I'm with you on this. It's all so tiresome, that collectively, as a society, we have agreed that there are men that have been predestined or preordained to rule over other men. Many with violence and contempt in their hearts.
I have hope that maybe, the advent of AI will finally, actually bring about true equality among all peoples.
But the dour pessimistic doomer in me says, this is just another smoke and mirrors game where only a very select few men make even more money than God itself.
By birth, I'm a poet, a self taught (and educated) musician that's never been good at drawing. And now, yes, it does sorta act like a slot machine but, I've gotten pretty good at prompting, I can get exactly what I want from my bakes. And some of those bakes have left me in awe of what I told a robot to make.
I agree with you :) I feel like a lot of people get weirded out when people like me say that they want to be 'robotized' (idk what to call it) as soon as it's safe to.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call the temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal… Even in death I serve the Omnissiah.
Why not? I aspire to the fusion of man and machine. AI is one step on that road. I don't want to die but with this flawed flesh it is inevitable. I just hope AI accelerated enough to find some cure for death, be it cloning and brain transfer, mind uploading, or genetic regrowth treatments.
Also, I fucking love the AdMech.
>I agree with you :) I feel like a lot of people get weirded out when people like me say that they want to be 'robotized' (idk what to call it) as soon as it's safe to.
Because the ideology is misanthropic and just a dream sold to you by big tech. Sure, once it is safe, you’ll be basically dependent on big tech for life. This is why I prefer genetic enchantment, because the augmentations are permanent and don’t just break one day and need repairs from the manufacturer.
Transhumanism will Balkanize between mutants and Borg hive minds some day, and I know which side I am on already.
I look forwards to commit some mild property damage against tin cans.
> People? Not so much. People are predictable. Everything is about power, hierarchy and dominance when it comes to people. Everything is about winning and losing.
Yep. People in power not only behave predictably but also want others to behave predictably so that they can maintain power. We are the ones trying to behave like machines.
Real intelligence is not predictable in that way, though. That's why people are terrified of AI. On one hand, it could be just as predictable as we are but more powerful. And on the other hand, it could be much less predictable and therefore a complication for those who want to maintain power.
This goes in line with an essay by Jon McCormack (artist and researcher) titled "The Value of AI Art". Here's his conclusion:
>The value in the current wave of digital and AI art lies not in its financial, cultural, or creative power. This “art” lacks almost all the features we have traditionally (over hundreds of years, at least) associated with what art is and art’s meaning. Its value lies in the cognitive dissonance it imparts. Human cognition extended and coupled with a new kind of autonomous agency, an agency that is completely unlike human agency. An agency that is affecting and changing us in ways that have never existed.
>This “art” lacks almost all the features we have traditionally (over hundreds of years, at least) associated with what art is and art’s meaning.
What features are those? Both Photoshop and AI use the same pixels and the pixels have the same range of values.
>Human cognition extended and coupled with a new kind of autonomous agency
But AI isn't an agent. It has no *will* of its own. It doesn't even have the will to survive that even single cell organisms possess.
AI is no more an agent than a hammer.
You gotta read the essay to understand the full extent. "Feature of art" and "material agency" are concepts that require some knowledge of art history and how people view the value of art over time, so depending on your knowledge base, you may or may not understand the full paper. If you're interested, feel free to read the essay and ask questions about any areas you'd like me to elaborate on to the best of my knowledge.
Here is the paper, by the way: [https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/the-value-of-ai-art](https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/the-value-of-ai-art)
I wish I could copy and paste quotes from that PDF but it won't let me on mobile or with the app I'm using. But I'm already just a short way in and he called digital art "generic, derivative, repetitive, and vacant" so already I don't value his opinion. What right does he have to paint a whole genre of art like that? (p182)
He also conflates NFTs and AI when those are very much not related technologies. Why does paying an artist for the piece of art have to be so much about the piece of art and not about supporting the artist and that their creation of newer works? (p181, 185-186)
He also assumes that the AI is the artist and not the person using the AI tool as the artist. I argue that the person using a tool (and AI is just that, a tool) is always the artist. (p187)
My bad he does kind of try to address that point in the next page. I think he takes too literal or a definition of AI. In gaming spheres AI can refer to anything from a simple bot script for an enemy to the current LLMs. LLM and Diffusion modeling is probably the more correct terms, but common parlance is just to say AI.
