4 ms·

One could say much the same comparing photography to painting. Photography allows people to communicate in ways that previously they didn't have the skill to w

One could say much the same comparing photography to painting. Photography allows people to communicate in ways that previously they didn't have the skill to with paint. AI is just a tool, the art will be in learning how to best use it.

haswell 3y ago
One could say many things about the difference between photography and painting of course, but I don't think the things said about these differences are "much the same". In the abstract, they appear superficially similar. When you consider the underlying details, they are worlds apart, and I think it's a category error to compare them directly. Painting is painting. Photography is photography. AI images are AI images (a category that will be further subdivided as the technology matures, much like painting and photography make up a spectrum of skills and approaches). They all sit in their own spaces, each with characteristics that make them more or less interesting. I'm personally far more interested in the kind of art that requires investment of human capital: mental, emotional, talent, skill, time, effort. I care about quality paintings and photos not just because of what they look like, but because of what it took to create them. Because of the emotions intrinsic to every brush stroke. Or the immersion of the photographer's consciousness in a real location that was difficult to reach. That human investment is core to the expression of the work, and to the interest it garners. I do think AI tools will be transformative for traditional artists and will unlock new possibilities. They'll also enable a new generation of artists to turn their imaginations into visual artifacts they were previously not capable of creating. I think the same is true for LLMs and writing. But at the core of it all, these are all forms of human-to-human communication, and the process itself carries much of the message. Much of that message is lost to the medium when we abstract more and more of the process away. As a thought experiment, consider food replicators in Star Trek. I can tell it what I want, and food appears. This is entirely unlike the process of making a high quality meal from scratch, and I wouldn't call myself a chef for having the ability to describe to a machine what I'd like it to do. This isn't to say there is no value in knowing how to instruct the machine well, but it's just a very different category of human activity.
- frumper 3y ago
  Art is art. The argument is just a pile of shifting sands. But artists make choices! But artists require knowledge! But artists need to communicate! A good artist will be able to use AI tools to create compelling art that communicates through decisive choices of their design. Other artists will get lucky and let the computer do most of the work.
  - haswell 3y ago
    Art is a word that humans made up to categorize a form of human expression. Whatever art is, it is because of the value that humans have chosen to ascribe to it, which they do for countless reasons. Many of those reasons are simply not present in AI output, and AI will bring new reasons that will be compelling for some, but entirely uninteresting for others. Clinging to an abstract three letter word as the ultimate definition of something nearly undefinable ignores both the richness of the form and the sociological factors that make the word hold any meaning. Again, I’m not saying that artists won’t do great things with AI. I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. Some people won’t care about the underlying process and it sounds like you may be in that category. Some people will continue to care, and I’d count myself in that category. Many people point out that Photography is to Painting what AI is to Photography. And while I think the analogy is a bit stretched, the primary reason this comparison comes up is because photography is thought of as a “lesser skilled” method of producing images. And I think that’s a fair assessment. It is not debatable that producing a photorealistic or highly skilled representation of a scene with a paintbrush requires far more skill and far more effort than operating a camera, especially in the 2020s. If your enjoyment of a thing comes from appreciating a particular kind of process, e.g. you are fascinated by and enjoy the output of skilled painters, not just for the result, but for the entire process, then AI (or Photography) isn’t going to hold your interest. Coffee is coffee. But there sure is a large spectrum of possible ways to experience coffee. Many people are happy with the Folgers instant stuff. Connoisseurs have a palate that knows that there’s more to coffee than caffeine and brown water, but not everyone is a connoisseur and some people are more interested in the utility of coffee (caffeine/energy). That isn’t to say that instant coffee is not coffee, and people are welcome to enjoy it if they can. But it sure isn’t the same as a cup of recently roasted, freshly ground single origin beans carefully brewed at a temperature calibrated to the properties of the bean and roast. Foljers will wake me up. That carefully brewed cup will wake me up and produce a highly pleasurable taste experience that can alter my emotional state in a positive direction. My point is that nuance abounds, and trying to reduce something like art of all things to a one dimensional description seems not very useful.

