- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- comicstrips@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- comicstrips@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like some promises were broken 😂
I feel like some promises were broken 😂
You’re absolutely right!
tl;dr - “art” generated by LLMs is ultimately lame and uninspiring. It’s probably never going to inspire people very much. It’s a parlor trick and everyone intrinsically recognizes it. Don’t expect to be taken seriously as a creator if this is your primary tool.
It’s generative AI though, not creative. It can literally only create what it’s seen before. It’s incapable of being original. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Andy Warhol painted soup cans. But anyone who expects inspiration and creativity from generative AI doesn’t understand the technology as it’s applied…
I am skeptical about “never”, but right now I agree that’s true. I expect it to be true for many years to come. That being said, we have seen a lot of improvement (over even the last few months) in AI image quality, composition, and prompt adherence.
Pregnant Mario lactating Jamba juice all over Blanka from street fighter, indeed.
this reminded me that old Chuck Jones comic in which he encourages young artists to find what works for them instead of trying to fit in.
Gotta say, he lost me at the talent-skill thing. Being good at any arts requires something fundamental. Practise is absolutely an important part of it, but art, music, storytelling, anything creative, either you got it or you dont.
Edit : is the down arrows because talent isnt real, or because I said he and mistakenly did a misgendering?
I don’t think this is worth a downvote, but I do think you are fundamentally wrong.
either you got it or you don’t
People who are born with natural talents, that others can’t hope to match with practice, are definitely real, but they are VERY rare. Think people like Mozart or Picasso. People who just start out naturally understanding an art or skill in ways that others have to LEARN to achieve.
But “talent” for most people is more akin to “liking” a pursuit, rather than being naturally good at it. They GET good at it by DOING it constantly, because it’s what they like doing. In this context of “talent”, “talented” people can absolutely be matched by “untalented” people, who put in the same work and effort, but driven by other motivations. This is what people mean when they say “You can do anything you set your mind to.”
And yes, this includes creativity. Creativity is a skill that most creative people had to WORK on to get good at.
I don’t think this is worth a downvote, but I do think you are fundamentally wrong.
either you got it or you don’t
Please who are born with natural talents, that others can’t hope to match with practice, are definitely real, but they are VERY rare. Think people like Mozart or Picasso. People who just start out naturally understanding an art or skill in ways that others have to LEARN to achieve.
But “talent” for most people is more akin to “liking” a pursuit, rather than being naturally good at it. They GET good at it by DOING it constantly, because it’s what they like doing. In this context of “talent”, “talented” people can absolutely be matched by “untalented” people, who put in the same work and effort, but driven by other motivations. This is what people mean when they say “You can do anything you set your mind to.”
Skilled people are not born that way. You can be predisposed towards certain skills, and you can even argue that only some people can be the best at something, but all those can do is decrease the amount of time it takes to become skilled. No matter what, you can learn to do something. You can learn to draw. You can learn to write. You can learn to tell stories. You can learn to be creative. You can become skilled at most things. You may not be able to be the best, but practice will always get you closer to best than predisposition. You are literally not just born with it.
When I mentioned this in the last posting i was thoroughly downvoted, my downs were mostly artists adamant that anyone can be great at art if they just put in the effort. Many claimed to have full aphantasia and more or less tried to pin it on my inability to draw to work ethic or being too hard on my great art that I never presented to anyone.
I think it’s a general condition that most artists project their abilities and believe that anyone can do what they’re doing.
Like right there with FridaySteve@lemmy.world’s downvote on this comment, something that actually happened as was clearly reported to me in a previous post.
At least you’re not bitter about it 🙄🙄🙄
Some of the best artists I know are people who started out without a single iota of talent, but they practiced for long enough that they got good. I reckon that talent probably does exist, but it’s a far smaller component than many believe. Hard word beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.
People who are most likely to emphasise talent in art tend to be people who wish they were good at art, but aren’t willing (or able) to put the time into improving; it feels oddly reassuring to tell oneself that it’s pointless to try if you don’t start out with talent, rather than being realistic and saying “I wish I were good at art, but I am choosing not to invest in that skill because it’s not one of my priorities”
Maybe, but i feel the amount of effort I put in before giving up should have yielded a lot more results than it did. I dont want to come across as bitter, because its just art, but i really do think some people just cant.
