Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro?Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

"A.I." (Machine Learning Algorithms) To Generate Art

1141517192023

Comments

  • Good morning Tuesday. Have a blessed one...

  • @echoopera said:
    Thanks @Krupa It's cool to see how you're using these tools yourself.

    I had another cool session today at lunch:

    Cheers, it’s definitely helping me power on past my inner critic if nothing else…

  • And one more for the day:

  • @echoopera said:
    And one more for the day:

    Fantastic.

  • @AudioGus said:

    That’s pretty cool.

  • My tribute to J Dilla:

  • @Silvertip said:
    Maybe (definitely) this will be easier. The app is called Mesmerizely.

    https://apps.apple.com/app/mesmerizely-ai-generated-art/id6443504555

    Just to give you all a warning, after the latest update (version 1.5)
    you only get 3 free renders and then the app gives you this message.

    Before the update you could render at your heart's content.
    Not anymore. So, if you didn't update ... don’t do it!

  • While I’m still getting through my cartoon animatic, I had a little dabble in something slightly different yesterday; a long running project that started with writing prompts based on a long lost family photo album, this one might be another project to add to the growing list…

  • I must admit, the overuse of AI already (and probably because I have lots in my feeds which makes it seem even more commonplace than it actually is) already makes me appreciate non-AI art more. The more realistic it becomes the less interesting it is to look at if used as the basis of the whole work and not as a tool in the creative process. It's also because the models used are very generic. I'm using it less than I was 6 months ago myself.

  • @Carnbot said:
    I must admit, the overuse of AI already (and probably because I have lots in my feeds which makes it seem even more commonplace than it actually is) already makes me appreciate non-AI art more. The more realistic it becomes the less interesting it is to look at if used as the basis of the whole work and not as a tool in the creative process. It's also because the models used are very generic. I'm using it less than I was 6 months ago myself.

    AI art on its own, however clever and initially impressive, has no soul. No amount of clever coding is ever going to compensate for that.

    Horses for courses, it’ll always have its fans after the initial fad has worn off, but personally I prefer the real thing.

  • @monz0id said:

    @Carnbot said:
    I must admit, the overuse of AI already (and probably because I have lots in my feeds which makes it seem even more commonplace than it actually is) already makes me appreciate non-AI art more. The more realistic it becomes the less interesting it is to look at if used as the basis of the whole work and not as a tool in the creative process. It's also because the models used are very generic. I'm using it less than I was 6 months ago myself.

    AI art on its own, however clever and initially impressive, has no soul. No amount of clever coding is ever going to compensate for that.

    Horses for courses, it’ll always have its fans after the initial fad has worn off, but personally I prefer the real thing.

    Yeah, I couldn’t in all honesty use it directly as designed, but as another arrow in the quiver it’s giving me a real creative surge at the moment…

  • edited December 2022

    @Krupa said:

    @monz0id said:

    @Carnbot said:
    I must admit, the overuse of AI already (and probably because I have lots in my feeds which makes it seem even more commonplace than it actually is) already makes me appreciate non-AI art more. The more realistic it becomes the less interesting it is to look at if used as the basis of the whole work and not as a tool in the creative process. It's also because the models used are very generic. I'm using it less than I was 6 months ago myself.

    AI art on its own, however clever and initially impressive, has no soul. No amount of clever coding is ever going to compensate for that.

    Horses for courses, it’ll always have its fans after the initial fad has worn off, but personally I prefer the real thing.

    Yeah, I couldn’t in all honesty use it directly as designed, but as another arrow in the quiver it’s giving me a real creative surge at the moment…

    Oh definitely, it's an incredible tool for digital artists, and if I was still doing that stuff I'd be using it too. Similarly I like using randomisers in synths and sequencers in my music, they can be incredibly inspiring and trigger off all sorts of ideas for new tracks.

    But this stuff on its own just doesn't work for me. There's a hint of the grotesque about it, lacking soul, so it really needs that extra human element - creativity to spark some life into it.

