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

Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#131

Post by GaggiX »

slowhadoken wrote: post #129
GaggiX wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is a man pushing a button on a camera art? "No" >A man pushing a button on an image generator? "No" Thank you, I don't need anything else.

Eh okay? Again don’t take my word for it, it’s not my opinion. Look it up.

I agree that art is human expression, in case it wasn't clear, and a human using AI is human expression, just like a photographer is, and therefore it's art. No human is ever going to agree on what tools can make a person an artist or not, some people don't think you are an artist if you draw on Photoshop, some people think you are if you use AI, so there is nothing simple or unambiguous about it, and if you want to prove my point you can argue that AI is not a tool like a brush or a camera is, and no, Google is not going to give you a universal answer ahah

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

AlienRobot wrote: post #127
dragonwriter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ever wonder why everything made with Stable Diffusion looks the same Everything you know is made with Stable Diffusion looks the same because if it doesn't look the same you probably don't know it was made with Stable Diffusion. > The "AI artists" using this tool lack the technical and artistic competency to realize this. No, they don't. It's been a frequent comment in the AI art community and a thing for wh…

>Lowering the cost and effort to produce basically "looks good" images for lots of casual uses isn't, itself, an advance in fine art, sure. But it is, in itself, useful. What you misunderstand is what "looks good" means. Before AI, art that looked good was valuable and impressive precisely because few artists could produce it. It was amazing (and it still is) that a human being can reproduce realistic or surrealistic…

> What you misunderstand is what "looks good" means.

No, I don't.

> Before AI, art that looked good was valuable and impressive precisely because few artists could produce it.

I didn't say anything about valuable and impressive, I said "useful". For an analogy, clip art isn't particularly valuable or impressive, but its useful for lots of things. Yes, exchange value is dependent on scarcity, utility is not.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

Ukv wrote: post #128
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the same not true of point-and-shoot photography? Or crayons? Those have a skill floor though, even if it is quite, quite low. If you can't manage to get the object you're trying to take a photo of in-frame, or manage to draw the thing you're trying to draw, there's no amount the tool can do to compensate for that. > There's a near-endless supply of low-effort content due to tools designed to be easy-to-use. Ane…

> Those have a skill floor though Point-and-shoot cameras, finger painting, or crayons have a lower skill floor than even basic text-to-image generation, I'd claim. You can give those to children prior to the age where they'd have a proper grasp on describing visuals through language/writing. Yet, I don't feel as though the glut of low-skill content subtracts from any of those mediums - regardless of whether you disq…

> Point-and-shoot cameras, finger painting, or crayons have a lower skill floor than even basic text-to-image generation, I'd claim.

To be fair to the people with the opposite view; a basic t2i system will generate some result with an empty prompt. (In many cases, because of their biases, this will tend to be a portrait.)

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#134

Post by slowhadoken »

GaggiX wrote: post #131
slowhadoken wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh okay? Again don’t take my word for it, it’s not my opinion. Look it up.

I agree that art is human expression, in case it wasn't clear, and a human using AI is human expression, just like a photographer is, and therefore it's art. No human is ever going to agree on what tools can make a person an artist or not, some people don't think you are an artist if you draw on Photoshop, some people think you are if you use AI, so there is nothing simple or unambiguous about it, and if you want to…

“A.I.” is a stochastic parrot. You prompt it with input and it outputs a complex copy and paste based on real human made art. You’re not making anything and the software isn’t producing art. What some hypothetical people might have briefly thought about Photoshop has nothing to do with what LLMs are. It’s a false comparison. A brush, on the other hand, is analogous to a digital brush.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#135

Post by GaggiX »

slowhadoken wrote: post #134
GaggiX wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that art is human expression, in case it wasn't clear, and a human using AI is human expression, just like a photographer is, and therefore it's art. No human is ever going to agree on what tools can make a person an artist or not, some people don't think you are an artist if you draw on Photoshop, some people think you are if you use AI, so there is nothing simple or unambiguous about it, and if you want to…

“A.I.” is a stochastic parrot. You prompt it with input and it outputs a complex copy and paste based on real human made art. You’re not making anything and the software isn’t producing art. What some hypothetical people might have briefly thought about Photoshop has nothing to do with what LLMs are. It’s a false comparison. A brush, on the other hand, is analogous to a digital brush.

Thank you for proving my point.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#136

Post by slowhadoken »

GaggiX wrote: post #131
slowhadoken wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh okay? Again don’t take my word for it, it’s not my opinion. Look it up.

I agree that art is human expression, in case it wasn't clear, and a human using AI is human expression, just like a photographer is, and therefore it's art. No human is ever going to agree on what tools can make a person an artist or not, some people don't think you are an artist if you draw on Photoshop, some people think you are if you use AI, so there is nothing simple or unambiguous about it, and if you want to…

And Google will give you a denotative definition for art. Just because people have differing opinions about what art is doesn’t mean all those opinions are equally valid or true.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#137

Post by [deleted] »

GaggiX wrote: post #131
slowhadoken wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh okay? Again don’t take my word for it, it’s not my opinion. Look it up.

I agree that art is human expression, in case it wasn't clear, and a human using AI is human expression, just like a photographer is, and therefore it's art. No human is ever going to agree on what tools can make a person an artist or not, some people don't think you are an artist if you draw on Photoshop, some people think you are if you use AI, so there is nothing simple or unambiguous about it, and if you want to…

[deleted]

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#138

Post by slowhadoken »

GaggiX wrote: post #135
slowhadoken wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A.I.” is a stochastic parrot. You prompt it with input and it outputs a complex copy and paste based on real human made art. You’re not making anything and the software isn’t producing art. What some hypothetical people might have briefly thought about Photoshop has nothing to do with what LLMs are. It’s a false comparison. A brush, on the other hand, is analogous to a digital brush.

Thank you for proving my point.

You’re making “a point” like you make “A.I. art” which is not at all. You’re derivative.

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#139

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

mrmetanoia wrote: post #9

I 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.

"I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway."

HN is an excellent place to find hundreds of articles and comments predicting the future, i.e., something authors cannot know but like to guess at anyway, especially regarding the future capabilities and predicted use of "AI". There has been a steady stream of this gibberish pertaining to "AI" ever since the announcement of ChatGPT.

In a recent HN poll a majority of voters indicated they thought that "AI" was overhyped.

The parent comment is an yet another example of a comment that tells us something the commenter cannot know but wants to guess at anyway. For example,

"Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art."

Re: Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art

#140

Post by dllthomas »

dahart wrote: post #126
dragonwriter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that in, let's call it "static visual art", so many people defining "artistry" so narrowly, but in, say, film, we recognize -- just in regard to the visual production, not even talking about script, acting, etc. -- that the director, cinematographer, and camera operators, and others , are all artists on some level, and no one would argue that automating functions of one of those roles would negate the arti…

It doesn’t seem at all weird to me that paintings have completely different standards than films. Using a ghost painter does seem a little like cheating, if the painting is sold as being the creative and manual work of the named painter. It seems slightly dishonest to advertise it and talk about it as the creative manual work of one person, but create it using other people. I mean, I’m sure it really does happen and…

I wonder whether a (legal? social?) requirement for a full "credits" on any painting involving more than one person would change things.
Post reply on HN