4 ms·

One has to be very specific when throwing around words like "creative" when talking about A.I Can A.I create art. Well it can create something that's pleasing

One has to be very specific when throwing around words like "creative" when talking about A.I Can A.I create art. Well it can create something that's pleasing to our senses but art is ultimately about conveying human feelings and emotions. Even as humans, understanding art is not universal. "feelings and emotions" and therefore art, can be deeply tied to a particular groups shared beliefs and experiences. Can it be creative in non-subjective fields such as math or sciences. Einstein derived GR from his creative thought experiments. If an A.I poped out GR's field equations simply by testing different mathematical frameworks that resolve the issues discovered by experiments, is that creative? Perhaps but certainly not in the same way.

orbital-decay 4mo ago
His definition of creativity is closed-loop, i.e. the produced concept has to be novel for the system itself, not for the side observer.
brador 4mo ago
Contemporary humans downvote art because it makes them uncomfortable. They just want dopamine. No thinking because that hurts.
artistonn 4mo ago
> art is ultimately about conveying human feelings and emotions you made a small error, art is mostly about generating an emotion in the viewer/listener/.... not about transmitting an emotion of the creator the Wikipedia page on art starts with: > Art is a diverse range of cultural activity centered around works utilizing creative or imaginative talents, which are expected to evoke a worthwhile experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art so AIs can do art, because they are only required to generate an emotional response in the receiver
- jejeej 4mo ago
  No art is a means of expression - the creator uses an object as a vehicle to capture and distribute an expression. Also lol @ using Wikipedia as some source of absolute truth.
  - graphime 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - artistonn 4mo ago
    yeah, a bet a random HN-er definition of Art is much more reliable than Wikipedia
    - jejeej 4mo ago
      [flagged]
- Shitty-kitty 4mo ago
  Using your provided definition, you come to a conclusion completely ignoring the "utilizing creative or imaginative talents" part.
TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
Current models are trained on image pastiche and style remixing. But there's no reason you couldn't add an Artistic Director layer which has been trained on emotional and cultural signifiers and to direct the pastiche and remixing. The practical problem is that models have very limited prompt adherence. The level of detail you can specify in scene design is very crude. So you can get the slop effect where there's a lot of in-fill pastiche detail, but you could never create something like this, where all of the incidental objects are specifically included to enforce the message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience It's basically the professional version of the "Draw me a pelican on a bicycle" problem. There are situations where you want that level of creative control, and current image generators don't get close to it. And without it you can't get to the meta-creativity level where you're creating a new aesthetic that's a cultural landmark - which is what the famous artists did, and still do.
- liamlaverty 4mo ago
  >But there's no reason you couldn't add an Artistic Director layer which has been trained on emotional and cultural signifiers and to direct the pastiche and remixing. I gave this approach a shot over the first few months of this year[1] (although my director didn't have any custom training). The results were interesting, but I'd not call them "art", since they're low-quality derivative pieces. With reasoning traces enabled, you can see that there's not much intent going on. Though they do attempt to include "incidental objects" to reinforce meaning, like in this jungle scene[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48105385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48105385 [2]https://www.liamlaverty.com/paint-by-language-model/inspect/patchwork-elephant-line-arc-polyline-circle-claude-opus-4-6 https://www.liamlaverty.com/paint-by-language-model/inspect/...
- ACCount37 4mo ago
  Sounds like a skill issue? Recent image models are advancing rapidly at prompt adherence specifically, and being able to iterate on the same image is propelling them even further. Images 2.0 being the poster child of this "agentic iterative image composition" approach.
volkercraig 4mo ago
You can create art with everything from sticks and mud to glass and air. Of course you can make art with AI. Now if the question is, can a machine make art, well ultimately someone needed to turn the machine on and design the machine to make art, so arguably that person/people are the ones making the art. Historically, every question of "is x art" ends up having the answer "yes". I don't know why people fall for the same thing over and over.

orbital-decay 4mo ago

His definition of creativity is closed-loop, i.e. the produced concept has to be novel for the system itself, not for the side observer.

brador 4mo ago

Contemporary humans downvote art because it makes them uncomfortable. They just want dopamine. No thinking because that hurts.

artistonn 4mo ago

> art is ultimately about conveying human feelings and emotions you made a small error, art is mostly about generating an emotion in the viewer/listener/.... not about transmitting an emotion of the creator the Wikipedia page on art starts with: > Art is a diverse range of cultural activity centered around works utilizing creative or imaginative talents, which are expected to evoke a worthwhile experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art so AIs can do art, because they are only required to generate an emotional response in the receiver

jejeej 4mo ago
No art is a means of expression - the creator uses an object as a vehicle to capture and distribute an expression. Also lol @ using Wikipedia as some source of absolute truth.
- graphime 4mo ago
  [dead]
- artistonn 4mo ago
  yeah, a bet a random HN-er definition of Art is much more reliable than Wikipedia
  - jejeej 4mo ago
    [flagged]
Shitty-kitty 4mo ago
Using your provided definition, you come to a conclusion completely ignoring the "utilizing creative or imaginative talents" part.

TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago

Current models are trained on image pastiche and style remixing. But there's no reason you couldn't add an Artistic Director layer which has been trained on emotional and cultural signifiers and to direct the pastiche and remixing. The practical problem is that models have very limited prompt adherence. The level of detail you can specify in scene design is very crude. So you can get the slop effect where there's a lot of in-fill pastiche detail, but you could never create something like this, where all of the incidental objects are specifically included to enforce the message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience It's basically the professional version of the "Draw me a pelican on a bicycle" problem. There are situations where you want that level of creative control, and current image generators don't get close to it. And without it you can't get to the meta-creativity level where you're creating a new aesthetic that's a cultural landmark - which is what the famous artists did, and still do.

liamlaverty 4mo ago
>But there's no reason you couldn't add an Artistic Director layer which has been trained on emotional and cultural signifiers and to direct the pastiche and remixing. I gave this approach a shot over the first few months of this year[1] (although my director didn't have any custom training). The results were interesting, but I'd not call them "art", since they're low-quality derivative pieces. With reasoning traces enabled, you can see that there's not much intent going on. Though they do attempt to include "incidental objects" to reinforce meaning, like in this jungle scene[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48105385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48105385 [2]https://www.liamlaverty.com/paint-by-language-model/inspect/patchwork-elephant-line-arc-polyline-circle-claude-opus-4-6 https://www.liamlaverty.com/paint-by-language-model/inspect/...
ACCount37 4mo ago
Sounds like a skill issue? Recent image models are advancing rapidly at prompt adherence specifically, and being able to iterate on the same image is propelling them even further. Images 2.0 being the poster child of this "agentic iterative image composition" approach.

volkercraig 4mo ago

You can create art with everything from sticks and mud to glass and air. Of course you can make art with AI. Now if the question is, can a machine make art, well ultimately someone needed to turn the machine on and design the machine to make art, so arguably that person/people are the ones making the art. Historically, every question of "is x art" ends up having the answer "yes". I don't know why people fall for the same thing over and over.