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

91–100 of 149 posts

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

#91

Post by aidenn0 »

Miraste wrote: post #83
aidenn0 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Possibly after you started your reply, I edited my comment to add that it also assumes that creation specifically for paying the bills is inferior to creation for its own sake. This may be also not super controversial, but it is adjacent to "popular things aren't good" which is definitely pretentious.

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

#92

Post by Philpax »

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.

> AI outputs are not created by a conscious agent experiencing affect

Who is controlling the AI and driving it to specific outputs? The void?

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

#93

Post by Philpax »

shombaboor wrote: post #77

AI art is theft, especially when created via text prompt. Drawings needs to drawn, paintings need to be painted etc. Art via prompt is 'find and take'.

Photography is theft, especially when taken via point-and-shoot camera. Landscapes need to be painted, portraits need to be sketched etc. Art via photography is 'find and take'.

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

#94

Post by Philpax »

skybrian wrote: post #10
Kuinox wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some current gen ai can generate images, in real time, how that's not enough interactive ?

Can they fill the screen with 20 variations nearly instantly? If so, I'd like to see that.

This [0] is 149 images per second, late ~2023. Not sure what the current SOTA is here on the quality/speed axes, but I'd imagine it's better.

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/18buns9/sd...

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

#95

Post by sunshinesnacks »

moffkalast wrote: post #68
sunshinesnacks wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My chemical engineer friends like to point out that the Haber-Bosch process has doubled global food production, or something like that. In the same “industrial agriculture” category as tractors and combines.

Yes indeed, it's the main source of nitrogen for fertilizer. Otherwise we'd be back to leaving a third of the fields empty to regenerate with clover or similar plants that deposit nitrogen, plus having lower yields in general.

I guess tractors/combines made a much bigger difference than fertilizer.

> The base level of complete chore automation that we've apparently all forgotten about.

This is easy to forget. I try to occasionally remind myself that a safe office job, nearly unlimited food, and electric machines (boring robots?) to do work for me at home are all pretty incredible. The majority of my physical exertion is for fun and health reasons.

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

#96

Post by voidhorse »

It's because this technology isn't (and never has been) intended for the laborers making the stuff. The ultimate aim of these companies is to address the managerial and c suite people with a product that can replace the labor pool.

Honestly, I think the current consumer focus is just an irrational consequence of these companies feeling like they can't leave all that consumer money on the table, but, precisely for the reasons this piece outlines, it makes no sense to market this stuff to people who actually like their craft. These tools are purely intended for superficial people who are not interested in creating things, they are only interested in outputs and end results.

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

#97

Post by ryandrake »

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…

The world is topsy turvy. I can't even tell satire anymore or whether people are being sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek. This comment reads like sarcasm to me, overdoing on the things currently crappy about online "content creation":

0. The word "content" itself and self-applying the "content creator" label. No writer, artist, or musician I know thinks of themself unironically as a creator of content. How bland! Like a manufacturer! I produce units of content. My buddy who plays the saxophone and does a little composing would barf if you told him he was an audio content creator.

1. Feeding the algorithm. Do people really think about what "the algorithm" wants when they are being creative? Do they alter what they make to suit the algorithm? Why care what an unfeeling search engine wants if you're ultimately writing for the human soul?

2. Engagement as a goal. Is this really what you're after when you write? Not to inform, educate, please, inspire, upset, challenge, upend, or some other meaty goal? You just want some kind of generic "engagement"? This is the kind of thing a Marketing SVP wants, not a writer!

Sorry, I don't mean to attack. I'm trying to avoid being cynical, but the comment really struck me. I can't believe someone would write something like this about their creative passion, to the point where I question that maybe it was amazing sarcasm.

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

#98

Post by bobxmax »

spencerflem wrote: post #21
bobxmax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a great tool if you aren't an ornery artist who refuses to adapt to new ways and means.

most ai art is bland and worthless and has no meaning behind it. im not postmodern enough to say its all the struggle, but regardless of if AI us used or not I expect the artist to have some idea of what they're trying to do or say, and typing a sentence into a box ain't it

> most art is bland and worthless and has no meaning behind it.

FTFY. There is no such thing as AI art.

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

#99

Post by anon-ghost-cat »

ryandrake wrote: post #97
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…

The world is topsy turvy. I can't even tell satire anymore or whether people are being sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek. This comment reads like sarcasm to me, overdoing on the things currently crappy about online "content creation": 0. The word "content" itself and self-applying the "content creator" label. No writer, artist, or musician I know thinks of themself unironically as a creator of content. How bland! Like a…

Sir, this is 2025. If you’re not the content creator you are the content.

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

#100

Post by dutchbookmaker »

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 is all the genius really of Duchamp's Fountain from 1917.

At this point the conversation is just boring.

Post reply on HN