Thoughts on AI use on the new album?

[MirrorMask]

But my question is, back in the 80s, many of the early bands that we love so much were praised for taking a DIY approach to their album artwork.

But that's the point. It's not "Do it Yourself". Bon Jovi writing with his finger "Slippery when wet" was DIY. Writing a text prompt and obtaining artwork is not done by "yourself". It's done by a computer that searched all the internet for already existing artwork.

[BlackInk]

To be fair though, "writing a text prompt and obtaining artwork" does not really do justice to the scenario jammindude presented.

[RoeDent]

I mean, Hugh Syme's art is AI before we had a name for it so on that front it's not gonna be any different.

[Pebsie]

Quite simply, I will not buy any album that has AI generated artwork on it. If you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their craft, then you don't deserve to be paid either. Simple as that.

[WilliamMunny]

Quite simply, I will not buy any album that has AI generated artwork on it. If you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their craft, then you don't deserve to be paid either. Simple as that.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think this is pretty much where I am at as well.

I get the points about young, upstart artists looking to generate imagery cheaply, but given the ease of access to things like Photoshop and fiverr, I just don't think this is comparable to where we were in the '80s and '90s.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

Looks like JR has heavily implied AI will be used on the upcoming DT album (on his equipment, maybe parts)

https://youtu.be/csqWz2SwEWg?t=643

EDIT: for clarity, I reworded this a bit.

[pg1067]

I don't actually know what Huge Sign looks like, but I sort of doubt he looks like a member of Dream Theater from behind

Not all that far off....

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

oh wow, he looks more like a human than i was expecting

[BlackInk]

Quite simply, I will not buy any album that has AI generated artwork on it. If you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their craft, then you don't deserve to be paid either. Simple as that.

I just don't understand this.

Why does using AI in your artwork necessarily exclude artists? If they hired and paid an AI artist to do the work, what's the problem? I get the feeling that if DT threw some paint on concrete and took a cool photo with their own personal camera, no one would have an issue with it, even though some artist lost out on a gig. I feel like hating on AI art is like hating on photography when the camera was invented because it will steal jobs from sketch artists.

Again, I don't even think DT should use AI, I would just be okay with it if they did. But I simply do not understand this hate for it.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

Looks like JR has confirmed AI will be used on the upcoming DT album

https://youtu.be/csqWz2SwEWg?t=643

Was just curious if anyone saw this, and how it jives with opinions already stated

[pg1067]

Quite simply, I will not buy any album that has AI generated artwork on it. If you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their craft, then you don't deserve to be paid either. Simple as that.

I don't understand this either.

What does a rock band (i.e., an artist or collective of artists) using AI to create an album cover have to do with not "think[ing] [that] artists deserve to be paid for their craft"?  That's a complete non sequitur.  As has already been mentioned, there are numerous ways that musical artists can avoid paying for album cover art, and most of them have nothing to do with not thinking that visual artists deserve to be paid for their work.

Also, the days when album cover art influenced my buying decisions (one way or the other) are LONG gone.

[pg1067]

Looks like JR has confirmed AI will be used on the upcoming DT album

https://youtu.be/csqWz2SwEWg?t=643

You dropped us in at the 10:43 time stamp, and that guy literally took 1:06 to get out his question.  Holy fuck...  I made it to the 13:00 mark, and JR hadn't yet said anything about using AI on the new album.  When in the video did he actually say that?

[Metro]

I've listened to most of that interview, and I don't recall him saying anything to that effect.

[Rigel]

You dropped us in at the 10:43 time stamp, and that guy literally took 1:06 to get out his question.  Holy fuck...  I made it to the 13:00 mark, and JR hadn't yet said anything about using AI on the new album.  When in the video did he actually say that?

He didn't.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

He talks about using it on his current keyboard rig, which he almost certainly will use during the process of recording. The timestamp is to provide maximum context. If you watch about 5 minutes starting from where I timestamped I think any reasonable person would walk away thinking he would employ these things on the parts he is about to record in June.

[Adami]

Looks like JR has confirmed AI will be used on the upcoming DT album

https://youtu.be/csqWz2SwEWg?t=643

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqEPrPa07XU



But I appreciate the link. Even though he didn't say what you said he did, the conversation was really interesting.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

For clarity I have edited the post to reflect implication over confirmation. Sorry about that, was a little excited. Funny though that I get called out for it when in the other thread people are using the MP "delivered" quote to "confirm" the new DT album will be out by October. (Especially given that JR and JLB and ostensibly JM haven't finished recording yet; just another HoveringSojourn double standard )

And glad the video was useful beyond the AI bit!

