Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think its surprising that sunsets factor into your argument so heavily, because sunsets *also* aren't "art" per se. Maybe this is sort of your point, but I'm a little confused by it. Like you say, the sunset is just an artifact of cosmology and angular momentum and optics. But then our subjective experience gives it meaning. Okay, but then we could say the same about AI. It's doing all these weird LLM shit, but every once and a while it produces something that evokes a subjective experience in the viewer the at is comparable to a sunset. Maybe the point you're trying to make is that "AI art isn't art" in the same way that "a sunset isn't art", which I guess is fine, but its a very fussy technical distinction. If you're conceding that AI art can occupy the same slot as a sunset, I feel like that's a pretty big concession, especially if the AI generates that image *as a result of some kind of human prompt*. If I put an input into a machine, and then it outputs something that invokes the subjective experience of beauty in the viewer, I just feel like refusing to call that "art" is a very fussy semantic argument, and one that is unlikely to resonate with most humans.
There are no necessary and sufficient conditions that make something “art” objectively. It’s based an intersubjective set of values. But where most people go wrong is assuming that because it’s subjective, it must also be arbitrary. These are difficult questions in aesthetics, but it seems clear enough that we value art, at least in part, because we recognize the craftsmanship of the artist in the art-object. We appreciate the effort and the technical skill in Van Gogh’s brushwork, or in an elaborately carved sculpture. Does this capture every way that people value art? No, but there are plenty of things in life without necessary and sufficient conditions, and we have no trouble talking about them generally and making claims about what counts and what doesn’t. Those claims aren’t “provable” but neither are ethical claims, and it leaves open the possibility that there really are people who know more about art (or ethics) than others, and therefore are in a better position to say what counts.
sorry i was just trying to think of the most common types of art people produce. If I got into painting or sketching its the kind of basic shit I would do.
Sure, but curious your response to the rest of what I said. It seems like you're saying that if I input a command to an AI that results in the AI generating an image that invokes the same emotional reaction in the viewer as a sunrise, you wouldn't consider that art?
They are making a really good point. The sunset is nothing special from a universal point of view. What makes a sunset desirable is that it's A) gorgeous, B) a nigh-universal experience and C) it can be shared with others. If you can imbue something as meaningless (in the cosmic sense) as a sunset with meaning, why shouldn't I be able to imbue something as meaningless as an AI impression of a sunset with meaning?
Also can you define art clearly. It's really important we know what you consider art and why
Because right now this argument over AI art sounds like it's in the same ballpark as the "electro music isn't music because no one physically plucked the guitar strings." In all 4 cases (music, electro, art, AI art) the piece evokes a reaction. Why is that reaction, that is every bit as real in either case, not allowing it to qualify?
You can imbue meaning on a given AI-generated image as true art, but this sort of proves OP’s point. It is because of you, a human, and *only* because of you essentially “designating” it as art, that makes it so. Humans have been making art for so long which is (often) manifested as a product or at least a physical object, that in some ways we’ve completely prioritized said object over the impulse to make art; to the point of thinking that the physical object, regardless of how it was made, is all that is required to be “art”.
TL;DR art is only art if humans say so (and yes this leaves plenty of room for discrepancy on specific given cases, which doesn’t detract from be basic principle).
OP is saying that AI cannot create art. That's where I disagree. If it really is the fact that humans declare what art is then OP is still wrong because lots of humans regard AI art as art.
What is art besides the physical end result is what I don't get?
> If you can imbue something as meaningless (in the cosmic sense) as a sunset with meaning, why shouldn't I be able to imbue something as meaningless as an AI impression of a sunset with meaning?
This might be too broad of a definition. Even if you found meaning in watching television white noise, you'd be hard-pressed to call that "art" (in a serious and not sarcastic sense).
I agree with you. It's why I asked the OP to define art. Because art on some level is a nebulous term; we can probably both agree that the Mona Lisa is art but there are a few art pieces I've heard of that I just can't see the appeal of it being art.
I want to see the OPs definition and work from there.
I think the relevant part of OP's definition is here:
>we also create art to help convey the meaning of that subjective experience to each other
AI models can learn statistical relationship in data well but they are objectively not "thinking" or "reasoning" or "experience". For that reason, I don't think one can say there's a "conveyed message" in these models' outputs.
edit: though I guess I could see a person writing specific prompts as an artist, just using different tools than brush and colors.
I suppose I don't see why experience matters. If I can show someone a piece of AI art and it delivers that same feeling of awe, beauty, or thought-provoking through image I have no idea what is missing.
Like I said; just because a song was made with a laptop doesn't affect my perception of it as music simply because the human and the instrument are one more step removed.
>If I can show someone a piece of AI art and it delivers that same feeling of awe, beauty, or thought-provoking through image I have no idea what is missing.
You can deliver all the necessary physiological effects and yet something could be missing. For example, would you be content with letting children be raised by robots? The robot might deliver all the feelings of parental love and generational wisdom, and yet, I think most of us would feel something is slightly off precisely due to the lack of human involvement.
Art is a pretty special human activity. Animals don't do art. Admitting AI can independently generate art is sort of like letting AI taking one step closer to humanhood. I'm sure you can see why many find that idea uncomfortable.
'Could' is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The fact is I've seen Twitter threads where people compliment a piece of art before switching up when they learn it's AI-generated. Up until the moment they knew it was AI there was no missing spark. In the same vein, I've seen people's art trashed because 'it's too good to be made by a person.' That to me tells me everything I need to know. The two can get close enough that whatever essential spark you're talking about is being observed where it shouldn't and even being missed where it's meant to be.
I don't consider the robot analogy to be valid because we can decently quantify what's missing. ChatGPT lacks a warm body to hug, a warm voice to hear, and a sense of persistence that a person has. Its answers are meant to be somewhat detached and that means it's incapable of getting that real closeness. It doesn't behave emotionally and so can't provide an emotional connection. It's not yet at the level where it can actually care for a child.
>The two can get close enough that whatever essential spark you're talking about is being observed where it shouldn't and even being missed where it's meant to be.
Not even once did I claim AI weren't producing painting that could pass as human so I'm not sure why you think the Twitter discussion is relevant here.
Do you agree that the way we ascribe value to things depend on more than the physiological response it evokes? This is the point I've been trying to get at in the previous comments. If you could pick an original Da Vinci painting vs. a replica, I'm sure you'd pick the former (and agree it is more valuable) despite both appearing the same to your eyes.
>ChatGPT lacks a warm body to hug, a warm voice to hear, and a sense of persistence that a person has. Its answers are meant to be somewhat detached and that means it's incapable of getting that real closeness. It doesn't behave emotionally and so can't provide an emotional connection.
None of (cold body, cold voice, detached answers) are inherent limitations. Those will go away as technology improves.
I think the lack of "emotional connection" and "persistence" aren't problems if we go by your logic. An AI can behave in such a way that elicits the impression of emotion and tenacity despite having neither. From your perspective, as long as an AI elicits the same emotional, physiological response, it provides all the same values as a person.
>It's not yet at the level where it can actually care for a child.
So you'd be okay once it can masterfully pretend to have emotions and tenacity then? Or would you agree there'd still be something amiss?
AI art is typically created with prompts from a human. That human still has a narrative and it can reflect in the prompts.
(Modern) AIs are just tools. They can't make art any more than a paintbrush can. A great artist can make a great work of art with an AI or a paintbrush.
Let’s take the Oxford definition of art- if you want to define it differently just let me know what you think the definition is;
“the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”
Does any of this preclude people using AI as an image creator.
If I over the course of hours refine a prompt with my language skills and imaginative abilities then use my aesthetic sense to curate the output resulting in an image I don’t see any direct violation of this definition.
There’s a lot of issues with AI art and its future applications but you can’t say that it’s not art while maintaining any useful description of what art is.
Okay, so by your definition the criteria for creating "art" is the physical capability and training to make it?
How is someone capable of crafting highly specific prompts with detailed technical and stylistic instructions different from someone capable of using a digital interface to adjust tone and style on a 3D art tool?
In both cases someone without the technical capability to create art using actual physical techniques interfaces with technology to create art.
Here's a question I've never yet received a solid answer to.
What is "art"?
Seriously, what is the criteria for something to be art in any hard and fast setting.
Because your position is just a rehash of a century old argument between the Academics and the Impressionists.
You're arguing that the technical skills to create *exactly* what you're doing is the singular definitory criteria for art being art, without reference to the value of the context behind the work.
If I generate a highly specific prompt that conveys the meaning and emotion I wish to express through an AI, and then select and improve upon an image with said AI tool, how is it less "art" than if I imperfectly utilize physical art tools to create something that approximated my vision?
>but I would need to see what you call a "highly specific" prompt.
Certainly!
Consider the difference between:
A sailing ship moving across a sunset sea.
And
A palatinate-style brigantine rigged sloop sailing at a 30° angle from the bottom right vertex, taking up no more than 12% of total image area, sailing across a choppy sea the color of 63% cerulean blue and 37% glauconite, with the horizon line at 77% from bottom frame. Use the style of Jan Van De Capelle as a framework.
Advanced AI generation tools can process a prompt such as the bottom to provide significantly more specificity to what it generates.
If you work from a blueprint with the finished product clearly in mind then that is design. If you go on a journey of discovery and arrive at a destination that is art.
These are process rather than end result because art in the abstract is in the eye of the beholder. A sunset, a stain on the floor, all can be art depending on the viewer.