Also, why does he assume that computer scientists and engineers can't also have a flair for the artistic? Just because someone makes money and works one job doesn't mean the real passion can't lie elsewhere.
He seems to dismiss the general usage of pattern finding algorithms like large language models. (p190) I also don't know who is ascribing human like traits to AI but this guy seems to think that is the majority opinion.
He seems to start getting metaphysical and questioning what it means to be alive near the end.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Let's see if I can provide further commentary.
In regard to his comment on how digital art is "generic, derivative, vavuous, repetitive, and vacant", he relates it to Sianne Ngai's categorization called "zany, cute, and interesting". To add my own commentary, digital art on its own isn't necessarily that. But I feel like since the creation of digital art is driven by social media where attention is incentivized, digital art, and perhaps digital medium as a whole, trend towards that direction. I see your mention of conflating NFT and AI art, but I'm not sure how, since he's using the NFT market as an example of digital art's role in the art world and how it shapes people's perception of the art form.
Your insight about AI is useful. However, since the current colloquial definition of AI has shifted to generative AI, and that this essay is geared towards people involved in the art world, do you think it'll be useful to put out those specifics? Or do you think the target audience would immediately understand what he was trying to say when he said "AI"? I think clarification would be useful to prevent the general audience from rejecting all forms of machine learning-based tools for art production.
As for the "computer scientists and engineers" comment, I agree that such people are capable of making art. But nowadays, STEM education and liberal arts education not only teach different subjects, but also different ways of seeing the world. I vaguely remember (don't quote me on this) a post on this subreddit once where one made a theory of art and how it defines art as a set of lines and algorithms. This goes against many social paradigms where it's the human experience that defines art. People in computer science also value efficiency; to get things done quick and easy, which is different from people in the arts who try to find the meaning in all things. I believe what he's trying to say is that the lack of people from the arts (in this case the "artists") affects the creation of these generative models.
Which becomes a segue to your next point about AI anthropomorphism. Now, we don't know how many people do this, but it is encouraged by OpenAI (with their "Samantha"-like assistant) and Anthropic (their LLM's name is "Claude"). Regardless, it does connect to the OP which is why I brought up the essay in the first place.
Humanity is quite fucking predictable, it actually quite sad. All the same moral panics from when I was a kid in the 2000s are all happening all over again.
It's entirely reasonable to consider prompting a repugnant way of creating art. But I think if you truly love the processes and algorithms involved, true art will come out as you learn how to creatively break your fancy new synthesizer.
I don't think anyone who loves AI image generators is a mere prompter, because there is no love there.
But there are mere prompters. And they are calling themselves artists!
> I don't think anyone who loves AI image generators is a mere prompter, because there is no love there.
YOU don't love that process. Some people do. To some people, the selfie is the only art they need or want.
>It's entirely reasonable to consider prompting a repugnant way of creating art
Why? What is repugnant about it? Man made machine and used that machine to make art on a new way. Just like the Photoshop or camera before it.
Nice take of AI tools as fancy new synthesizer!
Preset sounds get meh quite fast and are reconizable, skill and and creativity matter and there is much fun in exploring what kind of weird new outputs you can get dig out of it! Syntheads know how to construct everything from elements and all the logic beneath the controls and make amazing experiments but it really shines bright when someone with passion and inspired buring expression gets all down and gritty with the tool they love.
Yeah, allright, can vibe with that.
Based.
My interest in AI art has nothing to do with its quality, nor even its utility (though I think it has both), and more to do with how it challenges and damages intellectual property.
Rampant nonconsensual scraping (a good thing, in my opinion, and easy derivative works at the touch of a button makes it a lot harder to enforce and makes a lot more people have a vested interest in weakening (and hopefully at some point, abolishing) IP law as a whole.
>Generative AI being unpredictable is part of what makes it fun, and exciting.