  • I have seen the stories about AI making these not-readable signatures in (most often) lower right corner. As in, yes, AI has looked at your paintings and copied the style, - including your signature.
    Yesterday midjourney gave me something hillarious along those lines: It gave me a “photo” with the well-known SHUTTERSTOCK watermark across. It was not readable except for a couple of letters, but it was clear what it was.
    AI concluding: Popular photographs has that watermark thingy. Here ya go! Looks good, right? 😂

  • @monz0id said:

    @Krupa said:

    @monz0id said:

    @Carnbot said:
    I must admit, the overuse of AI already (and probably because I have lots in my feeds which makes it seem even more commonplace than it actually is) already makes me appreciate non-AI art more. The more realistic it becomes the less interesting it is to look at if used as the basis of the whole work and not as a tool in the creative process. It's also because the models used are very generic. I'm using it less than I was 6 months ago myself.

    AI art on its own, however clever and initially impressive, has no soul. No amount of clever coding is ever going to compensate for that.

    Horses for courses, it’ll always have its fans after the initial fad has worn off, but personally I prefer the real thing.

    Yeah, I couldn’t in all honesty use it directly as designed, but as another arrow in the quiver it’s giving me a real creative surge at the moment…

    Oh definitely, it's an incredible tool for digital artists, and if I was still doing that stuff I'd be using it too. Similarly I like using randomisers in synths and sequencers in my music, they can be incredibly inspiring and trigger off all sorts of ideas for new tracks.

    But this stuff on its own just doesn't work for me. There's a hint of the grotesque about it, lacking soul, so it really needs that extra human element - creativity to spark some life into it.

    Yeah it always happens like this, new technology brings overuse and misuse.
    But it becomes and is already is a very useful as a tool, doing a lot of stuff I don't want to do e.g background removal and all the types of laborious stuff AI will get better at.. But in the hands of the average new generation of self proclaimed "AI artists" the results are very dull.

  • @Carnbot said:
    But in the hands of the average new generation of self proclaimed "AI artists" the results are very dull.

    There seems to be a number of diferent set styles, but within these they're very samey. Instagram is full of it. I like some of it (the incredible Alan Lee fantasy knock-offs and some of the distorted, weird black and white stuff), but then you'll see a similar image in a totally different account. I don't know how it works, but maybe they're using the same seeds, or something? Weird inflatables seems to be a bit of a thing in my feeds at the moment....

  • @monz0id said:

    @Carnbot said:
    But in the hands of the average new generation of self proclaimed "AI artists" the results are very dull.

    There seems to be a number of diferent set styles, but within these they're very samey. Instagram is full of it. I like some of it (the incredible Alan Lee fantasy knock-offs and some of the distorted, weird black and white stuff), but then you'll see a similar image in a totally different account. I don't know how it works, but maybe they're using the same seeds, or something? Weird inflatables seems to be a bit of a thing in my feeds at the moment....

    Yeah, They'll be using the same trained models I would think, so bits of the same source material can emerge. This is the main problem as to why it feels too generic, it's just a filter. It's very seductive to overuse because it's too easy. I really like it for doing mockups though. I'm getting into Nerfs (making 3d images from photos) at the moment and this was something I would spend ages doing by hand years ago.

  • It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

  • @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

  • @Carnbot said:

    @monz0id said:

    @Carnbot said:
    But in the hands of the average new generation of self proclaimed "AI artists" the results are very dull.

    There seems to be a number of diferent set styles, but within these they're very samey. Instagram is full of it. I like some of it (the incredible Alan Lee fantasy knock-offs and some of the distorted, weird black and white stuff), but then you'll see a similar image in a totally different account. I don't know how it works, but maybe they're using the same seeds, or something? Weird inflatables seems to be a bit of a thing in my feeds at the moment....

    Yeah, They'll be using the same trained models I would think, so bits of the same source material can emerge. This is the main problem as to why it feels too generic, it's just a filter. It's very seductive to overuse because it's too easy. I really like it for doing mockups though. I'm getting into Nerfs (making 3d images from photos) at the moment and this was something I would spend ages doing by hand years ago.

    I trained in graphic design as well as illustration in the olden days - we had to study typography and character construction in great depth along with layout techniques - photo editing was an airbrush loaded with gouache. Then along came affordable DTP, everyone and their dog was suddenly a designer, and posters with hideously distorted and unreadable warped text across multiple clashing fonts became a thing. The graphic design dark ages.

    Seems to have calmed down a bit now, hopefully AI art will mature into something wonderful too.

  • @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

  • @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

    Yes, and I think the purity of a process is what can make art work interesting. The problem is these models are curated by organisations and what it thinks should be included by huge data scraping. This will always create huge bias and generic results. There's a lot of garbage in there which can't be totally removed unless it's not in there in the first place. The average user won't mind, but the best artists will always want more control of the material.