haswell 3y ago

One could say many things about the difference between photography and painting of course, but I don't think the things said about these differences are "much the same". In the abstract, they appear superficially similar. When you consider the underlying details, they are worlds apart, and I think it's a category error to compare them directly. Painting is painting. Photography is photography. AI images are AI images (a category that will be further subdivided as the technology matures, much like painting and photography make up a spectrum of skills and approaches). They all sit in their own spaces, each with characteristics that make them more or less interesting. I'm personally far more interested in the kind of art that requires investment of human capital: mental, emotional, talent, skill, time, effort. I care about quality paintings and photos not just because of what they look like, but because of what it took to create them. Because of the emotions intrinsic to every brush stroke. Or the immersion of the photographer's consciousness in a real location that was difficult to reach. That human investment is core to the expression of the work, and to the interest it garners. I do think AI tools will be transformative for traditional artists and will unlock new possibilities. They'll also enable a new generation of artists to turn their imaginations into visual artifacts they were previously not capable of creating. I think the same is true for LLMs and writing. But at the core of it all, these are all forms of human-to-human communication, and the process itself carries much of the message. Much of that message is lost to the medium when we abstract more and more of the process away. As a thought experiment, consider food replicators in Star Trek. I can tell it what I want, and food appears. This is entirely unlike the process of making a high quality meal from scratch, and I wouldn't call myself a chef for having the ability to describe to a machine what I'd like it to do. This isn't to say there is no value in knowing how to instruct the machine well, but it's just a very different category of human activity.

frumper 3y ago
Art is art. The argument is just a pile of shifting sands. But artists make choices! But artists require knowledge! But artists need to communicate! A good artist will be able to use AI tools to create compelling art that communicates through decisive choices of their design. Other artists will get lucky and let the computer do most of the work.
- haswell 3y ago
  Art is a word that humans made up to categorize a form of human expression. Whatever art is, it is because of the value that humans have chosen to ascribe to it, which they do for countless reasons. Many of those reasons are simply not present in AI output, and AI will bring new reasons that will be compelling for some, but entirely uninteresting for others. Clinging to an abstract three letter word as the ultimate definition of something nearly undefinable ignores both the richness of the form and the sociological factors that make the word hold any meaning. Again, I’m not saying that artists won’t do great things with AI. I’m saying that the work done with AI will not hold the same kind of value that is intrinsic to other forms. Some people won’t care about the underlying process and it sounds like you may be in that category. Some people will continue to care, and I’d count myself in that category. Many people point out that Photography is to Painting what AI is to Photography. And while I think the analogy is a bit stretched, the primary reason this comparison comes up is because photography is thought of as a “lesser skilled” method of producing images. And I think that’s a fair assessment. It is not debatable that producing a photorealistic or highly skilled representation of a scene with a paintbrush requires far more skill and far more effort than operating a camera, especially in the 2020s. If your enjoyment of a thing comes from appreciating a particular kind of process, e.g. you are fascinated by and enjoy the output of skilled painters, not just for the result, but for the entire process, then AI (or Photography) isn’t going to hold your interest. Coffee is coffee. But there sure is a large spectrum of possible ways to experience coffee. Many people are happy with the Folgers instant stuff. Connoisseurs have a palate that knows that there’s more to coffee than caffeine and brown water, but not everyone is a connoisseur and some people are more interested in the utility of coffee (caffeine/energy). That isn’t to say that instant coffee is not coffee, and people are welcome to enjoy it if they can. But it sure isn’t the same as a cup of recently roasted, freshly ground single origin beans carefully brewed at a temperature calibrated to the properties of the bean and roast. Foljers will wake me up. That carefully brewed cup will wake me up and produce a highly pleasurable taste experience that can alter my emotional state in a positive direction. My point is that nuance abounds, and trying to reduce something like art of all things to a one dimensional description seems not very useful.