If Mozart can be writing unrivalled symphonies at 8 years old you know. Most people will play a single instrument for longer than he was alive and come nowhere close, and its frustrating to learn that the general consensus is that this is simply because everyone else just needs to try harder.
don’t listen to others, “everyone can do X” is one of those technically true unfalsifiable statements people tell themselves to soothe their bad feelings about their own mediocrity.
you’re right that it isn’t just a matter of will or effort, some people are born into incorrigibly better positions to become the next Mozart or Einstein. the truth is that in this world the majority of your fate is not written by you and it never will be - and that’s okay.
maybe one day people will get off their weird “personal responsibility” high-horse, but until then…
That’s not the general consensus, you just need to stop comparing yourself to literal prodigies. In fact, stop comparing yourself to anyone. If you don’t have expectations for your art, you’ll never fail to meet them.
I think it’s more nuanced, like unless of a particular handicap pratice will make you good. But being exceptional requires something that is a closely guarded secret by the gods. So yeah, like the succesful actor on a talk show talking about working hard to get at your dreams sorts of diminish the hard work of anyone who doesn’t reach the top. So yeah, talent is honed but exceptional talent is not.
To me, a big part of it is that I’m tired of commodity art. I don’t care about your pretty pixel soup. I’ve seen other pixel soups before that were similarly pretty.
And I’ve been tired for many years, long before every middle-manager under the sun could cook up their own pretty pixel soup.
Back then, it was humans trying to make a living off of their passion and then settling for commodity art to make ends meet. I was cheering them on, because they were passionate humans.Now that generative AI has destroyed that branch of humanity, there’s no one to cheer on anymore.
Even if generative AI never existed in the first place, I’d like to see commodity art being relegated to the sidelines and expressive art coming into the limelight instead.Tell me a story with your art. About your struggles or a brainfart you had, or really anything. This comic is great, for example. There’s emotions there and I can see the human through the art. I would’ve chosen a very different illustration for whatever, for example, which tells me a lot about the artist, but also about myself.
I have never had that kind of introspection with pretty pixel soups.I find this li’l guy hilarious for some reason.
I have never seen particular humans expressing themselves in ai art or music, all i see is the tech company model behind it; be it sora, stable diffusion or mid journey, ai is not a tool for the prompters; the prompters are the tool for the AI model.
I like this take. It sums up the reality of AI quite well.
There are difficult ‘AI’ tools.
Look up controlnet workflows or VACE, just to start, much less little niches in vapoursynth pipelines or image editing layers. You could spend days training them, messing with the implementation, then doing the manual work of carefully and deliberately applying them. This has, in fact, has been happening in film production for awhile, just in disguise.
Same with, say, LLMs used in game mods where appropriate, like the Rimworld mod. That’s careful creative expression.
…As usual, it’s tech bros fucking everything up by dumbing it down to zero-option prompt box and then shoving that in front of as many people as possible to try and monopolize their attention.
In other words, I agree with the author that what I hate about ‘AI art’ is the low effort ‘sloppiness.’ It’s gross, like rotten fast food. It makes me sad. And that’s 99.999% of all AI art.
…But it doesn’t have to be like that.
It’s like saying the concept of the the fediverse sucks because Twitter/Facebook suck, even if 99.999% of what folks see is the slop of the later. It’s not fair to the techniques, and it’s not holding the jerks behind mass slop proliferation accountable.
Precisely. AI art is bad because the users making “art” with it essentially have such bad taste they’ll publish anything the AI shits out.
There exist artistic ways to use AI as a tool, but none of them are easy. In fact they might be harder than just painting the damn picture yourself.
based and real-pilled, the both of you.
i’m excited for the future of art. we have the potential for a new age of renaissance men who master the arts, humanities, and sciences all at once.
i think a lot of people shitting on genAI don’t see engineering itself as art… and i think that’s a piss-poor, deathly sad view of this world. it’s like 2/3 of westerners weirdly resent anything “math or science coded” as they might call it. a shame. a damn shame.
The Oatmeal! 😍😍 I haven’t been to that site in so long, I’m so glad they’re still around! Thanks for sharing!
