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

Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 146 posts

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#91

Post by eganist »

OisinMoran wrote: post #9

Twitter thread from the author of the original algorithm: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 (worth reading the whole thread, the art collective reply) GitHub link: https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-dcgan The README was last edited 6 months ago and contains the bolded text: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you…

Interesting. Considering the readme is the first thing the person sees on the github link and nothing about the license itself precludes other contracts, could the bolded text in this context be considered a verbal contract? Or at least enforceable as such?

Edit: Actually, there was a change to the license surrounding pre-trained models and sales back in June, so it's even baked into an obvious contract. A lot of the licensing conversation here is somewhat mooted by this.

https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENS...

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#92

Post by sitkack »

nl wrote: post #83
spongepoc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat…

I think the "taken advantage of" thing is more about the crappy way they behaved on the Github issues ("really disappointing") etc than the idea of using his code.

Of the whole thing, this is what struck me as distasteful. Manipulative and degrading.

The French kids owe the Stanford kid like half to all of it.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#93

Post by gowld »

2bitencryption wrote: post #65
newswriter99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you spent two minutes rolling some white paint on a white canvas because your "abstract message" was about the void of space, it's not profound, you're being an ass. Conversely if you spent at least five hours stippling black spots on a white canvas in the image of some obscure shape, because you had a concept in your head, and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work.…

> if you spent at least five hours ... and it took a considerable amount of effort, THAT is a profound piece of work. Got it. work >= 5hrs == TRUE REAL PROFOUND ART, work Art is purely expression. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to express what you're expressing. Pollock may have just splattered painting on a canvas. But it was still a true expression . John Cage made a composition where the orchestra doesn't…

Pollack made beautifully balanced chaotic patterns, not merely spilled paint.

Cage made a recording of an audience waiting for music. The audience was the work, not the orchestra.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#94

Post by sitkack »

blotter_paper wrote: post #70
OisinMoran wrote: post #9

Twitter thread from the author of the original algorithm: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 (worth reading the whole thread, the art collective reply) GitHub link: https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-dcgan The README was last edited 6 months ago and contains the bolded text: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you…

I feel like this screencap posted by Obvious was the most illuminating part of that twitstorm: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqVdWJSW4AAOtXD?format=jpg

The truth comes in as a quick afterthought, "and of course to finance our research on art and ML".

The whole discussion is meant to elicit "a pass". Dishonest.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#95

Post by gowld »

therein wrote: post #85
logfromblammo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't required by the license, but it is required by the primate fairness sense. A donation to the open-source project would be appropriate. Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Which will likely not tarnish their enjoyment of their $144k each before auction fees and taxes, but might discourage future AI/ML developers from releasing under such a perm…

> Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Exactly. It doesn't sound like they are afraid of this but they really should be. Nobody will want to buy the next artwork of a collective with that reputation.

The people who pay fortunes for framed art don't know or care about open source licensing.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#96

Post by sitkack »

crucialfelix wrote: post #59
guelo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case accessibility would be enhanced by the artist writing down the meaning and context. But I take it that artists are loathe to do that because they fear that explaining it would make it lose it's mystique, kind of like how explaining a joke ruins it, so you basically end up with what amounts to elaborate inside jokes. OTOH, it probably helps drive up the price when the rich buyers feel like they're part of…

Artists almost always write an extensive explanation of what their work means. It's got to the point of satire: https://artybollocks.com/generator.html

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#97

Post by Springtime »

therein wrote: post #85
logfromblammo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't required by the license, but it is required by the primate fairness sense. A donation to the open-source project would be appropriate. Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Which will likely not tarnish their enjoyment of their $144k each before auction fees and taxes, but might discourage future AI/ML developers from releasing under such a perm…

> Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Exactly. It doesn't sound like they are afraid of this but they really should be. Nobody will want to buy the next artwork of a collective with that reputation.

I do wonder how many art collectors who would be interested in such pieces would know or care. To me the sale was due to the way it was promoted and sold rather than any merit of the piece itself. Outside of particular tech story comment sections and who've seen the Twitter threads I'm not sure it's going to be some big controversy.

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#98

Post by kleopullin »

erwan wrote: post #32

I have sympathy for the author's frustration but they open-sourced their work under a very permissive license. It sounds comical that suddenly something becomes valuable because you hang it in a gold frame, make minor modifications to it and ascribe it some symbolism. But that is exactly how contemporary artworks are done. If you go to exhibits and auctions, it is not uncommon to see highly valued work that requires…

What highly valued work that requires little sophistication to produce have you seen at exhibits and auctions?

Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k

#99

Post by kleopullin »

rargulati wrote: post #81

> winning bidder wished to be kept anonymous I wonder if this is a marketing stunt, or an effort to increase the visibility and legitimacy of AI generated art.

Purchasers of controversial artwork often chose to remain anonymous at least initially. There's nothing unusual about this, and discussing it with friends we all assumed it would sell 1) for much more and 2) to an anonymous buyer. Nothing unusual about it.
Post reply on HN