4 ms·

Good art (regardless of medium) is fundamentally about communication. It allows us to communicate ideas and emotions in abstract ways bypassing the limitations

by s__s 4y ago

Good art (regardless of medium) is fundamentally about communication. It allows us to communicate ideas and emotions in abstract ways bypassing the limitations of language. Computer generated art can’t accomplish that. I don’t see any real threat here to artists. Granted, computers can certainly generate something that looks cool or just pleasing to the eye. Something you might want to hang up on your wall or something to add a splash of colour to the room. In that respect I suppose there’s some limited threat.

standyro 4y ago
It’s just another tool in the toolbox for artists. Just like artists currently use Adobe software to emulate brushes like real paintings, there is no reason an artist couldn’t use AI generated art to accomplish things that would otherwise be manual.
wnkrshm 4y ago
Also, what's lacking at is intention. If you click through a million suggestions for inpaints, you're not the artist but rather a customer, commissioning an artist. It's a step from artist to art director - the difference between a musician playing an instrument and a composer. But if the composer cannot play an instrument, it's hard to do improv jazz.
muzani 4y ago
"It allows us to communicate ideas and emotions in abstract ways bypassing the limitations of language. Computer generated art can’t accomplish that. I don’t see any real threat here to artists." I strongly disagree here. I think we tend to anthropomorphize AI, atrributing emotions and humor as something only sentient beings can do. What it does is really spot patterns. It's akin to someone who has read not only thousands of books, but also also surfed Reddit for thousands of years, and read all the smutty fan fiction out there. OpenAI stuff (DALL-E 2 and recent models of GPT-3) feels rather "smoothed". It's like looking at someone on LinkedIn and then thinking they don't have a personality. It's capable of subtext. I ask it to describe anger, and it could be anything between a yelling person to someone who is cold and sarcastic. It's capable of humor. It's capable of flirting. I use GPT-3 for poetry, because it's a hell of a lot better at writing poetry than me. It does poorly at finding rhymes and it doesn't understand syllables, but it can definitely find different ways to express an idea. Another weakness is that people who don't understand poetry or art are bad at giving instructions to AI. If you hire Shakespeare on Upwork and give him instructions to, "Write a love poem to my wife for her anniversary," the output is going to be uninspired. People will have to learn to work with AI the way a director works with actors, not the way a scrum master works with engineers. The director sees the big picture and how the scenes flow into each other, while the AI has to be trained to get into character.

by s__s 4y ago

standyro 4y ago

It’s just another tool in the toolbox for artists. Just like artists currently use Adobe software to emulate brushes like real paintings, there is no reason an artist couldn’t use AI generated art to accomplish things that would otherwise be manual.

wnkrshm 4y ago

Also, what's lacking at is intention. If you click through a million suggestions for inpaints, you're not the artist but rather a customer, commissioning an artist. It's a step from artist to art director - the difference between a musician playing an instrument and a composer. But if the composer cannot play an instrument, it's hard to do improv jazz.

muzani 4y ago

"It allows us to communicate ideas and emotions in abstract ways bypassing the limitations of language. Computer generated art can’t accomplish that. I don’t see any real threat here to artists." I strongly disagree here. I think we tend to anthropomorphize AI, atrributing emotions and humor as something only sentient beings can do. What it does is really spot patterns. It's akin to someone who has read not only thousands of books, but also also surfed Reddit for thousands of years, and read all the smutty fan fiction out there. OpenAI stuff (DALL-E 2 and recent models of GPT-3) feels rather "smoothed". It's like looking at someone on LinkedIn and then thinking they don't have a personality. It's capable of subtext. I ask it to describe anger, and it could be anything between a yelling person to someone who is cold and sarcastic. It's capable of humor. It's capable of flirting. I use GPT-3 for poetry, because it's a hell of a lot better at writing poetry than me. It does poorly at finding rhymes and it doesn't understand syllables, but it can definitely find different ways to express an idea. Another weakness is that people who don't understand poetry or art are bad at giving instructions to AI. If you hire Shakespeare on Upwork and give him instructions to, "Write a love poem to my wife for her anniversary," the output is going to be uninspired. People will have to learn to work with AI the way a director works with actors, not the way a scrum master works with engineers. The director sees the big picture and how the scenes flow into each other, while the AI has to be trained to get into character.