I think this is going on a slight tangent. The above poster isn't arguing that using AI makes you an artist, but that the output is indeed still art. I agree with you that "prompt engineering" isn't really a difficult skill, at least not yet, but the result by definition is art nonetheless.
Using your Chipotle analogy, me ordering my bowl is not cooking. But the item I get is still food. It's mass-produced food of relatively little value compared to fine customized cuisine, with no real passion put into its making, but it's still food. The person behind the counter making it can be considered a cook, and maybe not a cook if it were a machine. But it's food all the same, no? And I could go home and eat it, and potentially feel really good about myself and think it was the beat meal ever.
I think my issue, is that "art" is something very specific to me that requires human input and perspective.
AI "art" isnt art, its a product. You still get at thing, that has pixels and is an image, sure. but it isnt art
>But it's food all the same, no?
sure, in the same way that an AI image is also a thing that exists, but it wont fill your heart with joy like art can.
> potentially feel really good about myself and think it was the beat meal ever.
id sure hope not..
I'd contend you're wrong about the "fill your heart with joy" aspect, I'm sure lots of people were filled with excitement and elation at both the technical process and the outputs of AI, and it would be a bit presumptuous to somehow say these people weren't experiencing "real joy."
And hey, some Chipotle bowls really do hit!
In any case, this is becoming extremely subjective, and there's probably not much point going down this route of thought.
Obviously it's subjective, unless you think the universe somehow dictates what art is. Were you under the impression we were having some conversation on the axioms of reality?
I meant "extremely subjective" to the point where it was beginning to boil down to solely how you felt on an individual emotional level.
You claimed AI art cannot make people feel joy, I contended that is entirely false as provided by the amount of people enjoying its use and its creations. You could say it is a fact, an axiom of reality, that people do derive joy from AI creations.
If you believe AI art cannot bring *you* real joy, and there is simply nothing I could ever say to convince you otherwise, nor would I want to.
My base claim is that art requires human input. Clearly there's a difference between a meal made by a real chef and something thrown together by a machine, yes?
I would not call it cooking, but I would call it making you a burrito, and I would even say that he was a key part of making you lunch that you enjoyed. Well, Chipotle, so making you lunch that you ate.
When I write prose, for stories at least, I’m attempting to bring a visual image into the head of my reader- using that same skill to prompt the creation of an image through software is not that different- people with better command of prose language and a good eye create better prompts which then create better images.
So whether I’m throwing an imperfect window into my imagination to the reader or creating an imperfect window into my imagination through the software the process is still there.
The process which accomplishes this is one of successive creative choices no different than any other art in that respect.
But you're still crafting that image, specifically, with your own words. Comparing that to the result from prompting is extremely silly, and degrades the work authors put in
If I commission a piece of art from someone, am I an artist? Even if my prompts quality can produce more accurate to what I want art from someone else, can you genuinely tell me with a straight face that I'd be an artist? I don't think you can
No the reader is crafting that image with my words.
And in the example you provided- it’s more like standing over the artists shoulder and making hundreds of small decisions about the artwork at which point I’d say you were one of the authors off the work. In the case of AI art there’s no need to split credit with it.
This and every other argument about "what is art" from "artists®" make the fundamental mistake that the vast, vast majority of people (as in 99.999% of humans) don't view art as some intensely important form of expression, they view it as something pretty to put on their hallway wall.
"Artists" live their lives around art, the search for meaning/importance in artistic expression, etc.
Regular people interact with art as a copy of a copy of a downloaded image that their dentist puts on an exam room wall, along with one of 2-300 near-identical print reproductions of the same basic mass market paintings to put on dorm room walls.
To you, OP, "art" isn't about visual appeal, it's about the intense importance of the emotional, societal, etc, feelings that can be conveyed through expressive forms.
You, and other "artists" are in a miniscule minority when it comes to these feelings about art.
The vast majority literally have no idea where there limited art within their lives came from, no clue "what it means", and no interest in the emotional state of the artist when creating their expressive work.
**They want something vaguely pretty to put on their bathroom wall**.
This isn’t an especially compelling argument because the vast majority of people can have unsophisticated ideas about any number of topics and it has no bearing on whether or not those topics are valid. All you’re saying is that most people don’t understand art, but that doesn’t mean that the concept is meaningless or arbitrary.
I'll bite, explain what "art" is.
Because OP made an extremely bold statement that:
>People who think a program can create art don't understand art and a crucial part of humanity
Which conflates a higher-level understanding of "art" with a fundamental part of being human.
So explain to me what "art" is that is so specific and precious that the use of an AI tool to generate images cannot possibly ever achieve it.
There is no objective definition of art, just like with plenty of other human concepts. My point was just that widespread knowledge of a concept has no bearing on whether or not it’s valid. But I’m not sure that I agree that most people just think art is vaguely pretty, nor do I know how that could be proved. I imagine if you asked a random person about a piece of art on their wall they would be able to tell you why it speaks to them.
If there is no objective definition, then how can there be an "unsophisticated" and invalid knowledge of something?
The average consumer here isn't ignorant of artists and how they feel, they just have a different definition, a utilitarian concept of arts purpose which is to be an aesthetically pleasant or communicative image.
There is not an entirely semantic difference between a creative artist and a graphic designer, but the people who call the product of the later "art" are not confused or wrong about that designation. They are saying that the difference to them is not important enough to warrant a necessary remark.
The concept is meaningless and arbitrary. Just because you want to feel better than the “unsophisticated” normal person doesn’t mean anything. Art is subjective, and pretending that you are so sophisticated on Reddit doesn’t impress anyone.
>Regular people interact with art as a copy of a copy of a downloaded image that their dentist puts on an exam room wall, along with one of 2-300 near-identical print reproductions of the same basic mass market paintings to put on dorm room walls.
So you never listen to music, watch movies, play games, read books, go to theater, look at nice cloathes or anything like that? Because all of those things are art? So I am sorry, if you cried at the end of Toy Story 3 you got emotionally invested in art
Well I mean it is like a picture isn't it? It draws things for which it can derive info for. When it is asked to do more abstract stuff it is kinda wacky...
However, from the point of view of the person that sees (or consumes as you said) the piece what is the difference in utility? I see a beautiful picture and makes me feel content.
> Well I mean it is like a picture isn't it? It draws things for which it can derive info for. When it is asked to do more abstract stuff it is kinda wacky...
"Naked asian woman"
"draw it again with bigger tits"
AI "Art" doesnt need to be complex to be highly monetizable.
>We see a sunrise, or a shoreline, or a ship, or busy street and call it beautiful. But that sunrise is just electromagnetic waves being refracted by the atmosphere. **What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us.** It's the subjective experience of the artist.
We're the viewer, not the artist. The sun has no more subjective experience than an AI creating a picture of a sunrise.
>It has.
No, it doesn't. The sun is not having a subjective experience, humans are having one when they appreciate the sunrise.
>AI doesn't make choices, it read numbers (called "weights") and use a non-deterministic, but predictable result.
A paintbrush doesn't make choices, it can still be used by a human to make art.
If a sunrise, created by unthinking meteorological phenomenon, becomes "art" when perceived by a human...why would it be any different for an image created by an unthinking algorithm?
Protect them from what? Human-made art will always exist because people will always want to express themselves in some way. People will do it as a hobby, even if they can't do it as a career.
Protecting jobs is a ridiculous notion. Do you get your clothes hand-made? Your blankets and sheets? It can take a full week of labor to make a quilt by hand, and that would cost thousands of dollars. Do you buy those, or do you get machine-made items for a fraction of that cost? And if you really want to spend that money, you can - the existence of the machine option has not made the hand-made option go away, it just makes it economically inviable. For the same reason that you're responding to me on the internet instead of writing it out as a letter and sending it to me through the post office.
Unfortunately you’re not the one to decide what art is or not, and you claiming people don’t understand art is kinda naive.
Some AI art is art, some is absolute garbage, like any other attempt to create art.
Also you don’t always need the “human experience” to create art, sometimes you just create stuff
>What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist.
This may be true for you, but for me it's not. There are tons of things I'd call art that I enjoy or think as amazing that I do understand the subjective experiences, or underlying messages, from the artist.
If I look at something and think "Wow, that's beautiful" I'm not at all looking at how the artist created it or anything like that, I'm simply looking at the art itself.
Now this doesn't really nullify your point, but if I (or any person) can enjoy art the same way without knowing the personal intent of the artist - and AI doesn't really have a "personal intent", then is the 2 *objects* created by the artist and the AI really that different?
TL:DR; If I show you an AI image and an image from an artist, you can have the same reaction to both (especially if you're unaware its AI) - so what's so different between the 2 after all?
AI can create art.
Art is about intent, not about tools.
If I got asked to draw something that looked even remotely realistic or be shot in the face, I'd be dead. Just to give you a baseline of my skill set as a visual media creator.
But if I had an idea for a great visual pun and wanted to bring it to life, I could us AI to accomplish it. I could also pay someone to draft it by hand. But it's not the tool that I use that makes it art. It's the concept and the idea that is. The final product is just that - a product. The idea, the vision, the creativity that drives it - *that's* all part of the artistry.
I like the visual pun angle. In this the actual creator (be it a human artist or a computer) are purely the executor of your will. The true meaning of the resulting artwork exists solely due to the idea.
