7 ms·

I really don't think it's art, cloud's in the sky are more "creative"

by nix23 5y ago

krapp 5y ago
It looks like art. It acts like art. It stimulates the senses and evokes emotion like art. Whatever "creative" means, either the AI has it, or it isn't really relevant.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  You missed the important point: an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings. It takes a proper intelligence to build that - you need conceptual depth, reflection etc.: you have by definition wait for a GAN. To elicit emotions (per se not quite a demanding endeavor) is not sufficient to be qualified as "art".
  - nix23 5y ago
    That is exceptionally well articulated, fully on your side.
    - andybak 5y ago
      I felt otherwise.
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        And provided a non-point. Now think of the asymmetry between agreement and disagreement. (Solution: payload already expressed vs payload to be expressed.)
  - krapp 5y ago
    >You missed the important point: an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings. It takes a proper intelligence to build that - you need conceptual depth, reflection etc.: you have by definition wait for a GAN. I didn't miss the point, i'm arguing the point is debatable. There are entire artistic movements whose thesis is to deny the necessity of "meaning" in art, apart perhaps from whatever meaning the viewer imparts to it. If you didn't know some of these works were done by an AI, you would see the 'conceptual depth, reflection, etc.' in them, but that emotional, empathetic connection one has with a work of art is entirely fabricated. These AIs respond to natural language requests in ways that can be indistinguishable from human effort, they pass the Turing Test for creativity without intelligence. So I think it's valid to question whether art necessarily requires any such thing on the part of the "artist" at all, or if we just believe it does because we're afraid that if creativity can be generated by an algorithm, it's just another sign that we're nothing more than deterministic machines ourselves.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > There are entire artistic movements whose thesis is to deny the necessity of "meaning" in art If such thesis founds the artistic production, then this will be the «concretion of a structure of meanings» around the «den[ial of] the necessity of "meaning" in art». There's "a whole world" of bodies of knowledge and "persons" (individual expressions of the possible forms of being in a supposedly organic - consequential - relation to the richness of being) founding an artistic expression. Have a creature experience being and react to it in proper senses, then the expression may start being artistic. > These AIs respond to natural language requests in ways that can be indistinguishable from human effort, they pass the Turing Test for creativity without intelligence So the artist - provided that the quality is actually there - in that case is the reader. That is already part of art ("If I put in my books everything people read in them I'd be a genius", someone said - I cannot recall who). It does not mean that the original product is artistic, that "it has what it takes". Also: Turing Tests are far from objective, with reference to length or time (etc.) measurements. They surely may pass in front of some Turing Test/ers/. Surely some students pass, after some professors. It is even recorded that some professors managed to have a career and be illiterate. > or if we just believe it does because Even if the creator were a «deterministic machine», there would be a complexity in play and the presence or absence of modules to make the difference. Without them, easily the system will show to be brittle - take for example the visual classifiers that were at some point shown to "recognize" textures but not shapes, that will change response upon the change of an actually irrelevant pixel etc. > to question whether ... or There is no question in that false dichotomy: proper human creation has grounds through modules that current AI does not have. All modules must be in place. Anything can "create" - "unintentionally", "unawarily" etc.: with limited depth.
  - mkl 5y ago
    > an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings This is a very narrow definition that discounts a lot of art. I'm also very dubious that proper intelligence [1] is required to build that (GPT3's output could certainly be accurately described that way). [1] I agree that there is no intelligence at work in these algorithms.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > discounts a lot of art ...Examples? > could certainly be accurately described that way Like everything, provided we take an indicative definition for an instruction manual where terms can be used loosely outside original intention.
      - mkl 5y ago
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=imag... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=image... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings than most of the images on those pages. Those images all show up when searching for "art", even though your narrow definition discounts most of them as such, which means your definition is faulty. I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong about what constitutes "art". I also don't think you can sensibly proclaim a faulty definition of something as general (and text-inclusive) as "an artistic object" to be "the important point" and then get annoyed when someone points out problems with it. Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them, but that could only be the case if you used a definition of "meaning" so broad as to be meaningless (e.g. "a person selecting it provides meaning", which to me translates to "it elicits emotion" since that's why it was chosen, and you already argued against that). Yes, an art critic might claim to find meaning in totally abstract artwork, but they'd find more meaning in most artistic images generated with machine learning, especially if you don't tell them the source.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pmontra 5y ago
Probably the creativity is in the eye of the beholder in that case. Anyway there are billions of people that even don't think about art or not art. They look for pretty pictures to put in a frame and the only thing that matters to them is the price of the picture plus the frame. Best if it costs less than a meal. The painter or the photographer could be unknown or an AI, they couldn't be bothered. My point is that it opens a market for very low cost unique self made pictures and if it happens people won't care if it's art. Pretty would be enough.

