3 ms·

I'm seeing a lot of AI-generated images on my facebook feed (they're of, um, predictable subjects) - if a human generated one, it would definitely be considered

I'm seeing a lot of AI-generated images on my facebook feed (they're of, um, predictable subjects) - if a human generated one, it would definitely be considered "art". Is Shrek not art because computers generated it based on input from humans?

krapp 3y ago
> Is Shrek not art because computers generated it based on input from humans? Computers didn't "generate" Shrek based on input from humans - human artists used their creativity and expertise to design those models, build the environments and animate the scenes. Those people went to college for years and studied and honed their craft, and applied it. If you can't see the difference between that and typing words into a prompt and having a machine stochastically generate something that hopefully kind of resembles what you want, but that you wouldn't be able to create on your own, and that you have no real ability to edit or fine tune, then I don't know what to tell you. And I agree with you - a lot of what AI is generating now looks really good. The thing is, even if it could be considered art, no one using those tools should consider themselves an artist. They didn't create anything, they're not capable of creating anything, and as long as they keep using AI, they will never be capable of creating anything. They're cheating themselves out of the experience of real creativity for instant gratification and a hit of endorphines. Which is fine as long as that's accepted. That's got to be the deal with AI - you give up the right to ever be talented at anything for the instant gratification machine that makes generic pretty pictures, and you'll never be anything more than a masturbating monkey until you put it aside and actually learn something.
- xaellison 3y ago
  I suspect we're in for a future of batin' bonobos given the economics of it
iamacyborg 3y ago
A lot of generic images aren’t art, regardless of how they’re produced. Much the same way as someone’s holiday snapshots are not art, even if some photography definitely is.

krapp 3y ago

> Is Shrek not art because computers generated it based on input from humans? Computers didn't "generate" Shrek based on input from humans - human artists used their creativity and expertise to design those models, build the environments and animate the scenes. Those people went to college for years and studied and honed their craft, and applied it. If you can't see the difference between that and typing words into a prompt and having a machine stochastically generate something that hopefully kind of resembles what you want, but that you wouldn't be able to create on your own, and that you have no real ability to edit or fine tune, then I don't know what to tell you. And I agree with you - a lot of what AI is generating now looks really good. The thing is, even if it could be considered art, no one using those tools should consider themselves an artist. They didn't create anything, they're not capable of creating anything, and as long as they keep using AI, they will never be capable of creating anything. They're cheating themselves out of the experience of real creativity for instant gratification and a hit of endorphines. Which is fine as long as that's accepted. That's got to be the deal with AI - you give up the right to ever be talented at anything for the instant gratification machine that makes generic pretty pictures, and you'll never be anything more than a masturbating monkey until you put it aside and actually learn something.

xaellison 3y ago
I suspect we're in for a future of batin' bonobos given the economics of it

iamacyborg 3y ago

A lot of generic images aren’t art, regardless of how they’re produced. Much the same way as someone’s holiday snapshots are not art, even if some photography definitely is.