Live data from Hacker News

GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

hai.stanford.edu

141–149 of 149 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always nice to see Whitehead show up. That is true, and that makes a lot of sense for supplying the outputs for our vital needs , like shelter, food, etc. But I would argue that creative work is different. Creative work is typically more about the process , not the immediate output, and in fact, it is usually only during the process itself that we figure out what we really want to express in a creative work. Art: "pu…

> there's a reason all of our analog tools have stuck around for art making As an early adopter of digital cameras and convert to film photography, I agree... to a point. Producing creative work can be entirely about the output and those outputs can be as Fine as any Fine Art, not "merely entertainment". Take writers for example. As a business and as a creative pursuit, writers have (on the whole) enthusiastically ad…

> As an early adopter of digital cameras and convert to film photography,

I suppose this is a very good example.

Analog photography killed the market for portraits and landscapes, making them available to commoners - first by letting professional photographers make them much cheaper and faster than artists, and eventually by cameras getting cheap enough even commoners could afford them.

Yes, this hurt artists a lot. Turns out, the people wanting portraits never actually cared about the process, just the outcome, and from their point of view, analog photographs were not only cheaper but also better quality than portraits and sketches made by artists.

But I want to focus on something else entirely - on what analog photography gave us. It wasn't just portraits for everyone. It gave even the poor the ability to hold on to few of most cherished memories in physical form - think e.g. large family gatherings, weddings, graduations, etc. would have someone with a camera there, making photos. Think of your grandparents' photos of their parents, all in sepia or black and white. There were no earlier version of that available to the everyman.

Analog photography also gave us photographic evidence, boosted importance of journalism. On the art side, it gave us cinematography and everything attached to it. It created cinemas, and then it created TVs. But there's one more thing.

Analog photography gave us a good half of scientific and engineering progress in the late 19th and most of the 20th century. I'd dare to say it directly gave us nuclear physics and quantum physics, because it allowed to observe things we previously couldn't see, or wouldn't notice if we could. E.g. many people probably saw flashes in their eyes as some high-energy particle briefly oversaturated a rod cell. But those same particles leaving permanent traces on a photographic film, for us to see and study at our leisure? That's another game.

Now, digital photography. Digital photography killed the market for all the auxiliary services around analog photography. It hurt the still fresh art named "photography", and all but killed the dark room. But it gave us something as important as the previous step - it turned photography from expensive craft to basic human activity. Today, it's completely normal to casually take pictures of bills, papers, posters; it's normal to snap a label at the back of some device, because you'll need to type that number somewhere else in 2 minutes and you don't want to force yourself to memorize it.

Science and engineering-wise, digital photography gave us a lot, too, if perhaps less obvious. Most of it is pedestrian. So many daily practices, so many production process, involve digital cameras somewhere in the pipeline, in ways that weren't possible with analog cameras.

I could go on.

Point is, what the new tool does to artists is usually separate them from their source of income. Artists obviously want to have the two intertwined, but then again, can they talk about heart of the craft when taking commission for it? It's a complex topic. But either way, the new doesn't just mess up with the old, in many cases it's transformative well beyond anyone's imagination. True progress.

Will generative AI turn out to be like analog and digital photography in this regard? I don't know. I'm mildly convinced it will.

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 impor…

I'm reminded of my time in secondary school back in the late 90s.

I was trying to figure out how to make an FPS game of my own — from first principles given there was no internet for me to be advised by.

One of my peers suggested using flood fill as per photoshop, and I couldn't get him to understand that this didn't do perspective even with an example. (A real life "these cows are small, those cows are far away" moment).

Or that "Dulce et Decorum est" was required study material in the English Literature classes. Neither I nor anyone else in the school knew what it was really like to experience the horrors of war described in that poem, as the use of chlorine gas was banned before anyone under retirement age had been born.

