Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

41–50 of 151 posts

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

#41
post #24

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.

Perhaps you just feel that way because it's made by a machine. Would need some double blind experiment really, preferably with people who don't know the 'style' of these models.

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

#42
post #24

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.

I do.

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

#43
The problem with this article is that presupposes that the technology will remain the same and in its current state id agree it isn’t art

- but even assuming the rate of advancement slows down, eventually it will be making Art…

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

#44
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.

Humans are not metaphysically special entities, any more than the Earth is a special planet.

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

#45

> Art is notoriously hard to define, and so are the differences between good art and bad art. Which makes ChatGPT (or whatever) just as valid as any tool for creating art. > What I’m saying is that art requires making choices at every scale; the countless small-scale choices made during implementation are just as important to the final product as the few large-scale choices made during the conception. As a life-long…

Same. I don't know if I would call myself an artist, despite creating art for... Jesus, most of my life at this point, and making a bit of cash off it, at least enough to cover the power bill each month. I went into programming because I was keenly aware of how hard it is to make a living as an artist (and getting harder all the time!) but like... I simply cannot fathom enjoying "prompt engineering" nearly as much as my current creative processes.

I've used AI generators a few times because they're interesting little toys, but fundamentally, a creative process is literally thousands of not millions of tiny decisions that are informed by other decisions. If anything, that's what I would call an "artist's voice" in any given creative product, is an at least somewhat consistent through-line through those decisions that gives the final piece the "life" that is so clearly missing from AI art, because all those millions of decisions, instead of being made by one or a few "voices," if you will, is replaced by millions of weighted-average decisions designed to reduce "error" in the product. It's quite literally soulless and people pick up on this, no matter how much the AI lovers want to scream Luddite at me, it's true.

That's not to say it's completely without purpose, I think this stuff is going to do gangbusters for corporate news pieces, blogs, spam sites, etc. If you want royalty free imagery to use for a thing, and don't give much of a shit about what it is, AI can handle that quite well. But I simply can't fathom someone with an intention, who wants to say something with an art piece using AI much, if at all.

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

#46

I'm disappointed in Ted here. For a writer that likes to delve into the possibilities of tech, he's sharing a surprisingly underbaked view. People outside of tech seem to think that AI creation is just "fat finger a prompt -> take output and claim to be an artist on the interwebs" but the reality is that all the people I know who actually call themselves AI artists do photobashing, image2image, controlnets, inpaintin…

Something I've had in the back of my mind is that gen AI has enabled a new generation of outsider artists. That's all. It has lowered the barriers to entry for creativity so much that a whole host of people who have had no formal training or dialogue with Real Artists are able to jump in and just make things they want to see. No surprise their creations are ugly or bad or soulless or weird by conventional standards; that's the norm for outsider art

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

#47
post #24

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.

Oh of course not, they're not accompanied by 5 paragraph essays about what they mean.

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

#48

„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?

For me it’s solely the former even if the marketing/press around it hypes up the latter

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

#49
post #41
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps you just feel that way because it's made by a machine. Would need some double blind experiment really, preferably with people who don't know the 'style' of these models.

I think we've already had those experiments, really, when that generated piece won an art competition ('Theatre D'opera Spatial')

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

#50
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.

Well if you make that your definition then of course it isn't, it's pointless talking or writing articles about, so I still think it's a silly fearful protest.

I just checked Wiktionary, which indeed says it's the 'concious arrangement [of whatever medium]', so it just becomes the same question as whether AI can be conscious, which I think is just pointless semantics, it hinges entirely on how you define it, there's no deeper meaning or interest for that debate to reveal.

Post reply on HN