The new alpha Version of Midjourney V5 has been released.
No more distorted faces, no stray eyes, and even the finger count seems to be OK – about time!
How can you tell that this (above) isn’t a real photo? Well, there’s no “Vespa” logo on the young lady’s scooter… š
Such an astonishing perfection is almost disturbing and might pose some ethical problems – working on a blog article about them.

Occasionally though the perfection is, ahem… perfectible: here the photographic effect is also impressive, but the detective doesn’t seem to be much at ease with that gun. Maybe he’s a rookie… š
However his hat is very fiftyish and the car in the background is terribly realistic too.
luisa
AI: friend or foe? (5 of 5)
previous parts:
A very brief history of art: In the beginningā¦
A very brief history of art: growing up
A very brief history of art: today
A very brief history of art: fight them or join them?
A very brief history of art: where will it end?
Thus weāll better cross off those āpredictablesā that live on borrowed thoughts: to them it would make no difference whether a work is human- or AI-generated, and obviously decent AI works will sell cheaper than their human counterparts.
If we want something an AI canāt beat we should look for clients with a non-atrophic soul, a respectable culture and an independent mind of their own; comparatively rare as they can be, the humankind is still huge enough for them to constitute a respectable share of the market ā anyway enough to support the real artists, if maybe not all those who tap the cellphone, upload the pic to Shutterstock and call it art.
Reaching such choosy, finicky, appreciative clients wonāt be easy, and doing it alone looks pretty hopeless ā the starving artist who tries to sell his great paintings on the sidewalk is a classic figure weād rather avoid.
But the world hasnāt changed only for the worst: today we have an internet where many non-starving artists may join to offer their works to customers able to appreciate them. Or the same literate customers could gather and form a sort of very choosy āreal art agencyā where only original, beautiful, unique works are accepted.
The brave new world
With a bit of luck there would be also some space left for the tap&upload āartistsā: in order to supply the brave new microstock world the various AIās will need to be fed with more and more new images, regardless of their quality.
OK, but…
… what if a particularly clever AI eventually manages to emulate a āsoulā of its own that a human cannot tell from a real one? Including attitudes, emotions and moods such as sadness, irony, anger, happiness, humor, enthusiasm, sarcasm and the like, in order to add a final touch of realism?
That would be an extended version of the famous Turing test, a philosophic minefield: if a machine succeeds convincing you (human) that youāre talking to another human being, then you should call it intelligent to all effects, like it or not.
You cannot pretend to play violin convincingly without mastering the art, right?
Itās pretty hard to swallow that much but, no matter how we may feel inside for reasons we ourselves cannot fathom, political correctness would demand that if an AI passes such a test we call it a human being: if we deserve equal treatment, respect and dignity regardless of our color, sex, origin, creed, mother tongue, intelligence, sexual orientation, shoe size and political affiliation, why should it matter if one is made of silicon chips and plastic rather than of flesh and bones?
THE END (so far…)

AI: friend or foe? (4 of 5)
previous parts:
A very brief history of art: In the beginningā¦
A very brief history of art: growing up
A very brief history of art: today
A very brief history of art: fight them or join them?
Yes, but how long will it last?
Hard to say: only six months ago one would have guffawed at the notion of a computer producing original creative images virtually indistinguishable from the ones made by a skilled artist. Now on that same notion we are crying aloud.
A machine has no soul but, if properly āeducatedā, it seems to be able to emulate pretty well one; by scanning thousands of human-made works it sort of ādeducesā what pleases us and imitates it plausibly enough. How long can take it to learn and imitate credibly also our newly found āhuman-onlyā jobs?
That depends on the job, of course. Letās be honest: when we paint, draw, write, sculpt or do anything else that we regard as human-only, we too use plenty of ready-made patterns weāre accustomed to ā color combinations, common shapes, set phrases, easily detectable rules or identifiable styles⦠in the end only a small part of our work is really ours, all the rest is out-of-the-can.
Itās the way we assemble the out-of-the-can elements and merge them with our own ideas that makes the outcome unique.
Now, the AI has no ideas of its own; the originality of its work comes only from the input words we feed it with, most likely a little stirred by a random algorithm to prevent the machine from churning out identical outcomes from identical inputs.