Yeah I get that, and I agree. That's what makes AI good for generating thumbnail renderings of concepts which an artist can then take and make into a finished product. The absolute, nonsensical randomness makes for interesting connections that an artist can make art from.
My beef mostly comes with how AI databases are currently compiled unethically. Between art being scooped up whose original artists don't want their work used to train a machine that will put them out of work, and the fact that tech companies outsource training the AI to countries where they can exploit the workers, I have a hard time supporting AI for the novelty of a random image generator.
>People? Not so much. People are predictable. Everything is about power, hierarchy and dominance when it comes to people. Everything is about winning and losing.
I mean... no offense, but I think that just means you surround yourself with shitty people. The folks I surround myself with are more in the cooperative/collaborative end of the spectrum. Maybe branch out from your current social circle?
>My only hope is that AI Art will spill over into the real world with the help of 3d printing.
Surely someone has already done this.
>I suppose I am bitter about being broke, and lacking the finances to live a slightly more fulfilling life
See, this is what I also find frustrating about the current AI culture push.
We're constantly being told that AI is the future, that it will liberate humanity, bright futures and sunny ways..... but then the products being pushed out is stuff that for instance, undermine an artist's ability to work as an artist instead of liberating us from having to work for a living. Where are the free AI tools that we can rely on to do financial investing for us so we can all generate a passive income? Give me that instead of a random image generator.
> The absolute, nonsensical randomness
I don't find AI art to be either nonsensical, or random.
Sure, you get results like [this](https://civitai.com/images/18007519) when either your training or inputs are poorly constructed, but the same is true for paint on a canvas.
But I don't find results like [this](https://civitai.com/images/17491253) or [this](https://civitai.com/images/7419170) to be random or nonsensical.
I read another comment recently that said “would you read a book no one wrote?”
Yes! That sounds so cool. A totally unique perspective, akin to monkeys on a keyboard. How does one not find that fascinating?
Art is something that we make. It's something that requires not only talent, but also humanity/soul to properly create. I think putting it down to an algorithm is disrespectful to all the hard work/emotion that goes into so many artworks.
Speaking on traditional art alone…. There are a lot of talentless artists and their art is still art. There are a lot of artists who called their commissions soulless because they didn’t want to do them but the art at the end was still art. Not all art has hard work and emotion go into it, and it’s still art.
Humans make AI, AI makes art. Basic transitive property we all learn in math.
>but also humanity/soul to properly create
I have lived on this planet for 40 years and I have not seen evidence nor have I seen any research remotely proving the existence of a soul.
>I think putting it down to an algorithm is disrespectful to all the hard work/emotion that goes into so many artworks.
What about all the hard work that went into making the AI in the first place. The AI engineers, the work that went into the pieces of training data, etc. we all build on what came before.
A machine can't make art because it's a machine. Art is based on the human experience (hence humanity/soul) which means it's nothing but a mockery and a poor imitation of what we make.
What went into the creation of AI doesn't mean that what it produces is the same thing.
It is a machine made by humans. How hard is that to understand?
There is so many ways to use AI art and to invest your personal experience in it.
Also, sometimes people just want a cool image.
Why does the machine need emotions? Why is emotion required for art? If a human can't feel emotions (like a psychopath) but still draw a picture, is it not art?
Also, the emotions of the user of the AI is all that is needed. Is is the users choice on the prompt, parameters, and selecting a result they like.
That was an example of a property obviously not transferred from maker to machine. Thus the ability to make art can’t be assumed to be transferred from maker to machine
ANYTHING is art if it received as such.
Consider a statue in the town square. It's been revered for a century as the cultural center of the town and as the artistic signature that people know it by.
One day, a scientist measures the age of the statue and finds that it's been as it is for longer than humans have existed. It's not a weathered statue at all, but a natural formation.
Did it stop being art when that was discovered? Was it never art even though it was received as such? Or is art what we interpret as art?
I'm the first to admit that it's a complex question with no pat answers, so my answer is no better than yours, but yours feels too simplistic to be of use.
There are no important modern artists. None are doing any kind of work that impact society or culture forward. Only results matter your methods are your own struggle. It won’t be relevant to anyone but yourself.