  • @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

    Yes, and I think the purity of a process is what can make art work interesting. The problem is these models are curated by organisations and what it thinks should be included by huge data scraping. This will always create huge bias and generic results. There's a lot of garbage in there which can't be totally removed unless it's not in there in the first place. The average user won't mind, but the best artists will always want more control of the material.

    Indeed, once I’ve figured it out I’ll be creating my own models from the trends of thousands of photos I’ve taken over the years, and selecting paintings from the areas that interest me - in one way I’m just looking for really good style transfer. The new project I posted above though I’m gonna let it go full bore collective memory as that relates precisely to the content of the work…

  • @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

    Yes, and I think the purity of a process is what can make art work interesting. The problem is these models are curated by organisations and what it thinks should be included by huge data scraping. This will always create huge bias and generic results. There's a lot of garbage in there which can't be totally removed unless it's not in there in the first place. The average user won't mind, but the best artists will always want more control of the material.

    Indeed, once I’ve figured it out I’ll be creating my own models from the trends of thousands of photos I’ve taken over the years, and selecting paintings from the areas that interest me - in one way I’m just looking for really good style transfer. The new project I posted above though I’m gonna let it go full bore collective memory as that relates precisely to the content of the work…

    Yeah, I've been exploring doing some of that, training on my own source and used this process as part of a recent work I did in Czech Republic. But this process will be better when GPUs are even faster so we won't need the online models at all. I still don't like the latent flavour it leaves behind.

  • @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

    Yes, and I think the purity of a process is what can make art work interesting. The problem is these models are curated by organisations and what it thinks should be included by huge data scraping. This will always create huge bias and generic results. There's a lot of garbage in there which can't be totally removed unless it's not in there in the first place. The average user won't mind, but the best artists will always want more control of the material.

    Indeed, once I’ve figured it out I’ll be creating my own models from the trends of thousands of photos I’ve taken over the years, and selecting paintings from the areas that interest me - in one way I’m just looking for really good style transfer. The new project I posted above though I’m gonna let it go full bore collective memory as that relates precisely to the content of the work…

    Yeah, I've been exploring doing some of that, training on my own source and used this process as part of a recent work I did in Czech Republic. But this process will be better when GPUs are even faster so we won't need the online models at all. I still don't like the latent flavour it leaves behind.

    That sounds interesting, did you use dreambooth, or some other method? Did you already post links to the work as well?

  • edited December 2022

    I have mostly been using an iPad app called Dream:

    https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/dream-by-wombo-ai-art-tool/id1586366816

    to create the illustrations for a book of slightly kinky micro horror fictions I am putting together. Here is an example:

    And just to prove I am equal opportunities in these matters:

  • @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @Krupa said:
    It’ll be them using the same prompts; the models have practically all of art history baked in so there’s really no need for everything to look the same…

    "all of art history" is not a good way to describe it though. These models are restricted and limited and have lots of biases towards certain things.

    Sure thing, all is stretching it, but I’m not using any contemporary or even recent references in my prompts and that’s reflected in the results I’m getting - as they say, garbage in, garbage out 👍

    Yes, and I think the purity of a process is what can make art work interesting. The problem is these models are curated by organisations and what it thinks should be included by huge data scraping. This will always create huge bias and generic results. There's a lot of garbage in there which can't be totally removed unless it's not in there in the first place. The average user won't mind, but the best artists will always want more control of the material.

    Indeed, once I’ve figured it out I’ll be creating my own models from the trends of thousands of photos I’ve taken over the years, and selecting paintings from the areas that interest me - in one way I’m just looking for really good style transfer. The new project I posted above though I’m gonna let it go full bore collective memory as that relates precisely to the content of the work…

    Yeah, I've been exploring doing some of that, training on my own source and used this process as part of a recent work I did in Czech Republic. But this process will be better when GPUs are even faster so we won't need the online models at all. I still don't like the latent flavour it leaves behind.

    That sounds interesting, did you use dreambooth, or some other method? Did you already post links to the work as well?

    I haven't posted links or images here yet no, but will do. I used the standard training in stable diffusion webgui mainly because it's fast to use and train. But I did compose it by combining it with more procedurally based animation and compositing, because I don't like using it without that, I also used AI as part of the subject of the project so it made sense to use it. But it is interesting to use and I'm sure I will continue to use it as a process, but not always.

Sign In or Register to comment.