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

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

#51

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

AI can't make art in the way we define art, because we usually define art by who made it, rather than any characteristic of the object in and of itself. But if anything, a criterion that makes an object into art is its uselessness relative to its value:

Panting a fence, not art because it keeps the wood from rotting.

Painting a fence hot pink? Art because there's no good reason to paint a fence that color.

If we discover that birds hate hot pink fences, and that makes them last longer? Not art again.

A rich guy pays a million dollars for a hot pink fencepost? Art. Who's the guy who sold the hot pink fencepost? Does he have any other colors?

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

#52

Post by Retric » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:29 PM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #33

Retric wrote: 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.

My current background on my PC is AI generated. I only know about it because when I was looking for a higher res version I found the origin. It's my current favourite image(which always changes). My point is that your argument is non-sensical. Just because you don't feel anything from AI art doesn't mean others don't.

I was making an observation not an argument.

With hundreds of millions of such images someone is going to feel something when looking at some of them. But so far I don’t which seems kind of odd.

Which is why I was asking if you feel anything looking at those specific images on their home page?

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

#53

Post by swayvil » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

The hand is wiser than the mind.

Doing art via the mind is like breathing through a soda straw.

Mind promises and promises but just keeps missing the mark.

I can make a perfect line with my hand in a moment. I can spend a year creating a "perfect line drawing device" and never get there.

The promise of mind is so tempting tho. Succumb to it and you end up living in a flavorless cartoon.

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

#54

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

Retric wrote: post #24

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.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it is influenced by context and expectations.

Take one of those images, put it in a nice frame, hang it in a quiet art museum, stick a little placard on the wall next to it with a made up backstory, and your emotional response will probably differ.

Conversely, go to your local art museum and randomly pick 10 paintings. Take a hi-res picture of each and place them on a web page entitled, "AI is getting better at generating art" and you'll probably pick out a bunch of tell-tale flaws that are evidence of machine-generate pictures. :)

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

#55

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

becquerel wrote: post #37

This is an amusingly ignorant article. Its initial argument, that AI tools don't produce art because they offer meaningfully fewer knobs and dials to creators than a camera, is a classic example of mistaking the contingent for the essential. Those knobs and dials do exist. Download a copy of Stable Diffusion and see all the things you can tweak, iteratively, using the same seed, to work towards an image you desire. T…

> Its initial argument, that AI tools don't produce art because they offer meaningfully fewer knobs and dials to creators than a camera

Chiang is not saying this at all. I'm not sure how you interpreted it this way.

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

#56

Post by lubujackson » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:34 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.

I agree that the article is poorly argued. I think the reason why won't AI can't create art (at least in the near term) comes down to your definition of art. To me, it is a form of communication. This certainly doesn't mean AI can't produce something that people consider art, it means it is incapable of differentiating something humans will consider artistic vs. copy pasta vs. hallucination.

In the end, there is a human curator that decides which creation by the AI is art. There is a human that writes the prompt that creates it. There is human intent as part of the mix, so AI can certainly create art but it is no different than a camera that remove many of the choices people make and presents new ones - which means it is a tool for creating art at a different level of abstraction.

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

#57

Post by squidbeak » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

Those analysts and commentators who use the shortcomings of a nascent technology to rule out possibilities far down the line are extremely foolish.

Whatever anyone thinks about the limitations of LLMs, or whether AI in its current form is sales hype - can anyone sensibly claim that AI 1000 years from now won't be capable of an artistic sensibility? Until there's some proof that there is a secret ingredient in human consciousness that can never be developed by AI - not even a self-aware AI - anyone attempting to lay an imaginary ceiling over the tech is deceiving themselves.

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

#58

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:37 PM UTC

becquerel wrote: post #37

This is an amusingly ignorant article. Its initial argument, that AI tools don't produce art because they offer meaningfully fewer knobs and dials to creators than a camera, is a classic example of mistaking the contingent for the essential. Those knobs and dials do exist. Download a copy of Stable Diffusion and see all the things you can tweak, iteratively, using the same seed, to work towards an image you desire. T…

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by Devasta » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:38 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

People do understand it, no one is creating art by thumping "tracer overwatch big boobs trending on artstation" on a keyboard and then heading to lunch.

This idea that people who disagree couldn't possibly understand is misguided at best.

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

#60

Post by squidbeak » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 2:43 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #24

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.

Do you think that will always be true?