To me, thins kinda screams of “I suffered so you should too”. There are good arguments against AI art, but this one doesn’t resonate with me in any capacity.
It is good that AI has made art more accessible. Art is meant for everyone, and anything that makes it more democratic is great.
Its not really about the suffering, its about the journey that is unique to you that you cannot possibly share with others since you’ve never taken it, and so it reflects in the art you bring.
The thing about ai is that if it was perfect to make the image in your head appear on a screen, is that youd notice actually that the image in your head would be shit (its ok). Youd experience this if you did any art, and it takes both an artistic mind with good artistic skills to come up with an effective “medium” or “tool” “image” to transfer your idea to another human being’s mind. It takes a fluency that can’t be grasped unless you pick up one of the tools you’d use to make any art.
And the suffering part comes if you are forcing yourself do get the result you want. You can learn art without suffering, without feeling ashamed at your lack of skill if you arm yourself with patience, something that ai confirms to the audience and other people you don’t have, and so can’t possibly make any contribution to what we understand as art.
The suffering is brought on by this lack of patience about thinking HOW every stroke has to be measured and precise in like a Van Gogh’s painting (pointillism) to the pov and line art of that famous dio vs jonathan confrontation in jojo’s bizarre adventure, each form of art taking inspiration of art before it that an art enjoyer might be familiar with. But it doesn’t have to be, but it is since time in this world time is money, and less is afforded to us for every waste.
I am not shaming btw, I only learned to communicate in an adversarial way soz.
Oh, I know the struggle - it’s not that I never made any art whatsoever. What’s in the artist’s head is less of an image and more of an impression to be put into words.
And I believe that, given more truly free time and less of the simple mind-eating distractions, much more people would embark on an artistic journey, even in the age of AI. It’s just a very human thing to do.
But while we’re at it, we have what we have, and sometimes having a medium to express yourself right now is better than only having hope to get the tools you need.
You must have stopped reading halfway, because he makes your argument, too.
He acknowledges that it makes art more accessible, by removing the tedium so that artists can do the creative work.
If their “creative work” begins and ends with prompting the AI, the prompter is basically saying that all of the work of art making is tedium.
Does that not resonate with you ?
I did read it to the end, I just don’t believe it’s quite the same argument.
The Oatmeal seems to insist that while AI is helpful to eliminate the boring tasks, art is still a product of effort and struggle. They even later make an argument that these “boring, administrative” tasks might be an important part of creative process, that taking it away means taking something away from the art itself.
And AI art is not just text prompts and pictures. There are AI tools that allow you to draw basic lines and the AI will fill in and complete the hard parts, so you could male your vision come true without proper artistic skill. This is good, because not everyone can dedicate themselves to art classes, not everyone is talented enough (and I insist that talent is part of building a good skill, unlike The Oatmeal who seems to emphasize effort over gift), yet everyone wants and needs to create beauty.
To me, the main purpose of art is to communicate our vision, our thoughts, our ideas. Until recently, the ability to do so was limited by the talent, by that skill ceiling. Those who excelled were heard, those who did not were not. By assisting people with things they don’t know how to do well, we can amplify their voices and their visions, which can help us build a more active and inclusionary dialogue.
Until recently, the ability to do so was limited by the talent, by that skill ceiling. Those who excelled were heard, those who did not were not.
My dude, I have never seen someone shoot their argument in the foot so hard.
Have you seen The Oatmeal drawings?
You can put out creative effort and be successful without having to churn out a Sistine Chapel every time.
I read the whole thing, and no it didn’t resonate with me. I’m not a middle manager who sees himself as a story teller. Neither am I an art afficionado.
I don’t have a visceral emptiness that overwhelms me when I learn an image that was interesting was generated by AI. It didn’t come from a talented human? Who cares? Does it help to better articulate a thought or idea than the person trying to create it could do on their own? Then it’s ok with me.
There was a very reasonable web comic that made a clear point today in the Palestine community and rather than agree with the message and see that it was much better presented as a comic, it turned into “this smells like it could be slop!” People say “oh I wish it was just MS paint or shitty ppt because at least then YOU made it” but I would have to disagree and say it can detract from the message when you turn out something that looks like shit.
