Why A.I. Isn't Going to Make Art • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by rpdillon » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:07 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #17

rpdillon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans express themselves through tools.

Sure. And no one is arguing like "does a paintbrush make art" "does a camera make art." I'm not saying people can't use AI as a tool to make art I'm saying AI can't make art.

I'm not particularly interested in gatekeeping art, but that makes perfect sense to me, so I think we fundamentally agree.

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

#22

Post by bugglebeetle » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:09 PM UTC

The problem with this article is thinking that art is some special category vs. a demonstrative one. The reason AI can’t make good art (generally) is because it is limited by the ability of its users to have knowledge of how to make those choices, relative to their own abilities, taste, knowledge etc. This is just as true of code as it is of art. An LLM isn’t going to implement your request using efficient or novel data structures unless you know those things exist and can instruct it to use or assist you in developing them. While models as they currently exist (and are fine-tuned) may be biased toward code slop and art slop, this is because slop is the level at which most people are operating.

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

#23

Post by js8 » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:10 PM UTC

The author seems to argue that, before photography existed, if someone commissioned a painter to create a portrait (without further qualification), then the painter didn't create an art piece.

I think it's pretty clear that generative AI makes a lot of small decisions. They might not be groundbreaking, or novel (as they aren't in a custom portrait), or somehow lack overall vision, but they are there.

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

#24

Post by Retric » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:10 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #16

Artists have been spending decades redefining art to broaden it as much as possible, to the point where it seems to be defined now as anything that makes you feel something. It sure seems like AI art is making some people feel something alright.

Do you feel anything when looking at DALE 3 images on this page? https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/

I can’t tell you why, but I don’t really react to any of them or really any AI art I’ve seen.

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

#25

Post by BrannonKing » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

I don't need AI to make art; I need it to extrapolate. Suppose I want to make a movie or a game. I can come up with some distinct art for characters and places and things. I want the AI to extrapolate from that information and build the rest of the world. I don't have time to make the artwork for the entire world/movie/etc. I want to feed it some minimal amount of artwork plus a bunch of scene scripts and end up with a unique-looking movie. I could then go back and enhance areas of the movie by uploading additional artwork (or descriptive text) to scenes that I feel were lacking something.

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

#26

Post by llamaimperative » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

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.

> The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art

> This article is not part of anything

Seems incoherent I think?

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

#27

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #16

Artists have been spending decades redefining art to broaden it as much as possible, to the point where it seems to be defined now as anything that makes you feel something. It sure seems like AI art is making some people feel something alright.

If Jackson Pollock made art I don’t see why whoever programmed the AI didn’t.

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

#28

Post by Workaccount2 » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

One thing we can guarantee is that human hubris isn't going to go away.

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

#29

Post by drhodes » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #11

OJFord wrote: post #3

If 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 i…

Art is an act of human expression.

What about the art of elephants? https://elephantartgallery.com/

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

#30

Post by mistrial9 » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:12 PM UTC

antimemetics wrote: post #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

does the tooling augment a human, or is the tooling sold to replace a human?