Live data from Hacker News

GenAI Art Is the Least Imaginative Use of AI Imaginable

hai.stanford.edu

81–90 of 149 posts

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

#81
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…

“So what," the Chelgrian asked, "is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?"

The avatar raised its brows in surprise. "Well, for one thing, you do it, it's you who gets the feeling of achievement."

"Ignoring the subjective. What would be the point for those listening to it?"

"They'd know it was one of their own species, not a Mind, who created it."

"Ignoring that, too; suppose they weren't told it was by an AI, or didn't care."

"If they hadn't been told then the comparison isn't complete; information is being concealed. If they don't care, then they're unlike any group of humans I've ever encountered."

"But if you can—"

"Ziller, are you concerned that Minds—AIs, if you like—can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?"

"Frankly, when they're the sort of original works of art that I create, yes."

"Ziller, it doesn't matter. You have to think like a mountain climber."

"Oh, do I?"

"Yes. Some people take days, sweat buckets, endure pain and cold and risk injury and—in some cases—permanent death to achieve the summit of a mountain only to discover there a party of their peers freshly arrived by aircraft and enjoying a light picnic."

"If I was one of those climbers I'd be pretty damned annoyed."

"Well, it is considered rather impolite to land an aircraft on a summit which people are at that moment struggling up to the hard way, but it can and does happen. Good manners indicate that the picnic ought to be shared and that those who arrived by aircraft express awe and respect for the accomplishment of the climbers.

"The point, of course, is that the people who spent days and sweated buckets could also have taken an aircraft to the summit if all they'd wanted was to absorb the view. It is the struggle that they crave. The sense of achievement is produced by the route to and from the peak, not by the peak itself. It is just the fold between the pages." The avatar hesitated. It put its head a little to one side and narrowed its eyes. "How far do I have to take this analogy, Cr. Ziller?”

- Iain M. Banks, Look to Windward

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

#82
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.

i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why

> And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration

i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless

> Surely the actual artifact itself has some value?

genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?

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

#83
post #73
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 t…

Creation is superior to consumption in basically every value system ever constructed. That doesn't seem like a controversial axiom. Certainly it's widely believed on HN.

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

#84
There used to be a time, in the early days around 2018-2020, where "AI art" was something that only could have been made by an AI. Very trippy and resembling hallucinations. Sort of like dreams of a computer. I do miss that era of AI art. If you search "early ai art" on Google images there are some good examples.

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

#85
i'm sort of pleased to see that with DeepSeek and the o-series, the hype/energy is shifting back towards coding and mathematical tasks, and away from generating images and videos. Programmers seem to be mostly happy with LLMs, unlike artists and musicians who almost all hate them. It seems possible that the incentives will continue to be aligned well, because it's staff at AI labs automating the skills that make them valuable (rather than putting others out of a job).

It's also not so unpleasant. I don't want to see AI images any more. I certainly don't want to listen to AI music. People are right to call it "slop". I understand how the field of machine learning got to image generation as a task, and that the products can be sometimes useful and fun as a novelty. But there is just a giant externality caused by the existence of these products.

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

#86
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…

You are exactly right, the artists are deploying all their rhetoric skills they learned in university to try to avoid becoming the next horse drawn carriage drivers.

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

#87

There used to be a time, in the early days around 2018-2020, where "AI art" was something that only could have been made by an AI. Very trippy and resembling hallucinations. Sort of like dreams of a computer. I do miss that era of AI art. If you search "early ai art" on Google images there are some good examples.

Deep dream! The eyes

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

#88
post #78
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 A…

As a creator, I dislike it too. I'd love it if the platforms would just show you my content without the pictures. But the pictures are what make people click, so I'm stuck.

It's the same reason online recipes have life stories. Because Google rewards longer pages. So now you have to do that just to get seen, even if you don't want to.

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

#89
post #5

I'm what people who know me call a "creative person", but generative AI for images and especially music really is a terrific tool. > What if the point of art is that we actually make it? It seems the author's point is the struggle and effort is what makes it worthwhile, but I kind of disagree. I used to pour a ton of time, effort, and heart into making something I wanted to see or hear, but unfortunately the results…

I see it as a 3 tiered hierarchy of satisfaction:

* 1 - If you manage to do something interesting/beautiful after struggling, doubting yourself and working through it, you come out with a tremendous sense of accomplishment and satisfaction, even though the day to day might have been miserable (in that sense the mountaineering comparison from the article is apt).

* 2 - If you get something interesting/beautiful after little (I don't mean no, I mean little) effort, you still enjoy it somewhat.

* 3 - If you struggle through something for a while, and come out at the end with nothing to show for it that you like or are proud of, it feels pretty terrible.

So it seems in your case you used do do (3), and now can do (2), which must definitely feel nicer. But for people that can do (1), such as proficient artists, having to move to (2) feels like it's completely destroying the entire reason why they like to do this in the first place.

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

#90

There used to be a time, in the early days around 2018-2020, where "AI art" was something that only could have been made by an AI. Very trippy and resembling hallucinations. Sort of like dreams of a computer. I do miss that era of AI art. If you search "early ai art" on Google images there are some good examples.

I bought a book a few years ago called The Artist in the Machine by Arthur Miller[0] and it covers a lot of early AI creativity. I wish they shelled out for more color pages, because I agree things like DeepDream and GAN art are very trippy and would have made it a great coffee table book. It's wild that it took just two or three more years for diffusion models to hit the scene and take the world by storm.

[0] https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4547/The-Artist-in-the-Mac...

Post reply on HN