There’s more to the utility of AI art than minutiae. I would be willing to entertain the argument that I don’t want to see AI art in a museum, but while I find the oatmeal’s take to be a well considered perspective, a fair bit of the blanket hatred surrounding AI art applications borders on deranged.
There have been painters who are blind who made great paintings. People without hands who learned how to paint with their feet.
Art was already accessable to everyone, ai drones say that it wasn’t to feel better.
There are different kinds of accessibility. While I admire people with disabilities who were so dedicated in the pursuit of art, there’s more to it than pure desire.
Art takes gift. It takes a lot of time to make it into talent, skill. It commonly takes a lot of money for the courses, materials, etc. And in the modern world, not everyone can realistically have or afford all that.
When I talk of accessibility, I don’t mean “with a ton of effort, every person can technically become at least a bad artist”. I mean “everyone needs to create, yet not everyone can dedicate their life to it”.
AI art allows us to communicate our visions and ideas, which is to me the most important parts of art overall, without having to grind through art classes. This, in turn, means we can hear and see new voices, ones that previously were never heard.
Art is beautiful not because economic value has been captured and skewered into aesthetics. It is a part of being human.
Yea, I agree. It is like the anti-ai art luddites don’t understand this… The people making the promps are still making art, just by the nature of it being humans making human decisions. Skill isn’t a gate to art in the same way anymore, despite what the gatekeepers want everyone to believe.
Are you the type of person who pretends you made a cheeseburger when you got it from a drive though window? Because that’s what you sound like.
Prompters don’t make decisions in the piece, the algorithm generated stuff and if the prompter doesn’t like it, then they prompt again. No choices made.
It’s like how you all use the same words when someone disagrees with you, “luddite” and “gatekeeping”. You can’t really think for yourself so your regurgitate what someone else wrote.
deleted by creator
People using prompts are not “making” art. They are hallucinating theft from actual artists. There never was any skill or materials gate. Pen or pencil and a scrap of paper., pick it up and start. There is no defense for AI “art” or the shills that push it.
If you use summary tools on google to make you a list or a paragraph you’re ripping off actual writers and stealing their collective style. (Language models don’t just come from nowhere after all) Spell check is ok, but if you write like you’re borderline illiterate, well, pick up a grammar book and a notepad and get cracking. Hire a professional editor to plan your next set of PowerPoint slides.
Sheesh.
There is nothing new under the sun, even artists who draw their own stuff learn from other artists and use it in their art. AI training isn’t theft as long as the art is free to look at, that is just sour grapes. Torrenting anything and using it either as inspiration for your own work, or for training AI is theft and shouldn’t be done by anybody, but especially not corporations. Either way, it isn’t the training that is theft.
Prompting does not make anything, it is like saying you cooked a meal because you picked it in a vending machine.
It is more like writing a recipee down and giving it to a chef who uses their skill to interpret the recipe and make a new dish. The dish doesn’t belong wholly to the chef, despite the skill nearly wholly residing with the chef. The person who wrote the recipee isn’t a chef, but they are involved in making the dish that was their idea.
Yeah but we don’t say “I made these cookies” when all we did was hand someone the recipe, now do we?
No, because telling someone or something to make something doesn’t mean we get to say we made it.
So you are saying that the person who made the recipe had no input to the process of cooking the resultant food? Nobody claims they “drew” something when they design an AI prompt. When you see a Frank Lloyd Write building do you say, "Nah he didn’t build that, he just made some plans. A contractor built it. Frank Lloyd Write isn’t an artist, he is just a prompt writer. "
Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for putting an order in at the restaurant. That chef would make something with or without you.
Lmao about you trying to compare ai prompters to Frank Lloyd Write, when he actually did the design work and you can’t.
Oh, sorry, you’re right, prompters never say they drew something, they just claim to be artists when they clearly aren’t. Should’ve figured you’d nitpick word choices it’s about the only think you’re capable of.
Found the tool!
deleted by creator
Okay, I’m willing to accept that we generally shouldn’t decide that our personal lines in the sand can serve as meaningful differentiators between art and not-art. By the same token, don’t expect me to be particularly impressed by a (mostly) photorealistic composition just because you spent 30 minutes fine-tuning your prompt. If I’m not appreciating your skill and the time you committed to your vision, the bar for the impact you need to make is that much higher. For me, most AI art falls flat on that front as well.
