4 ms·

Aren't we maybe jumping the gun here a little? Human creations are far better still than AI ones. People seem to (very understandably) conflate "impressive bec

Aren't we maybe jumping the gun here a little? Human creations are far better still than AI ones. People seem to (very understandably) conflate "impressive because of the technology" with "good," but either way thats not going to last forever, even for the most passionate AI-heads. We will take this stuff for granted pretty soon here, and then inevitability remember again what actually enjoying and connecting with a work of art or song or film is. I think its probably impossible to actually appreciate an AI work on its own terms right now, simply because its too loaded with external significance. You can't take it in without considering what it means to like it or not. In this, we seem collectively to be erring on the side of saying its positive or worthwhile if only because of the promise each AI work carries with itself. This makes the fervor and proselytizing of some make sense to me at least. Most people have better taste than enthusiasm for AI art would seem to show.

pixl97 4y ago
Right, I'm sure you went down to the blacksmith to have some artisan made cutlery for your kitchen when you needed some new forks?
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  Maybe, if you have the time, do me a favor: read the (very short) piece I am responding to, its the link at the very top of the page. If you still have a thoughtful or even snarkey comment to make to me after that, then please go ahead. But you're not really giving me anything to work with here, and around here we do strive to have real conversations. I just know you have some good points to make to me! Maybe chopsticks?
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Ok, so lets split the conversation into fine art versus generic commercial art and design we see everywhere. Because as I see it, this is how the future is splitting out. This goes back to the blacksmith producing unique items. People still buy things like to this day and pay a healthy sum of money for it. But this is not the economy either, the vast majority of consumption is items that are mass produced with as little human interaction as possible. I don't see it in any way controversial that large chunks of this market will be automated away. And example of this is in game asset design. There is a still a lot of manual human work here, but the workflows are being highly automated by 'smart' tools. I can promise you that my friend in this industry don't want to color in 50 bajillion pieces in an armor set. The tools for transfering things like style across multiple pieces massively reduce the workload. And as time goes on I expect we'll see these tools affect other areas of art. Another good example is music. A single artist can produce and distribute their own digital music easily. Entire portions of the music can be handed off to tools to put in things like drums and such. Now when you're playing a game, or in the elevator listening to whatever's being piped out of the speaker, do you think about or care about if it's made by a human or not? It won't stop you from buying a human painted mural for your wall. You'll still listen to your favorite human artist. But expect huge swathes of the ambient art/design/possibly music around you to be automated in one form or another.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      This doesn't make sense to me as a response. I think it surely goes without saying the models are good for things like game asset design, or ambient music, I say exactly that in a sibling comment. (although the ambient music one is a little silly to me personally. Brian Eno already invented procedures and ideas for generative ambient works without a single GPU like 50 years ago. Not to mention Terry Riley, John Cage, Steve Reich. Consider also the algorithmic nature of classical Indonesian gamelan music. Would be an accomplishment if anything from a statistical model could match the beautiful, simple, almost dumb elegance of such works. It feels like such overkill. But I digress..). The article which I'm responding to seems to me to be about not being demoralized as an artist in the face of advances in AI, presumably to artists who aren't just trying to get a commission check for some elevator music, but care about what they are making, hence the possibility of being demoralized. And my point is that they don't need to worry, and that it only seems this way right now because of enthusiasm for the idea of AI art itself, not any one work. In a way by, intentionally or not, eliding this crucial context, you are helping me prove my point! We cant separate the value/worth/goodness of an AI work without reaching outside it to talk about what it means, its reference to a coming future, its bare ability to be "human like", or even just matching the spec, as it were. People are just so caught up in justifying this stuff right now, they don't have even the ability to consider it in itself. This is all I'm saying. I think if you read what I'm saying you could agree with me without giving up any of your commitments here, just dont be quick to jump on something that seems wrong without 1. giving charity in what the other is saying, 2. understanding the context in which it is said, in this case the article I was responding to.
13years 4y ago
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as well. I think you have some valid points. For better discussions, I'm thinking we really need to begin to differentiate AI art on the values of utility, creativity, meaning, craft and visual appeal as I think very different answers are appropriate for each. I've written a fairly long piece with some related content, the most relevant portion is the section "AI owns creativity". Would be interested in your point of view. https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things
catach 4y ago
> Human creations are far better still than AI ones. I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands. And stuff that I genuinely appreciated for what it is, divorced from how it was made. I am reminded that very early on with Midjourney, before this wave of AI gen art was wider known, there was a story of someone winning an art competition with a piece generated with it. [1] But, aside from disagreement on the dimension of "good", the one area AI gen seems clearly unparalleled in is "fast". That's likely enough to disrupt. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332684/ai-generated-artwork-wins-state-fair-competition-colorado https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332684/ai-generated-artw...
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  I hear you but: > I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands This is my overriding point, beyond matters of taste. Everyone who talks about this stuff can't seem to talk about its value without reference to the hypothetical human artist or writer or whoever who didn't make it. The awe of just the fact it was made by AI can't be separated from one's appreciation of it, especially if you are someone who is incredibly passionate about AI. You say you could appreciate it without reference to the origin, but how can any of us claim that? In the same way one's thoughts about George W Bush's paintings are necessarily influenced one way or another by the artist himself, I just don't think we have the ability to separate these things. But that's not like a failing or anything, its just how it is. The total almost dizzying excitement of this AI moment/new future can only reinforce this. The more you are excited about AI art, the less you are probably really looking at it. As for the competition thing, that looks like a fine illustration for some random fantasy novel or something! It has to me so many interesting but superficial markers of artists who use AI: somewhat baroque but stunning complexity, figures and faces of slender and/or beautiful women, a vague sense "humans right beside a large and great thing." But otherwise, can't you feel a little emptiness in it? If you really try to take anything from it at all other than a fleeting aesthetic experience? Maybe so, maybe not, but either way, can we even speak at all to what the painting itself is trying get us to feel or think? The artist states that they were making a statement about AI artwork, but what is the statement in reference to the work? I can't tell, other than, of course, what I am saying: it is nothing about what we see represented in the painting, but simply the painting itself as a painting. The article goes on indeed to say that the judges knew AI made it, with only speculation that maybe "they didn't understand," but I suspect that's just coming from the vocal anti-AI crowd on twitter; such that they can say its unfair or a trick or whatever. Either way, the artist's point wasn't in anything they drew, but simply seeing if they would win, and then telling everyone they did. "..and I'm not sorry." It's all quite telling! The painting, and all the others like it, can only speak one thing: themselves as technically novel works. Which is why all the pro-AI people find themselves emphasizing this bare aspect of a work. Is a sea sponge in the bona fide style of Francis Bacon a novel work? Definitely. An amazing achievement for a computer? Certainly. But what is it after that? After the dust settles with all this we will remember what we like and don't like again. This stuff wont go away at all, and people will continue to make interesting things! But I have a feeling eventually 95% of it will be considered in the same cultural breath as kitsch art pieces and elevator music. But this is a stronger claim I could definitely be wrong about. The main thing is, right now, its just too early to tell. Taste is always sticky. I don't really believe in "levels," just differences. But one thing I know for sure is AI art to me is not great, even if it has masterful technique and style its just got no inspiration!

