4 ms·

I strongly disagree with this comparison but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why. Part of it is that all current AI generated imagery is an imitati

by D13Fd 3y ago

I strongly disagree with this comparison but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why. Part of it is that all current AI generated imagery is an imitation of something, but an imitation that doesn’t and can’t follow the rules of the original or understand the meaning of the original. It’s fake. Nature feels like the opposite. It’s real and brutal and, for living things, it is driven by millions of years of evolution. It’s entirely grounded in the physical laws of our universe.

vidarh 3y ago
AI is entirely grounded in the physical laws of our universe too. And all art is imitation - that is how we learn to follow and follow rules, how the rules come into being, and how we communicate. It's reasonable to think that they are not good artists who consistently know when to follow rules and when and how to break them, but I don't see how this is any different than anyone else making mistakes while learning. (As for understanding, I'd bet ChatGPT could give a more convincing analysis of an artwork than most people)