Sadly enough though the same goes also for quite a number of people of flesh and bones: how many times did you hear āMan, heās so predictableā¦ā? How many people speak mostly (or only) in clichĆ©s? How many get their ideas, opinions, even beliefs mostly (or even only) from the community they live in, or from their favorite social?
Iām afraid that those people will be perfectly satisfied with the outcomes of an AI, no matter if itās made only of out-of-the-can elements and a pinch of random.
Want a novel? Just enter
āboy meets girl ā parents oppose ā girl runs away ā boy follows her ā rival appears ā boy beats rival ā happy ever after ā Sugar Kissy styleā,
upload it to www.romanticker.com *) and download a 300 pages bestseller that all the āpredictablesā will buy eagerly. Just donāt tell them itās AI-made, their social might not approve of it š
**)*) donāt try it, it doesnāt exist ā yet.
**) image created with Midjourney and made swooning enough with postprocessing, not based on real persons.
next part:
A very brief history of art (5 of 5): where will it end?
AI: friend or foe? (3 of 5)
previous parts:
A very brief history of art: In the beginningā¦
A very brief history of art: growing up
A very brief history of art: today
Now, half a century later, weād feel naked and exposed without a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, a smart toothbrush, an intelligent burglar alarm ā and of course, running on them, software and firmware enough to smooth down any tiny fold in the fabric of our lives. And weāre still muttering.
OK, itās very human to welcome the good with a nonchalant shrug (āAltana, scratch my back and get me a martini!ā) and to reject the bad with disdainful contempt (āthat bloody thing is eavesdropping on us all the time!ā).
Itās perhaps less human but more honest to acknowledge that good and bad are two inseparable sides of the same coin: you want an electronic contraption to listen to all your whims but not to listen to what it shouldnāt? Oh, come on, every housemaid would do it!
What can we do to stop this wicked process before it swallows us all alive?
Bluntly and mercilessly, nothing.
Many tried to but no one succeeded so far: you may kill a man but not an idea, or a concept, or a piece of knowledge. The Holy Inquisition tried hard to gag Galileo for his heretic point of view about the universe, but she couldnāt prevent other scholars from weighing the Holy Scriptures against tangible evidence. A skilled scientist invents a device to dissolve all the bureaucrats in a puff of smoke (if only⦠š ); you may imprison him, even hang him, but youāll never be sure that another one wonāt come up with the same idea the next day.

Still perhaps we can do something to avoid being swallowed alive.
If you canāt fight them, join themā¦
thatās to say, while we reluctantly accept that a machine steals our job (we donāt seem to have much choice anyway) and acknowledge with poorly concealed envy that its work is sometime even better than ours, we can take advantage of it and meanwhile keep looking for something that the machine cannot do ā metaphorically speaking, stop trying to make round vases and start decorating the machine-made ones with pictures that talk to the soul – whatever this word may mean. To the human soul, something a machine does not have. Invent a new job that only a human can do.
next part:
A very brief history of art (4 of 5): fight them or join them?
AI: friend or foe? (2 of 5)
previous part:
A very brief history of art: In the beginningā¦
A very brief history of art: growing up
About six centuries ago an irresponsible Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable type printing, thus depriving thousands of guileless monks of the job they had devoted their entire life to. The catastrophe spread like wildfire: holy and less holy pieces of literature escaped the watchful hands of the Church and started spreading around information, concepts and ideas that bishops and kings would rather have kept confidential, thus pulling the cork off the Renaissanceā¦
Just imagine all those monks and abbots groaning and moaning about the death of the art of calligraphy and as such of the literature as they knew itā¦
yet surprisingly enough Gutenbergās felony didnāt kill the literature at all; it just stripped off its aura of holy and arcane and focused it more on the contents than on the form.
In the following centuries the worries raised by scientific and technological progress intensified exponentially: chemistry stole the work from alchemists, medicine from witch doctors and healers, the steam engine from horse breeders, physics and astronomy from theologians, the mechanical loom from weavers (remember the Luddites?), the internal combustion engine from the steam engine⦠the list could go on for quite a while.
