3 ms·

I don't think you understood what I was saying. It's not about taste, it's about being able to differentiate between human and machine made art using whatever m

I don't think you understood what I was saying. It's not about taste, it's about being able to differentiate between human and machine made art using whatever metric people have about what constitutes good art.

ch4s3 4y ago
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a group of people with minimal education in art who couldn’t reliably pice out the AI generated images. You might be able to trick them with abstract images or things intended to look like computer generated art that doesn’t have a complex or human subject matter. Frankly humans and animals generated by these things look like blurry trash or are wrong on details in a way a human wouldn’t be, even intentionally. I’ve yet to see examples that don’t look kind of shitty.
- andreilys 4y ago
  Sounds like you haven't been looking that hard. There are plenty examples on the DALL-E subreddit that put the majority of Deviant Art artists to shame.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I just spent about 15 minutes scrolling and I’ll grant that the best 2 or 3 examples are better than the low low bar of some random crap on the social network of amateur art. Even those have weird artifacts and an utterly odd quality that feels inhuman. The best looking ones in general feel like banksy painting a character into a flea market painting, collage.
    - rafaelero 4y ago
      Give it another year. These models will only get better.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Maybe, but also maybe not. They don't really "understand" context and they don't know what something like Dutch Realism means, and they can't engage in artistic conversation with other artists. They're inherently derivative, and the output is only digital. A real painting has texture, brush strokes that rise off the canvas, and so on. Sculpture has tool marks, imperfections of casting, and little accidents related to their physicality. Again, this shit isn't art it's images with mashed together elements built by a system that has no sense of what it's doing. It's cool and all, but at best it's a pale imitation of a thing.

ch4s3 4y ago

I think you’d be hard pressed to find a group of people with minimal education in art who couldn’t reliably pice out the AI generated images. You might be able to trick them with abstract images or things intended to look like computer generated art that doesn’t have a complex or human subject matter. Frankly humans and animals generated by these things look like blurry trash or are wrong on details in a way a human wouldn’t be, even intentionally. I’ve yet to see examples that don’t look kind of shitty.

andreilys 4y ago
Sounds like you haven't been looking that hard. There are plenty examples on the DALL-E subreddit that put the majority of Deviant Art artists to shame.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I just spent about 15 minutes scrolling and I’ll grant that the best 2 or 3 examples are better than the low low bar of some random crap on the social network of amateur art. Even those have weird artifacts and an utterly odd quality that feels inhuman. The best looking ones in general feel like banksy painting a character into a flea market painting, collage.
  - rafaelero 4y ago
    Give it another year. These models will only get better.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Maybe, but also maybe not. They don't really "understand" context and they don't know what something like Dutch Realism means, and they can't engage in artistic conversation with other artists. They're inherently derivative, and the output is only digital. A real painting has texture, brush strokes that rise off the canvas, and so on. Sculpture has tool marks, imperfections of casting, and little accidents related to their physicality. Again, this shit isn't art it's images with mashed together elements built by a system that has no sense of what it's doing. It's cool and all, but at best it's a pale imitation of a thing.