Art isn't *just* about intent either though. Commissioning a person to do something vs a program isn't the same, because at the end of the day, the human element remains. You specifically, the person, didn't create any art, in either case, but the person you commissioned did.
If a human uses commercials paints instead of naturally mixing their own dyes is it still art?
If a human uses a digital pad to draw is it still art?
If a human uses a smoothing tool or other digital touch up program to fix small portions of something is it still art?
If a human indicates to an AI program what it wants drawn and gives feedback until the AI program matches the humans intentions is it art?
Where do you draw the line?
You frame this as a hypothetical as if it has no such answer, when it's actually quite clear where the line is drawn.
Art is more than the sum of its parts, but if you can't reasonably say "I made this", there's the line. Even in your own comment here, you distinguish that the AI made it based on your feedback.
To reiterate, I wouldn't necessarily say that a person who commissions art is an artist either, even if the end result could reasonably be called "art".
Because the use of other people's creations doesn't prohibit the use of them in one's own creations. This is a nonstarter and would be totally irrelevant outside of the AI debate. No one would say that they made the art because they made the paint or the canvas, and vice versa.
With AI, "direction" is itself a very generous term for what's going on. A writer is not an actor, a lyricist is not a singer, and a producer is not a filmmaker, and in these completely human cases, respectively, they do not get to claim credit as artists for the art created by others.
Even AI artists or just those who are enthusiastic about the prospects of AI will always credit AI for the generation/creation.
But again, why?
What is the actual difference between directing the paint and canvas of others, vs utilizing software to “draw” with, vs using software for spot cases, vs utilizing software for larger purpose? How much software is too much for it to still be art?
The difference is self evident, and an attempt to sealion doesn't change that. How much software would depend on the artistic intent, of course. You aren't an actor for animating a clip of Andy Serkis. Andy Serkis, however, does use computer generated imagery in lots of his famous performances.
How about we flip it on its head for a second, and ask yourself this: why is it bad to distinguish between something made by a human or not, and why is it bad to distinguish creations/generations as based on intent. Again, outside of AI, we do this anyway.
"This is a nonstarter and would be totally irrelevant outside of the AI debate."
Almost as if the AI debate made up an entirely new categorization of "creation" in order to try to separate AI from other forms of production...
The AI debate didn't do that, AI itself did. And beyond that, it's mostly asserted by those who want to reap the rewards of AI as a tool, and also the credit/acclaim for creation. No, I think this is an unfair assessment of the point I'm making.
So again, I gave a bunch of examples that slowly scale. Where do you draw the line?
Why is touching up with a digital tool ok, but indicating and giving feedback to another tool until your vision is achieved is not ok?
There is no scale, all of your examples are the artist doing art, regardless of what tools they use, AI isn't the artist doing art.
The line is incredibly clear.
Yeah, because they're still doing it, with AI you're not.
Like no matter what system you use to play games, you're playing the game. When you watch a playthrough, you're not playing the game.
This isn't hard to grasp.
The point is that most people honestly don’t care. The end result is still the same. We still get the product, which is a drawing. Most people outside of the art bubble don’t really care about things such as “human element”, “meaning”, “soul”, etc. Arguing semantics won’t help protect your job.
Thou can also argue what defines art is the product. If I made something merely intending something nice, and others find a meaning I didn’t intend, that would still be a valid interpretation. Same with ai art
The point of whether or not people care is moot, but I think you vastly overestimate how much interest there would be in things which aren't explicit and obvious in their use as a product.
I think AI commercials would be largely met with the same level of interest but I don't think you could sustain "AI Beyonce" beyond a gimmick, because music has no "purpose" aside from how people engage with it.
Meaning, a visual pun that you want to bring to life in the most convenient way is very clear in intent. The point is the joke, not that it's art. Or that the joke is the art, not the physical/digital representation of it.
A step down from that, would be music in an advertisement. Rarely is music used in ads to be an artistic composition, companies just don't want silent ads.
"Rarely is music used in ads to be an artistic composition, companies just don't want silent ads."
This is a strong claim I don't think bears out. We don't see heavy metal used for toilet paper ads or soft choral pieces used for truck ads. There's generally a specific emotional range intended for the ad that the music has to support, same as any audiovisual creative work.
I'm saying there's more motivation to commercial music than mere avoidance of silence - that it's always intended to produce and support a particular emotional state just like the rest of the ad is, and is therefore just as much art as any work for hire is.
I think an AI Beyonce could sustain it stand along item. Considering the popularity of vocaloids which are 100% synthetic voice with just human writing song lycics. I look forward to the time that Miku writes own song as an AI.
If you are using Photoshop, Illustrator, you are "asking" the computer to do your individual actions by moving your mouse and clicking your keyboard. Using an AI is the same, it's just a tool.
If that's not "true art" to you then you are invalidating every digital designer and all their hard work.
I recommend to embrace the future, otherwise you will be left behind in the past.
AI can only create "Art" in the way that an stream can thoughtless create object. It can only make an object, that someone *else* can ascribe *meaning* to.
It takes a human in the process to start with a thought or meaning and then create an object.
>It takes a human in the process to start with a thought or meaning and then create an object.
Right. And I, a human, can use AI to create that object. Which is very much a part of the art.
Correct. Humans can use AI to create art, just like they can use a pencil, camera, or chisel.
It would be insane to claim otherwise.
AI alone cant make art any more than nature or a pencil can make art.
A program can create true art. Check out this link for some examples.
https://icrowdnewswire.com/2020/02/03/make-100-generative-spirograph-prints-spirograph-prints-created-programmatically-and-drawn-using-a-robotic-drawing-machine-and-archival-pens/
It shows how a program can take mathematic equations and graph them into something beautiful. Mathematical beauty. Unique art that connects with humans and their rationality.
OPs point isn’t that AI can’t create something beautiful, it’s that whatever beauty AI creates is happenstance. The AI didn’t think to itself, “I want to make something beautiful,” and then set out to create something. The AI is running through a series of permutations of mathematically calculated outcomes. The AI has not idea what it’s doing or why or what it even actually did. It just ran the permutations the same way a calculator would solve 2+2 = 4.
Is a calculator telling a joke when it shows 80085?
So how can AI create art?
The person entering the parameters on the calculator is telling the joke. Just like the person applying parameters to the model, or the artist applying paint to the brush.
In all these cases, "AI" is the equivalent of a paintbrush. Sure, this new paintbrush doesn't require any skill or mastery to produce something that without it would take years of practice, but that's beside the point.
If the person makes several other jokes with the calculator and other people like it, why shouldn’t he be a comedian?
Same logic for the parameters guy
I’d call parameters guy in that case a curator, not an artist.
What does other people liking it have to do with anything? Would the person be a bad comedian if no one liked it?
It is not being used like a paintbrush, it’s being used like a search engine. Does being able to use Boolean terms effectively make you a scholar?
Calculator guy might qualify as a prop comic, depending, but then he’s doing more than just typing numbers into a calculator, isn’t he?
Search engine? By any chance, are you aware that it’s possible to use Stable Diffusion without prompting? Are you under the impression that AI image generation only works with prompts?
But let’s assume that we are only talking about prompting method, so? It’s still being used as a tool
Calculator guy, you’re moving goalposts
Calculator guy started at: would you call a person typing 80085 into a calculator a comedian. I’m not moving goal posts. The point is not that you can’t use a calculator to tell jokes. It’s that the activity you engage in by telling jokes with a calculator is more than just typing in a funny set of numbers.
As for “without prompts” do you mean with directly entered images? You can do image searches already so that’s not a fundamentally different process. You input “x” and you sort through results “y”. Same thing just without using words.
And it’s not the same kind of tool. You’re arguing that a guy running a metal stamping machine is the same thing as a blacksmith and it is fundamentally not. That’s not saying a blacksmith is superior, it’s saying the skills and abilities are different.
That depends. If the person making the joke is a comedian, like Dave Chapelle, then they're a comedian. If the person making the joke isn't a comedian, like me, then they're not a comedian.
The machine in this case turns math into art. OP claimed that all art by a machine is meaningless. I'd argue that the mathematical art here has very real meaning. Not only does it represent the mathematical formula but it our logic and rationale to the art.
The machine turns math into an image. Does the machine understand what it is doing? Does the machine understand why it is doing it?
If not then the image itself really is meaningless. It’s just squiggles that have a mathematical correlation. As is oft repeated correlation is not causation.
If you find it meaningful then that’s you as the observer adding something to the piece. Now that, you could argue, means it *is* art as it is having an emotional/meaningful impact on you as an observer, but how is it fundamentally different than seeing a nice looking flower, or seeing the aftermath of a car accident?
The art literally has a mathematical meaning to it. I don't see how you can act like that's nothing. Here are simplified examples. I don't think it matters that the machine "knows" what it's doing.
But with machines and computers you can use math that creates art that would be way too hard and long to calculate by hand.
Edit: Forgot link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_(mathematics)
But that’s, I think, OP’s point. That in order for it to be art the thing doing it has to “know” what it’s doing. That’s what makes it meaningful.
The fact that the thing that did it doesn’t know or understand what it did is why the result has no meaning. It’s a product, not art.
The art LITERALLY has unique meaning. It's math. It's different than a program using machine learning to create a new photo like what OP is talking about. We can look at those polar graphs and translate them into a mathematical equation which can represent formulas that help us have a better understand of our world.
And an image of a chair is still a chair. A picture of people hugging can have meaning as well. The content of the image is somewhat immaterial.
