4 ms·

Nice. If the work holds up to scrutiny, it's immediately useful for many.

by cs702 3y ago

refulgentis 3y ago
Who?
- chii 3y ago
  People who want to treat AI generated works differently, even tho by objective examination, it is not differentiable from a man made one.
  - ptero 3y ago
    The sister thread notes that this requires inverting the process, so it is likely only useful to those hosting the particular AI model; not an outside person who wants to check if a specific image is AI generated.
  - dheera 3y ago
    That doesn't work for that purpose because nothing mandates that AI-generated works be watermarked, and latent diffusion models are easily run on a desktop GPU now.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    That seems silly though as presumably that is a different set of people then those generating the images. Any security system that requires the adversary to be on board is doomed to fail. If the adversary was willing to play by the rules you wouldn't need a security system.
thot_experiment 3y ago
also like... why would I voluntarily watermark my images that I want to pass off as "real art" (my personal stance is that AI art is absolutely real art)
- prox 3y ago
  I would argue that AI works are expressions like a poem or a song. The word “art” has a diluted meaning, it means everything and nothing in common parlance. “Real” art has to have certain attributes like a certain timelessness and character, something that can only be really be ascertained after a certain time has passed. I feel that if you never studied art or never really learned or did the effort on studying it, and gone to the processes of art creation, most people probably aren’t making art. It still can be beautiful, creative, meaningful but “real” art, something that adds to the cultural lexicon, probably not. The book “But is it art?” by Cynthia Freeland I can recommend.
  - thot_experiment 3y ago
    I've done some thousands of hours of practice, my fingers are covered in watercolor paint as I type this. I don't know how to tell if I'm an artist or not, maybe I haven't done any art? I rarely try to say anything at all, I just like to see if I can make a thing I imagine real. I do wonder about it, I'm not being snarky. AI seems like a tool that can be used to make art, I think all that takes is a human trying to elicit a response in another human. Typing into a prompt box and setting some sliders, then picking the output I like... is it different from setting my shutter speed and framing a shot? What if I shoot on a phone where that's all automated, is the art the environment I put myself in? What if I take a hundred random abstract snaps and pick the best 3 and arrange them together in a triptych? Is the argument that the arrangement is the art, and the photography isn't? It just seems so absurd to me that AI can't make art, sure maybe not on it's own, but a paintbrush or a camera can't make art on it's own either, the human wielding it can.
    - prox 3y ago
      You are touching on a big subject, far too big to really touch upon in a comment (hence the book recommend) I studied art formally. I had the chance to meet and be tutored by some really incredible artists. At some point I had to choose another path that led my foray into frontend development and UX. It is indeed in the human context and character where great artists come from. Some artists can read the zeitgeist and extract a meaningful and masterly done work that defies the status quo. One of my teachers framed it “It’s like the olympics and you try to jump just that bit higher and raise the bar. And you don’t know if you are doing that unless you try.” So yeah, the human, their process, their ability to discern what is visually needed, their cultural context, their ability to be autonomous when it is called for, those are hallmarks of significance. Now the AI generator can help you iterate ideas (like you have to choose photos after a shoot) , but you are still the director, you still have to know what to pass and what to embrace. Some artists are not known until long after. For instance there was a street photographer who did street photography long before it was known as such. Now those works are seen as very significant. This is someone who tapped into something and showed a new way of looking.

Nice. If the work holds up to scrutiny, it's immediately useful for many.

by cs702 3y ago

Nice. If the work holds up to scrutiny, it's immediately useful for many.

refulgentis 3y ago

Who?

chii 3y ago
People who want to treat AI generated works differently, even tho by objective examination, it is not differentiable from a man made one.
- ptero 3y ago
  The sister thread notes that this requires inverting the process, so it is likely only useful to those hosting the particular AI model; not an outside person who wants to check if a specific image is AI generated.
- dheera 3y ago
  That doesn't work for that purpose because nothing mandates that AI-generated works be watermarked, and latent diffusion models are easily run on a desktop GPU now.
- bawolff 3y ago
  That seems silly though as presumably that is a different set of people then those generating the images. Any security system that requires the adversary to be on board is doomed to fail. If the adversary was willing to play by the rules you wouldn't need a security system.

thot_experiment 3y ago

also like... why would I voluntarily watermark my images that I want to pass off as "real art" (my personal stance is that AI art is absolutely real art)

prox 3y ago
I would argue that AI works are expressions like a poem or a song. The word “art” has a diluted meaning, it means everything and nothing in common parlance. “Real” art has to have certain attributes like a certain timelessness and character, something that can only be really be ascertained after a certain time has passed. I feel that if you never studied art or never really learned or did the effort on studying it, and gone to the processes of art creation, most people probably aren’t making art. It still can be beautiful, creative, meaningful but “real” art, something that adds to the cultural lexicon, probably not. The book “But is it art?” by Cynthia Freeland I can recommend.
- thot_experiment 3y ago
  I've done some thousands of hours of practice, my fingers are covered in watercolor paint as I type this. I don't know how to tell if I'm an artist or not, maybe I haven't done any art? I rarely try to say anything at all, I just like to see if I can make a thing I imagine real. I do wonder about it, I'm not being snarky. AI seems like a tool that can be used to make art, I think all that takes is a human trying to elicit a response in another human. Typing into a prompt box and setting some sliders, then picking the output I like... is it different from setting my shutter speed and framing a shot? What if I shoot on a phone where that's all automated, is the art the environment I put myself in? What if I take a hundred random abstract snaps and pick the best 3 and arrange them together in a triptych? Is the argument that the arrangement is the art, and the photography isn't? It just seems so absurd to me that AI can't make art, sure maybe not on it's own, but a paintbrush or a camera can't make art on it's own either, the human wielding it can.
  - prox 3y ago
    You are touching on a big subject, far too big to really touch upon in a comment (hence the book recommend) I studied art formally. I had the chance to meet and be tutored by some really incredible artists. At some point I had to choose another path that led my foray into frontend development and UX. It is indeed in the human context and character where great artists come from. Some artists can read the zeitgeist and extract a meaningful and masterly done work that defies the status quo. One of my teachers framed it “It’s like the olympics and you try to jump just that bit higher and raise the bar. And you don’t know if you are doing that unless you try.” So yeah, the human, their process, their ability to discern what is visually needed, their cultural context, their ability to be autonomous when it is called for, those are hallmarks of significance. Now the AI generator can help you iterate ideas (like you have to choose photos after a shoot) , but you are still the director, you still have to know what to pass and what to embrace. Some artists are not known until long after. For instance there was a street photographer who did street photography long before it was known as such. Now those works are seen as very significant. This is someone who tapped into something and showed a new way of looking.