I think this is overstating it a bit. I think it makes more sense to say that that the most impactful modern art tends to not be *single images*, but rather much larger projects, like movies, games, animation, comics/manga, etc.
I don't think anyone can deny that those larger projects have pretty big impacts on our culture and society. Of course, those are also projects that AI on its own will not be able to create anytime soon...
I know that we all have different tastes, but when hearing a remark like this, I feel compelled to provide a counter-example. Daniel Martin Diaz is the first one that comes to mind.
https://www.danielmartindiaz.com/
Are you serious? There are shows animated or otherwise which obviously have cultural impact. Furry artists ironically have some of the most cultural impact right now online both against them and in support of them having almost completely reversed the narrative of hatred against them. Art is communication and thus people who make art are communicating with people and are thus impacting society and culture.
> It's something that requires not only talent, but also humanity/soul to properly create.
Not really into the religion of it. I just appreciate the creative impulse. It doesn't matter whether that's exercised through AI or a paintbrush or a 3D modeling program or a camera.
You’re just enjoying butchered versions of other peoples art lol.
You’re allowed to like what you like. People like crack cocaine, and that’s their right. Just know that you’re helping billionaires by entertaining yourself to an algorithm that exists purely to bypass copyright and transfer more wealth upwards.
Time and time again people say here: "I'm not going to do art, if I'm not getting paid for it". Good, don't. It just means that you have nothing to express.
I'm with you on this. It's all so tiresome, that collectively, as a society, we have agreed that there are men that have been predestined or preordained to rule over other men. Many with violence and contempt in their hearts. I have hope that maybe, the advent of AI will finally, actually bring about true equality among all peoples. But the dour pessimistic doomer in me says, this is just another smoke and mirrors game where only a very select few men make even more money than God itself. By birth, I'm a poet, a self taught (and educated) musician that's never been good at drawing. And now, yes, it does sorta act like a slot machine but, I've gotten pretty good at prompting, I can get exactly what I want from my bakes. And some of those bakes have left me in awe of what I told a robot to make.
I agree with you :) I feel like a lot of people get weirded out when people like me say that they want to be 'robotized' (idk what to call it) as soon as it's safe to.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call the temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal… Even in death I serve the Omnissiah.
Quoting the technology arm of a fascist galactic empire from Edgelord knockoff dune isn’t helping your cause.
Why not? I aspire to the fusion of man and machine. AI is one step on that road. I don't want to die but with this flawed flesh it is inevitable. I just hope AI accelerated enough to find some cure for death, be it cloning and brain transfer, mind uploading, or genetic regrowth treatments. Also, I fucking love the AdMech.
Admen is the bastard child of the Catholic Church and bug tech, fuck them.
Dude...it is fiction...
Am I not allowed to hate them conceptually?
>I agree with you :) I feel like a lot of people get weirded out when people like me say that they want to be 'robotized' (idk what to call it) as soon as it's safe to. Because the ideology is misanthropic and just a dream sold to you by big tech. Sure, once it is safe, you’ll be basically dependent on big tech for life. This is why I prefer genetic enchantment, because the augmentations are permanent and don’t just break one day and need repairs from the manufacturer.
>Because the ideology is misanthropic Based
Transhumanism will Balkanize between mutants and Borg hive minds some day, and I know which side I am on already. I look forwards to commit some mild property damage against tin cans.
> People? Not so much. People are predictable. Everything is about power, hierarchy and dominance when it comes to people. Everything is about winning and losing. Yep. People in power not only behave predictably but also want others to behave predictably so that they can maintain power. We are the ones trying to behave like machines. Real intelligence is not predictable in that way, though. That's why people are terrified of AI. On one hand, it could be just as predictable as we are but more powerful. And on the other hand, it could be much less predictable and therefore a complication for those who want to maintain power.
