3 ms·

As someone who occasionally writes a bit of music, I've had trouble putting into words exactly my feeling around AI generated art. One of the best takes I've se

As someone who occasionally writes a bit of music, I've had trouble putting into words exactly my feeling around AI generated art. One of the best takes I've seen on it which perfectly captured my feelings was by the Oatmeal: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/ai_art https://theoatmeal.com/comics/ai_art

nprateem 11mo ago
Soulless shit?
- moritzwarhier 11mo ago
  It is exactly this. Suno music is the modern equivalent of sample packs that are like Lego blocks, to allow people to quickly throw together cliches. It can pass for OK music and good musicians sometimes use stuff like that, too. But it's much closer to these soulless "London Authentic Jungle" loop sample packs or to "Dance eJay" than to a musical instrument. I also feel it's not very similar to generative electronic music, which is about control and experimentation in a very different way (generating cliches with generative synths is hard, apart from some ambient drones or meditative arpeggios). Suno and similar tools are designed to generate cliches from... text. It doesn't matter that it incorporates AI and does stuff that was thought impossible a couple of years ago. It's still a pastiche of cliches and not a musical instrument. And the comic is nice! Others mentioned sampling and synthesizers here, and I can't think of a comparison that I'd consider more misplaced. Good sampling is really creative. And bad sampling is the same as a bland, commercial cover version of a song. Many people don't bother to differentiate, but sampling and cover versions are very different things, and it's rare for both to appear together in one good song.
kelseyfrog 11mo ago
The Oatmeal gave it away in the first 10%. If you like it until you find out it's AI, then it's not about the art, it's about the viewer, their judgement, preference, and opinion, not something intrinsic to the piece. That's fine, but every attempt to then justify that judgement, preference, or opinion, in a way that does reflect an intrinsic aspect of the piece is a lie, a post hoc rationalization that cannot withstand the simple fact that it was liked as a thing in itself before it's story of creation was known.
- free_bip 11mo ago
  Let's say I introduce you to a friend of mine. You chat for a little while, and everything seems to be going well, you like them. Then, I tell you that my friend loves kicking puppies and infants. Really hard too, like he's kicking a field goal. All of a sudden, you start acting like he's a "bad guy," who should "burn in hell." You liked him just fine before I gave you that info, so clearly that's just a post hoc rationalization that cannot withstand the simple fact that he was liked as a person before his interests were known.
  - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
    What are you talking about? Knowing a person and knowing a painting are nothing alike. You're the first person I've ever met that has ever suggested similarity.
    - free_bip 11mo ago
      Person or painting is not relevant in this argument by analogy. It's the commonality of "more than meets the eye", or "don't judge a book by its cover", or "appearances can be deceiving" between the two situations. There's dozens of idioms for this situation because it's so common. I could just as easily make a painting analogy. You go to an art gallery and a piece immediately catches your eye. The composition, colors, you even think you can see a rosy meaning behind it all. Then the curator comes by and explains that it was painted by David Duke, grand wizard of the KKK, and that the piece represents his deeply racist hatred of black people and his desire to murder innocents. What you feel after having that explained is not "post hoc rationalization" - you're just recontextualizing your previous feelings towards the piece now that you have new information. That is the argument.
      - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
        I understand the argument. It's just a bad argument. If your judgement of a work of art changes with additional context, then your judgement of the art was not based in the quality of the art in itself.

nprateem 11mo ago

Soulless shit?

moritzwarhier 11mo ago
It is exactly this. Suno music is the modern equivalent of sample packs that are like Lego blocks, to allow people to quickly throw together cliches. It can pass for OK music and good musicians sometimes use stuff like that, too. But it's much closer to these soulless "London Authentic Jungle" loop sample packs or to "Dance eJay" than to a musical instrument. I also feel it's not very similar to generative electronic music, which is about control and experimentation in a very different way (generating cliches with generative synths is hard, apart from some ambient drones or meditative arpeggios). Suno and similar tools are designed to generate cliches from... text. It doesn't matter that it incorporates AI and does stuff that was thought impossible a couple of years ago. It's still a pastiche of cliches and not a musical instrument. And the comic is nice! Others mentioned sampling and synthesizers here, and I can't think of a comparison that I'd consider more misplaced. Good sampling is really creative. And bad sampling is the same as a bland, commercial cover version of a song. Many people don't bother to differentiate, but sampling and cover versions are very different things, and it's rare for both to appear together in one good song.

kelseyfrog 11mo ago

The Oatmeal gave it away in the first 10%. If you like it until you find out it's AI, then it's not about the art, it's about the viewer, their judgement, preference, and opinion, not something intrinsic to the piece. That's fine, but every attempt to then justify that judgement, preference, or opinion, in a way that does reflect an intrinsic aspect of the piece is a lie, a post hoc rationalization that cannot withstand the simple fact that it was liked as a thing in itself before it's story of creation was known.

free_bip 11mo ago
Let's say I introduce you to a friend of mine. You chat for a little while, and everything seems to be going well, you like them. Then, I tell you that my friend loves kicking puppies and infants. Really hard too, like he's kicking a field goal. All of a sudden, you start acting like he's a "bad guy," who should "burn in hell." You liked him just fine before I gave you that info, so clearly that's just a post hoc rationalization that cannot withstand the simple fact that he was liked as a person before his interests were known.
- kelseyfrog 11mo ago
  What are you talking about? Knowing a person and knowing a painting are nothing alike. You're the first person I've ever met that has ever suggested similarity.
  - free_bip 11mo ago
    Person or painting is not relevant in this argument by analogy. It's the commonality of "more than meets the eye", or "don't judge a book by its cover", or "appearances can be deceiving" between the two situations. There's dozens of idioms for this situation because it's so common. I could just as easily make a painting analogy. You go to an art gallery and a piece immediately catches your eye. The composition, colors, you even think you can see a rosy meaning behind it all. Then the curator comes by and explains that it was painted by David Duke, grand wizard of the KKK, and that the piece represents his deeply racist hatred of black people and his desire to murder innocents. What you feel after having that explained is not "post hoc rationalization" - you're just recontextualizing your previous feelings towards the piece now that you have new information. That is the argument.
    - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
      I understand the argument. It's just a bad argument. If your judgement of a work of art changes with additional context, then your judgement of the art was not based in the quality of the art in itself.