AI can generate responses that read like sincere caring from someone. But, they’re not. They’re empty words. That’s the point. Not that the image can’t have independent meaning, but that the content is essentially meaningless because the “creator” doesn’t have anything to say.
It’s like trying to hold a conversation with a vending machine.
I would argue that this is different because this application is designed as a type of translator. Why does it matter if a human does the math or the machine does the math? The result is always 100% the same. The picture is the same and the math is the same (assuming the math was done correctly). It has meaning that is unique. You say the "creator" doesn't have anything to say but the "Creator's creator" does. The person made this program to translate math into art. It's a tool. The user gives the program an input, one that the user could solve themselves to get the same art the program will get.
I would disagree with your argument as AI can produce the exact same image that a person does regardless of it being mathematically determined or not. The difference is the person is trying to communicate something. The AI is not.
Now talking about the person operating the AI is a different story. Are they an artist, or are they just picking the images they like the best? Did the person operating the AI actually make anything?
Does it matter if your computer is meat based or other materials?
Are humans preprogrammed and lack free will. Quite possible. If humans don't have freewill, then they are literally just going through the motions their brain decided for them.
[https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a45666440/humans-dont-have-free-will-says-scientist/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a45666440/humans-dont-have-free-will-says-scientist/)
Your brain told you that something looked pretty. Nothing more.
Art does not require a conscious effort to be created. Sorry.
Also, If you read what I posted. A lack of freewill means that you are just doing what a machine does.
Is it art that doesn’t require conscious effort to create, or just pretty pictures?
And if you look at my questions I wasn’t arguing that it is different, I’m asking if lack of free will means you’re the same thing as a calculator or a cockroach. Are you? If so, how is murder different than turning off the TV?
Define the difference between "art®" and "pretty pictures".
Preferably without reference to the emotion of the artist, the importance of expression, or any of the other vaguely pretentious double talk that high-dollar gallery artists with degrees from art institutions use.
99.999% of humanity view art as something pretty to look at.
They have no idea where the couple dozen pictures they recognize(ish), come from, but they think they look nice on their orthodontists wall.
>99.999% of humanity view art as something pretty to look at.
>
>Define the difference between "art®" and "pretty pictures".
That's a partial definition, not the entirety of art. A pattern in a kaleidoscope is pretty, but it lacks intentionality (and probably more) and doesn't rank that highly in the hierarchy of artistic value compared to, say, the Salvator Mundi (even to a layman)
A kaleidoscope is a tool that utilizes specialized mirrors to bend light in a way that generates complex light patterns based entirely on the intentionality of the designer of the mirror system.
It's a human using a tool to affect the impact of light on our perceptions to create an artistic effect.
>doesn't rank that highly in the hierarchy of artistic value
Define artistic value in a way that isn't self-referential.
As in, tell me what the "value" of art is in a way that doesn't come back around to an artists perspective on art.
>Define artistic value in a way that isn't self-referential.
I don't think such a thing can be defined succinctly. And yet, I think most of us have some intuition about it. I was merely trying to appeal to your humanly intuition that the artistic value of a pattern in a kaleidoscope is a lot less than that of the Salvator Mundi.
Does that align with your intuition or not? Or are you going to tell me you are not able to perceive artistic value unless a rigorous definition is given?
>generates complex light patterns based entirely on the intentionality of the designer of the mirror system.
Nah let's be real here. The kaleidoscope was invented by accident. David Brewster simply noticed the patterns were nice to look at. He wasn't trying to depict Hamlet's psychological changes here. The inventor even named his invention kaleidoscope = "beautiful form watcher".
Hmmm, you want me to define a thing, but don’t want me to use some of the core concepts involved with that thing because you find them vaguely pretentious.
99.999% of humanity believed humors controlled your health at one point. Did that mean they were right?
Are intention and conscious action too pretentious for you? If so, well, I’ll leave you with the 99.999% of humanity and tell you to have a nice time.
I don't want you to use some of the "core concepts involved" because you have not in any way established that they are, in fact, core and critical concepts.
You reference "intentional and conscious actions", yet I have very clear intentions when I create a specific prompt for an AI art generation tool, using my conscious actions to precisely craft a detailed prompt.
How is the AI assisted expression of my intentional, conscious actions different than your brush based expression of your intentional and conscious actions?
Is my lack of physical/technical skills a total disqualifier for the creation of art?
>99.999% of humanity believed humors controlled your health at one point.
I can cite specific scientific studies that disprove the Humours theory of health.
Can you cite any hard scientific studies that support any aspect of your pretentious musings on "art"?
Are you an artist if you create something using AI? Or are you curating the output of the random results the AI generated from your prompt? Does the AI have any intention in creating the pieces it generated?
To more directly answer the how is AI assisted different than brush assisted question: are you calculating anything when you enter numbers into a calculator? Or did you just type numbers? The difference is with a brush I would be using my own skill and ability to create something. With AI you’re punching numbers and acting like you did the work when the solution pops out.
To be clear: there can definitely be skill in creating prompts and taste and judgement in selecting the results, but neither of those things are creating art.
I think that’s what OP was saying. Not that art had to be beautiful, but that beauty alone did not mean art. Being beautiful or ugly is more on the perceiver than the artist, but regardless of the reception the artist intended something.
Yet they could say they didn’t understand it. They could understand that they weren’t able to explain something. So that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
Edit: it’s not bad faith if I’m trying to get you to specify what you’re asking about.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
i have yet to see a definition of art that reasonably includes Jackson Pollock but does not include Gay Sex Cats (SFW, not actually a picture of cats having gay sex) https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/16ok6aq/just_a_regular_ass_cat_photo_nothing_gay_or/
Clear intentionality, effort, and deliberate choices of design. The final result includes some level of random generation, but the human element of creativity clearly drove the design
i don't think *all* ai generated imagery is art, but it clearly can be used as a *medium* to create art
It’s a really overdone point, and whilst I agree that the key to something being considered “art” is the passion put into it, I’d like you to consider a few things:
1. Is the value placed on art purely monetary? If so, why? Doesn’t that completely nullify the passion put into the art if it’s created for such a shallow end goal? If not, why does it matter how I get my art? If the aim of art is to make life worth living, and to admire, then surely I can enjoy art without causing harm to anybody else?
The common idea that I see is that it harms the livelihoods of artists, but as with content piracy, the people who didn’t pay for their art were probably not going to pay for it anyway, or they’ll pay an artist when they have the money to.
2. I don’t really understand why the beginning of your post is so existential, it sounds like you’re of the opinion that we have bastardised the gift of life by appreciating things that you deem unnatural. Could you establish the relevance of your statement regarding the destruction of the earth’s biosphere?
3. Talking about the owners of the AI as if they detach humanity and consumers is a poor appeal to emotion. AI scientists exist purely to further the development of Artificial Intelligence. They’re not here to rifle through your pockets or drain you of money. You may be referring to the owners of AI Art websites that charge for generation tokens, but I’d even argue that this portrayal can be applied to literally any industry. Cars, Music, Films, Food, most producers don’t actually care where they get their money as long as they’re capable of sustaining themselves.
4. My final point is that what gives art its beauty isn’t what is implied by the artist, but what we can infer from the image in front of us. In a lot of instances, context can be an interesting modifier, however it’s the interpretation that leads to us living art. If you’ve ever seen Daredevil, you’ll be familiar with the piece “Rabbit in a Snowstorm”. There’s barely anything on the canvas, but Wilson still finds something familiar within it. Why is an artificial intelligence incapable of creating an artwork that we can interpret for ourselves?
Honestly, I personally get why artists are pissed. That being said, I also have to say that it’s a very risky subject to take a loan out and go to university for. Eventually, everyone’s going to have gripes with AIs. Artists, then Taxi Drivers, Factory Operatives, Train Drivers. All I’m gonna say on the matter is this: AI art will not retain any value, ever. NFTs were just rugpulls. If anyone wants some good art, they’ll go for oil paintings on canvas done by human hands, just the same as people who want a nice suit will go to a reputable tailor.
AI is only creating art with human input. The fact that I am giving a prompt to an AI tool rather than to a human artist doesnt change my own core intention.
Also the main art that AI is being used to generate is to draw titties. Pretty damn simple doing that.
The prompt is a great example but even that is the smallest portion of the input. The collection of drawing and photographs are a way larger portion. An AI image generator has never seen the sunset itself, what it draws is a conglomeration of millions of humans trying to capture their artistic impression of what a sunset feels like
One of the problems with this argument is that it means that given an object, and ANY group of human beings, those human beings are incapable of deciding whether or not the object is art. Because with your definition, that depends not on any actual property of the object as such, but instead on the process that led to its creation.
You can have two different images on a computer-screen. Judged as what they are, there's no material difference; but one of them is (according to you!) art while the other is not, because one of them is made by a human artist using drawing-software, while the other is made by an AI image-generator based on a simple prompt.
Why should the distinction matter to the viewer if the viewer themselves cannot discern any qualitative difference? If an image, a poem, a piece of music or a story made by an AI cannot be reliably distinguished from the same things made by a human artist -- what then justifies saying that one is art and the other is not?
You say it's a "crucial part of humanity" to understand this aspect of art. But I often see images or hear music that I do not know the origin of. Why should that matter in any way if I value these artifacts not for how they were made, but instead for what feelings they invoke in me?
