4 ms·

I very much don't care if there was any intent when consuming art of any kind, though. If I see an image that evokes a feeling, it won't diminish anything if I

by vidarh 3y ago

I very much don't care if there was any intent when consuming art of any kind, though. If I see an image that evokes a feeling, it won't diminish anything if I find out it is an AI image. Why would it? The image is the same. The same is my attitude to my writing: I may have an intent, but whether the reader interprets it the same way is irrelevant - I've written it either way, and got my enjoyment out of writing it. It'd be a shame if they don't enjoy it, but that's all. Why does it matter? It doesn't change my experience of writing it in any way. It has no bearing on my life at all. Nor does an artists intent change what I see, or hear, or read in any way. Your example at the end is just deeply depressing to me. Why does it matter? It looks the same. To lose our on enjoying something nice because of factors other than the art itself feels sad to me. Furthermore, why do you think the human art is any less the result of computation? To me, that seems like a superstition, and meaningless. I don't feel like it's a distinction with any value.

masswerk 3y ago
Regarding that last example: the important part is, it does not look the same, nor does it feel the same, since the image is not developed under that regime of light and emphasis and attention. (In a way, there is neither a sense to light, nor detail, nor attention, and, thus, to "how?". I may add, if I'm engaging with an image, beyond a first impression, "how" is to me more important than "what".) Similar aspects may be observed with text. And, for you, as a writer: As you can't compete with generators on economic grounds, the productions of the former will probably become prevalent (if they are not already, in some niches). If input rejection becomes the default mode of reception, this may affect you, as well. PS: In other word, a representation is not the real thing, it's a thing of its own in its own realm, raising the question of "what realm?". As an illustration, here are two illustrations of my own, both representing real objects, drawn in (pre-AI) Photoshop from scratch, for interface purpose. The first is an actual application – mind the focus and guidance of attention and varying detail, the second one is just a draft, still lacking any such focus. This second one is quite similar to an AI generated image, as it lacks any purpose, thus, any reason to be there at all. (Besides that bit of light that is already in that image, it is offending in its neutrality. And there is really no point in publishing it, outside of this context.) [1] https://www.masswerk.at/eliza/ https://www.masswerk.at/eliza/ [2] https://www.masswerk.at/tennis-for-two/304a.html https://www.masswerk.at/tennis-for-two/304a.html
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> I very much don't care if there was any intent when consuming art of any kind, though. I agree with you. I basically stopped looking at things on /r/earthporn because nature itself is pretty and the bastardization that often happens on that subreddit isn't. They often play with the Hugh's to get deeper greens, more contrast, etc. But then it stops looking natural and my reaction isn't one of awe or interest. It's not pretty to me. It's interesting the first time you see it, but not the 100th time you see it.

by vidarh 3y ago

masswerk 3y ago

Regarding that last example: the important part is, it does not look the same, nor does it feel the same, since the image is not developed under that regime of light and emphasis and attention. (In a way, there is neither a sense to light, nor detail, nor attention, and, thus, to "how?". I may add, if I'm engaging with an image, beyond a first impression, "how" is to me more important than "what".) Similar aspects may be observed with text. And, for you, as a writer: As you can't compete with generators on economic grounds, the productions of the former will probably become prevalent (if they are not already, in some niches). If input rejection becomes the default mode of reception, this may affect you, as well. PS: In other word, a representation is not the real thing, it's a thing of its own in its own realm, raising the question of "what realm?". As an illustration, here are two illustrations of my own, both representing real objects, drawn in (pre-AI) Photoshop from scratch, for interface purpose. The first is an actual application – mind the focus and guidance of attention and varying detail, the second one is just a draft, still lacking any such focus. This second one is quite similar to an AI generated image, as it lacks any purpose, thus, any reason to be there at all. (Besides that bit of light that is already in that image, it is offending in its neutrality. And there is really no point in publishing it, outside of this context.) [1] https://www.masswerk.at/eliza/ https://www.masswerk.at/eliza/ [2] https://www.masswerk.at/tennis-for-two/304a.html https://www.masswerk.at/tennis-for-two/304a.html

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

> I very much don't care if there was any intent when consuming art of any kind, though. I agree with you. I basically stopped looking at things on /r/earthporn because nature itself is pretty and the bastardization that often happens on that subreddit isn't. They often play with the Hugh's to get deeper greens, more contrast, etc. But then it stops looking natural and my reaction isn't one of awe or interest. It's not pretty to me. It's interesting the first time you see it, but not the 100th time you see it.