14 ms·

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as

The impression that I’m getting from a lot of the comments here (and a lot of past discussions about AI art on HN) is that tech people view the art industry as a “challenge”, and they want to use machine learning tools to “defeat” it - either because they just want to demonstrate the sheer power of these tools, or because they think artists are irrational for thinking that there’s something special about human art and they want to prove them wrong, or what have you. I can’t think of any other way to explain the persistent desire to keep forcing AI art into spaces where it’s not wanted, or the repeated discussions about loopholes in the rules, how AI art can avoid detection, etc. I suppose the comparison I would make is to chess. Computer assistance is strictly forbidden in chess tournaments - it’s cheating. Both the players and the spectators want to see matches played between two humans, without computer interference. You could devise clever ways of getting around the rules and cheating (there’s a big cheating scandal rocking the chess world as we speak), but no one would praise you for doing this. They would just think you were being a jerk. Similarly, there will always be people who want to create communities centered around human art, simply because of the mere fact that it was made by a human and they want to see what human skill is able to accomplish without AI assistance.

ReflectedImage 4y ago
That reads a lot like pretending that progress can be held back.
- Jevon23 4y ago
  Is it “holding back progress” to ban the use of engines in chess tournaments?
furyofantares 4y ago
I'm simply deeply interested in knowing where this all goes. I'm not exactly forcing AI art into places where it's not wanted, but I am deeply interested in knowing where we will end up with all of this. I have basically no prediction, but it feels like we're on the cusp of some very powerful tools. I don't know if it will end up just being a novelty, or if it will replace current jobs, or if it will simply create powerful tools for humans to make new art with. Just no clue. In addition to this deep curiosity of what the future holds, I'm also very interested in it philosophically. I run a daily word game website, and every day's puzzle comes with an image that I generated for that day's words when you solve the puzzle. I often get people emailing in, asking who the artist was, because the day's image spoke to them, they found it beautiful. It always feels like I'm giving them such a let down when I give them the answer. They were looking for a human connection. The most valuable thing isn't the technical skill; it's the connection to another human who generated this image (though the technical skill is a demonstration of the artist's commitment and is another thing to connect with). Finding out that a human didn't generate the image is a lead balloon. I find this a very interesting, salient example in the "what is art?" and "what is meaning?" categories. It also brings me back to the tools question. Because, in many cases, ultimately there is a human connection to be made. I had an idea, and I worked with an AI to realize it. Sometimes it took quite a bit of work on prompts. Not nearly as much as it would take a technical artist, and I didn't get as exact an output as I had in my head. But if they want a connection to another human imagining something that speaks to them, it's there, I imagined it and then a computer realized it. It's not as meaningful as a piece that an artist committed numerous hours to after a lifetime of honing the craft, but it's not devoid of meaning either. And I don't have any art skills to speak of, so in fact it enabled some human connection that wasn't possible before.
space_fountain 4y ago
There are different sorts of creative excises. I do think that there is something interesting going on in the contrast between generative art and generative programing responses, but it's also true that most creative output is work and isn't done for the joy of doing it. Getty images exists to provide quick easy to use stock images not to plumb the depths of human existence. Photo realistic painting or abstract art will remain interesting and some people will want to know it was done by a human just like cameras, photoshop, and digital art in general hasn't destroyed the market for paintings, but they have pretty much destroyed the market for portrait painters. Idk what the future will bring, but it probably won't be a bunch of humans hired to paint the goings on at red carpets and it probably will involve AI doing more of what we might call creative work

ReflectedImage 4y ago

That reads a lot like pretending that progress can be held back.

Jevon23 4y ago
Is it “holding back progress” to ban the use of engines in chess tournaments?

furyofantares 4y ago

I'm simply deeply interested in knowing where this all goes. I'm not exactly forcing AI art into places where it's not wanted, but I am deeply interested in knowing where we will end up with all of this. I have basically no prediction, but it feels like we're on the cusp of some very powerful tools. I don't know if it will end up just being a novelty, or if it will replace current jobs, or if it will simply create powerful tools for humans to make new art with. Just no clue. In addition to this deep curiosity of what the future holds, I'm also very interested in it philosophically. I run a daily word game website, and every day's puzzle comes with an image that I generated for that day's words when you solve the puzzle. I often get people emailing in, asking who the artist was, because the day's image spoke to them, they found it beautiful. It always feels like I'm giving them such a let down when I give them the answer. They were looking for a human connection. The most valuable thing isn't the technical skill; it's the connection to another human who generated this image (though the technical skill is a demonstration of the artist's commitment and is another thing to connect with). Finding out that a human didn't generate the image is a lead balloon. I find this a very interesting, salient example in the "what is art?" and "what is meaning?" categories. It also brings me back to the tools question. Because, in many cases, ultimately there is a human connection to be made. I had an idea, and I worked with an AI to realize it. Sometimes it took quite a bit of work on prompts. Not nearly as much as it would take a technical artist, and I didn't get as exact an output as I had in my head. But if they want a connection to another human imagining something that speaks to them, it's there, I imagined it and then a computer realized it. It's not as meaningful as a piece that an artist committed numerous hours to after a lifetime of honing the craft, but it's not devoid of meaning either. And I don't have any art skills to speak of, so in fact it enabled some human connection that wasn't possible before.

space_fountain 4y ago

There are different sorts of creative excises. I do think that there is something interesting going on in the contrast between generative art and generative programing responses, but it's also true that most creative output is work and isn't done for the joy of doing it. Getty images exists to provide quick easy to use stock images not to plumb the depths of human existence. Photo realistic painting or abstract art will remain interesting and some people will want to know it was done by a human just like cameras, photoshop, and digital art in general hasn't destroyed the market for paintings, but they have pretty much destroyed the market for portrait painters. Idk what the future will bring, but it probably won't be a bunch of humans hired to paint the goings on at red carpets and it probably will involve AI doing more of what we might call creative work