I really don't think it's art, cloud's in the sky are more "creative"

by nix23 5y ago

I really don't think it's art, cloud's in the sky are more "creative"

It looks like art. It acts like art. It stimulates the senses and evokes emotion like art. Whatever "creative" means, either the AI has it, or it isn't really relevant.

mdp2021 5y ago
You missed the important point: an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings. It takes a proper intelligence to build that - you need conceptual depth, reflection etc.: you have by definition wait for a GAN. To elicit emotions (per se not quite a demanding endeavor) is not sufficient to be qualified as "art".
- nix23 5y ago
  That is exceptionally well articulated, fully on your side.
  - andybak 5y ago
    I felt otherwise.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      And provided a non-point. Now think of the asymmetry between agreement and disagreement. (Solution: payload already expressed vs payload to be expressed.)
- krapp 5y ago
  >You missed the important point: an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings. It takes a proper intelligence to build that - you need conceptual depth, reflection etc.: you have by definition wait for a GAN. I didn't miss the point, i'm arguing the point is debatable. There are entire artistic movements whose thesis is to deny the necessity of "meaning" in art, apart perhaps from whatever meaning the viewer imparts to it. If you didn't know some of these works were done by an AI, you would see the 'conceptual depth, reflection, etc.' in them, but that emotional, empathetic connection one has with a work of art is entirely fabricated. These AIs respond to natural language requests in ways that can be indistinguishable from human effort, they pass the Turing Test for creativity without intelligence. So I think it's valid to question whether art necessarily requires any such thing on the part of the "artist" at all, or if we just believe it does because we're afraid that if creativity can be generated by an algorithm, it's just another sign that we're nothing more than deterministic machines ourselves.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > There are entire artistic movements whose thesis is to deny the necessity of "meaning" in art If such thesis founds the artistic production, then this will be the «concretion of a structure of meanings» around the «den[ial of] the necessity of "meaning" in art». There's "a whole world" of bodies of knowledge and "persons" (individual expressions of the possible forms of being in a supposedly organic - consequential - relation to the richness of being) founding an artistic expression. Have a creature experience being and react to it in proper senses, then the expression may start being artistic. > These AIs respond to natural language requests in ways that can be indistinguishable from human effort, they pass the Turing Test for creativity without intelligence So the artist - provided that the quality is actually there - in that case is the reader. That is already part of art ("If I put in my books everything people read in them I'd be a genius", someone said - I cannot recall who). It does not mean that the original product is artistic, that "it has what it takes". Also: Turing Tests are far from objective, with reference to length or time (etc.) measurements. They surely may pass in front of some Turing Test/ers/. Surely some students pass, after some professors. It is even recorded that some professors managed to have a career and be illiterate. > or if we just believe it does because Even if the creator were a «deterministic machine», there would be a complexity in play and the presence or absence of modules to make the difference. Without them, easily the system will show to be brittle - take for example the visual classifiers that were at some point shown to "recognize" textures but not shapes, that will change response upon the change of an actually irrelevant pixel etc. > to question whether ... or There is no question in that false dichotomy: proper human creation has grounds through modules that current AI does not have. All modules must be in place. Anything can "create" - "unintentionally", "unawarily" etc.: with limited depth.
- mkl 5y ago
  > an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings This is a very narrow definition that discounts a lot of art. I'm also very dubious that proper intelligence [1] is required to build that (GPT3's output could certainly be accurately described that way). [1] I agree that there is no intelligence at work in these algorithms.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > discounts a lot of art ...Examples? > could certainly be accurately described that way Like everything, provided we take an indicative definition for an instruction manual where terms can be used loosely outside original intention.
    - mkl 5y ago
      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=imag... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=image... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings than most of the images on those pages. Those images all show up when searching for "art", even though your narrow definition discounts most of them as such, which means your definition is faulty. I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong about what constitutes "art". I also don't think you can sensibly proclaim a faulty definition of something as general (and text-inclusive) as "an artistic object" to be "the important point" and then get annoyed when someone points out problems with it. Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them, but that could only be the case if you used a definition of "meaning" so broad as to be meaningless (e.g. "a person selecting it provides meaning", which to me translates to "it elicits emotion" since that's why it was chosen, and you already argued against that). Yes, an art critic might claim to find meaning in totally abstract artwork, but they'd find more meaning in most artistic images generated with machine learning, especially if you don't tell them the source.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pmontra 5y ago

Probably the creativity is in the eye of the beholder in that case. Anyway there are billions of people that even don't think about art or not art. They look for pretty pictures to put in a frame and the only thing that matters to them is the price of the picture plus the frame. Best if it costs less than a meal. The painter or the photographer could be unknown or an AI, they couldn't be bothered. My point is that it opens a market for very low cost unique self made pictures and if it happens people won't care if it's art. Pretty would be enough.