Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
newyorker.com
Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
1–10 of 151 posts
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#2„AI“ (a stupid term to begin with) is just a tool like any other - you can use it to make art.
Of course it’s not going to be creative on its own - it obviously is not intelligent.
But for me comfyui is an incredibly cool tool to be creative.
Such a boring topic after all - all the noise it attracts won’t amount to much once people understand this technology
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#3If you give it the year's headlines and today's newspaper and and ask for a picture that's a social commentary on some current affair, how is that not art?
And you didn't prompt it any more than commissioning a piece, or making a thematic suggestion to a painter friend.
You may not like its art, and it may not come up with some whole new original style, but that doesn't mean it isn't making art in known styles.
TFA is just a bit of a silly fearful protest, IMO.
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#4Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#5>it has to fill in for all of the choices that you are not making. There are various ways it can do this. One is to take an average of the choices that other writers have made, as represented by text found on the Internet; that average is equivalent to the least interesting choices possible, which is why A.I.-generated text is often really bland.
The model can't output the average because the average is usually completely meaningless, that's why it's a generative model and not a regressive one. As always, these articles are made by people who don't really understand the technology, and create their own interpretation on how it works, whether they are right or not at the end.
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#6Reminds me to when Ebert argued video games can't be art.
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never...
The argument rings just as silly today as it was 12 years ago.
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#7Art is made by people. It’s not complicated.
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#8[dead]
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#9I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway. This is pointless. Art will get made. Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art. This article is not part of anything, it's just throwing punches at air in a tantrum.
Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art
#10I'm disappointed in Ted here. For a writer that likes to delve into the possibilities of tech, he's sharing a surprisingly underbaked view. People outside of tech seem to think that AI creation is just "fat finger a prompt -> take output and claim to be an artist on the interwebs" but the reality is that all the people I know who actually call themselves AI artists do photobashing, image2image, controlnets, inpainting, custom models, etc. Likewise, the people I know using AI to write fiction are meticulously developing characters, timelines, scenes, story arcs, style samples, etc and using AI to handle creating rough drafts that they then hand tune.