4 ms·

I read it differently: the artist is saying (per my reading) that we humans have been making 'expressions of reality' first with paint and then with photographs

I read it differently: the artist is saying (per my reading) that we humans have been making 'expressions of reality' first with paint and then with photographs. And now we will be using "AI", and what is good about this is how this latest mechanism of expression is laying bare the actual cause of suffering in human existence: our own minds and imagination.

LegitShady 4y ago
photographs didn't destroy paint, because they don't do the same thing. People trying to represent the world as it is use photography (for the most part) and people wanting to express something about the world use paint. AI is even less than that - people who want a computer to make their artistic decisions for them have a neural net author an image or other work for them. generally the humans having no more artistic input than someone who commissions a piece from an artist by explaining what they want. A person painting makes a trillion times more artistic decision making than someone 'painting' with a neural net. They aren't the author of the work, and can't enter it into art competitions on their own behalf (unless the rules are stupid), and can't register it for copyright as there is no human authorship. It is the complete dissolution of human art making - its humans deciding to have a non human thing - that cannot feel emotions or understand the emotions in an image - make 'art' for them. Most because they are incapable of doing it themselves so having something is better than having nothing, some because they do art primarily for money and the neural net works faster than them and they haven't figured out the bit about no copyright yet, or will misrepresent it to illegally get a copyright on an image they didn't author.
- eternalban 4y ago
  I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the general thrust of your comment. That last point about feelings and emotions however is not clear cut, imo. Typically the process is itertive, so it's a loop and there is a feeling agent in that loop. Also if you yourself make art, you must have noticed how sometimes even the simplest of tools (say a brush or nib) create ~accidental features of the work that one finds entirely pleasing. This happens a lot to me with ink and brush :) The general input is distincly my line, it is my hand w/o a question, but I have a few works which feature engaging aspects that were partly accidental, and part of the delight is precisely that: me, the supposed author, is surprised.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    >Typically the process is itertive, so it's a loop and there is a feeling agent in that loop. Is someone who continually commissions art until they arrive at a painting they like making artistic decisions in the work? I don't think so. >you must have noticed how sometimes even the simplest of tools (say a brush or nib) create ~accidental features of the work that one finds entirely pleasing. This happens a lot to me with ink and brush :) The general input is distincly my line, it is my hand w/o a question, but I have a few works which feature engaging aspects that were partly accidental, and part of the delight is precisely that: me, the supposed author, is surprised. That is unquestionably something you authored, even the mistakes, even the mistakes you liked. But at no point of commissioning artwork are you making artistic decisions.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      The 'commissioning' notion is how you wish to reduce the equation. I on the other hand consider AI as tool a reasonable proposition for the reasons noted. And from a purely practical point of view, getting worked up over this is tilting at windmills. Change is the constant. And there will be undoubtedly 'artist commissioners' that will outshine others, using the same 'artist'..
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        The commissioning notion was brought up by the copyright board in their march advisement on the eligibility of neural network produced works under copyright - which are not eligible. It's an accurate description of whats going on. Commissioning paintings until you get the one you want isn't artistic expression, or artistic decision making, and the human coming up with prompts will be replaced by a machine learning program trained on prompts, as they bring the least value to the process and are the most easily replaced. > And from a purely practical point of view, getting worked up over this is tilting at windmills. I'm not worked up at all. I'm explaining whats going on. Is anyone who thinks differently from you getting worked up? Are you getting worked up for imagining emotions I'm not experiencing? In the future just argue ideas instead of imagining emotions across internet mind reading. >Change is the constant. And there will be undoubtedly 'artist commissioners' that will outshine others, using the same 'artist'. It will all approach zero value, so it doesn't matter. It's inauthentic, uncopyrightable stuff based on the misappropriation of the work of actual artists. The expert 'commissioners' will also be replaced by machine learning faster than anyone else.

LegitShady 4y ago

photographs didn't destroy paint, because they don't do the same thing. People trying to represent the world as it is use photography (for the most part) and people wanting to express something about the world use paint. AI is even less than that - people who want a computer to make their artistic decisions for them have a neural net author an image or other work for them. generally the humans having no more artistic input than someone who commissions a piece from an artist by explaining what they want. A person painting makes a trillion times more artistic decision making than someone 'painting' with a neural net. They aren't the author of the work, and can't enter it into art competitions on their own behalf (unless the rules are stupid), and can't register it for copyright as there is no human authorship. It is the complete dissolution of human art making - its humans deciding to have a non human thing - that cannot feel emotions or understand the emotions in an image - make 'art' for them. Most because they are incapable of doing it themselves so having something is better than having nothing, some because they do art primarily for money and the neural net works faster than them and they haven't figured out the bit about no copyright yet, or will misrepresent it to illegally get a copyright on an image they didn't author.

eternalban 4y ago
I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the general thrust of your comment. That last point about feelings and emotions however is not clear cut, imo. Typically the process is itertive, so it's a loop and there is a feeling agent in that loop. Also if you yourself make art, you must have noticed how sometimes even the simplest of tools (say a brush or nib) create ~accidental features of the work that one finds entirely pleasing. This happens a lot to me with ink and brush :) The general input is distincly my line, it is my hand w/o a question, but I have a few works which feature engaging aspects that were partly accidental, and part of the delight is precisely that: me, the supposed author, is surprised.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  >Typically the process is itertive, so it's a loop and there is a feeling agent in that loop. Is someone who continually commissions art until they arrive at a painting they like making artistic decisions in the work? I don't think so. >you must have noticed how sometimes even the simplest of tools (say a brush or nib) create ~accidental features of the work that one finds entirely pleasing. This happens a lot to me with ink and brush :) The general input is distincly my line, it is my hand w/o a question, but I have a few works which feature engaging aspects that were partly accidental, and part of the delight is precisely that: me, the supposed author, is surprised. That is unquestionably something you authored, even the mistakes, even the mistakes you liked. But at no point of commissioning artwork are you making artistic decisions.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    The 'commissioning' notion is how you wish to reduce the equation. I on the other hand consider AI as tool a reasonable proposition for the reasons noted. And from a purely practical point of view, getting worked up over this is tilting at windmills. Change is the constant. And there will be undoubtedly 'artist commissioners' that will outshine others, using the same 'artist'..
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      The commissioning notion was brought up by the copyright board in their march advisement on the eligibility of neural network produced works under copyright - which are not eligible. It's an accurate description of whats going on. Commissioning paintings until you get the one you want isn't artistic expression, or artistic decision making, and the human coming up with prompts will be replaced by a machine learning program trained on prompts, as they bring the least value to the process and are the most easily replaced. > And from a purely practical point of view, getting worked up over this is tilting at windmills. I'm not worked up at all. I'm explaining whats going on. Is anyone who thinks differently from you getting worked up? Are you getting worked up for imagining emotions I'm not experiencing? In the future just argue ideas instead of imagining emotions across internet mind reading. >Change is the constant. And there will be undoubtedly 'artist commissioners' that will outshine others, using the same 'artist'. It will all approach zero value, so it doesn't matter. It's inauthentic, uncopyrightable stuff based on the misappropriation of the work of actual artists. The expert 'commissioners' will also be replaced by machine learning faster than anyone else.