5 ms·
In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple
by kredd 3y ago
In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.
- MacsHeadroom 3y agoNope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.
- mplewis 3y agoCan you share some of the art you’ve made with generative AI?
- _svoh 3y agoCool, who are you?
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoPeople who use generative AI in their processes are not artists.
- password54321 3y agoThis is true. They are just taking a sample from a generated latent space, just like taking a photo of something doesn't make you an artist.
- blacklion 3y agoSo, there is no artists in, for example, street photography? Picture must be altered to become art, or staged? Was it irony? :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- password54321 3y agoThey are photographers. Here is the definition of an artist so you can have better clarity on what an artist is: "A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination"
- int_19h 3y agoYour definition assumes that photography is not art and/or doesn't involve conscious skill and creative imagination. That's not the consensus, to put it mildly.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- password54321 3y agoEverything is art then and we are all artists. Happy? Also consensus != correct.
- aqfamnzc 3y agoI took gp as satire. But maybe not haha.
- blacklion 3y agoAnd people who use Photoshop are? There is somewhat famous digital artist from Russia - Alexey Andreev. Google it, he has very distinctive style of realistic technique and surrealistic situations, like landing big manta ray on the deck of aircraft carrier. Or you can see his old works in his 5-years-not-updates LJ [1]. Now he uses generative AI as one of his tools. As Photoshop, as different (unrealistic!) brushes in Photoshop, as other digital tools. His style is still 100% recognizable and his works don't become worse or more "generic". Is he still artist? I think so. Where will you draw the line? [1] - https://alexandreev.livejournal.com/ https://alexandreev.livejournal.com/
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nottorp 3y agoFor every Alexey Andreev there are about 248518 blogs with "AI" generated illustrations that you just scroll past without noticing :)
- davely 3y agoI use generative AI to rubber duck and help improve my code. Am I no longer a software engineer?
- smackeyacky 3y agoI don’t think this is quite right. I think paraphrasing The Incredibles has a better take: When everybody is an artist, then nobody will be one.
- redwall_hp 3y agoThis is already the case. Art is a process, a form of human expression, not an end result. I'm sure OpenAI's models can shit out an approximation of a new Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams novel, but nobody with any level of literary appreciation would give a damn unless fraud was committed to trick readers into buying it. It's not the author's work, and there's no human message behind it.
- Aerroon 3y agoNovels aren't about a message. They're entertainment. If the novel is entertaining then it's irrelevant whether there is or isn't a message in it. Besides, literature enthusiasts will invent a message for a popular story even if there never was one. Also, I'm sure that you can eventually just prompt the model with the message you want to put into the story, if you can't already do that.
- rondini 3y agoI sounds like you don't value art as the purest form of human expression but you'll never be able to convince others to think like you with logic. For my part I think you fundamentally misunderstand the value of creativity but I know I won't change your mind either.
- Aerroon 3y agoIf it was really about the message, then why waste all the time with the rest of the novel? Describe the message in a sentence or two. You could read an entire library of books worth of messages in a few days. But that wouldn't be helpful. It would've been memorable, because novels aren't just about the message.
- portaouflop 3y agoI haven’t read anything “shit out” by any LLM that even nearly approaches the level of quality by the authors you named — would very much like to see something like that - do you have any evidence for your claims? AFAICT current text generation is something approaching bad mimicry at best and downright abysmal in general. I think you still need a very skilled author and meaty brain with a story to tell to make use of an LLM for storytelling. Sure it’s a useful tool that will make authors more effective but we are far from the point where you tell the LLM “write a story set in Pratchetts Discworld” and something acceptable or even entertaining will be spit out - if such a thing can even be achieved.
- petesergeant 3y ago> population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process I think population tends to value "looks pretty", and it's other artists, connoisseurs, and art critics who value origin and process. Exit Through the Gift Shop sums this up nicely
- Theodores 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that. In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.
- mesh 3y agoIn two years time, no one will know what was created with AI, what was created by humans, or what was created by both.
- Gormo 3y ago> According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. And yet it's completely and absolutely wrong. Value is created by the subjective utility offered to the consumer, irrespective of what inputs created the thing conveying that utility.
- thiagoharry 3y agoYou are using marginal utility value theory. Parent comment is using labor value theory. In fact, there are also other value theories in economy. It's a mostly philosophical choice, and like other philosophical choices, it's not possible to accuse one of them of being wrong. It's a matter of choosing your philosophy, and understanding different philosophies.
- Gormo 3y ago> You are using marginal utility value theory. Parent comment is using labor value theory. Yes, I'm aware. This is precisely why I'm stating the prior comment to be "absolutely wrong". Marginal utility is a substantially valid model, LTV is not. > In fact, there are also other value theories in economy. It's a mostly philosophical choice, and like other philosophical choices, it's not possible to accuse one of them of being wrong. Sure it is. These aren't theories in a normative sense, they're models of causality for manifest phenomena. They're closer to scientific theories than they are to philosophical axioms. LTV simply doesn't bear out with observation.
- Aerroon 3y agoI disagree. I definitely value modern digital art more than most historical art, because it just looks better. If AI art looks better (and in some cases it does) then I'll prefer that.
- kredd 3y agoThat’s totally fine, everyone’s definition of art is subjective. But general value of an art as a piece will just still be zero for AI generated ones, just like any IKEA / Amazon print piece. You just pay for the “looks pretty”, frame and paper.
- Aerroon 3y ago>You just pay for the “looks pretty”, frame and paper. But you pay that for any piece of art though? You appreciate it because you like what it looks like. The utility of it is in how good it looks, it's not how much effort was put into it. If you need a ditch you're not going to value the ditch more if the worker dug it by hand instead of using an excavator. You value it based on the utility it provides you.
- kredd 3y agoThat analogy doesn’t work for art, since worker’s ditch is result based. There are no feelings like “i like this ditch”, “experience of a ditch” or “i’m curious how this ditch was dug”. Again, i’m not saying buying a mass made AI art will be wrong. Just personally speaking, it will never evoke any feelings other than “looks neat” for me. So its inherent “art value” is close to 0 as I can guess its history is basically someone put in a prompt and sent it to print (which I can do myself on my phone too!). It’s the same as looking at cool building pics on my phone (0 art value) versus actually seeing them in person (non-0), mostly because the feelings I get from it. That being said, if it makes others happy, it’s not my place to judge.