Maybe someone will be the breakthrough artist that shows the rest of us luddites what a genuinely beautiful interplay between drafting a prompt and massaging an engine will look like, but (1) even that person is something other than a painter or a photographer, and (2) I don’t think we’re there yet and may never be.
That is at least reasonable. I really don’t expect you to be impressed by anybody’s efforts in AI prompting. Calling it not-art is subjectively wrong, but not being impressed is right in most cases.
art - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
Not-art is subjectively right. AI “art” is made by taking imagery and reassembling it according to an algorithm. There’s no thought, no imagination, no anything creative behind it. Can it be aesthetically pleasing? Sure, like a sunset can be. But neither are art because there’s no intention behind it.
Is a picture of a sunset art? If the photographer chose a particularly scenic view and took several pictures before deciding on the one they felt was best, is that not art? Does the photographer have to, personally, hike to find the vantage point and take the picture for it to be art? Can they use a drone instead? How about just feeds from a camera someone set up? If the person looks through a feed and takes some high quality screenshots of a particularly vivid sunset that moves them, and decides to frame it and display it, is it disqualified from being art because they didn’t create the sunset and just selected the image from a series of images they were looking at? Is it slop if they decide to digitally remove a tree that was blocking the view?
This is the problem I have. Every argument against AI art inevitably closes the door against some other form of art that the arguer would otherwise consider acceptable. I know you’re not going to like or accept this answer, but the reason it’s so hard to have an argument that only applies to AI art and not any other forms of art is because AI art IS art.
It’s art, because art is subjective. The moment you start trying to define it or gatekeep it, the meaning will slip through your fingers like grains of sand.
deleted by creator
Where is this definition from? Somewhere official, or your own personal definition?
I don’t like ai-art, most of the time it is a pursuit of the economic value of an aesthetic without a genuine engagement with the human part.
Further, AI is part of a broad process of dehumanization that diminishes the value of humans and the human condition in favor of an imagined intelligence that all artists have always instinctually understood was a threat.
No artists with any wisdom at all thinks skill is a gatekeeper for human artists, skill is rather the inveitable result of a sustained intimacy between an artist and their art and what you mistake for a worship of skill is a love of that relationship framed in the context of skill. In so far as the obsession with artistic skill acts as a gatekeeper to anybody, it is in large part because capitalism demands things be abstracted and reduced to pure economic value. Artists rarely gatekeep art themselves, the gatekeeping has NOTHING to do with artists nor does it originate from their desire to create art it is a peripheral process imposed upon art by distorting forces attempting to control art (such as AI).
Also, people need to stop lazily using the example of Luddites without knowing their history. They aren’t who you think they were, stop dropping the reference like you know what it means if you don’t know what it means.
TL;DR If skill is a gatekeeper to art it is because capitalism demands scarcity be imposed upon the pursuit of making art, it has nothing to do with art itself. Hailing AI as a gift to would-be artists totally misses the point, I am not against using new tools to make art, I am against the rise in dehumanization dominating societies around the world at the moment of which AI is a central actor.
Growing up my mother had (still has come to think of it) a book about Wyeth at the Kuerner family farm. The Wyeth picture in the Oatmeal story is not part of the larger collection of works all from that farm, but it still has the feeling. I can’t reccomend people looking into Wyeth and his art high enough
Walther Benjamin examines this point extensively in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, which should be required reading for everyone, but especially anyone who thinks that AI art is the same as human art. The crux is that an authentic work (you can think of it as the “original”) has some… thing , some Je ne sais quoi that he calls the Aura. It’s a feeling you get from the real authentic thing. It’s the reason people line up at the Louvre to see the tiny Mona Lisa behind thick plate glass instead of just looking at a poster. Or why NFTs tried to be a thing and basically failed after the meme of it all died out.
I always found this such a silly argument. Imagine eating a pizza and thoroughly enjoying it but changing your perception of taste willingly depending on how it was made. It’s admitting you are judging art based on everything except the actual piece, which sounds the opposite of what art is about.
It’s like in olden times when they judged a piece depending on the artists birth and status.
Not to say there isn’t a lot of slop out there that definitely belongs in the dumpster, but it’s hard to take someone seriously when they judge all of it broadly on this kind of basis.
