5 ms·

>One question that bother me is does it really matter? If AI-generated content is on par with Human-made or even better does it matter anymore that an AI genera

>One question that bother me is does it really matter? If AI-generated content is on par with Human-made or even better does it matter anymore that an AI generated it? > If an AI had written Mozart's Requiem would it lessen its interest, its beauty? I think it's about intent. Art is interesting and beautiful to us because there is an undeniable human intent in creating it and a vision behind it. ChatGPT and DALL-E are pretty cool but I think until AI get it's own intent and goals it's pretty fair to try to separate human art and AI art.

int_19h 4y ago
I've seen plenty of images generated by Midjourney and Stable Diffusion that I would describe as "interesting" and/or "beautiful". For that matter, nature can obviously be both, and it doesn't have intentional design nor vision behind it. So it's clear that it's not a universal requirement.
- iliane5 4y ago
  Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing. My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well. But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?
    - iliane5 4y ago
      Most would say it's art, which is why these models are so interesting and have had such quick adoption. If you were to reveal that it's AI-made, some would also change their mind or say that it's art but not exactly in the same sense that human-made art is art. I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary. The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.

int_19h 4y ago

I've seen plenty of images generated by Midjourney and Stable Diffusion that I would describe as "interesting" and/or "beautiful". For that matter, nature can obviously be both, and it doesn't have intentional design nor vision behind it. So it's clear that it's not a universal requirement.

iliane5 4y ago
Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing. My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.
- int_19h 4y ago
  I would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well. But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?
  - iliane5 4y ago
    Most would say it's art, which is why these models are so interesting and have had such quick adoption. If you were to reveal that it's AI-made, some would also change their mind or say that it's art but not exactly in the same sense that human-made art is art. I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary. The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.