Picasso said, for this computers (or AIs, in this case) are useless. They can only give you answers.

[danielbln]

> AI of being forced within the limits of their training

AI doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's the sum of training, inputs and outputs. If I give it novel inputs, the outputs won't be solely within the limits of their training. If I use it as part of a pipeline, the end result of the pipeline too won't be forced within the limits of AI training.