[Adami]

For clarity I have edited the post to reflect implication over confirmation. Sorry about that, was a little excited. Funny though that I get called out for it when in the other thread people are using the MP "delivered" quote to "confirm" the new DT album will be out by October. (Especially given that JR and JLB and ostensibly JM haven't finished recording yet; just another HoveringSojourn double standard )

And glad the video was useful beyond the AI bit!

And those people are being called out too.

[hefdaddy42]

For clarity I have edited the post to reflect implication over confirmation. Sorry about that, was a little excited. Funny though that I get called out for it when in the other thread people are using the MP "delivered" quote to "confirm" the new DT album will be out by October. (Especially given that JR and JLB and ostensibly JM haven't finished recording yet; just another HoveringSojourn double standard )

There's no double standard just for you.

I have multiple double standards going at any given time.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

lmao

[Glasser]

I have a question along these lines. Recently a metal band was highly criticized for using AI artwork, and they were accused of being part of a movement to take money away from artists who create artwork for albums.

But my question is, back in the 80s, many of the early bands that we love so much were praised for taking a DIY approach to their album artwork. They didn't have any money so they often saved money by doing the artwork themselves and thus having to pay zero money for it.  So if a band does not have much money and puts a lot of effort into creating the parameters and possibly even spending hours working on the model until they get exactly what they want, how much different is that than the old-fashioned DIY approach?

Interesting. Back then for example, VoiVod drummer was an artist so that's my exception. I feel there is a difference plus AI looks like a copout. There's more integrity in old school art. But that's just me. Its sad.

[DT05]

100% in favor of them using AI, especially with how lackluster covers have gotten. I miss having tons to look at, only the recent album had a cover that felt DT

[Pebsie]

hired and paid an AI artist to do the work

There is no such thing as an "ai artist". There is someone who types a few sentences into a computer to have the computer - by mashing up and combining stolen artwork - produce a result roughly weighted towards what the user wanted. It isn't art, and it never will be art. It has no expression, it has no meaning, it is simply a computer trying to produce what it thinks its user wants.

The only reason to use AI art is laziness or an unwillingness to pay an actual artist. You can't decouple use of AI image generators from disregard for artists or the industry. The more people defend this weird inflated industry the closer we get to there being no more artists. And what a sad day that will be (unless you really don't give a toss, which appears to be the view of some people).

"If it's convenient and expedient and saves me money why should I care about the people suferring on the other end of it?"

Also it looks like absolute garbage. I haven't seen a single AI cover yet that looks good. They all look terrible. DT05's profile picture is a great example of how shockingly awful a Dream Theater AI album cover will look.

[CraftyCaleb2483]

There is no such thing as an "ai artist". There is someone who types a few sentences into a computer to have the computer - by mashing up and combining stolen artwork - produce a result roughly weighted towards what the user wanted. It isn't art, and it never will be art. It has no expression, it has no meaning, it is simply a computer trying to produce what it thinks its user wants.

The only reason to use AI art is laziness or an unwillingness to pay an actual artist. You can't decouple use of AI image generators from disregard for artists or the industry. The more people defend this weird inflated industry the closer we get to there being no more artists. And what a sad day that will be (unless you really don't give a toss, which appears to be the view of some people).

"If it's convenient and expedient and saves me money why should I care about the people suferring on the other end of it?"

Also it looks like absolute garbage. I haven't seen a single AI cover yet that looks good. They all look terrible. DT05's profile picture is a great example of how shockingly awful a Dream Theater AI album cover will look.

This. Using AI removes any creativity from anything

[WilliamMunny]

There is no such thing as an "ai artist". There is someone who types a few sentences into a computer to have the computer - by mashing up and combining stolen artwork - produce a result roughly weighted towards what the user wanted. It isn't art, and it never will be art. It has no expression, it has no meaning, it is simply a computer trying to produce what it thinks its user wants.

The only reason to use AI art is laziness or an unwillingness to pay an actual artist. You can't decouple use of AI image generators from disregard for artists or the industry. The more people defend this weird inflated industry the closer we get to there being no more artists. And what a sad day that will be (unless you really don't give a toss, which appears to be the view of some people).

"If it's convenient and expedient and saves me money why should I care about the people suferring on the other end of it?"

Also it looks like absolute garbage. I haven't seen a single AI cover yet that looks good. They all look terrible. DT05's profile picture is a great example of how shockingly awful a Dream Theater AI album cover will look.

I really wish I could push that 'like' button more than once...well said!