Then after WWII the embers of a science that for a couple of centuries had been discreetly growing in the background without affecting much peopleās life, ignited the fuse and the situation exploded: new technologies started popping up like mushrooms, newer technologies replaced them in a matter of a few years (or even months), the world began changing at an impressive speed.
Believe it or not, still in 1962 a computer was a human being, most often a woman, who performed a set of boring repetitive calculation manually or sometimes with the help of a few rattling mechanical gadgets. Less than four years later a bloom of electronic computers ā bulky, clumsy, primitive but then regarded as lightning-fast ā was already spreading on the world markets and stealing the job from innumerable grudging accountants and bookkeepers.
And today’s world was born.
next part:
A very brief history of art (3 of 5): today
AI: friend or foe? (1 of 5)
A very brief history of art: In the beginningā¦
The following article is the result of a bloody fight between myself and a guy I married a few centuries ago. In the end we had to acknowledge that our points of view were virtually identical but neither of us wanted to admit it. So we reached a compromise: he wrote the article, I deleted the most politically incorrect remarks, he rewrote them in a milder form, I got a bunch of roses as an apology, he got a fine dinner. Occasionally marriage can be a great thing⦠š
Lately Iāve read a lot of posts wailing, grumbling and moaning about the latest developments of AI potentially stealing the job from all kind of artists. Some of them looked reasonably well-informed, others gave the impression of a strong emotional position not really supported by any actual experience or direct knowledge.
Be it as it may, I think they could be right: if things keep going the way they are, plenty of āartistsā will inevitably lose their jobs as soon as their customers learn how to order a piece of art directly at the source, a skilled and most likely way cheaper AI. Itās just a matter of time, but the trend looks pretty clear.
However this is not the first time such a tragedy occurs: about four millennia ago some ruthless guy invented the potterās wheel without giving a thought to the countless people his devilish invention would leave jobless: soon all those skilled artists capable of making a nicely round vase in less than a week saw their customers fade away and go buy for a ludicrously low price a perfectly round vase made in a quarter of an hour with the new gadget.
Still someone ā probably a jobless artist ā must have considered that the concept of āartā could not be constrained to the way a beautiful thing is made: it might as well extend to the feelings such a beautiful thing elicits in us humans. And he (or she) started decorating those outrageously round vases with paintings that survived all the way to us, beautiful pieces of art having very little to do with the roundness of the support.

Itās sort of suggestive that for several millennia the Greek word ĻĪĻνη (tĆ©chne) has ever meant āartā exactly in the sense we attach to this word today. Will that mean that in the course of time all arts are bound to get standardized and flattened into technology? I donāt know, Iām just thinking of another word, āartificialāā¦
Nor is this an isolated caseā¦
Food for thought
Let’s face it: we are all more or less unsettled by an AI being able to simulate quite accurately what we so proudly call ‘human creativity’.
OK, it’s all based on human work, no one argues that. And it’s still us humans who decide if, how and how much of its outcomes to use, integrate or elaborate. But…
… but once unleashed the AI seems to be able to generate works of its own (no collages, no ready-made pieces sticked together, no copy & paste) and we humans can appreciate them and often even mistake them for real human art – until we are told where they come from.
And, no matter how such a devilish algorithm was created, it is still nothing more than a piece of software running on a piece of hardware.
Which elicits a rather disturbing question: are we proud humans really so predictable? Is our much vaunted, unique, irreplaceable creativity just a mere algorithm running between our ears? Are we really so great as we think?
Gameover’s Atelier: AI+Human Collection
For some of months Iāve been privately experimenting with Midjourney, and Iām constantly witnessing an enthralling, almost incredible evolution. As Iām using it quite intensively (2638 images generated so far) Iāve reason to believe that Iām also partaking in its ātrainingā š
Self-awareness?
That’s a big word and IMO applying it to todayās AI would (still) be a gross overkill. However in those three months the improvement in composition and quality of the outcome were really astonishing ā the āthingā is definitely growing up and learning a lot!