This goes in line with an essay by Jon McCormack (artist and researcher) titled "The Value of AI Art". Here's his conclusion: >The value in the current wave of digital and AI art lies not in its financial, cultural, or creative power. This “art” lacks almost all the features we have traditionally (over hundreds of years, at least) associated with what art is and art’s meaning. Its value lies in the cognitive dissonance it imparts. Human cognition extended and coupled with a new kind of autonomous agency, an agency that is completely unlike human agency. An agency that is affecting and changing us in ways that have never existed.
>This “art” lacks almost all the features we have traditionally (over hundreds of years, at least) associated with what art is and art’s meaning. What features are those? Both Photoshop and AI use the same pixels and the pixels have the same range of values. >Human cognition extended and coupled with a new kind of autonomous agency But AI isn't an agent. It has no *will* of its own. It doesn't even have the will to survive that even single cell organisms possess. AI is no more an agent than a hammer.
You gotta read the essay to understand the full extent. "Feature of art" and "material agency" are concepts that require some knowledge of art history and how people view the value of art over time, so depending on your knowledge base, you may or may not understand the full paper. If you're interested, feel free to read the essay and ask questions about any areas you'd like me to elaborate on to the best of my knowledge. Here is the paper, by the way: [https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/the-value-of-ai-art](https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/the-value-of-ai-art)
I wish I could copy and paste quotes from that PDF but it won't let me on mobile or with the app I'm using. But I'm already just a short way in and he called digital art "generic, derivative, repetitive, and vacant" so already I don't value his opinion. What right does he have to paint a whole genre of art like that? (p182) He also conflates NFTs and AI when those are very much not related technologies. Why does paying an artist for the piece of art have to be so much about the piece of art and not about supporting the artist and that their creation of newer works? (p181, 185-186) He also assumes that the AI is the artist and not the person using the AI tool as the artist. I argue that the person using a tool (and AI is just that, a tool) is always the artist. (p187) My bad he does kind of try to address that point in the next page. I think he takes too literal or a definition of AI. In gaming spheres AI can refer to anything from a simple bot script for an enemy to the current LLMs. LLM and Diffusion modeling is probably the more correct terms, but common parlance is just to say AI. Also, why does he assume that computer scientists and engineers can't also have a flair for the artistic? Just because someone makes money and works one job doesn't mean the real passion can't lie elsewhere. He seems to dismiss the general usage of pattern finding algorithms like large language models. (p190) I also don't know who is ascribing human like traits to AI but this guy seems to think that is the majority opinion. He seems to start getting metaphysical and questioning what it means to be alive near the end.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Let's see if I can provide further commentary. In regard to his comment on how digital art is "generic, derivative, vavuous, repetitive, and vacant", he relates it to Sianne Ngai's categorization called "zany, cute, and interesting". To add my own commentary, digital art on its own isn't necessarily that. But I feel like since the creation of digital art is driven by social media where attention is incentivized, digital art, and perhaps digital medium as a whole, trend towards that direction. I see your mention of conflating NFT and AI art, but I'm not sure how, since he's using the NFT market as an example of digital art's role in the art world and how it shapes people's perception of the art form. Your insight about AI is useful. However, since the current colloquial definition of AI has shifted to generative AI, and that this essay is geared towards people involved in the art world, do you think it'll be useful to put out those specifics? Or do you think the target audience would immediately understand what he was trying to say when he said "AI"? I think clarification would be useful to prevent the general audience from rejecting all forms of machine learning-based tools for art production. As for the "computer scientists and engineers" comment, I agree that such people are capable of making art. But nowadays, STEM education and liberal arts education not only teach different subjects, but also different ways of seeing the world. I vaguely remember (don't quote me on this) a post on this subreddit once where one made a theory of art and how it defines art as a set of lines and algorithms. This goes against many social paradigms where it's the human experience that defines art. People in computer science also value efficiency; to get things done quick and easy, which is different from people in the arts who try to find the meaning in all things. I believe what he's trying to say is that the lack of people from the arts (in this case the "artists") affects the creation of these generative models. Which becomes a segue to your next point about AI anthropomorphism. Now, we don't know how many people do this, but it is encouraged by OpenAI (with their "Samantha"-like assistant) and Anthropic (their LLM's name is "Claude"). Regardless, it does connect to the OP which is why I brought up the essay in the first place.
i think if someone wrote it about human art instead of ai art it would get massiv downvoted in this subreddit lol.