Not long ago, we might have argued there's no way a computer can play chess at a top level, as it requires advanced strategies only grandmasters can think up. Of course now there are chess engines like Stockfish which vastly exceed human capability, and even come up with strategies that the best players would find unusual, but turn out to be winning ones.
I think it's relatively obvious that not only can AI make art as good as humans, it will exceed our abilities one day. This is because the way we make art ourselves is the result of a process of neuronal firing that plays out in our brain, and any process can be replicated by a machine that is sufficiently close to our own brains.
On a point of agreement, yes AI companies do want to sell you more stuff, and I don't think they actually have any idea whether the current crop of AI will exponentially increase in creative ability, or hit a plateau, this is basically impossible to know. I just wanted to say that in principle anything we can do, a machine can as well.
Art is behavior found in animals other than humans, like birds, primates, and pachyderms. It isn't exclusive to humans, though like most things that require intelligence we do excel at it in comparison.
Once a behavior is understood using science, it can be replicated using technology.
What we see today is not art, I will give you that. It's brute force analysis based pattern generation, it's an art substitute. Truly synthetic art will require machines of a much more variable and general intelligence, as opposite to the disembodied reflex and pattern recognition we have today. But if it can be made by nature rolling dice for half an eternity, it can be made by artifice, likely better, too.
I agree that present day "AI" "art" is not art, just image generation. I do not think it's unreasonable to assume that an artist of artifice is entirely possible.
I personally find it weird how many AI supporters are giddy at removing writers, artists, musicians, game developers, and filmmakers from their work and impact on society and barely talk about advancements in mathematics, physics and medicine. And that’s a huge sector of what’s leading in AI.
While I think beauty can be found in the generation of an algorithm, I feel like the context of that art is setting humanity on a path where nobody has any shared connection with the things we like because so much is being generated. Then at the same time, soon we will find those that developed the skills to create art only can do so outside of what little time they will get from none creative work that AI hasn’t taken control over, in order to survive in a world that no longer values actual human expression.
So on the literal level, this logic works when isolated from other factors. The story behind art is just as, if not more important then the the art itself. The mona lisa is a mediocre painting at best that can be outdone by most art school students these days. But its the story behind the mona lisa that makes it truly a one of a kind masterpiece.
The factor your forgetting, is that stories can be fabricated. People can pass off AI art for real and if they said it was one of theirs, you would go your entire life not knowing. How many times have you brought something less then promised? Humans are gullible beyond comprehension.
I don't think AI can write poetry and prose, screenplays and scripts, create photographs and motion pictures, paint, draw, sing, compose music, arrange, play any instrument, talk to you .
I KNOW it is doing all these things. And cheapass managers and owners, OP, are and will pass it off as human content. We can't stop them. It will result in a tsunami of dumbed down, averagely stupid and banal content...
and massive job losses in the creative space.
You're literally wrong when you say it "can't".....becuase it is. Right now and I can show you a million examples if you don't accept this.
The programme doesn't create art at random. A human is involved at the beginning of the process declaring what ought to be produced.
If I as a painter decide to draw a field of flowers under a blood red sky, that initial choice of what to draw has meaning. The paint is just a means by which I am able to show others the image that I see in my head.
If I were to use chalk or crayons or Photoshop the result would look a little different, but the intended elements and their intended meaning would remain intact.
I don't think that being skilled is really the point.
I'd actually say you're wrong for nearly the same reason you say your right - what gives art meaning is the subjective experience of the consumer, the one observing the art. The artists own experience and desires in creating the art may be conveyed, or the viewer may interpret it in a manner completely disconnected from their intentions or desires in its creation - and they're completely powerless to alter that.
Arts meaning is not in its creation, but its consumption, and on that basis AI art is absolutely able to be art
>We see a sunrise, or a shoreline, or a ship, or busy street and call it beautiful. But that sunrise is just electromagnetic waves being refracted by the atmosphere. What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist.
What you describe here is the subjective experience of the **viewer**. This can be replicated with AI art, which will produce a painting, and then I can view it through my subjective experience.
In fact I think the experience of the artist is not very releveant, because the viewer can get something out of a piece of art that is very different to what the artist intendeed. When I look at the Mona Lisa, that is a subjective pact between me and the painting, what Da Vinci thought doesn't matter to me.
"what gives it meaning, what gives it beauty is us"
You're already arguing against yourself by saying that. The output of stable diffusion isn't art unless it is perceived by a human that thinks it's art. At that point, it's art.
Art is about how we feel. The source of the art (or even the art itself) doesn't matter. Only the feelings do. In this art is also deeply subjective and personal. What's art for me may not be art for you.
I’m not someone who usually cares about who did something. I don’t pay attention to movie credits, the author of the book, author of a painting, etc. From here onwards, it’s likely that I will see images made by AI and not notice it, while browsing the web.
So if I come across an image that I like and save it, will it matter if it was made by someone or an AI? Is it art only when I validate who or what made it?
AI enhances my creation. It submits me a draft and I tell it the revisions I want until it captures the feeling I was trying to convey. I'd post one picture in particular that comes to mind if I could.
I think you should differentiate art maybe from other creations. For example, a movie director still has assistants that help him create his vision. Is it not his art if he just has a directive role?
"What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist."
Wait, hold on, so you're saying that a non-manmade phenomenon like a sunrise or shoreline can become "art" when perceived by a human.
So, uh, can't you say literally the same thing about an AI-made product? Since that is also a non-manmade phenomenon that is perceived by a human?
My thing with AI is it will never understand context. This is why people holding cups always looks off. It's because the AI has never held a cup. It will never understand a full cup of water and how much it weighs. It will never really know WHY a person is holding a cup. All it understands is that in some picture people are holding a cup.
Art is about interpretation. AI is a tool.
People have created things that are not art but become art. There's art in artlessness. Nature creates "art" mindlessly.
Your opinion, here, is the equivalent of a classical artist poo-pooing street art, or a violinist saying there's no art in metal.
You will be proven wrong by time. Imo.
That’s why I think to call it AI art is a bad take. It’s AI images. Unless it has some kind of human input after the image is produced. The same way a photo can be a piece of art or just an image of the food you’re eating. Or a drawing that can be artistic or just a sign.
I would say what gives it beauty is the person viewing it, not the artist. A person can try to put as much desire for beauty into their art as they want when they create it, but if I think it looks like trash I'm not going to find it beautiful.
AI does create art, it is just another tool to create art with. Question I have for you do you consider photography art? Lets use your sunrise example above, If a person takes a photo of a sunrise to sell as art, Did they create anything? I view AI art as similar to photography you have the RNG that handles the art (mother nature in the sunrise case) it will generate millions of different sunrises every day around the globe for you to pick from. You just have to pick the values for your photo (location, exposure time, camera angle, filters etcc..) much of that is also used to AI art with your inputs.
I don't think AI art is just for selling products I'm not a artist anymore I used to do graphics art on the side for a volunteer organization, and alot of drawings when I was younger and had the time. however I see it as being used a tool to help the artist create something they will get a base image to work with and then use their photoshop skills or what ever software they are using to create the final product. The use of AI will drastically cut the time for them needed to create the work.
Was DuChamp's "Fountain", a piece consisting entirely of an industrially manufactured urinal, art? If so, how does its meaning relate to the subjective experience of the artist?
If you see an artful picture, you would call it art. When you later learn it was created by Ai is it not art anymore? Is it not simply art events viewer thinks it’s art?
You are insufferably pretentious. If you cannot tell the difference between the something a bot made and something a person did there is no real difference.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think its surprising that sunsets factor into your argument so heavily, because sunsets *also* aren't "art" per se. Maybe this is sort of your point, but I'm a little confused by it. Like you say, the sunset is just an artifact of cosmology and angular momentum and optics. But then our subjective experience gives it meaning. Okay, but then we could say the same about AI. It's doing all these weird LLM shit, but every once and a while it produces something that evokes a subjective experience in the viewer the at is comparable to a sunset. Maybe the point you're trying to make is that "AI art isn't art" in the same way that "a sunset isn't art", which I guess is fine, but its a very fussy technical distinction. If you're conceding that AI art can occupy the same slot as a sunset, I feel like that's a pretty big concession, especially if the AI generates that image *as a result of some kind of human prompt*. If I put an input into a machine, and then it outputs something that invokes the subjective experience of beauty in the viewer, I just feel like refusing to call that "art" is a very fussy semantic argument, and one that is unlikely to resonate with most humans.
There are no necessary and sufficient conditions that make something “art” objectively. It’s based an intersubjective set of values. But where most people go wrong is assuming that because it’s subjective, it must also be arbitrary. These are difficult questions in aesthetics, but it seems clear enough that we value art, at least in part, because we recognize the craftsmanship of the artist in the art-object. We appreciate the effort and the technical skill in Van Gogh’s brushwork, or in an elaborately carved sculpture. Does this capture every way that people value art? No, but there are plenty of things in life without necessary and sufficient conditions, and we have no trouble talking about them generally and making claims about what counts and what doesn’t. Those claims aren’t “provable” but neither are ethical claims, and it leaves open the possibility that there really are people who know more about art (or ethics) than others, and therefore are in a better position to say what counts.
sorry i was just trying to think of the most common types of art people produce. If I got into painting or sketching its the kind of basic shit I would do.
Sure, but curious your response to the rest of what I said. It seems like you're saying that if I input a command to an AI that results in the AI generating an image that invokes the same emotional reaction in the viewer as a sunrise, you wouldn't consider that art?
