3 ms·

I think the following isn't said often enough: there must be a reason why there are extremely few celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and it cannot be

I think the following isn't said often enough: there must be a reason why there are extremely few celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and it cannot be something abstract and bureaucratic as copyright concerns although those are problematic. It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. It's something that evoke sense of distress. Otherwise everyone's tracing them at least.

ben_w 3y ago
Most people mix up all the different kinds of intellectual property basically all the time[0], so while people say it's about copyright, I (currently) think it's more likely to be a mixture of "moral rights" (the right to be named as the creator of a work) and trademarks (registered or otherwise), and in the case of celebrities, "personality rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. People have a wide range of standards. Last summer I attended the We Are Developers event in Berlin, and there were huge posters that I could easily tell were from AI due to the eyes not matching; more recently, I've used (a better version) to convert a photo of a friend's dog into a renaissance oil painting, and it was beyond my skill to find the flaws with it… yet my friend noticed instantly. Also, even with "real art", Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, beautiful, romantic, etc. — yet to me, the man looks like he has a broken neck, while the woman looks like she's been decapitated at the shoulder then had her head rotated 90° and reattached via her ear. [0] This is also why people look at a Google street view image with a ©2017 Google[1] tiled over on a blue sky and say "LOL, Google's trying to own the sky", or why people even on this very forum ask how some new company can trademark a descriptive term like "GPT"[2], seemingly surprised by this being possible even though there's already a very convenient example of e.g. Hasbro already having "Transformers". [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,321.62h,120.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D36.736748%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476
- numpad0 3y ago
  > Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt, Damien Hirst, Kusama Yayoi, or the likes[0]. It could be that genAI is leaving something that human artist would filter out, or because images are too disorganized that they appear to us to be encoding malice or other negative emotions, or maybe I'm just wrong and it's all about anatomy. But whatever the reason is, IMO, it's way too rarely considered good, gaining too few supportive celebrities and artists and audiences, to work. 0: I admit I'm not well versed with contemporary art, or art in general for that matter
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". > It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt My point is: yes AI is different — it's better. (Or, less provocatively: better by my specific standards). Always? No. But I chose Der Kuss specifically because of the high regard in which it is held, and yet to my eye it messes with anatomy as badly as if he had put 6 fingers on one of the hands (indeed, my first impression when I look closely at the hand of the man behind the head of the woman, is that the fingers art too long and thumb looks like a finger).
    - numpad0 3y ago
      > and yet to my eye it messes with anatomy wait what? Isn't that missing the point of expressionism? Klimt's Judith I is basically a photo, surely he can draw sh*t if he wanted to? But myriad predecessors such as Vermeer, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, da Vinci, et al., have done enough in realism, and also photography was becoming more viable and more prevalent, that artists basically started diversifying? Isn't that what lead to various forms of early 20th century arts like surrealism(super-real -ism), cubism, etc? I don't mean offense but that's just, surely that level of understanding can't be basis of policy decisions when it comes to moral rights and licensing discussions and "artists should just use AI" and such???

ben_w 3y ago

Most people mix up all the different kinds of intellectual property basically all the time[0], so while people say it's about copyright, I (currently) think it's more likely to be a mixture of "moral rights" (the right to be named as the creator of a work) and trademarks (registered or otherwise), and in the case of celebrities, "personality rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. People have a wide range of standards. Last summer I attended the We Are Developers event in Berlin, and there were huge posters that I could easily tell were from AI due to the eyes not matching; more recently, I've used (a better version) to convert a photo of a friend's dog into a renaissance oil painting, and it was beyond my skill to find the flaws with it… yet my friend noticed instantly. Also, even with "real art", Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, beautiful, romantic, etc. — yet to me, the man looks like he has a broken neck, while the woman looks like she's been decapitated at the shoulder then had her head rotated 90° and reattached via her ear. [0] This is also why people look at a Google street view image with a ©2017 Google[1] tiled over on a blue sky and say "LOL, Google's trying to own the sky", or why people even on this very forum ask how some new company can trademark a descriptive term like "GPT"[2], seemingly surprised by this being possible even though there's already a very convenient example of e.g. Hasbro already having "Transformers". [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,321.62h,120.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D36.736748%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476

numpad0 3y ago
> Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt, Damien Hirst, Kusama Yayoi, or the likes[0]. It could be that genAI is leaving something that human artist would filter out, or because images are too disorganized that they appear to us to be encoding malice or other negative emotions, or maybe I'm just wrong and it's all about anatomy. But whatever the reason is, IMO, it's way too rarely considered good, gaining too few supportive celebrities and artists and audiences, to work. 0: I admit I'm not well versed with contemporary art, or art in general for that matter
- ben_w 3y ago
  > The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". > It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt My point is: yes AI is different — it's better. (Or, less provocatively: better by my specific standards). Always? No. But I chose Der Kuss specifically because of the high regard in which it is held, and yet to my eye it messes with anatomy as badly as if he had put 6 fingers on one of the hands (indeed, my first impression when I look closely at the hand of the man behind the head of the woman, is that the fingers art too long and thumb looks like a finger).
  - numpad0 3y ago
    > and yet to my eye it messes with anatomy wait what? Isn't that missing the point of expressionism? Klimt's Judith I is basically a photo, surely he can draw sh*t if he wanted to? But myriad predecessors such as Vermeer, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, da Vinci, et al., have done enough in realism, and also photography was becoming more viable and more prevalent, that artists basically started diversifying? Isn't that what lead to various forms of early 20th century arts like surrealism(super-real -ism), cubism, etc? I don't mean offense but that's just, surely that level of understanding can't be basis of policy decisions when it comes to moral rights and licensing discussions and "artists should just use AI" and such???