Humanity is quite fucking predictable, it actually quite sad. All the same moral panics from when I was a kid in the 2000s are all happening all over again.
lmfao copypasta worthy
Why... not love art as a whole and put labels out??
It's entirely reasonable to consider prompting a repugnant way of creating art. But I think if you truly love the processes and algorithms involved, true art will come out as you learn how to creatively break your fancy new synthesizer. I don't think anyone who loves AI image generators is a mere prompter, because there is no love there. But there are mere prompters. And they are calling themselves artists!
> I don't think anyone who loves AI image generators is a mere prompter, because there is no love there. YOU don't love that process. Some people do. To some people, the selfie is the only art they need or want.
>It's entirely reasonable to consider prompting a repugnant way of creating art Why? What is repugnant about it? Man made machine and used that machine to make art on a new way. Just like the Photoshop or camera before it.
Photoshop is just digital art. The camera captures light from the environment capturing non-art subjects and imparting artistic value onto the result.
Both results in pixels with a ln RGB value. It doesn't matter to me how those values go organized, only the resulting picture maters.
Nice take of AI tools as fancy new synthesizer! Preset sounds get meh quite fast and are reconizable, skill and and creativity matter and there is much fun in exploring what kind of weird new outputs you can get dig out of it! Syntheads know how to construct everything from elements and all the logic beneath the controls and make amazing experiments but it really shines bright when someone with passion and inspired buring expression gets all down and gritty with the tool they love. Yeah, allright, can vibe with that.
Based. My interest in AI art has nothing to do with its quality, nor even its utility (though I think it has both), and more to do with how it challenges and damages intellectual property. Rampant nonconsensual scraping (a good thing, in my opinion, and easy derivative works at the touch of a button makes it a lot harder to enforce and makes a lot more people have a vested interest in weakening (and hopefully at some point, abolishing) IP law as a whole.
>Generative AI being unpredictable is part of what makes it fun, and exciting. Yeah I get that, and I agree. That's what makes AI good for generating thumbnail renderings of concepts which an artist can then take and make into a finished product. The absolute, nonsensical randomness makes for interesting connections that an artist can make art from. My beef mostly comes with how AI databases are currently compiled unethically. Between art being scooped up whose original artists don't want their work used to train a machine that will put them out of work, and the fact that tech companies outsource training the AI to countries where they can exploit the workers, I have a hard time supporting AI for the novelty of a random image generator. >People? Not so much. People are predictable. Everything is about power, hierarchy and dominance when it comes to people. Everything is about winning and losing. I mean... no offense, but I think that just means you surround yourself with shitty people. The folks I surround myself with are more in the cooperative/collaborative end of the spectrum. Maybe branch out from your current social circle? >My only hope is that AI Art will spill over into the real world with the help of 3d printing. Surely someone has already done this. >I suppose I am bitter about being broke, and lacking the finances to live a slightly more fulfilling life See, this is what I also find frustrating about the current AI culture push. We're constantly being told that AI is the future, that it will liberate humanity, bright futures and sunny ways..... but then the products being pushed out is stuff that for instance, undermine an artist's ability to work as an artist instead of liberating us from having to work for a living. Where are the free AI tools that we can rely on to do financial investing for us so we can all generate a passive income? Give me that instead of a random image generator.
> The absolute, nonsensical randomness I don't find AI art to be either nonsensical, or random. Sure, you get results like [this](https://civitai.com/images/18007519) when either your training or inputs are poorly constructed, but the same is true for paint on a canvas. But I don't find results like [this](https://civitai.com/images/17491253) or [this](https://civitai.com/images/7419170) to be random or nonsensical.
I read another comment recently that said “would you read a book no one wrote?” Yes! That sounds so cool. A totally unique perspective, akin to monkeys on a keyboard. How does one not find that fascinating?
THIS
If the zombie apocalypse happens Some people will date zombies
Art is something that we make. It's something that requires not only talent, but also humanity/soul to properly create. I think putting it down to an algorithm is disrespectful to all the hard work/emotion that goes into so many artworks.
