Create a 7-string Guitar with Midjourney AI

[Alex]

Midjourney is this amazing artificial intelligence (AI) tool for creating images with nothing more than a text prompt from you. You can create a 7-string guitar, for instance, and it can look any way you want. Learn how you can create your own AI guitar by going here: https://www.geartalk.com/how-to-use-midjourney-to-create-guitars/

Here's a 8-string guitar generated by Midjourney.

 

[odibrom]

... the guitars' bridges are something else...

 

[Xaios]

... the guitars' bridges are something else...

Check out the anti-gravity straplock and the knob that's apparently infested with Cordyceps.


...or the fact that this...

8-string guitar

...clearly has 9 strings.

 

[Crungy]

It looked cool until I saw the bridge and that gives me the creeps.... I don't know how to explain it, it's nightmarish to me lol

 

[Albake21]

Is that the next evolution of metal guitar pickups? Three stacked ultra mini single coils with what looks to be 24 pole pieces?

It looked cool until I saw the bridge and that gives me the creeps.... I don't know how to explain it, it's nightmarish to me lol

That bridge sure is cursed. Looks like a mix between a recessed TOM and a Kahler?

 

[wheresthefbomb]

I hate AI generated images. They fucking weird me out. No thanks.

 

[Bodes]

...clearly has 9 strings.

Must have been taking notes from Jackson Custom Shop...

 

[CanserDYI]

Fuck AI art. Unhuman.

 

[Thesius]

AI art is cool af

 

[BMFan30]

Fuck AI art. Unhuman.

It does have this uncanny valley feel to through some detatched obscure lens. I can't really explain it why I don't like it either.

 

[StevenC]

So is this an ad or forum sponsor?

 

[Rob Joyner]

AI (machine learning. not AI at all) image generation is art theft, guys. Don't do it. It hurts a lot of artists' income.

 

[JimF]

Holy multiple strap buttons Batman.

AI (machine learning. not AI at all) image generation is art theft, guys. Don't do it. It hurts a lot of artists' income.

Any human that designs a bridge like that deserves to lose money. How can you make a creepy looking bit of metal?!

 

[narad]

AI (machine learning. not AI at all) image generation is art theft, guys. Don't do it. It hurts a lot of artists' income.

It trains on existing human art and extrapolates to produce novel images. Which is exactly what human artists do.

 

[odibrom]

... for the unaware, these AI images may look cool, for the initiated they all look weird, for the experts (us guys'n'galls in SSO, obviously ) they are simply disgusting...

 

[Rob Joyner]

It trains on existing human art and extrapolates to produce novel images. Which is exactly what human artists do.

no. it uses copyrighted material without PERMISSION form artists. It's theft. No other way around it. It's a grift.
I can post a very well explained video by a famous artist and all the implications of image generation by machine learning if you guys want or have the time.

 

[CanserDYI]

I have no issues with AI, but when used to make "art" it bothers me.

 

[narad]

no. it uses copyrighted material without PERMISSION form artists. It's theft. No other way around it. It's a grift.
I can post a very well explained video by a famous artist and all the implications of image generation by machine learning if you guys want or have the time.



View attachment 119171

The word "use" here is what's poorly defined. When you look at thousands of artists' work when training yourself as an artist, you are also "using" the copyrighted material in the same way. It's an image that in your head triggered a bunch of electrochemical responses that set you up to produce your own art. Van Gogh didn't sit in a cave for 30 years, walk out and say, BAM, here's art I dreamt up. Any generation a human does is a product of their experiences, both in life and in the medium. It is the same for these models.

As to capitalism... well yea, duh. It's not exactly cheap to create these things in the first place.

 

[Rob Joyner]

The word "use" here is what's poorly defined. When you look at thousands of artists' work when training yourself as an artist, you are also "using" the copyrighted material in the same way. It's an image that in your head triggered a bunch of electrochemical responses that set you up to produce your own art. Van Gogh didn't sit in a cave for 30 years, walk out and say, BAM, here's art I dreamt up. Any generation a human does is a product of their experiences, both in life and in the medium. It is the same for these models.

As to capitalism... well yea, duh. It's not exactly cheap to create these things in the first place.

It's not "poorly defined". It's a data set that stole 3.2 billion artworks on the internet to generate copies for profit.
No competent artist stole images and made their own. Getting inspired by and putting decades of effort to learn a craft is completely different.

Sad to see opinions like this in a forum that praises musical artistry and luthiers.

 

[narad]

It's not "poorly defined". It's a data set that stole 3.2 billion artworks on the internet to generate copies for profit.
No competent artist stole images and made their own. Getting inspired by and putting decades of effort to learn a craft is completely different.

Sad to see opinions like this in a forum that praises musical artistry and luthiers.

"Stole" in the sense that it did the ML analog of looking at them. Which is what humans do. If you want to attempt to actually make an argument, you need to get clear on how the processing the model does is any different to what the human artist does to the extent that you want to call one theft and the other inspiration.