Generating the image does not take much power, though training them does; I should have been clearer.

When I say “massive amounts,” I mean a company like Microsoft opening large data centers that require enough energy and water to disrupt local communities. Obviously this isn’t an AI issue, and Microsoft doesn’t train for image generation AFAIK, but the fact remains that training an AI model requires an order of magnitude of more resources than most consumer or corporate applications.

If AI models were only getting more efficient, I wouldn’t worry about this, but companies tend to scale up and use more resources to make larger models.

Embedding the features of one image into another to create an illusion is a task I’d consider AI for, IF the artist performing that task can be propelled by using the output as a base. If it takes far more manual correction by artist to the point that it takes longer to make a finished piece, or if the time spent enjoying the process is diminished, it’s no longer worth it.

AI in art should be about automating the tasks that require scale or repetition, like how 3D graphics took much of the mathematical work from artists, letting them focus on sculpting their forms precisely.

Time freed from automating one task should be spent by the artist on another task, such that the work is done faster AND is appealing in a clear and obvious way.

The most “creative” way I’ve seen this done so far is using separate prompts for different 2d image elements in still painting, which appears to take longer to make less consistent results.

It feels like prompters rely on the divided tastes of the internet to convince people that their art looks good to someone, just not the current viewer.

Image generation is often done remotely, using massive amounts of energy and water cooling. I enjoy the funny images as well, but I don’t like the massive volume of AI images that make it tougher to find human artists.

Machine learning is a net positive for technology and society, IF used wisely. The people who consume art are distressed that they can no longer filter for AI. AI images would be less controversial if we didn’t have so much of it masquerading as human art.

This technology is not the issue, it’s how people use it to the detriment of society and the environment.

Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it’s unlikely that your work will be impactful.

I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.

I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.

If that dude got proper support, he could have done wonders; he made animated icons for his 16-color assembly-coded OS, and a simple 3d racer! All by himself!

I’m guessing OP means the build quality, as defined by the mechanical and material standards that are needed to recreate the keyboard.

Oh haha cause it wouldn’t be recorded