2 ms·
It will take a long time, but I think the ever growing usage of GenAI tools will ultimately make people desire human created works even more. That said, there'
by davely 2y ago
It will take a long time, but I think the ever growing usage of GenAI tools will ultimately make people desire human created works even more.
That said, there's a common thread in a lot of writing similar to this piece. Basically, it's some form of, "GenAI isn't art. GenAI creations lack a human element present in the creation process. GenAI creations cheapen the creative process in general due to the ease at which they can pop out new things."
I'm mixed on this. This is something we've always had to deal with as a species. This greatly simplies a lot of human history here, but consider:
- Our (long, long ago) ancestors had to paint on walls with their fingers. They had to make music by banging sticks together
- Paint brushes were invented. Musical instruments were invented. These things make it easier and quicker for people to _create_
- Mechanical machines made it easier to make garments and print books
- Digital machines made it even easier to write stories, or make music, or play music
The word processor alone made it ridiculously easy for highly evolved apes to start pounding on keyboards and outputting works of various lengths and quality.
Prior to the GenAI craze, there were music creation tools that contained multi-gigabyte sample packs. You could throw together random samples and make good sounding songs.
Photoshop and Illustrator made it exceedingly easy for artists to flex their creative muscles and get their ideas out there.
At the end of the day, these are all tools. And I think GenAI will ultimately be used in a similar way. It's a tool. Can it be used in a bad way? Sure. Just like PhotoShop. Just like Word.
Regarding what is and isn't art -- I don't think it's up to us to decide. And does it matter? History is full of ridiculous examples of things that might or might not be art.[0][1] Humans don't necessarily need to be involved in the creation process either.[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ickelbawd 2y agoNone of those links are art. They’re stunts at best. I know, I know someone will disagree, but they’re wrong. The difference between cave paintings, brush paintings, and even photoshop versus AI generated works is that a human had to visualize mentally and then translate their internal visualization into the medium without words. AI generated does not require that. Artists like Jackson Pollock or more modern instances of digital artists lie somewhere between the two—creating with little intention and little control.