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

GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

hai.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#131

Post by schwartzworld »

ilaksh wrote: post #64

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to it…

Most artists create art that nobody cares about. This is just reality. You can make music, and likely nobody will listen to it. You can write a book, and probably nobody will read it. You have to create for yourself and if you’re extremely lucky someone else will care, but probably not.

AI art is a cute trick, but it makes this point even more true. Why would you care about a picture I drew when you could generate 100 of them in minutes and way better as well? The fact that you can put a coin in the vending machine and get a picture or song or novel completely devalues the end product.

What remains is the process of creativity, of choosing a medium and exploring the boundaries of what it can do. I saw a Picasso exhibit that showed all the studies and sketches he’d done in preparation for a piece. That process IS the creation of the art. The final picture isn’t even that interesting.

If someone feels fulfilled generating images, good for them, I guess. To me it seems like a cheap fix and a trick that we will all eventually grow tired of.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#132

Post by diatone »

ilaksh wrote: post #128
dfltr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“So what," the Chelgrian asked, "is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?" The avatar raised its brows in surprise. "Well, for one thing, you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement." "Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?" "They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it." "Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren…

That's a great quote and explanation of why the process of making art is important for those who participate in it. However, it does not claim that the _entire point of art_ is that process, which is what I am refuting. I think it's important that artists keep doing actual "traditional" art and grow in the process if they have any motivation to do so. But I feel strongly that asserting that AI art or art that hasn't…

You’re not going to like this but: it’s a matter of perspective. You’re right and wrong at the same time. Call that classist if you want

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#133

Post by skydhash »

sadeshmukh wrote: post #119
skydhash wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for a DOM node not being visible is either the height/width being 0, its position is out of the viewport, it's behind other nodes or its opacity is 0. And that's basically the same for any layout engine that use node tree. The inspector is so easy to use that using a chatbot for the specified reason is a waste of resources.

There are so many more layers. Yeah, the height is zero. Why? Turns out the stylesheet styles are getting overridden by some global and import order is off. This is the perfect case for a chatbot that can see what's going on.

You can see all the styles that are applied to a specific node and their provenance. I believe learning how to properly debug is way more valuable than hoping that an LLM will get it right. And there's no global, and import order is kinda the wrong way to think about it.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#134

Post by skydhash »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #118
skydhash wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them. That's for mass production of useful tools. For decades, it's been easy to produce music, write a book, and draw with digital means. The actual truth is that people don't want to invest the time to learn how. Now they can pose as if they've done so, but the result never survives close inspection.

True, if you evaluate the new in context of the old. Anyone can summon a story with an LLM now, but it ain't gonna be as good as one written by an author pouring their heart and sweat into every word. Same with digital images. However, the exact same technology is just a small bit plumbing away from allowing people to summon immersive stories in interactive 3D environments, and iteratively sculpt them from within, in…

What you wrote can be summarized as: 1 Write Prompt 2 ... 3 Have a complete work

Let's take step 2. Drawing is easy to learn, but it's very hard to master. Why because, it derives from understanding and muscle controls. People fails to draw a simple cube because they don't understand the thing they see. Yes, they probably know that it has 6 faces that are square, but they haven't learned to see it. Knowledge is important, but it's just the initial step. You then have to understand how it all fits together (extract the rules), then apply that understanding.

Same with writing. Everyone has a story, but not everyone can tell it because they don't know how to. You have to learn the techniques, then apply it until you have a complete understanding, then you can create as much as you want to.

With no understanding, there's no creation. And generative AI won't help, because it can't feel the world as you and I do.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#135

Post by tommilburn »

ilaksh wrote: post #129
tommilburn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play…

Okay but can you parse my question a little more carefully? Because I said "the whole point". Also you're talking about the context of the art and it's meaning. That does not depend on any actual person being involved or any long drawn out process of creating the art. In fact, if you really dig into the capabilities of AI tools today and think about it, they dramatically accelerate the ability for some artists to cre…

I tried. I’m still failing to understand what “the whole point” means.

