4 ms·

AI is unlikely to ever create great works of art because art is not, and has never been just about technical excellence; it is fundamentally a human thing: one

by prmph 4mo ago

AI is unlikely to ever create great works of art because art is not, and has never been just about technical excellence; it is fundamentally a human thing: one human communicating to another. Just even knowing that some art was AI produced is enough to not see it as great: there is no human story or experience behind it, no human context, etc. You can definitely appreciate it in the category of AI work, however. AI still struggles with technical excellence in some genres of art, but even if they master this, this human element they cannot overcome, by definition. It's like piano performance: AI can already generate a "prefect" performance audio, a MIDI file can already encode that. But, I hate MIDI files, none of the live-ness, the weirdness, and non-repeatable nuances of an actual performance by an actual pianist.

sofal 4mo ago
Your entire argument hinges on being able to tell the extent to which generative AI was used in the creation of any given piece of art, which capability you will not have. You therefore fall into the category the commenter mentioned in that your perception of the value of a piece of art can be heavily influenced by someone convincing you it was AI generated, regardless of the facts.
- prmph 4mo ago
  You don't get it. Jut recently, there was a thread discussing Persepolis, a series of autobiographical graphic novels by Marjane Satrapi (recently deceased) that depict her childhood and early adult years in Iran and Austria during and after the Islamic Revolution. People remarked it was deeply moving. Part of what makes it deeply moving is the actuality of it. This is a human story based on actual lived experiences. How does an AI produce this?? If it came out later that it was written by an AI (assume for the purpose of argument that we had AI when it was written), then of course m=it's impact would be different. If a seemingly powerful piece of non-fiction is later exposed as fiction, and AI written fiction at that, won't that change your perception of it? Or if a nice anecdote someone likes to tell is exposed as made up, I would hope that matters.
  - sofal 4mo ago
    I guess since we're not talking about art anymore, and are instead talking about the veracity of information, we can safely agree. If I read a news story, I do value that information higher to the extent I am convinced it is actually true information. If I read someone's autobiography, I do value that to the extent that I trust them and that it is coming from them. A piece of fiction, however, or music, or visual art, is something that can stand on its own and be appreciated or not without having to assume this context. The context and provenance can certainly color the appreciation, but it is no longer necessary.
    - prmph 4mo ago
      But I am not just taking about factual information. You still don't get it. I was just using that example to show if you take out key components of what makes something what is it, it is no longer the same thing. I am saying the an intrinsic component of art is the human context of it. You can call AI generated "art" by another name if you want, and enjoy it for what it is, but the reasons why you might enjoy it are different from the reasons you might enjoy human art. Why do we still enjoy art in spite of the fact that we have photography? Or foot races even though we have cars?
      - sofal 4mo ago
        Why is it that we still enjoy music despite not knowing how it was created? Why is it that we still enjoy visual art despite not knowing how it was created? We can keep throwing counterexamples at each other forever. You can find an endless number of examples wherein the provenance of an activity or piece of work is important to the enjoyment of it, and I can find endless examples where the provenance is unnecessary. What will this prove?
- dbetteridge 4mo ago
  Art is subjective, entirely so. People pay more for works by famous artists or specific artists despite there being artists who can replicate their style exactly. So having someone discount AI art or what they think is AI art isn't a new phenomenon, just an extension of the existing norms
LogicFailsMe 4mo ago
So what you're saying is it will never be about the art itself, it's entirely about selling you on its origin story? Yeah, that sounds about right. So once it can create human-level art, it just needs to spew human-level BS script along with it for the artist to act out, got it. Reverse centaur indeed.
- borski 4mo ago
  You misunderstand art. If art were solely about the outcome, we’d all be staring at photographs instead, as no art will ever have as high fidelity. Art is about the journey of the artist; the meaning with which that art is impregnated is the point. What you cynically refer to as “human-level BS,” others refer to as “the human condition” because we can relate to other humans, and empathy is a thing. It’s okay not to like art. But pretending art is just “the painting at the end” is nonsense.
  - LogicFailsMe 4mo ago
    I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story. And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now. What makes you think I don't like art? Spent 3 hours at an art museum event last weekend staring in details at paintings whilst rich drunk fools kept taking selfies next to them. But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy. We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are.
    - borski 4mo ago
      > I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story. No. Art isn’t about the “origin story,” but about what it makes you feel. In part, what it makes you feel is due to the fact that it was made by a human, with human emotion and intent, to communicate an idea to the world. AI has no such emotional backing. > And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now. Museum placards are not what make art interesting. > But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy. Irrelevant; two things can be true at once. Also, not everyone has empathy, and not everyone likes art. That’s why most people don’t have art on their walls, but random prints from IKEA. > We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are. Many people are! But “people who like art” is a relatively small subset of people, and I maintain that nearly everyone who likes art likes it because it makes them feel something. Otherwise, there would be no difference between a Picasso and a print from EBay. People who like art don’t buy NFTs. They buy art made by humans.

