10 ms·

Right now it is new, but soon people will start to see the common sorts of failures that AI generated art has (and will have a very difficult time getting rid o

Right now it is new, but soon people will start to see the common sorts of failures that AI generated art has (and will have a very difficult time getting rid of) will become obvious and seem tacky and cheap. Look at the coins with the dragon and his horde for example. The newness will wear off, people will become sensitized to the flaws, and AI "art" will find a niche which is quite a lot smaller than people impressed with technology imagine. Art and artists aren't dead, AI is not at all "creative" just derivative. It will be one influence among many for actual artists, become a tool for some, and for the rest of us, take the place of "art mill" art for the kinds of places that want to look fancy without putting any effort into it. (I'm looking at you, "luxury" apartment building with the exact same bad, inoffensive abstract print on every floor's elevator lobby)

mkaic 4y ago
>AI is not at all "creative" just derivative. And humans are not derivative? Every image human artists make is based off of something that artist has seen or experienced before. All creativity is derivative.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Derivative is a term of art with several different overloads. Critics will reach for the term to describe something that doesn't seem to do anything new; while lawyers further use it to describe a work that owes some kind of economic debt to the original[0]. The inverse of the legal sense of this word is "transformative". If you are making something new, then that debt goes away to the extent that such a debt would prohibit the creation of that work. Generalizing from these concepts... we don't care so much that literally every bit of art is "based on" or "influenced by" something. We care if the end result is novel or not. This is very much an "I know it when I see it" kind of standard, so it might sound like I'm just talking in circles, but there is a difference. Currently, it's difficult to get an AI system[1] to generate more novel images. There are certain patterns it knows how to do very well, and if you ask it for something that violates those patterns it gets confused because nobody's drawn that before. This puts us closer to "derivative" rather than "transformative", because it's harder to use the system for the latter purpose. [0] Existing precedent and law specifically names a few categories of work that are assumed to be derivative; such as sequels and translations. [1] I have only tried Craiyon / DALL-E Mini, and a handful of very primitive systems, both of which are not the most powerful image generators available.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Yes, but those errors will probably become less common and severe over time. What then?
TulliusCicero 4y ago
> Right now it is new, but soon people will start to see the common sorts of failures that AI generated art has This assumes that these sorts of flaws will remain just as bad for the foreseeable future. I doubt that's true, just looking at the progress in recent years of other machine learning domains. Sure, eventually things will plateau, but it doesn't look like we're there yet, not even close.

mkaic 4y ago

>AI is not at all "creative" just derivative. And humans are not derivative? Every image human artists make is based off of something that artist has seen or experienced before. All creativity is derivative.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Derivative is a term of art with several different overloads. Critics will reach for the term to describe something that doesn't seem to do anything new; while lawyers further use it to describe a work that owes some kind of economic debt to the original[0]. The inverse of the legal sense of this word is "transformative". If you are making something new, then that debt goes away to the extent that such a debt would prohibit the creation of that work. Generalizing from these concepts... we don't care so much that literally every bit of art is "based on" or "influenced by" something. We care if the end result is novel or not. This is very much an "I know it when I see it" kind of standard, so it might sound like I'm just talking in circles, but there is a difference. Currently, it's difficult to get an AI system[1] to generate more novel images. There are certain patterns it knows how to do very well, and if you ask it for something that violates those patterns it gets confused because nobody's drawn that before. This puts us closer to "derivative" rather than "transformative", because it's harder to use the system for the latter purpose. [0] Existing precedent and law specifically names a few categories of work that are assumed to be derivative; such as sequels and translations. [1] I have only tried Craiyon / DALL-E Mini, and a handful of very primitive systems, both of which are not the most powerful image generators available.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Yes, but those errors will probably become less common and severe over time. What then?

TulliusCicero 4y ago

> Right now it is new, but soon people will start to see the common sorts of failures that AI generated art has This assumes that these sorts of flaws will remain just as bad for the foreseeable future. I doubt that's true, just looking at the progress in recent years of other machine learning domains. Sure, eventually things will plateau, but it doesn't look like we're there yet, not even close.