Shakespeare is held in such high esteem, but how many of those who enjoy it today would have enjoyed an original performance of The Tempest in 1611 with actors who had little chance to memorise their lines, an audience who vocally participated, no light beyond what a fire could provide, no sound system beyond the cannon that accidentally burned The Globe theatre down? Can the works even be fully comprehended given that today the questions are "is Shylock an unfair and antisemetic stereotype?" and "why is The Taming of the Shrew even counted as a comedy rather than a tragedy?" and "why 'eye of newt'?"

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

#143
post #88
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda understandable, but as a consumer, I already dislike that a lot. In the beginning, AI 'art' was novel and interesting in a way. But now I've already seen so much generic illustrations, and in 95% they don't add any value to a blog post. I'm even less likely to click on links with a generated thumbnail these days. It creates an expectation of SEO spam or low quality and I have to wonder if the author also used A…

As a creator, I dislike it too. I'd love it if the platforms would just show you my content without the pictures. But the pictures are what make people click, so I'm stuck. It's the same reason online recipes have life stories. Because Google rewards longer pages. So now you have to do that just to get seen, even if you don't want to.

The life story recipes are the worst.

Personally, I like a shitty 1min hand-drawn stick figure a thousand times more than a generated image. But I'm probably a minority here. You're right, it's not what Google and SEO incentivizes.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: Retracting my original statement.

You're going to fall of that high horse of yours and break something. Most art for blogs before AI was shitty stock photos, maybe with a filter applied. It was not high art. It wasn't a major creative endeavor. It was a means to get Google with it's toxic ranking to bubble a blog post higher than the low effort copy/paste slop. Google ranks a text-only page lower than one with a hero image. It ranks pages with a sing…

TIL hero images on blogs are a valid metric when discussing art as a concept. If that's your primary exposure you're uniquely unqualified to have an opinion.

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 may…

What if you were worried about getting your domain revoked? What would you do in that case? What if your domain was your livelihood?

I think your claim about low demand could be taken more seriously even as recently as ten years ago but when you include "social media handle" in with "domain" then getting your online identity revoked is an every day occurrence and has been for years for a huge number of people who were not extremists or trolls. Later to be revealed by internal documents to be guided by the hand of the US government under false pretenses.

So it's not just extremists and trolls but also, every day people with opinions the government doesn't like who are getting their accounts and content taken away.

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

#146
post #42

GenAI is not capable of making art. Self expression is not only inherent in art, it’s essential. What AI does is make pretty pictures, but nothing more. It’s not a tool for making art because it removes the means for artistic expression. It’s possible for someone to make art from GenAI outputs, but that requires taking artistic liberties post generation.

Sure it isn't art but I guess it will be a substitute for art for many things: do people care that much if their workout music is actual art or artificial not-art art-like stuff?

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

#147
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in apartments with and without dishwashers its not as much of a time savings as you might realize. the dishwasher needs a degree of maintenance. Dishes have to be loaded precariously in a way to effectively wash them from the sprayer jets. Some dishes have to be washed by hand still. Everything needs rinsing and scraping. Its a modern dishwasher so that means its too weak to dry dishes on dry cycle to sk…

> Everything needs rinsing and scraping. If you say that into a mirror five times an angry Canadian named Alec will show up behind you and start grumbling about prewash powder. It's amazing how absolutely nobody knows how to use a dishwasher properly.

Oh I am a powdered detergent truther already. I use the prewash tray. I clean the filter. I follow the manual to a tee. And you know what it says? Heat the water up out of the tap. Rinse and scrape the dishes. If I have to run the tap for 3 mins anyhow to get it hot enough to actually get the soap to suds up and not leave residue I might as well scrape out the pan.

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

#148
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those days you had fewer clothes and wore them longer between washes as well. Something to consider as we dedicate time to fold 7+ full outfits of clothes every week per person today.

And on average families, especially the poorest ones, had 4 kids each. (Ok, I just made up the number to make a point but you get what I mean)

And kids would actually pull quite a lot of the weight back then too. "Clean your room" more like you are coming to the farm with me today boy and splitting the firewood for mother later.

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

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s always been commercial artists who create for the market. It’s nothing new.
Post reply on HN