Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#51

Post by agos »

skeledrew wrote: post #22
sph wrote: post #7

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…

> All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not. 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".

that's because when dealing with art, the "why" something was made can be as important as the "what"

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#52

Post by engeljohnb »

dxdm wrote: post #49
engeljohnb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think this reveals peoples' biases, but not in the way you probably do. 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.

I think it shows that art and how people relate to it is more complicated than you think. If the existence of a bunch of handpicked comments can lead you to your conclusion, then you will struggle to find any "good" art at all. Which may be an entirely coherent interpretation of the state of things; just not a very interesting one.

It's a good thing then that I'm not concerned about how interesting my perspective is to you.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#53

Post by growt »

soared wrote: post #9

Two interesting replies: It’s not a physical painting made by a well known artist. It’s trying to hard to be a late Monet. How much of our opinions are driven by context, rather than the actual subject? If Monet’s work is not so great without the context, is it still great? Or is context a critical piece of the art itself? Do we need to view a Monet piece within the scope of other Monet pieces, other artists, time pe…

There is a similar experiment where a famous violinist plays in a subway station. Nobody really notices or appreciates him and his music. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw&ra=m

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#54

Post by xtracto »

soared wrote: post #9

Two interesting replies: It’s not a physical painting made by a well known artist. It’s trying to hard to be a late Monet. How much of our opinions are driven by context, rather than the actual subject? If Monet’s work is not so great without the context, is it still great? Or is context a critical piece of the art itself? Do we need to view a Monet piece within the scope of other Monet pieces, other artists, time pe…

I just saw a screenshot of someone pasting I think the US bill of rights to one of those AI write detectors; the site concluded that the text was written by AI.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#55

Post by Antibabelic »

skeledrew wrote: post #22
sph wrote: post #7

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…

> All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not. 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".

... I mean, yes? People object to AI art (and generative AI in general) on ethical grounds, not just aesthetic ones. This is something anti-AI people are quite explicit about.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#56

Post by capibara13 »

card_zero wrote: post #47
capibara13 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree, in art a lot is driven by context: there's so many paintings or songs that are not outstanding in itself, but the full human context around it makes it significant.

That brings up the idea that art can be "outstanding in itself", aesthetic in a vacuum, disconnected from what people are caring about. That's dubious, but anyway the AI art doesn't attempt that. Instead it has access to a lot of freeze-dried human context which it rehydrates and presents like a fresh meal, so it partially succeeds at providing that significance.

You're right. Maybe I should have said 'painting or songs that do not SEEM outstanding in itself". My point is that an AI 'rehydrating' human context that you mentioned, is (usually) not enough to get the same significance as human-made art.

At least, for now.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#57

Post by dxdm »

engeljohnb wrote: post #52
dxdm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shows that art and how people relate to it is more complicated than you think. If the existence of a bunch of handpicked comments can lead you to your conclusion, then you will struggle to find any "good" art at all. Which may be an entirely coherent interpretation of the state of things; just not a very interesting one.

It's a good thing then that I'm not concerned about how interesting my perspective is to you.

Of course. Sorry. Not your perspective, but the conclusion, if you leave it there. Which you well may.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#58

Post by sph »

Antibabelic wrote: post #55
skeledrew wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not. 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".

... I mean, yes? People object to AI art (and generative AI in general) on ethical grounds, not just aesthetic ones. This is something anti-AI people are quite explicit about.

Exactly. I'd rather appreciate a bad piece of art made in earnest by a person.

That's precisely the difference between art and a commodity.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#60

Post by pixel_popping »

capibara13 wrote: post #29

Another sign that the context and the human factor will always play a huge role in how we experience art. For example, AI generated music can sound perfect, but still we value it less if we don't know anything about the musician's life.

It just proves serious bias and weakness of humans. We really "want" to believe we are special but in the end, you will soon never know if something is made by AI (autonomously or not) and it will trigger the same exact set of emotion as any human would, because in the end it changes nothing, we just want to believe it does (sadly).
Post reply on HN