3 ms·

Those questions aren't interesting. Anything someone decides to regard as art is art. Can it be good art? As a tool AI can be used by a good artist to make good

Those questions aren't interesting. Anything someone decides to regard as art is art. Can it be good art? As a tool AI can be used by a good artist to make good art. If one merely needed to press a button on a machine to make good art, then it seems such a machine would quickly obsolete itself. Heck, with generative images we're already there. People see an AI generated image and they go "Oh, it's just more of that AI stuff." I think it's fair it's fair to claim that by definition, if AI can make it all by itself, then it's not good art, because if AI can make it all by itself, then it's already in the "been there, done that" pile. As a tool however, a good artist can use AI to make good art.

smokel 2y ago
The article addresses your point: > Now, is any of this true art, you might ask, or is it merely entertainment? I’m not sure it matters. Chiang dismisses the value of generative AI for either, defending the craft required for supposedly lowbrow genre work. Movements like pop art weakened the distinctions between “high” and “low” art decades ago,...
jetrink 2y ago
> I it's fair it's fair to claim that by definition, if AI can make it all by itself, then it's not good art, because if AI can make it all by itself, then it's already in the "been there, done that" pile. As a tool however, a good artist can use AI to make good art. A scenario that blurs the line between these two is where an AI is used to randomly generate 100, or 1000, or 100,000 images and an artist (editor?) chooses one for some artistic purpose. If the generation process is random enough, then the AI is bound to create something new by accident eventually, just like a room full of monkeys banging on typewriters will eventually write Hamlet. At the end of this process though, did the AI create art by itself through randomness, or is it just a special case of an artist using a tool and the act of choosing is what created the art?

smokel 2y ago

The article addresses your point: > Now, is any of this true art, you might ask, or is it merely entertainment? I’m not sure it matters. Chiang dismisses the value of generative AI for either, defending the craft required for supposedly lowbrow genre work. Movements like pop art weakened the distinctions between “high” and “low” art decades ago,...

jetrink 2y ago

> I it's fair it's fair to claim that by definition, if AI can make it all by itself, then it's not good art, because if AI can make it all by itself, then it's already in the "been there, done that" pile. As a tool however, a good artist can use AI to make good art. A scenario that blurs the line between these two is where an AI is used to randomly generate 100, or 1000, or 100,000 images and an artist (editor?) chooses one for some artistic purpose. If the generation process is random enough, then the AI is bound to create something new by accident eventually, just like a room full of monkeys banging on typewriters will eventually write Hamlet. At the end of this process though, did the AI create art by itself through randomness, or is it just a special case of an artist using a tool and the act of choosing is what created the art?