4 ms·

It's interesting to think about it, what differentiate art from a human or a machine. It can't be the content itself, because now machine output is close to a h

by oulipo 4y ago

It's interesting to think about it, what differentiate art from a human or a machine. It can't be the content itself, because now machine output is close to a human output (modulo the small details). So what make those communities attracted to art made by humans, rather than art made by machines? It must be the "act of community" itself, which cannot be made by a machine (it is useless to be "in community" with a conscious-less machine). So this would mean that the "art content" for humans is not only the pictorial content of the image, but also the "transmission of a message", and in particular, the quality of the initiator and the receiver of the message. In this case, humans would (and apparently seem to) differentiate in quality art that has been created by a conscious being and for a conscious being, to art that has been created by a machine.

7952 4y ago
People consume art for different reasons. It can be like a spiritual experience, or an investment, or something to brighten up your life. It can have a story attached to it or be inspirational. My guess is that different people will have different reactions to machine made art. And most of the art community will carry on perfectly happily as if nothing has changed.
ilaksh 4y ago
Has nothing to do with that. It's two things. Artists are threatened, and also right now a lot that is being submitted is low quality. So if you are an artist you don't like seeing a bunch of AI junk on your home page just because a lot is junk but also, because one can assume that it will continue to improve so that that most of it really is competing with artists. So that could put a lot of people out of work since it would make art-related business models much more competitive.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
> So this would mean that the "art content" for humans is not only the pictorial content of the image, but also the "transmission of a message", and in particular, the quality of the initiator and the receiver of the message Sounds like you've taken a semiotics class. If art is about transmission of a message, wouldn't the message be the prompt supplied to the AI by the human? In that case, perhaps the art is only as profound as the prompt?

by oulipo 4y ago

7952 4y ago

People consume art for different reasons. It can be like a spiritual experience, or an investment, or something to brighten up your life. It can have a story attached to it or be inspirational. My guess is that different people will have different reactions to machine made art. And most of the art community will carry on perfectly happily as if nothing has changed.

ilaksh 4y ago

Has nothing to do with that. It's two things. Artists are threatened, and also right now a lot that is being submitted is low quality. So if you are an artist you don't like seeing a bunch of AI junk on your home page just because a lot is junk but also, because one can assume that it will continue to improve so that that most of it really is competing with artists. So that could put a lot of people out of work since it would make art-related business models much more competitive.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

> So this would mean that the "art content" for humans is not only the pictorial content of the image, but also the "transmission of a message", and in particular, the quality of the initiator and the receiver of the message Sounds like you've taken a semiotics class. If art is about transmission of a message, wouldn't the message be the prompt supplied to the AI by the human? In that case, perhaps the art is only as profound as the prompt?