Cool if the context doesn’t matter I’ll sell you a replica of the state of David for the price of the original!
Pizza tastes better, even retroactively, if you find out someone you love made it for you.
I went over this in an other comment a bit.
Real painting > digital painting > AI
I associate more value depending on skill level. All I’m saying is: if the pizza only taste like shit once you hear the opposite, the bad taste is in your head.
I do get that having the feeling one way leaves place to having the same type of feeling the other way. I guess it feels different though, hard to explain. It’s a valid sentiment in the end, it just feels a bit petty from my viewpoint.
Well, as a human I’ve got plenty of biases, some of them petty I suppose.
Maybe it’s a the curtains are blue situation? Like we attribute all this meaning to art, and we get to guess at whether we’re right, or whether the artist wanted us to be drawn to specific components. We understand that art often has symbolism and that it’s meant to be evocative.
But with AI art, there’s none of that. Whatever meaning I attribute is purely projection - which is often true in regular art too, except that I have a social contract with the artist that we both agree we want me to look at this art and have feelings, whatever they may be. A social contact with a computer isn’t real and feels disingenuous.
Listening to music and finding out it was made by ai ruins my experience because i imagine the greasy lazy thief behind the grift. I want my music by real musicians with a personal connection to their craft, not a good for nothing trying to make a quick mindless buck, but in any case i have never heard ai music i personally liked it is usually all incredibly bland and lacking personality.
For me, art is in the eye of the beholder (so like his initial emotional reaction, and like what I understand your point to be).
But there are also aspects that are a bit more innate to the art itself. It’s sort of like a conversation, for me; if I see a piece of art I think is beautiful, and I’ve felt something emotional in response to it, I start to try and understand what the artist was trying to say through the work, what story they might be trying to tell, who they might be. It’s a connection. They might be expressing their emotions, thoughts, or experiences, and I might be empathising with another human going through that. There’s a level of trust from my side that they’ve put in effort and are being genuine.
If I find out it’s AI art… Well, there’s no conversation there, is there? Nobody made that picture. Nobody is communicating anything. Nobody is considering how a viewer might feel. Nobody has created anything. A machine has, unfeelingly, mashed a bunch of actual art together, and now the result is in front of me. If I know beforehand, I won’t bother looking. If I’ve felt emotions, I’ve been lied to and will look away.
You can feel differently, of course. I’m just explaining how I feel about art. I don’t enjoy being lied to.
It’s a fair point. When I think about it, I come to the conclusion that at first I both consume them the same way, as pictures on a screen. So they start at both the same baseline (my immediate enjoyment) and learning something was done in a more complicated method or has a deeper meaning just adds to that baseline, but it to never will go down for the opposite.
I attribute more value to human made art, just like how I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digital ones. I just don’t change my opinion towards the negative.
I also think there’s an error when assuming something can’t communicate because it was made partly or completely with AI. The GoP uses it to communicate hate for instance, that part mostly transcends the medium imo (even if again, the medium can add to it at times). I see AI as a tool, I don’t see it as the AI creating the piece.
Obviously, 3/4 of the scene is smut so it’s not like much high level communication is going on most times though lol. I’m selective in what I actually consider art, I wouldn’t call most outputs art just to be clear (or what the GOP is doing for that matter).
Interesting! I understand your first point, about not devaluing the art from your baseline of enjoyment just because it’s not human-made – I don’t agree, but that’s just a personal opinion of mine, and I can totally see what you’re saying.
Your point about the American Republican party using AI images to communicate (or create) anger is really interesting to me. I was thinking after writing my reply that, despite my feelings about generative AI, I ultimately don’t care if AI imagery is used in advertising because adverts are not genuine conversations anyway.
I feel similarly about the Republican party, or any political party from any country, using AI imagery as propaganda.
Propaganda, to me, is an intentionally dishonest and manipulative communication. That’s not a criticism of propaganda; advertising is dishonest and manipulative too. A prosecutor’s closing arguments may “spin” the truth and intend to manipulate a jury. Dishonesty and manipulation aren’t “bad” to me, per se, on their own - it’s what the intention behind the dishonesty and manipulation is that makes those things bad, or neutral, or good.