pixl97 4y ago

Right, I'm sure you went down to the blacksmith to have some artisan made cutlery for your kitchen when you needed some new forks?

beepbooptheory 4y ago
Maybe, if you have the time, do me a favor: read the (very short) piece I am responding to, its the link at the very top of the page. If you still have a thoughtful or even snarkey comment to make to me after that, then please go ahead. But you're not really giving me anything to work with here, and around here we do strive to have real conversations. I just know you have some good points to make to me! Maybe chopsticks?
- pixl97 4y ago
  Ok, so lets split the conversation into fine art versus generic commercial art and design we see everywhere. Because as I see it, this is how the future is splitting out. This goes back to the blacksmith producing unique items. People still buy things like to this day and pay a healthy sum of money for it. But this is not the economy either, the vast majority of consumption is items that are mass produced with as little human interaction as possible. I don't see it in any way controversial that large chunks of this market will be automated away. And example of this is in game asset design. There is a still a lot of manual human work here, but the workflows are being highly automated by 'smart' tools. I can promise you that my friend in this industry don't want to color in 50 bajillion pieces in an armor set. The tools for transfering things like style across multiple pieces massively reduce the workload. And as time goes on I expect we'll see these tools affect other areas of art. Another good example is music. A single artist can produce and distribute their own digital music easily. Entire portions of the music can be handed off to tools to put in things like drums and such. Now when you're playing a game, or in the elevator listening to whatever's being piped out of the speaker, do you think about or care about if it's made by a human or not? It won't stop you from buying a human painted mural for your wall. You'll still listen to your favorite human artist. But expect huge swathes of the ambient art/design/possibly music around you to be automated in one form or another.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me as a response. I think it surely goes without saying the models are good for things like game asset design, or ambient music, I say exactly that in a sibling comment. (although the ambient music one is a little silly to me personally. Brian Eno already invented procedures and ideas for generative ambient works without a single GPU like 50 years ago. Not to mention Terry Riley, John Cage, Steve Reich. Consider also the algorithmic nature of classical Indonesian gamelan music. Would be an accomplishment if anything from a statistical model could match the beautiful, simple, almost dumb elegance of such works. It feels like such overkill. But I digress..). The article which I'm responding to seems to me to be about not being demoralized as an artist in the face of advances in AI, presumably to artists who aren't just trying to get a commission check for some elevator music, but care about what they are making, hence the possibility of being demoralized. And my point is that they don't need to worry, and that it only seems this way right now because of enthusiasm for the idea of AI art itself, not any one work. In a way by, intentionally or not, eliding this crucial context, you are helping me prove my point! We cant separate the value/worth/goodness of an AI work without reaching outside it to talk about what it means, its reference to a coming future, its bare ability to be "human like", or even just matching the spec, as it were. People are just so caught up in justifying this stuff right now, they don't have even the ability to consider it in itself. This is all I'm saying. I think if you read what I'm saying you could agree with me without giving up any of your commitments here, just dont be quick to jump on something that seems wrong without 1. giving charity in what the other is saying, 2. understanding the context in which it is said, in this case the article I was responding to.

