AI Art Generators: What I do to make it work

 I've heard that some folks think AI generators don't produce output on par with what they're looking for, and I wonder why they can't make these generators work for them.

There's two things to bear in mind here. If you specify an artist you know who you're stealing from. If you don't, the art comes from a general pool of individuals who may be disputing that their work was stolen. It's very hard to know. I only work with common-pool requests when whatever I'm doing is not working. Ultimately, I don't need to have total control over a finished piece to think it's beautiful or finished. 

Here is an example input. Please note, I have no idea what will come out of the process, nor can I guarantee that you or I will think it's "good" or even worth considering as art. But, it will be off-the-cuff as-it-happens and a kind of experiment. 

Here is my input:

Everything is set to default values. Let's see what our output looks like:

I'm really close to screapping this effort, because I'm not really liking what I'm seeing. However, I'm not there yet because we can do some stuff still. As it happens, you should always run the the generator on the fewest possible iterations to see what it comes up with. If it comes up with nothing good, then you haven't committed double credits for an over-developed piece of art you don't want. Let's do some evolving. We're also going to being playing more with the inputs.

I want to see where it takes the "busiest" picture which is in the upper left hand corner. The generator will have more "stuff" to latch onto and evolve. It presents the greatest opportunity for development.

New inputs:

We're going to strip everything but nouns and see if that helps us out. Artists remain the same. Everything else will remain the same. We're essentially just feeling out the generator for something that catches our eye.

Now, we have this:

I'm ready to call this an evolutionary dead end. Let's try again with the second-busiest image. We'll change the inputs because we think the added non-nominal text is cluttering the generation process though we have no proof. We will table this theory and test it later. We did better this time!

These are four pretty decent pictures. Unfortunately, it looks like there's a cock at the bottom of the third one. You don't get to be literature by adding gratuitous cocks to art. I'd like to believe otherwise, but society has yet to ascend to that plane of consciousness.

We may have not meant for it to end up here, but here we are. Let's see what we get.

Alright now, let's play with our other original images. We'll go in order of busiest to least-busy. As a general rule, you can assume I'm applying the same ruleset unless I make note otherwise. I've employed the modified ruleset that only includes nouns.

Ultimately, much like life, it's a lot of trial and error. In the future, we'd need to be more direct about the sense of the meaning. To wit, we stripped it down to the absolute value of its nouns to avoid confusing the generator. But did we lose the sense in the process? It can be hard because, ultimately, it's a feel thing. 

If I had to select one image from the bunch that represented the totality of that line of poetry, I would select this one:

There are gods which are also stars
stars which are also atoms
and atoms which are forces of nature