3 ms·

> ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing… The whole thing from Nick is brilliant, but I had to pick a line as an example and t

> ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing… The whole thing from Nick is brilliant, but I had to pick a line as an example and the above is pretty perfect. Maybe a bit orthogonal, but I find more and more examples in life where I see a distinction between the real and the "virtual". Watching someone on YouTube go on a long bike tour and then later doing my first long tour myself and I am struck by how rich the thoughts are I am having on the ride, how connected I have suddenly become once again to the "outside" — wondering when the next place to get water will be, where I will pitch my tent and sleep that night. Hiking with my family to see Delicate Arch on one of the hottest days on record. I have to scout ahead for shade for my daughter who is perhaps beginning to dangerously overheat. (And in fact two hikers did die that day in an area very near to where we were in Utah.) Not an experience, for better or worse, that you'll get playing World of Warcraft (just to pick on that game for no particular reason). Art too, as Nick says, requires I think an element of experienced pain (or danger). An imitation of art will never be art.

diggan 2y ago
> An imitation of art will never be art. As art is somewhat/sometimes an imitation of life/the world itself, why cannot an imitation of art also be considered art? I don't know the right answer (if there is one), but was the question that appeared when I read that.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  I think I kind of get what you mean. As I started learning to draw the human figure I began by copping the styles of Mort Drucker, etc. In time though I had cribbed and combined from so many that the result became I suppose my own style. These LLMs of course learn from every artist they are trained by. But I didn't mean imitating the art "style" but imitating the art itself — to that thing that makes it "art" and not "graphic design" (whoops, whole new can of worms). I think, as Nick kind of said, you can't really imitate that. It has to come from your own failures and disappointments in growing up, in a life lived not mimicked.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  You're missing the point. Imitation is the artistic act in question. The act of "creation". The question is what does the imitation bring to the viewer's experience of it? "Starry Night" brings a lot. A photocopy of it probably doesn't. What does the imitation create or express?
  - dang 2y ago
    Can you please edit out swipes like "You're missing the point" from your HN comments? They degrade the threads and frequently evoke worse from others. (This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.) Your comment would be just fine without that bit.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Imitation can be expression or communication, which imo are much more useful concepts than "what is art" in this context. The thing here is that an AI has nothing to express, has experienced nothing, as nick cave says. Even an artist being influenced by existing art is itself a creative process based on their own experiences, which AI does not have.

diggan 2y ago

> An imitation of art will never be art. As art is somewhat/sometimes an imitation of life/the world itself, why cannot an imitation of art also be considered art? I don't know the right answer (if there is one), but was the question that appeared when I read that.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
I think I kind of get what you mean. As I started learning to draw the human figure I began by copping the styles of Mort Drucker, etc. In time though I had cribbed and combined from so many that the result became I suppose my own style. These LLMs of course learn from every artist they are trained by. But I didn't mean imitating the art "style" but imitating the art itself — to that thing that makes it "art" and not "graphic design" (whoops, whole new can of worms). I think, as Nick kind of said, you can't really imitate that. It has to come from your own failures and disappointments in growing up, in a life lived not mimicked.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
You're missing the point. Imitation is the artistic act in question. The act of "creation". The question is what does the imitation bring to the viewer's experience of it? "Starry Night" brings a lot. A photocopy of it probably doesn't. What does the imitation create or express?
- dang 2y ago
  Can you please edit out swipes like "You're missing the point" from your HN comments? They degrade the threads and frequently evoke worse from others. (This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.) Your comment would be just fine without that bit.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
Imitation can be expression or communication, which imo are much more useful concepts than "what is art" in this context. The thing here is that an AI has nothing to express, has experienced nothing, as nick cave says. Even an artist being influenced by existing art is itself a creative process based on their own experiences, which AI does not have.