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

GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

hai.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#71

Post by zxvkhkxvdvbdxz »

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #51
redeux wrote: post #42

GenAI is not capable of making art. Self expression is not only inherent in art, it’s essential. What AI does is make pretty pictures, but nothing more. It’s not a tool for making art because it removes the means for artistic expression. It’s possible for someone to make art from GenAI outputs, but that requires taking artistic liberties post generation.

> It’s possible for someone to make art from GenAI outputs, but that requires taking artistic liberties post generation. Plenty of people use others' expressions as a form of art, (sharing song lyrics, singing others' songs in the shower, cat memes, and so on).

Indeed, one could argue that everything is a remix of pre-existing expressions.

This, of course does not rhyme well with current copyright laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#72

Post by dingnuts »

ilaksh wrote: post #64

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to it…

The point of art for the artist is expression. The point for the audience is to gain something through shared experience with the artist.

AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect, and its audience shares an experience with no one. It's not compelling, and isn't art.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#73

Post by aidenn0 »

ilaksh wrote: post #64

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to it…

> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form.

It's not necessarily pretentiousness (though it's definitely pretentiousness adjacent), but a view from the point-of-view of an artist. I say it's adjacent to pretentiousness because I think implicit in the entire article is the assumption that creation is superior to consumption (and also the assumption that art created just to pay the bills is inferior to art created for its own sake[1]).

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potboiler

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#75

Post by bugglebeetle »

jedberg wrote: post #34

Of all the things I do with AI, art is probably the one I do the most. When you create written content on the internet, "the algorithm" rewards you more if you add art to it. I am not an artist, but I can write good. So when I'm done writing, I pop over to my AI image generator, describe a few images I want, pop them into the post, and away I go! And then boom, greater engagement. As an added bonus, I don't have to w…

This is not creating art, but illustration. Art is where the meaning is inherent to the work, whereas illustration is when it is derived from something else that it accompanies (e.g. a text). There’s obviously a spectrum here, but GenAI blogpost decoration are pretty much the terminal point on the illustration part of that scale.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#76

Post by nelsondev »

dingnuts wrote: post #72
ilaksh wrote: post #64

I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form. Surely the actual artifact itself has some value? And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration (which I disagree with generally because that presupposes an excessive level of self-importance), then being able to it…

The point of art for the artist is expression. The point for the audience is to gain something through shared experience with the artist. AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect, and its audience shares an experience with no one. It's not compelling, and isn't art.

The audience member can share the experience with the person sitting beside them.

Doesn’t have to be shared with the artist.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#78

Post by emaro »

jedberg wrote: post #34

Of all the things I do with AI, art is probably the one I do the most. When you create written content on the internet, "the algorithm" rewards you more if you add art to it. I am not an artist, but I can write good. So when I'm done writing, I pop over to my AI image generator, describe a few images I want, pop them into the post, and away I go! And then boom, greater engagement. As an added bonus, I don't have to w…

Kinda understandable, but as a consumer, I already dislike that a lot.

In the beginning, AI 'art' was novel and interesting in a way. But now I've already seen so much generic illustrations, and in 95% they don't add any value to a blog post. I'm even less likely to click on links with a generated thumbnail these days. It creates an expectation of SEO spam or low quality and I have to wonder if the author also used AI to write the text. The generated images seem so soulless to me.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#79

Post by 65 »

jedberg wrote: post #34

Of all the things I do with AI, art is probably the one I do the most. When you create written content on the internet, "the algorithm" rewards you more if you add art to it. I am not an artist, but I can write good. So when I'm done writing, I pop over to my AI image generator, describe a few images I want, pop them into the post, and away I go! And then boom, greater engagement. As an added bonus, I don't have to w…

Use free stock photos instead. Your content will look less spammy.

Re: GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

#80

Post by dwnw »

sampton wrote: post #69

Gen art space has seen a flurry of new developments that give artists great deal of control. Everything from control net, lora, ip adapters, to layer level noise injection. People with lazy and regressive attitudes will be left behind.

If they don't like where you are going and they go a simpler way, I don't think they will feel left behind at all. More like dodged a pitfall.

How is this lazy again? I thought we are supposed to use the AI to be lazy.

Post reply on HN