by prmph 4mo ago

sofal 4mo ago

Your entire argument hinges on being able to tell the extent to which generative AI was used in the creation of any given piece of art, which capability you will not have. You therefore fall into the category the commenter mentioned in that your perception of the value of a piece of art can be heavily influenced by someone convincing you it was AI generated, regardless of the facts.

prmph 4mo ago
You don't get it. Jut recently, there was a thread discussing Persepolis, a series of autobiographical graphic novels by Marjane Satrapi (recently deceased) that depict her childhood and early adult years in Iran and Austria during and after the Islamic Revolution. People remarked it was deeply moving. Part of what makes it deeply moving is the actuality of it. This is a human story based on actual lived experiences. How does an AI produce this?? If it came out later that it was written by an AI (assume for the purpose of argument that we had AI when it was written), then of course m=it's impact would be different. If a seemingly powerful piece of non-fiction is later exposed as fiction, and AI written fiction at that, won't that change your perception of it? Or if a nice anecdote someone likes to tell is exposed as made up, I would hope that matters.
- sofal 4mo ago
  I guess since we're not talking about art anymore, and are instead talking about the veracity of information, we can safely agree. If I read a news story, I do value that information higher to the extent I am convinced it is actually true information. If I read someone's autobiography, I do value that to the extent that I trust them and that it is coming from them. A piece of fiction, however, or music, or visual art, is something that can stand on its own and be appreciated or not without having to assume this context. The context and provenance can certainly color the appreciation, but it is no longer necessary.
  - prmph 4mo ago
    But I am not just taking about factual information. You still don't get it. I was just using that example to show if you take out key components of what makes something what is it, it is no longer the same thing. I am saying the an intrinsic component of art is the human context of it. You can call AI generated "art" by another name if you want, and enjoy it for what it is, but the reasons why you might enjoy it are different from the reasons you might enjoy human art. Why do we still enjoy art in spite of the fact that we have photography? Or foot races even though we have cars?
    - sofal 4mo ago
      Why is it that we still enjoy music despite not knowing how it was created? Why is it that we still enjoy visual art despite not knowing how it was created? We can keep throwing counterexamples at each other forever. You can find an endless number of examples wherein the provenance of an activity or piece of work is important to the enjoyment of it, and I can find endless examples where the provenance is unnecessary. What will this prove?
dbetteridge 4mo ago
Art is subjective, entirely so. People pay more for works by famous artists or specific artists despite there being artists who can replicate their style exactly. So having someone discount AI art or what they think is AI art isn't a new phenomenon, just an extension of the existing norms

LogicFailsMe 4mo ago

So what you're saying is it will never be about the art itself, it's entirely about selling you on its origin story? Yeah, that sounds about right. So once it can create human-level art, it just needs to spew human-level BS script along with it for the artist to act out, got it. Reverse centaur indeed.

borski 4mo ago
You misunderstand art. If art were solely about the outcome, we’d all be staring at photographs instead, as no art will ever have as high fidelity. Art is about the journey of the artist; the meaning with which that art is impregnated is the point. What you cynically refer to as “human-level BS,” others refer to as “the human condition” because we can relate to other humans, and empathy is a thing. It’s okay not to like art. But pretending art is just “the painting at the end” is nonsense.
- LogicFailsMe 4mo ago
  I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story. And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now. What makes you think I don't like art? Spent 3 hours at an art museum event last weekend staring in details at paintings whilst rich drunk fools kept taking selfies next to them. But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy. We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are.
  - borski 4mo ago
    > I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story. No. Art isn’t about the “origin story,” but about what it makes you feel. In part, what it makes you feel is due to the fact that it was made by a human, with human emotion and intent, to communicate an idea to the world. AI has no such emotional backing. > And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now. Museum placards are not what make art interesting. > But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy. Irrelevant; two things can be true at once. Also, not everyone has empathy, and not everyone likes art. That’s why most people don’t have art on their walls, but random prints from IKEA. > We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are. Many people are! But “people who like art” is a relatively small subset of people, and I maintain that nearly everyone who likes art likes it because it makes them feel something. Otherwise, there would be no difference between a Picasso and a print from EBay. People who like art don’t buy NFTs. They buy art made by humans.