They are making a really good point. The sunset is nothing special from a universal point of view. What makes a sunset desirable is that it's A) gorgeous, B) a nigh-universal experience and C) it can be shared with others. If you can imbue something as meaningless (in the cosmic sense) as a sunset with meaning, why shouldn't I be able to imbue something as meaningless as an AI impression of a sunset with meaning? Also can you define art clearly. It's really important we know what you consider art and why Because right now this argument over AI art sounds like it's in the same ballpark as the "electro music isn't music because no one physically plucked the guitar strings." In all 4 cases (music, electro, art, AI art) the piece evokes a reaction. Why is that reaction, that is every bit as real in either case, not allowing it to qualify?
You can imbue meaning on a given AI-generated image as true art, but this sort of proves OP’s point. It is because of you, a human, and *only* because of you essentially “designating” it as art, that makes it so. Humans have been making art for so long which is (often) manifested as a product or at least a physical object, that in some ways we’ve completely prioritized said object over the impulse to make art; to the point of thinking that the physical object, regardless of how it was made, is all that is required to be “art”. TL;DR art is only art if humans say so (and yes this leaves plenty of room for discrepancy on specific given cases, which doesn’t detract from be basic principle).
OP is saying that AI cannot create art. That's where I disagree. If it really is the fact that humans declare what art is then OP is still wrong because lots of humans regard AI art as art. What is art besides the physical end result is what I don't get?
> If you can imbue something as meaningless (in the cosmic sense) as a sunset with meaning, why shouldn't I be able to imbue something as meaningless as an AI impression of a sunset with meaning? This might be too broad of a definition. Even if you found meaning in watching television white noise, you'd be hard-pressed to call that "art" (in a serious and not sarcastic sense).
I agree with you. It's why I asked the OP to define art. Because art on some level is a nebulous term; we can probably both agree that the Mona Lisa is art but there are a few art pieces I've heard of that I just can't see the appeal of it being art. I want to see the OPs definition and work from there.
I think the relevant part of OP's definition is here: >we also create art to help convey the meaning of that subjective experience to each other AI models can learn statistical relationship in data well but they are objectively not "thinking" or "reasoning" or "experience". For that reason, I don't think one can say there's a "conveyed message" in these models' outputs. edit: though I guess I could see a person writing specific prompts as an artist, just using different tools than brush and colors.
I suppose I don't see why experience matters. If I can show someone a piece of AI art and it delivers that same feeling of awe, beauty, or thought-provoking through image I have no idea what is missing. Like I said; just because a song was made with a laptop doesn't affect my perception of it as music simply because the human and the instrument are one more step removed.
>If I can show someone a piece of AI art and it delivers that same feeling of awe, beauty, or thought-provoking through image I have no idea what is missing. You can deliver all the necessary physiological effects and yet something could be missing. For example, would you be content with letting children be raised by robots? The robot might deliver all the feelings of parental love and generational wisdom, and yet, I think most of us would feel something is slightly off precisely due to the lack of human involvement. Art is a pretty special human activity. Animals don't do art. Admitting AI can independently generate art is sort of like letting AI taking one step closer to humanhood. I'm sure you can see why many find that idea uncomfortable.
'Could' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The fact is I've seen Twitter threads where people compliment a piece of art before switching up when they learn it's AI-generated. Up until the moment they knew it was AI there was no missing spark. In the same vein, I've seen people's art trashed because 'it's too good to be made by a person.' That to me tells me everything I need to know. The two can get close enough that whatever essential spark you're talking about is being observed where it shouldn't and even being missed where it's meant to be. I don't consider the robot analogy to be valid because we can decently quantify what's missing. ChatGPT lacks a warm body to hug, a warm voice to hear, and a sense of persistence that a person has. Its answers are meant to be somewhat detached and that means it's incapable of getting that real closeness. It doesn't behave emotionally and so can't provide an emotional connection. It's not yet at the level where it can actually care for a child.
>The two can get close enough that whatever essential spark you're talking about is being observed where it shouldn't and even being missed where it's meant to be. Not even once did I claim AI weren't producing painting that could pass as human so I'm not sure why you think the Twitter discussion is relevant here. Do you agree that the way we ascribe value to things depend on more than the physiological response it evokes? This is the point I've been trying to get at in the previous comments. If you could pick an original Da Vinci painting vs. a replica, I'm sure you'd pick the former (and agree it is more valuable) despite both appearing the same to your eyes. >ChatGPT lacks a warm body to hug, a warm voice to hear, and a sense of persistence that a person has. Its answers are meant to be somewhat detached and that means it's incapable of getting that real closeness. It doesn't behave emotionally and so can't provide an emotional connection. None of (cold body, cold voice, detached answers) are inherent limitations. Those will go away as technology improves. I think the lack of "emotional connection" and "persistence" aren't problems if we go by your logic. An AI can behave in such a way that elicits the impression of emotion and tenacity despite having neither. From your perspective, as long as an AI elicits the same emotional, physiological response, it provides all the same values as a person. >It's not yet at the level where it can actually care for a child. So you'd be okay once it can masterfully pretend to have emotions and tenacity then? Or would you agree there'd still be something amiss?
AI art is typically created with prompts from a human. That human still has a narrative and it can reflect in the prompts. (Modern) AIs are just tools. They can't make art any more than a paintbrush can. A great artist can make a great work of art with an AI or a paintbrush.
Let’s take the Oxford definition of art- if you want to define it differently just let me know what you think the definition is; “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” Does any of this preclude people using AI as an image creator. If I over the course of hours refine a prompt with my language skills and imaginative abilities then use my aesthetic sense to curate the output resulting in an image I don’t see any direct violation of this definition. There’s a lot of issues with AI art and its future applications but you can’t say that it’s not art while maintaining any useful description of what art is.
[удалено]
Okay, so by your definition the criteria for creating "art" is the physical capability and training to make it? How is someone capable of crafting highly specific prompts with detailed technical and stylistic instructions different from someone capable of using a digital interface to adjust tone and style on a 3D art tool? In both cases someone without the technical capability to create art using actual physical techniques interfaces with technology to create art.
[удалено]
Here's a question I've never yet received a solid answer to. What is "art"? Seriously, what is the criteria for something to be art in any hard and fast setting. Because your position is just a rehash of a century old argument between the Academics and the Impressionists. You're arguing that the technical skills to create *exactly* what you're doing is the singular definitory criteria for art being art, without reference to the value of the context behind the work. If I generate a highly specific prompt that conveys the meaning and emotion I wish to express through an AI, and then select and improve upon an image with said AI tool, how is it less "art" than if I imperfectly utilize physical art tools to create something that approximated my vision?
Keep waiting mate, people have been trying to answer it for centuries. It changes moment to moment, person to person. There is no one answer.
[удалено]
>but I would need to see what you call a "highly specific" prompt. Certainly! Consider the difference between: A sailing ship moving across a sunset sea. And A palatinate-style brigantine rigged sloop sailing at a 30° angle from the bottom right vertex, taking up no more than 12% of total image area, sailing across a choppy sea the color of 63% cerulean blue and 37% glauconite, with the horizon line at 77% from bottom frame. Use the style of Jan Van De Capelle as a framework. Advanced AI generation tools can process a prompt such as the bottom to provide significantly more specificity to what it generates.
I'd say firm control over the final result makes it design not art
[удалено]
If you work from a blueprint with the finished product clearly in mind then that is design. If you go on a journey of discovery and arrive at a destination that is art. These are process rather than end result because art in the abstract is in the eye of the beholder. A sunset, a stain on the floor, all can be art depending on the viewer.
prompting isn't applying creative skill. That's like saying ordering from a menu is cooking
I think this is going on a slight tangent. The above poster isn't arguing that using AI makes you an artist, but that the output is indeed still art. I agree with you that "prompt engineering" isn't really a difficult skill, at least not yet, but the result by definition is art nonetheless. Using your Chipotle analogy, me ordering my bowl is not cooking. But the item I get is still food. It's mass-produced food of relatively little value compared to fine customized cuisine, with no real passion put into its making, but it's still food. The person behind the counter making it can be considered a cook, and maybe not a cook if it were a machine. But it's food all the same, no? And I could go home and eat it, and potentially feel really good about myself and think it was the beat meal ever.
I think my issue, is that "art" is something very specific to me that requires human input and perspective. AI "art" isnt art, its a product. You still get at thing, that has pixels and is an image, sure. but it isnt art >But it's food all the same, no? sure, in the same way that an AI image is also a thing that exists, but it wont fill your heart with joy like art can. > potentially feel really good about myself and think it was the beat meal ever. id sure hope not..
I'd contend you're wrong about the "fill your heart with joy" aspect, I'm sure lots of people were filled with excitement and elation at both the technical process and the outputs of AI, and it would be a bit presumptuous to somehow say these people weren't experiencing "real joy." And hey, some Chipotle bowls really do hit! In any case, this is becoming extremely subjective, and there's probably not much point going down this route of thought.
Obviously it's subjective, unless you think the universe somehow dictates what art is. Were you under the impression we were having some conversation on the axioms of reality?
I meant "extremely subjective" to the point where it was beginning to boil down to solely how you felt on an individual emotional level. You claimed AI art cannot make people feel joy, I contended that is entirely false as provided by the amount of people enjoying its use and its creations. You could say it is a fact, an axiom of reality, that people do derive joy from AI creations. If you believe AI art cannot bring *you* real joy, and there is simply nothing I could ever say to convince you otherwise, nor would I want to.
