2 ms·
AI art is striking at first glance, but devoid of meaning once you really try to engage with it. It's the meaning people want, but an image's visual impact has
by _greim_ 4y ago
AI art is striking at first glance, but devoid of meaning once you really try to engage with it. It's the meaning people want, but an image's visual impact has been a reasonably cheap heuristic for finding it. The viability of this heuristic is now dead or rapidly dying, and AI generated art is degenerating into yet another form of spam. Relatedly, feeds full of visually-striking images, once impressive, are taking on a "spammy" tinge. New, harder-to-fake signals will be found, and social media will reorganize around whatever those end up being.
- betwixthewires 4y agoI'm personally very happy about it. To me, art is just pleasant, it's a matter of degree. Meaning is nice and all, but not necessary. And with this new way of generating art, people can have beautiful art, cheaply and as much as they want. No more cheap Target art everywhere. It's the replicator of art, nice, beautiful art is now post scarcity and I love it.
- Double_a_92 4y agoHow does manual labour add meaning to a mentally creative process? It's not like the AI spits out random images, you have to very specifically tell it what you want in there. What's the difference between "telling" your hands vs. telling the AI?