When I see adverts, or political propaganda, I don’t even begin to establish that “trust” or “connection” I mentioned in my first reply, because I know it’s not a genuine communication. Similarly to if I open a spam email and it contains a sob story about a family that needs money - I know it’s bullshit, so I don’t feel bad for them.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you called it a tool. Part of me feels that for something to be “art”, the kind we’re (I’m) talking about at the moment, it can’t have a utility like a tool would. I’m not sure if I really believe that but it’s certainly a distinction that feels natural to me without thinking.
Sorry mate, this was mega rambly 😂
Alright let me make an analog for this - Because context does absolutely matter.
You are buying shoes. (… And have probably already made the connection)
You find a dooooope pair of sneaks. The colors, the lines, the fit. Perfect.
Then you find out your sneakers were made by Ari in a town that has no running water, people shit in ditches, and the median income of a family of 4 buys enough rice to feed 3 people. And then there’s Ari. Ari is 7 and has been working for 2 years already.
How those kicks looking? Do they envoke the same joy?
That’s an unhinged analogy soaked in emotion. Whatever point you are trying to make, it has nothing to do with the one I’m talking about in the comment.
Unhinged how? Its not far from the truth for some industries and could have been equally ugly not using child labor. The point was to highlight how one might have a different feeling about the same product when it has context. I figured that was clear enough but perhaps I was mistaken, lol.
It’s emotional exaggeration the moment you try to compare it to a child imo.
My pizza analogy was spot on, if you want, you can talk about the pizza factory using a lot of energy, then I could explain how the energy grid is at fault. I could explain how one pizza factory services millions at the same time so the impact is actually very small compared to real climate change drivers like cars, planes and shipping boats. There would be place to mention how AI is actually using energy that wasn’t necessarily expected and it’s worsening the grid which was already shit to begin with and making transition to green energy more difficult.
But you just went hardcore “think of the children” to try and frame AI as the greatest evil. Republican type tactics tbh.
What’s funny is no one gives a fuck where their shoes come from but they have been trained to care really really hard about the big bad AI.
I quickly provided a story that would effectively answer the question. It seems to have accomplished its goal: like it or not part of human condition is applying value to things based on human weights such as empathy and pride. Absolutely unhinged idea, I’m aware.
Don’t want children and a semi-fabricated story? Not a problem: let’s talk about a product - an iPhone. Its a fine product and people seem to like it. Some of those same people stopped enjoying that same product when they found out that it was, in part, made by foxcon. The company with literal nets around their roofs because their workers really loved their situation.
There are dozens of examples. I’m sorry you were set off by such a simple story… But frankly - as I already mentioned - that means the analog did it’s job. It invoked feelings which, last I checked, we use when assigning value to things.
If you want to strawman something out of the fact I used child labor in the example… Go burn that effigy elsewhere.
AI art is the Tostino’s pizza of art.
it looks like pizza, but it doesn’t really taste like pizza, and not a single human touched it
Except you can’t tell, because it taste the same (as he clearly admits by saying his enjoyment only changes once he learns it’s AI).
It’s basically willingly entertaining and reinforcing your own placebos.
If it tastes the same to you, your taste glands are dead.
The artist of the piece im commenting on said it tasted the same.
There’s a websites where you can guess if random artwork is AI or not, I invite you to test your own skill. It has become very hard to tell for a while now.
Even if the cartoonist says it; I’m not endorsing a dumb opinion.
The whole conversation is about seeing an image where you don’t notice it’s AI, and then changing your opinion after when you learn it is.
No need to lash out if you misunderstood.
Same. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I for example find Pollock just shit but there are those that pay actual money to see what a baby elephant could’ve made. All that modern art is talentless shit to me. But there are people out there who will vehemently defend it. There people out there who will pay money to go to a talentless art museum and come out feeling smug that they could recognise a piece made by some person who just had the luck to know the right people.
We all have our opinions about art, but they are just that, opinions. People will continue to throw shit at a wall or use period blood to drip onto a canvas and attach some grand message to it in order to call it art, and people will just generate a prompt and paste it into an AI art generator then share whatever looks pleasing to them.
Art is in the eye of the beholder but ai shit is not art… It is just tech corporate spam clogging up the internet.