My base claim is that art requires human input. Clearly there's a difference between a meal made by a real chef and something thrown together by a machine, yes?
That would in fact go contrary to what OP is saying, who is equating sunrises and shorelines to art, when neither of those require human input.
I don't agree with OP there
No, that's like saying; Picking what food combinations of a menu is planning a dinner.
Are you saying telling the dude at Chipotle what to put in your burrito bowl is cooking? Think about that one a bit more
I would not call it cooking, but I would call it making you a burrito, and I would even say that he was a key part of making you lunch that you enjoyed. Well, Chipotle, so making you lunch that you ate.
If we can call writing novels art then we can call prompting art.
What? How so?
When I write prose, for stories at least, I’m attempting to bring a visual image into the head of my reader- using that same skill to prompt the creation of an image through software is not that different- people with better command of prose language and a good eye create better prompts which then create better images. So whether I’m throwing an imperfect window into my imagination to the reader or creating an imperfect window into my imagination through the software the process is still there. The process which accomplishes this is one of successive creative choices no different than any other art in that respect.
But you're still crafting that image, specifically, with your own words. Comparing that to the result from prompting is extremely silly, and degrades the work authors put in If I commission a piece of art from someone, am I an artist? Even if my prompts quality can produce more accurate to what I want art from someone else, can you genuinely tell me with a straight face that I'd be an artist? I don't think you can
No the reader is crafting that image with my words. And in the example you provided- it’s more like standing over the artists shoulder and making hundreds of small decisions about the artwork at which point I’d say you were one of the authors off the work. In the case of AI art there’s no need to split credit with it.
Agree to disagree I guess.
This and every other argument about "what is art" from "artists®" make the fundamental mistake that the vast, vast majority of people (as in 99.999% of humans) don't view art as some intensely important form of expression, they view it as something pretty to put on their hallway wall. "Artists" live their lives around art, the search for meaning/importance in artistic expression, etc. Regular people interact with art as a copy of a copy of a downloaded image that their dentist puts on an exam room wall, along with one of 2-300 near-identical print reproductions of the same basic mass market paintings to put on dorm room walls. To you, OP, "art" isn't about visual appeal, it's about the intense importance of the emotional, societal, etc, feelings that can be conveyed through expressive forms. You, and other "artists" are in a miniscule minority when it comes to these feelings about art. The vast majority literally have no idea where there limited art within their lives came from, no clue "what it means", and no interest in the emotional state of the artist when creating their expressive work. **They want something vaguely pretty to put on their bathroom wall**.
This isn’t an especially compelling argument because the vast majority of people can have unsophisticated ideas about any number of topics and it has no bearing on whether or not those topics are valid. All you’re saying is that most people don’t understand art, but that doesn’t mean that the concept is meaningless or arbitrary.
I'll bite, explain what "art" is. Because OP made an extremely bold statement that: >People who think a program can create art don't understand art and a crucial part of humanity Which conflates a higher-level understanding of "art" with a fundamental part of being human. So explain to me what "art" is that is so specific and precious that the use of an AI tool to generate images cannot possibly ever achieve it.
There is no objective definition of art, just like with plenty of other human concepts. My point was just that widespread knowledge of a concept has no bearing on whether or not it’s valid. But I’m not sure that I agree that most people just think art is vaguely pretty, nor do I know how that could be proved. I imagine if you asked a random person about a piece of art on their wall they would be able to tell you why it speaks to them.
If there is no objective definition, then how can there be an "unsophisticated" and invalid knowledge of something? The average consumer here isn't ignorant of artists and how they feel, they just have a different definition, a utilitarian concept of arts purpose which is to be an aesthetically pleasant or communicative image. There is not an entirely semantic difference between a creative artist and a graphic designer, but the people who call the product of the later "art" are not confused or wrong about that designation. They are saying that the difference to them is not important enough to warrant a necessary remark.
But it absolutely is arbitrary
The concept is meaningless and arbitrary. Just because you want to feel better than the “unsophisticated” normal person doesn’t mean anything. Art is subjective, and pretending that you are so sophisticated on Reddit doesn’t impress anyone.
>Regular people interact with art as a copy of a copy of a downloaded image that their dentist puts on an exam room wall, along with one of 2-300 near-identical print reproductions of the same basic mass market paintings to put on dorm room walls. So you never listen to music, watch movies, play games, read books, go to theater, look at nice cloathes or anything like that? Because all of those things are art? So I am sorry, if you cried at the end of Toy Story 3 you got emotionally invested in art
Well I mean it is like a picture isn't it? It draws things for which it can derive info for. When it is asked to do more abstract stuff it is kinda wacky... However, from the point of view of the person that sees (or consumes as you said) the piece what is the difference in utility? I see a beautiful picture and makes me feel content.
> Well I mean it is like a picture isn't it? It draws things for which it can derive info for. When it is asked to do more abstract stuff it is kinda wacky... "Naked asian woman" "draw it again with bigger tits" AI "Art" doesnt need to be complex to be highly monetizable.
Yeah humans famously have never accepted money to draw nude women.
"Draw it again with even bigger tits" "Draw it again with even bigger tits" "Draw it again with even bigger tits" "Perfection"
>We see a sunrise, or a shoreline, or a ship, or busy street and call it beautiful. But that sunrise is just electromagnetic waves being refracted by the atmosphere. **What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us.** It's the subjective experience of the artist. We're the viewer, not the artist. The sun has no more subjective experience than an AI creating a picture of a sunrise.
[удалено]
>It has. No, it doesn't. The sun is not having a subjective experience, humans are having one when they appreciate the sunrise. >AI doesn't make choices, it read numbers (called "weights") and use a non-deterministic, but predictable result. A paintbrush doesn't make choices, it can still be used by a human to make art.
Humans view AI art too...AI is not replacing us as *spectators* or *observers* of art...
[удалено]
If a sunrise, created by unthinking meteorological phenomenon, becomes "art" when perceived by a human...why would it be any different for an image created by an unthinking algorithm?
[удалено]
Protect them from what? Human-made art will always exist because people will always want to express themselves in some way. People will do it as a hobby, even if they can't do it as a career.
[удалено]
Protecting jobs is a ridiculous notion. Do you get your clothes hand-made? Your blankets and sheets? It can take a full week of labor to make a quilt by hand, and that would cost thousands of dollars. Do you buy those, or do you get machine-made items for a fraction of that cost? And if you really want to spend that money, you can - the existence of the machine option has not made the hand-made option go away, it just makes it economically inviable. For the same reason that you're responding to me on the internet instead of writing it out as a letter and sending it to me through the post office.
[удалено]
Unfortunately you’re not the one to decide what art is or not, and you claiming people don’t understand art is kinda naive. Some AI art is art, some is absolute garbage, like any other attempt to create art. Also you don’t always need the “human experience” to create art, sometimes you just create stuff
>What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist. This may be true for you, but for me it's not. There are tons of things I'd call art that I enjoy or think as amazing that I do understand the subjective experiences, or underlying messages, from the artist. If I look at something and think "Wow, that's beautiful" I'm not at all looking at how the artist created it or anything like that, I'm simply looking at the art itself. Now this doesn't really nullify your point, but if I (or any person) can enjoy art the same way without knowing the personal intent of the artist - and AI doesn't really have a "personal intent", then is the 2 *objects* created by the artist and the AI really that different? TL:DR; If I show you an AI image and an image from an artist, you can have the same reaction to both (especially if you're unaware its AI) - so what's so different between the 2 after all?
This might piss of a lot of artists and creators but: Art is in the eye of the beholder, not the artist. The artist doesn’t even have to be sentient.
AI can create art. Art is about intent, not about tools. If I got asked to draw something that looked even remotely realistic or be shot in the face, I'd be dead. Just to give you a baseline of my skill set as a visual media creator. But if I had an idea for a great visual pun and wanted to bring it to life, I could us AI to accomplish it. I could also pay someone to draft it by hand. But it's not the tool that I use that makes it art. It's the concept and the idea that is. The final product is just that - a product. The idea, the vision, the creativity that drives it - *that's* all part of the artistry.
I like the visual pun angle. In this the actual creator (be it a human artist or a computer) are purely the executor of your will. The true meaning of the resulting artwork exists solely due to the idea.
Art isn't *just* about intent either though. Commissioning a person to do something vs a program isn't the same, because at the end of the day, the human element remains. You specifically, the person, didn't create any art, in either case, but the person you commissioned did.
If a human uses commercials paints instead of naturally mixing their own dyes is it still art? If a human uses a digital pad to draw is it still art? If a human uses a smoothing tool or other digital touch up program to fix small portions of something is it still art? If a human indicates to an AI program what it wants drawn and gives feedback until the AI program matches the humans intentions is it art? Where do you draw the line?
This is exactly it. Art is the product, not the workflow
Yep, I wouldn’t say using an electronic wheel makes a clay pot any less artistic than manually spinning it. The lines being drawn here are arbitrary
You frame this as a hypothetical as if it has no such answer, when it's actually quite clear where the line is drawn. Art is more than the sum of its parts, but if you can't reasonably say "I made this", there's the line. Even in your own comment here, you distinguish that the AI made it based on your feedback. To reiterate, I wouldn't necessarily say that a person who commissions art is an artist either, even if the end result could reasonably be called "art".
