3 ms·

> one thing is perfectly clear: art is human. Genuine question: what would change your mind on this? Or is "human-made" part of your definition of the word "ar

> one thing is perfectly clear: art is human. Genuine question: what would change your mind on this? Or is "human-made" part of your definition of the word "art", and as such there is nothing that would change your mind? Additionally, do you have at least a vague idea where the line is between "human-made" and "machine-made", in the spectrum that spans "oil painting" - "photography" - "photoshop" - ... - "dall-e"? Maybe you're considering a completely different spectrum - I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that. Please note, I'm not trying to argue "it's impossible to have a hard threshold so everything goes", I'm just trying to better understand where the art world is on these topics, as I'm mostly in the tech bubble otherwise.

art-is-human 4y ago
My brother is a machine learning and bioinformatics researcher at a top university in the US and we often discuss the idea that human creativity itself at the upper echelon can be most interestingly defined to include a "non-systemetizable" quality. Thus, the result of a.i. art, being purely systematic, is an image whose style (artistic fundamentals of form, line, value, etc.) only ever lags just behind the artists whose work it was trained on. The a.i. flow itself requires new artists to create new styles or there's stagnation. Most of us (art world) can look at an image (a.i. or otherwise) and immediately recall the artist(s) it was mostly influenced by. As a common example, this is why most dark surreal a.i. output feels like a botched Beksinski piece, however the tragic life of Beksinski informed his technical stylistic depth. Dall-E is a purely (practically speaking as compared to other forms) deterministic system. Even photography requires the human eye to compose, light, design, filter, granulate, texturize, etc. Edit: Not sure if I exactly answered your question, but I think I've tried to explain how there's a direct connection between the human experience and novelty in style, A.i. undercuts it, but a conscious system cultivating new styles based on its experience would be the closest thing to change my mind.

art-is-human 4y ago

My brother is a machine learning and bioinformatics researcher at a top university in the US and we often discuss the idea that human creativity itself at the upper echelon can be most interestingly defined to include a "non-systemetizable" quality. Thus, the result of a.i. art, being purely systematic, is an image whose style (artistic fundamentals of form, line, value, etc.) only ever lags just behind the artists whose work it was trained on. The a.i. flow itself requires new artists to create new styles or there's stagnation. Most of us (art world) can look at an image (a.i. or otherwise) and immediately recall the artist(s) it was mostly influenced by. As a common example, this is why most dark surreal a.i. output feels like a botched Beksinski piece, however the tragic life of Beksinski informed his technical stylistic depth. Dall-E is a purely (practically speaking as compared to other forms) deterministic system. Even photography requires the human eye to compose, light, design, filter, granulate, texturize, etc. Edit: Not sure if I exactly answered your question, but I think I've tried to explain how there's a direct connection between the human experience and novelty in style, A.i. undercuts it, but a conscious system cultivating new styles based on its experience would be the closest thing to change my mind.