As it may be expected, pretty often thereās plenty of post-processing and upscaling work to do and you end up with an image quite different from the original one. But not always. Sometimes all you need to do is to prompt the bot with the proper wording over and again until you like it, and then to touch up the final outcome just a little: in the end you find yourself thinking āOMG, thatās exactly what I had in mind!ā.
Iāve read a lot about millions (or billions) of images being āstolenā from their creators to train the AI ā implying that everyone should be entitled to the correspondent royalties. But is it really theft, or are those images just used as machine-learning to point the AI towards some kind of independent creativity?
Iād rather go with the latter, also in view of the incredibly fast evolution of Midjourney.
Just consider…
Think for a moment: when you take a pic of a cathedral do you really wonder if you should pay a royalty to the bishop, or maybe to the architect who designed it? And does such a thought bother you when you photograph the work of a painter from the past, or a car whose logo youāll remove in the post-processing, or someone on the street who agrees to it with a smile?
Now don’t you tell me that you aren’t drawing inspiration from somewhere when you create a work of your own ā maybe from dozens of watermarked images, or from the pictures on an ancient book, or from a scene you just saw and found worth using, or, orā¦
Drawing inspiration is a human quality and this sort of empathy is the very base of creativity: you create from the world that surrounds you ā no world, no creation.
Iāll agree, itās quite disconcerting, even disturbing, to apply such concepts to a non-human entity, a mere āthingā made of metal and silicon chips. But we shouldnāt forget that this āthingā has been designed and made by humans, and humans are those who use it as the tool it is.
Setting aside philosophy, since this kind of images of mine were received well by Adobe and started selling promisingly I selected some and uploaded them to my Gameoverās Atelier. For the time being I limited my choice to simple subjects that I however find attractive and looked at from an unusual point of view. Should anyone be interested, they can be purchased pretty cheap ā outrageously cheap indeed (50% down!) if bought before coming Christmas š
I had plenty of fun choosing and commenting them, and Iāll keep adding more and more every day.
Note: the opening image on top was initially created by me with Midjourney’s bot and carefully touched up. The Florentine merchant depicted there doesn’t exist and never did; nor can you buy a “Pear Computer”, to the best of my knowledge š
New beta engine at Midjourney
–v 4, quite impressive!
The best approximation to the usual mess at my husband’s team lab š š

Both images are generated by Midjourney only through text and parameters.
The outcome is surprisingly quite familiar to me: it feels like to be there.
Sorry folks, working with AI is immensely creative and a big source of fun.
De profundis
It takes so little to kill the last glimmer of hope⦠I complained to Alamy about their mass-few-¢-sale of this month, and in reply I got this :
|
Hi Luisa, Thanks for your email. I can see that these sales are through our distribution scheme. Which you are opted in for. Our Distribution scheme is optional and under the section of your account titled “Additional Revenue Option”. As the title suggests it’s an opportunity to earn additional revenue through territories that Alamy doesn’t quite reach with direct sales. Every year our Distribution scheme returns a sizable 15% of our total revenue and so we’d recommend being part of it. You can only opt out or remove countries in April of every year; this is so we can give our distributors a consistent collection. Kind regards, |
(note: I opted out from their ‘Novel use’ option last April 1st)
Letās brush off the tiny coat of perfunctory politeness and have a closer look at the gist:
- So Iām āopted in forā: did I opt in or was I opted in? I donāt remember having checked a box āfeel free to sell my images for a few pennies and give me a minute fraction of thatā.
- If their Distribution scheme returns āa sizable 15% of their total revenueā, how many millions of images should they sell on the āmiserableā market to make 2Ā¢ for the distributor, 2Ā¢ for themselves and 1Ā¢ for me, and still have a decent income?
The 22 images of mine they undersold this way got them a total of $1.55 and a mightily irritated contributor about to abandon ship. Perhaps the time has come to move the rampant yuppie who had the Great Idea to the cleaning team. - So nice that I can opt out of such an economical disaster in April of every year, indeed. It would be even nicer though to know what exactly one has to opt out of in order to prevent one’s images from being given away like confetti.
āFair playā has many opposites, and nowadays keeping the rules where nobody sees them has become a very popular one.
There is little doubt left, they definitely are shutterstocking. Itās damn sad to see an agency that used to have fair play as their flagship sink this low š