[BlackInk]

There is no such thing as an "ai artist". There is someone who types a few sentences into a computer to have the computer - by mashing up and combining stolen artwork - produce a result roughly weighted towards what the user wanted.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about the weird places AI can take you, or the interesting creative ways it can be used. Like typing a sentence is the limit of AI creation. Like someone who thinks prompting an AI to give you what you want is easy. Like there can be no artistic expression in this process. All of which is simply wrong.

I'm not even defending the proposition that DT should use AI art, maybe it's for the best they don't. But this is like saying there is no artistic expression in photography because you're just stealing the likeness of whatever you're photographing, and you're just pressing a button on a camera anyway so it's actually lazy.

The copywrite issue is valid. Don't really know how to solve that one. But these are stolen general abstracted patterns linked to key words based on a training set, which at some point just becomes what the human brain does when it creates art anyway.

[WilliamMunny]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about the weird places AI can take you, or the interesting creative ways it can be used. Like typing a sentence is the limit of AI creation. Like someone who thinks prompting an AI to give you what you want is easy. Like there can be no artistic expression in this process. All of which is simply wrong.

I'm not even defending the proposition that DT should use AI art, maybe it's for the best they don't. But this is like saying there is no artistic expression in photography because you're just stealing the likeness of whatever you're photographing, and you're just pressing a button on a camera anyway so it's actually lazy.

The copywrite issue is valid. Don't really know how to solve that one. But these are stolen general abstracted patterns linked to key words based on a training set, which at some point just becomes what the human brain does when it creates art anyway.

Respectfully, isn't that the entire point?

It's one thing to decide to draw upon a lifetime of influences to paint a picture that evokes the style of [insert artist here]–a pastiche if you will–and it's another thing entirely to buy several prints, cut them up, and then use the pieces to make a collage.

Is one 'more' artistic than another? Frankly, that's up to each individual to decide.

My issue has been and will continue to be the removal/dismissal/minimization of the human element.

Again, to each his own, but as you are entitled to be inspired by AI-generated art, I am equally entitled to be repulsed, and, more importantly, concerned.

[BlackInk]

That's a totally fair point. And don't get me wrong, AI art, or AI in general, has me concerned as well. I think about it almost every day.

I'm just rejecting this idea that many people have that creating (good) AI art, or even something that in any way resembles your vision with any degree of specificity is easy. It isn't. It's actually very hard. There is also this notion that picking a model and typing in your prompt is the full extent of AI generative art. It's not. If you want to apply your own creativity to it, it takes a lot of work.

I'm definetelynot one-sided on this issue, even thpugh I may seem that way in this thread. I agree that most AI art looks like shit. I agree it has complicated implications for how we define copywrite. But while much AI art is lazy and bad, it's not necessarily lazy and bad.

[WilliamMunny]

That's a totally fair point. And don't get me wrong, AI art, or AI in general, has me concerned as well. I think about it almost every day.

I'm just rejecting this idea that many people have that creating (good) AI art, or even something that in any way resembles your vision with any degree of specificity is easy. It isn't. It's actually very hard. There is also this notion that picking a model and typing in your prompt is the full extent of AI generative art. It's not. If you want to apply your own creativity to it, it takes a lot of work.

I'm definetelynot one-sided on this issue, even thpugh I may seem that way in this thread. I agree that most AI art looks like shit. I agree it has complicated implications for how we define copywrite. But while much AI art is lazy and bad, it's not necessarily lazy and bad.

Very fair point there, and (as always), well said.

I fully agree that, not unlike the way people used to dismiss Hip Hop as merely 'rapping over someone else's song,' there is a lot more to a 'good' AI image than merely typing in a prompt.

I suspect, however, that that will not always be the case–we are very close to it being just 'that easy.'

[Pebsie]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about the weird places AI can take you, or the interesting creative ways it can be used. Like typing a sentence is the limit of AI creation. Like someone who thinks prompting an AI to give you what you want is easy. Like there can be no artistic expression in this process. All of which is simply wrong.

But substantially easier than learning to draw. If it took a few hours to become John Petrucci then John Petrucci wouldn't be admirable. And from my experience, AI giving you what you want is exceptionally easy. You might have to rewrite or refine your prompt a bit, but you aren't spending hundreds of hours trying to get a single image out of it.

Also: I'm a CompSci major and studying Advanced CompSci with a focus on AI and intelligent agents. I'm very passionate about this precisely because it is my field of expertise. I understand these systems and how they work, and I use them on a daily basis. Perhaps my rejection of them is exactly because I've spent a lot of time peering under the hood.

Also also just want to add to my original post that DTO5's profile picture is cool. It looks like AI art and it's bland and generic but there's no doubting how cool it is from a visual standpoint. But I can't see through the process to appreciate it on its own merit because I don't believe it has any.

