21–30 of 78 posts
Very good. We need more of these experiments in all areas. Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias.
AI art enjoyers and missing the point of art: name a better duo. No one has ever claimed AI cannot imitate a Monet, but however good the imitation, it still isn't art any more than a Xerox of a painting is art. This is the exact reason why most people feel bad after discovering that what they felt was work of human ingenuity, is just a fake, a simulacrum of it. The creation of art, arguably the most human of instinct…
It goes beyond that. It proves that many people have an inherent bias against AI itself that's unrelated to whatever it generates. "This was made by AI, therefore it's bad in every way".
Seems the poster is the one fooled by the AI more than anything, because most likely the bulk of the replies are bots, so you got AI to criticize AI.
> Seems the poster is the one fooled by the AI I think this HN commenter is also being fooled by the AI. It's likely that a lot of comments on HN are bots, so here you got an AI to comment about AI criticizing AI.
bzzz, clank
Seems the poster is the one fooled by the AI more than anything, because most likely the bulk of the replies are bots, so you got AI to criticize AI.
Being able to imitate Monet doesn't make you Monet. AI can't create anything original.
Under many definitions, where novel composition of existing knowledge or techniques is counted, it certainly can.
Very good. We need more of these experiments in all areas. Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias.
I think Monet just wasn't as good as his renown purports.
EDIT: I doubt this experiment would go similarly for a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo.
2: some of the (albeit mislead) answers basically say "it's nice but it's not something a person willingly outlined and drew" and they are not wrong
3: some answers complain on the lack of depth and detail, color blurbs, and we have to agree the tested version is of very low resolution
so in the end we are left with: "some people who were told it was AI knee-jerked negatively" and i can't even start to see what's surprising about it
AI art enjoyers and missing the point of art: name a better duo. No one has ever claimed AI cannot imitate a Monet, but however good the imitation, it still isn't art any more than a Xerox of a painting is art. This is the exact reason why most people feel bad after discovering that what they felt was work of human ingenuity, is just a fake, a simulacrum of it. The creation of art, arguably the most human of instinct…