Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

art42.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 191 posts

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#151

Post by tacheiordache »

mkl wrote: post #126
tacheiordache wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be more intersting explaining the computer what art is, give it some hints and let it come up With something. This is all but a gimmicky remix of previous work, whatever was trained on

I don't think anyone has found a way to explain to people what art is, let alone computers. Practically all art is very heavily inspired by what has been done before, even if as a kind of rejection of it. The only exceptions I can think of are "art" by toddlers, chimpanzees, pigs, etc., and it's debatable whether that fits the definition (or whether the definitions it fits are acceptable).

Agreed. But all art takes place within a context which an AI algo cannot ever fathom of. AI is nothing but a tool and lets squeeze this down to a simpler tool, could a brush ever create art by itself?

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#152

Post by tacheiordache »

davidajackson wrote: post #76
tacheiordache wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. What’s the point of that, original poster or canvas print? In a way training AI on existing art and generating some more amounts to vulgarizing abstract art or art in general and doesn’t add much to it, it is a gimmick. It certainly looks attractive but does it have any real value?

Have you ever seen things like fractals on people's walls? They are curiosities. I guess you could call them gimmicks, but I would just call them interesting--gimmicks has kind of derogatory tone. Value is just what people will pay for it. Which is apparently, in some cases, more than 430k: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/arts/design/ai-art-sold-c... The notion of vulgarizing art is what people said about jazz whe…

Im not saying the same thing, Jazz was still done by people within a context of its times. AI currently cannot do that. Maybe AGI will..

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#154

Post by tartoran »

gwd wrote: post #145
valentinvieriu wrote: post #4

Author Here: Just wanted to share some technical details. The code can be found here https://github.com/valentinvieriu/stylegan2 The main code and modification were put together by https://github.com/pbaylies/stylegan2 . I've started with the pretrained ffhq model, and I've trained it using come hand picked 1000 images of cubist Wikiart paintings. The frontend is Vuejs and it's using the amazing https://github.com/Ak…

What I think would be interesting would be to add a human discriminator test: Can you tell genuine cubist art from computer-generated cubist art?

What would the point of that be may I ask? Something to do with a Turing like test? Lets not forget that the would be cubist model is actually fed tons of cubist images and all it does is regurgitating that back. Art done by people is somewhat similar but it does take place in a context that which AI could not yet understand.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#155

Post by gradschool »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #125
willvarfar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate: it sounds like you're deluding yourself ;) Perhaps the Vogels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_and_Dorothy_Vogel knew the artist? The way they amassed their collection is truly inspiring. Picaso's wife infamously knew he was having an affair with his muse from glancing at a painting. But did every other Picaso fan who saw that same painting? Did truly know anything about the artist behi…

Having bot-made art in the office just gets me asking all the wrong questions like "What is this? Why is it here? Why am I here? What am I doing with my precious finite time on earth? Why did they automate the creation of art? Why didn't they automate my job?"

Ironically a human artist who could evoke a response like that would be doing better than most.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#156

Post by thomk »

Fnoord wrote: post #146
thomk wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. I think the reason AI hasn't made anything but derivatives is in part because machines are not sentient. 100% of AI is machine learning, there is no heart or conscience. However art is anything that moves you and the paintings on this website are most definitely moving to me. I find them terrifying and a lot of that has to do with the fact that a machine made them. There isn't anything really grotes…

> 100% of AI is machine learning, there is no heart or conscience. And, because AI implies heart and/or conscience, ML is a much better term because it is more accurate and describing.

Very well stated

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#157

Post by tartoran »

nathell wrote: post #134
allovernow wrote: post #93

This is indistinguishable from something that would be hanging in an art museum, and anyone pretending otherwise only believes so because they know a priori that it is generated by ML. Honestly I would consider buying something like this, though I'd never waste my money on something so pretentious from a human. This, however, is an achievement, and there's beauty in that. Edit: in fact, if love to see two tests: a bl…

I'm reminded of https://www.ba-bamail.com/content.aspx?emailid=24569 . Someone please make a similar test of "modern art vs ML-generated art".

I answered 18 correct answers out of 20. Do I qualify as an art critic now?

I assume that the AI generated art would be harder but what is the point really? I would only see the point if the model was trained with something else and ‘it came up with modern art looking images’.

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#158

Post by tartoran »

tartoran wrote: post #157
nathell wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of https://www.ba-bamail.com/content.aspx?emailid=24569 . Someone please make a similar test of "modern art vs ML-generated art".

I answered 18 correct answers out of 20. Do I qualify as an art critic now? I assume that the AI generated art would be harder but what is the point really? I would only see the point if the model was trained with something else and ‘it came up with modern art looking images’.

And this works because modern art is flexible enough to allow all kinds of things. Why not do the test on generated text? AI still fails terribly on that mainly because it is not sentient, it does not actually understand anything of it

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#159

Post by tartoran »

gwd wrote: post #144
flarg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of art is exactly that, but it's usually very obvious. As it is in these pictures.

I find this whole discussion quite interesting: There seem to be many people who think these photos are pretty much just like what you see in an art gallery, and others who say that it's obviously just inspirationless imitation. Comparing this to generated music -- every time there's a "quiz" challenging to distinguish computer-generated snippets of music from real classical music, I've gotten 100%. The key differenc…

> it doesn't seem to have intent or motion

Because it does not have any. It’s a tool. Can we say a cool brush creates paintings, a complex instrument creates music? By itself Im afraid it’s far from it. A human hand must be involved somewhere (im literal about the hand part, but a brain nonetheless)

Re: Show HN: A stream of AI-generated art

#160

Post by valentinvieriu »

GistNoesis wrote: post #131
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working in an office decorated by a bot is the most demoralizing experience I could imagine. I would probably go into an existential rage and start breaking things until someone more physically powerful came and subdued me.

It can be worse you could also work on SAP, like the author (No harsh feeling/flame war ; thank you to the author for this artsy experience ; but I couldn't help but notice this, I believe, relevant context). To me these pictures are very nice looking from afar, but once you try to look in the details it makes you feel stupid that you don't get it, until you realize that it is senseless, there is no coherence, no poi…

Your SAP remarks are funny and somehow true (maybe), but I'm maybe one of the lucky guys. I work for an interesting Labs section inside SAP (https://cxlabs.sap.com/) and we are lucky enough to do research on some interesting topics.

I don't fully agree with you on the purpose of art. Art can create different meanings for every watcher and they could be quite far away from what was the intended purpose ( the message ) of the artist. I would say that main function of art is to ask questions, and also to give you a way to experience life in a way you would otherwise not be able to. In this context I think AI generated art can bring something new, a new layer of reality, a new set of questions, that might not been surfaced because we use brains to create art and brains to interpret it. It could be a new type of input that would push humanity further.

Post reply on HN