3 ms·

> the human artist does this choosing themselves. I disagree. The human artist's tastes at least partially originate in other people, both individuals and gene

> the human artist does this choosing themselves. I disagree. The human artist's tastes at least partially originate in other people, both individuals and general societies/cultures, and oftentimes the artist directly incorporates feedback into future work. Are you aware that students in art school, music conservatories, etc constantly get feedback from instructors and peers? I reject your premise entirely unless you can give me an example of a human that created art without ever having been influenced as a human being by any other human being. Otherwise I believe it's just what I said before: concluding first that AI can't create art and finding reasons second.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Does DALL-E incorporate (or even receive) feedback about which of the pictures it generated were better? It of course does not, and it currently has no function to do so. IF it incorporated this feedback and changed its weights based on it, I would agree with you that the situation could be comparable. Until then, my point remains: DALL-E is currently like an (extraordinarily good) hat that you can put words in and extract phrases out of. A human chooses what words to put in and which of the phrases they take out are better. Unlike pulling words out of a hat, the network has some criteria by which it produces phrases, but that's not enough to call it an artist. This is not meant to minimize how good the achievement of this network is. The level of fidelity and even understanding of the prompts is extraordinary. But its purpose is not to be creative, it is to find a point on a hyperplane that matches the input it received. It is currently at the level of a tool - though there are potential advancements that could yet turn it into an artist in its own right.
- silicon2401 4y ago
  We're basically just arguing semantics at this point. You define art/artist differently than I do. We won't make further progress with this discussion, but regardless it's great to see that technology is coming so far

tsimionescu 4y ago

Does DALL-E incorporate (or even receive) feedback about which of the pictures it generated were better? It of course does not, and it currently has no function to do so. IF it incorporated this feedback and changed its weights based on it, I would agree with you that the situation could be comparable. Until then, my point remains: DALL-E is currently like an (extraordinarily good) hat that you can put words in and extract phrases out of. A human chooses what words to put in and which of the phrases they take out are better. Unlike pulling words out of a hat, the network has some criteria by which it produces phrases, but that's not enough to call it an artist. This is not meant to minimize how good the achievement of this network is. The level of fidelity and even understanding of the prompts is extraordinary. But its purpose is not to be creative, it is to find a point on a hyperplane that matches the input it received. It is currently at the level of a tool - though there are potential advancements that could yet turn it into an artist in its own right.

silicon2401 4y ago
We're basically just arguing semantics at this point. You define art/artist differently than I do. We won't make further progress with this discussion, but regardless it's great to see that technology is coming so far