[WilliamMunny]

I think there's an idea of 'sweat equity' that gets lost in all of this.

My 'hope' is that, while AI continues to become more ubiquitous in our every day lives, the unintended consequence will be a redoubling of our societal value on 'real' things.

A book, where the drafts were penned by an author in a notebook will become a major selling point.

A painting will instantly be more sought after because we 'can see the brush strokes.'

A song, written by a busking troubadour will have a more passionate audience.

I know, for me, that will be what I am looking for.

Even today, I am already feeling a pull toward something more substantial.

My niece just graduated, and it inspired me to buy some stationary so that I could handwrite the sentiment I want to share. It might be lost upon her, but the act of actually using a pen (when a text would most certainly suffice) made me think so much harder about my words.

[DT05]

But substantially easier than learning to draw.

Amen to that. Nothing wrong with ease, especially when 99% of the people don't have the aptitude to be a good drawer. The level playing field AI brings busts through the elitism and idolatry of the arts that have persisted for centuries. I'm so grateful that AI helps expand the ease-of-entry into creative endeavors.

If it took a few hours to become John Petrucci then John Petrucci wouldn't be admirable.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely a nuts take. This is the idolatry of the arts that I was referring to. John Petrucci is only valuable because he had to suffer to get where he is? People put their own suffering on a pedestal and then gatekeep the very thing they strove to be, all because somebody might have a chance at matching or exceeding them with less physical turmoil along the way. John Petrucci is admirable even if AI guitar can sound as good as he can.

[nobloodyname]

It isn't art, and it never will be art.

Fascinating point. And one I'll spend some time pondering. Not the same, I know, but it reminds me of: what's the difference, if you don't know the difference?

[BlackInk]

But substantially easier than learning to draw.

So is photography.

And from my experience, AI giving you what you want is exceptionally easy. You might have to rewrite or refine your prompt a bit, but you aren't spending hundreds of hours trying to get a single image out of it.

It's certainly easy if your creative vision is extremely basic. If you don't care about more detail than "pink dog catching frisbee on flowery meadow," then yeah, getting an image that depicts that is very easy. But you have certain pose in mind for the dog? You want its fur to be spotted with a pattern you have in mind? You want the clouds to look a certain way? You want the flowers in the meadow to spell something or create a cool symbol? Good luck. Imagine giving a human artist only that basic prompt. They're not going to give you anything closer to your vision than the AI, because it takes a lot more communication.

All of this also leaves out my point that typing a prompt is not the full extent of AI generative art. As I have said previously in this thread, one option would be to literally create your own art style and then train your model on that. Maybe augment some photography or other imagery with your personally trained model, such as the guys who did this video. Say what you will about the quality, but this is still AI art, and it takes a lot of effort and creative vision.

Also: I'm a CompSci major and studying Advanced CompSci with a focus on AI and intelligent agents. I'm very passionate about this precisely because it is my field of expertise. I understand these systems and how they work, and I use them on a daily basis. Perhaps my rejection of them is exactly because I've spent a lot of time peering under the hood.

Fair enough. And if there is ever a programming or computer science question raised here, I will definetely defer to you. But none of that necissarily makes you an AI artist. Having built the camera doesn't automatically make you a competent or knowledgeable photographer. And the rejection of photography as a potential art form by any optical engineer doesn't really mean that much.

[WilliamMunny]

Amen to that. Nothing wrong with ease, especially when 99% of the people don't have the aptitude to be a good drawer. The level playing field AI brings busts through the elitism and idolatry of the arts that have persisted for centuries. I'm so grateful that AI helps expand the ease-of-entry into creative endeavors.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely a nuts take. This is the idolatry of the arts that I was referring to. John Petrucci is only valuable because he had to suffer to get where he is? People put their own suffering on a pedestal and then gatekeep the very thing they strove to be, all because somebody might have a chance at matching or exceeding them with less physical turmoil along the way. John Petrucci is admirable even if AI guitar can sound as good as he can.

You gave me a lot of stuff to think on here–excellent post!

I suppose, my gut reaction to the bolded line is: isn't this just human nature? We tend to idolize those who excel at anything–sports, chess, politics, cooking, music, etc.,–and the more we perceive that someone 'worked' for what they have, the more we tend to admire it.

Again, your post bears a hint of personal experience, which I have no intention of minimizing, but speaking in generalities, I believe that the vast majority of us are guilty of idolizing the major components of our superfluous lives, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but rather, merely human nature.

The 'leveling of the playing field' you reference is definitely something I haven't really considered, but a point I will need to stew on.