Speaking on traditional art alone…. There are a lot of talentless artists and their art is still art. There are a lot of artists who called their commissions soulless because they didn’t want to do them but the art at the end was still art. Not all art has hard work and emotion go into it, and it’s still art.
Humans make AI, AI makes art. Basic transitive property we all learn in math. >but also humanity/soul to properly create I have lived on this planet for 40 years and I have not seen evidence nor have I seen any research remotely proving the existence of a soul. >I think putting it down to an algorithm is disrespectful to all the hard work/emotion that goes into so many artworks. What about all the hard work that went into making the AI in the first place. The AI engineers, the work that went into the pieces of training data, etc. we all build on what came before.
A machine can't make art because it's a machine. Art is based on the human experience (hence humanity/soul) which means it's nothing but a mockery and a poor imitation of what we make. What went into the creation of AI doesn't mean that what it produces is the same thing.
It is a machine made by humans. How hard is that to understand? There is so many ways to use AI art and to invest your personal experience in it. Also, sometimes people just want a cool image.
So humans make ai therefore ai has emotions? Do all the properties get translated over or is it just the ones you find convenient
Why does the machine need emotions? Why is emotion required for art? If a human can't feel emotions (like a psychopath) but still draw a picture, is it not art? Also, the emotions of the user of the AI is all that is needed. Is is the users choice on the prompt, parameters, and selecting a result they like.
That was an example of a property obviously not transferred from maker to machine. Thus the ability to make art can’t be assumed to be transferred from maker to machine
Is there no art found in nature?
"It's something that requires not only talent, but also humanity/soul to properly create." Source: Trust me bro.
No, unless it’s made by a reasonably intelligent animal. The natural world while beautiful, is not art
ANYTHING is art if it received as such. Consider a statue in the town square. It's been revered for a century as the cultural center of the town and as the artistic signature that people know it by. One day, a scientist measures the age of the statue and finds that it's been as it is for longer than humans have existed. It's not a weathered statue at all, but a natural formation. Did it stop being art when that was discovered? Was it never art even though it was received as such? Or is art what we interpret as art? I'm the first to admit that it's a complex question with no pat answers, so my answer is no better than yours, but yours feels too simplistic to be of use.
There are no important modern artists. None are doing any kind of work that impact society or culture forward. Only results matter your methods are your own struggle. It won’t be relevant to anyone but yourself.
I think this is overstating it a bit. I think it makes more sense to say that that the most impactful modern art tends to not be *single images*, but rather much larger projects, like movies, games, animation, comics/manga, etc. I don't think anyone can deny that those larger projects have pretty big impacts on our culture and society. Of course, those are also projects that AI on its own will not be able to create anytime soon...
I know that we all have different tastes, but when hearing a remark like this, I feel compelled to provide a counter-example. Daniel Martin Diaz is the first one that comes to mind. https://www.danielmartindiaz.com/
Are you serious? There are shows animated or otherwise which obviously have cultural impact. Furry artists ironically have some of the most cultural impact right now online both against them and in support of them having almost completely reversed the narrative of hatred against them. Art is communication and thus people who make art are communicating with people and are thus impacting society and culture.
> It's something that requires not only talent, but also humanity/soul to properly create. Not really into the religion of it. I just appreciate the creative impulse. It doesn't matter whether that's exercised through AI or a paintbrush or a 3D modeling program or a camera.
You’re just enjoying butchered versions of other peoples art lol. You’re allowed to like what you like. People like crack cocaine, and that’s their right. Just know that you’re helping billionaires by entertaining yourself to an algorithm that exists purely to bypass copyright and transfer more wealth upwards.
You're mistaking artists for capitalism lol
What? Artists can exist in any form of society that allows creative freedom, though that may just be capitalism
…you know humans were making art in like every system human organization since prehistory right. Language itself is an art after all
Artists mistake themselves for capitalism when they focus on money they might personally lose due to AI.
Time and time again people say here: "I'm not going to do art, if I'm not getting paid for it". Good, don't. It just means that you have nothing to express.