> That does not depend on any actual person being involved or any long drawn out process of creating the art.

okay, what art can you think of where the context of an artistic work doesn’t somehow boil down to the people that made it?

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#136

Post by ickelbawd »

davely wrote: post #62

It will take a long time, but I think the ever growing usage of GenAI tools will ultimately make people desire human created works even more. That said, there's a common thread in a lot of writing similar to this piece. Basically, it's some form of, "GenAI isn't art. GenAI creations lack a human element present in the creation process. GenAI creations cheapen the creative process in general due to the ease at which t…

None of those links are art. They’re stunts at best. I know, I know someone will disagree, but they’re wrong.

The difference between cave paintings, brush paintings, and even photoshop versus AI generated works is that a human had to visualize mentally and then translate their internal visualization into the medium without words. AI generated does not require that.

Artists like Jackson Pollock or more modern instances of digital artists lie somewhere between the two—creating with little intention and little control.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#137

Post by talldayo »

noman-land wrote: post #18
CephalopodMD wrote: post #15

I feel the same way about using nfts to sell jpegs on the internet

What about NFTs as registrations for domain names a la ens.domains?

In principle it's less offensive than the "tulip mania" enthusiasm most people share, but it still suffers for the same reasons. Additionally, people simply might not care enough to register with NFTs - lord knows I don't care enough, and I'm one of the few people capable of doing it. But I'm not worried about getting my domain revoked so... what's the point? To spend money on a vanity label that a grand total of maybe 4 people will ever use?

ENS will inevitably butt up against the cryptocurrency problem of having few legitimate use cases and even fewer legitimate users. Outside the e/acc Twitter circles and lolcow online harassment forums, the demand for such an "uncensorable internet" is almost nonexistent.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#138

Post by Xmd5a »

voidhorse wrote: post #96

It's because this technology isn't (and never has been) intended for the laborers making the stuff. The ultimate aim of these companies is to address the managerial and c suite people with a product that can replace the labor pool. Honestly, I think the current consumer focus is just an irrational consequence of these companies feeling like they can't leave all that consumer money on the table, but, precisely for the…

Alternatively current AIs don't compose well with each other and don't let themselves be decomposed easily. This makes control and user interaction difficult to establish which leads to monolithic one-click input->output products by default.

Things that can be stated simply ("replace the banjo with a saxophone", "place the cat to the left of the table") can't really be tackled by composition (comfyui workflows of hell) and if you want something that generalizes, you need to train models specially designed with that composition scheme in mind (layout diffusion for instance).

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#139

Post by imtringued »

mrandish wrote: post #108

I have zero interest in a tool that turns a text description into an image, video or song. However, I would pay serious money for a generative AI tool that worked differently. I make visuals and music because I love the process of realizing and refining my ideas into end results I like. My challenge is the shortcomings in my mechanical drawing skills or music keyboard fingering skills. Things like maintaining correct…

You're not the only one.

All the comments here assume that AI will be good enough to completely replace people. As of today I think AI outputs are kind of bad. Lots of artefacts everywhere once you zoom in.

What's needed is greater control over the output and whoever does that control becomes an artist in the process. He or she might use a futuristic hypertech brush, but a brush nevertheless.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#140

Post by numpad0 »

schwartzworld wrote: post #131
ilaksh wrote: post #64

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to it…

Most artists create art that nobody cares about. This is just reality. You can make music, and likely nobody will listen to it. You can write a book, and probably nobody will read it. You have to create for yourself and if you’re extremely lucky someone else will care, but probably not. AI art is a cute trick, but it makes this point even more true. Why would you care about a picture I drew when you could generate 10…

> Most artists create art that nobody cares about.

Except, in this age of social media, artists can harvest impressions and optimize for clicks. Which they do. I guess most parts of the world hasn't gotten to that point, nor will for years to come.

Post reply on HN