13years 4y ago

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this as well. I think you have some valid points. For better discussions, I'm thinking we really need to begin to differentiate AI art on the values of utility, creativity, meaning, craft and visual appeal as I think very different answers are appropriate for each. I've written a fairly long piece with some related content, the most relevant portion is the section "AI owns creativity". Would be interested in your point of view. https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

catach 4y ago

> Human creations are far better still than AI ones. I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands. And stuff that I genuinely appreciated for what it is, divorced from how it was made. I am reminded that very early on with Midjourney, before this wave of AI gen art was wider known, there was a story of someone winning an art competition with a piece generated with it. [1] But, aside from disagreement on the dimension of "good", the one area AI gen seems clearly unparalleled in is "fast". That's likely enough to disrupt. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332684/ai-generated-artwork-wins-state-fair-competition-colorado https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332684/ai-generated-artw...

beepbooptheory 4y ago
I hear you but: > I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands This is my overriding point, beyond matters of taste. Everyone who talks about this stuff can't seem to talk about its value without reference to the hypothetical human artist or writer or whoever who didn't make it. The awe of just the fact it was made by AI can't be separated from one's appreciation of it, especially if you are someone who is incredibly passionate about AI. You say you could appreciate it without reference to the origin, but how can any of us claim that? In the same way one's thoughts about George W Bush's paintings are necessarily influenced one way or another by the artist himself, I just don't think we have the ability to separate these things. But that's not like a failing or anything, its just how it is. The total almost dizzying excitement of this AI moment/new future can only reinforce this. The more you are excited about AI art, the less you are probably really looking at it. As for the competition thing, that looks like a fine illustration for some random fantasy novel or something! It has to me so many interesting but superficial markers of artists who use AI: somewhat baroque but stunning complexity, figures and faces of slender and/or beautiful women, a vague sense "humans right beside a large and great thing." But otherwise, can't you feel a little emptiness in it? If you really try to take anything from it at all other than a fleeting aesthetic experience? Maybe so, maybe not, but either way, can we even speak at all to what the painting itself is trying get us to feel or think? The artist states that they were making a statement about AI artwork, but what is the statement in reference to the work? I can't tell, other than, of course, what I am saying: it is nothing about what we see represented in the painting, but simply the painting itself as a painting. The article goes on indeed to say that the judges knew AI made it, with only speculation that maybe "they didn't understand," but I suspect that's just coming from the vocal anti-AI crowd on twitter; such that they can say its unfair or a trick or whatever. Either way, the artist's point wasn't in anything they drew, but simply seeing if they would win, and then telling everyone they did. "..and I'm not sorry." It's all quite telling! The painting, and all the others like it, can only speak one thing: themselves as technically novel works. Which is why all the pro-AI people find themselves emphasizing this bare aspect of a work. Is a sea sponge in the bona fide style of Francis Bacon a novel work? Definitely. An amazing achievement for a computer? Certainly. But what is it after that? After the dust settles with all this we will remember what we like and don't like again. This stuff wont go away at all, and people will continue to make interesting things! But I have a feeling eventually 95% of it will be considered in the same cultural breath as kitsch art pieces and elevator music. But this is a stronger claim I could definitely be wrong about. The main thing is, right now, its just too early to tell. Taste is always sticky. I don't really believe in "levels," just differences. But one thing I know for sure is AI art to me is not great, even if it has masterful technique and style its just got no inspiration!