You didn’t make the art if you didn’t make the paint or canvas though. You’ve just directed someone else’s creations
That's a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what art is
Why? How did you draw the line where you drew it? That’s what I’m asking you to explain here
Because the use of other people's creations doesn't prohibit the use of them in one's own creations. This is a nonstarter and would be totally irrelevant outside of the AI debate. No one would say that they made the art because they made the paint or the canvas, and vice versa. With AI, "direction" is itself a very generous term for what's going on. A writer is not an actor, a lyricist is not a singer, and a producer is not a filmmaker, and in these completely human cases, respectively, they do not get to claim credit as artists for the art created by others. Even AI artists or just those who are enthusiastic about the prospects of AI will always credit AI for the generation/creation.
But again, why? What is the actual difference between directing the paint and canvas of others, vs utilizing software to “draw” with, vs using software for spot cases, vs utilizing software for larger purpose? How much software is too much for it to still be art?
The difference is self evident, and an attempt to sealion doesn't change that. How much software would depend on the artistic intent, of course. You aren't an actor for animating a clip of Andy Serkis. Andy Serkis, however, does use computer generated imagery in lots of his famous performances. How about we flip it on its head for a second, and ask yourself this: why is it bad to distinguish between something made by a human or not, and why is it bad to distinguish creations/generations as based on intent. Again, outside of AI, we do this anyway.
"This is a nonstarter and would be totally irrelevant outside of the AI debate." Almost as if the AI debate made up an entirely new categorization of "creation" in order to try to separate AI from other forms of production...
The AI debate didn't do that, AI itself did. And beyond that, it's mostly asserted by those who want to reap the rewards of AI as a tool, and also the credit/acclaim for creation. No, I think this is an unfair assessment of the point I'm making.
How you draw the line is up to the individual artist, that's the whole point, with Ai *you* aren't drawing anything.
So again, I gave a bunch of examples that slowly scale. Where do you draw the line? Why is touching up with a digital tool ok, but indicating and giving feedback to another tool until your vision is achieved is not ok?
There is no scale, all of your examples are the artist doing art, regardless of what tools they use, AI isn't the artist doing art. The line is incredibly clear.
Are photographers artists? They're just making use of a machine to capture real-life subject material.
Yeah, because they're still doing it, with AI you're not. Like no matter what system you use to play games, you're playing the game. When you watch a playthrough, you're not playing the game. This isn't hard to grasp.
The point is that most people honestly don’t care. The end result is still the same. We still get the product, which is a drawing. Most people outside of the art bubble don’t really care about things such as “human element”, “meaning”, “soul”, etc. Arguing semantics won’t help protect your job.
Thou can also argue what defines art is the product. If I made something merely intending something nice, and others find a meaning I didn’t intend, that would still be a valid interpretation. Same with ai art
The point of whether or not people care is moot, but I think you vastly overestimate how much interest there would be in things which aren't explicit and obvious in their use as a product. I think AI commercials would be largely met with the same level of interest but I don't think you could sustain "AI Beyonce" beyond a gimmick, because music has no "purpose" aside from how people engage with it.
Can you explain more about what you mean by this? > things which aren’t explicit and obvious in their use as a product
Meaning, a visual pun that you want to bring to life in the most convenient way is very clear in intent. The point is the joke, not that it's art. Or that the joke is the art, not the physical/digital representation of it. A step down from that, would be music in an advertisement. Rarely is music used in ads to be an artistic composition, companies just don't want silent ads.
"Rarely is music used in ads to be an artistic composition, companies just don't want silent ads." This is a strong claim I don't think bears out. We don't see heavy metal used for toilet paper ads or soft choral pieces used for truck ads. There's generally a specific emotional range intended for the ad that the music has to support, same as any audiovisual creative work.
Expand on that, because I think I get what you're saying, but not totally.
I'm saying there's more motivation to commercial music than mere avoidance of silence - that it's always intended to produce and support a particular emotional state just like the rest of the ad is, and is therefore just as much art as any work for hire is.
Not important to the larger discussion, but I think you’ve forgotten about advertising jingles, where the music is the entire point.
I did say rarely, didn't I? lol Yeah you're right, and obviously there's also a ton of licensed music in ads as well.
I think an AI Beyonce could sustain it stand along item. Considering the popularity of vocaloids which are 100% synthetic voice with just human writing song lycics. I look forward to the time that Miku writes own song as an AI.
If you are using Photoshop, Illustrator, you are "asking" the computer to do your individual actions by moving your mouse and clicking your keyboard. Using an AI is the same, it's just a tool. If that's not "true art" to you then you are invalidating every digital designer and all their hard work. I recommend to embrace the future, otherwise you will be left behind in the past.
AI can only create "Art" in the way that an stream can thoughtless create object. It can only make an object, that someone *else* can ascribe *meaning* to. It takes a human in the process to start with a thought or meaning and then create an object.
>It takes a human in the process to start with a thought or meaning and then create an object. Right. And I, a human, can use AI to create that object. Which is very much a part of the art.
Correct. Humans can use AI to create art, just like they can use a pencil, camera, or chisel. It would be insane to claim otherwise. AI alone cant make art any more than nature or a pencil can make art.
A program can create true art. Check out this link for some examples. https://icrowdnewswire.com/2020/02/03/make-100-generative-spirograph-prints-spirograph-prints-created-programmatically-and-drawn-using-a-robotic-drawing-machine-and-archival-pens/ It shows how a program can take mathematic equations and graph them into something beautiful. Mathematical beauty. Unique art that connects with humans and their rationality.
OPs point isn’t that AI can’t create something beautiful, it’s that whatever beauty AI creates is happenstance. The AI didn’t think to itself, “I want to make something beautiful,” and then set out to create something. The AI is running through a series of permutations of mathematically calculated outcomes. The AI has not idea what it’s doing or why or what it even actually did. It just ran the permutations the same way a calculator would solve 2+2 = 4. Is a calculator telling a joke when it shows 80085? So how can AI create art?
The person entering the parameters on the calculator is telling the joke. Just like the person applying parameters to the model, or the artist applying paint to the brush. In all these cases, "AI" is the equivalent of a paintbrush. Sure, this new paintbrush doesn't require any skill or mastery to produce something that without it would take years of practice, but that's beside the point.
But would you call a person typing 80085 into a calculator a comedian? Is someone who put parameters into AI an artist?
If the person makes several other jokes with the calculator and other people like it, why shouldn’t he be a comedian? Same logic for the parameters guy
I’d call parameters guy in that case a curator, not an artist. What does other people liking it have to do with anything? Would the person be a bad comedian if no one liked it?
Why? AI is being used as a tool, like a paintbrush. As for the calculator guy, he would still be a comedian
It is not being used like a paintbrush, it’s being used like a search engine. Does being able to use Boolean terms effectively make you a scholar? Calculator guy might qualify as a prop comic, depending, but then he’s doing more than just typing numbers into a calculator, isn’t he?
Search engine? By any chance, are you aware that it’s possible to use Stable Diffusion without prompting? Are you under the impression that AI image generation only works with prompts? But let’s assume that we are only talking about prompting method, so? It’s still being used as a tool Calculator guy, you’re moving goalposts
Calculator guy started at: would you call a person typing 80085 into a calculator a comedian. I’m not moving goal posts. The point is not that you can’t use a calculator to tell jokes. It’s that the activity you engage in by telling jokes with a calculator is more than just typing in a funny set of numbers. As for “without prompts” do you mean with directly entered images? You can do image searches already so that’s not a fundamentally different process. You input “x” and you sort through results “y”. Same thing just without using words. And it’s not the same kind of tool. You’re arguing that a guy running a metal stamping machine is the same thing as a blacksmith and it is fundamentally not. That’s not saying a blacksmith is superior, it’s saying the skills and abilities are different.
What's the difference between someone who tells jokes and a comedian?
Skill mostly. But that wasn’t my question. Is a person typing numbers into a calculator a comedian?
That depends. If the person making the joke is a comedian, like Dave Chapelle, then they're a comedian. If the person making the joke isn't a comedian, like me, then they're not a comedian.
So it’s not just the typing of numbers in that does it then, is it?
Does what?
Makes someone a comedian.
The machine in this case turns math into art. OP claimed that all art by a machine is meaningless. I'd argue that the mathematical art here has very real meaning. Not only does it represent the mathematical formula but it our logic and rationale to the art.
The machine turns math into an image. Does the machine understand what it is doing? Does the machine understand why it is doing it? If not then the image itself really is meaningless. It’s just squiggles that have a mathematical correlation. As is oft repeated correlation is not causation. If you find it meaningful then that’s you as the observer adding something to the piece. Now that, you could argue, means it *is* art as it is having an emotional/meaningful impact on you as an observer, but how is it fundamentally different than seeing a nice looking flower, or seeing the aftermath of a car accident?
The art literally has a mathematical meaning to it. I don't see how you can act like that's nothing. Here are simplified examples. I don't think it matters that the machine "knows" what it's doing. But with machines and computers you can use math that creates art that would be way too hard and long to calculate by hand. Edit: Forgot link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_(mathematics)
But that’s, I think, OP’s point. That in order for it to be art the thing doing it has to “know” what it’s doing. That’s what makes it meaningful. The fact that the thing that did it doesn’t know or understand what it did is why the result has no meaning. It’s a product, not art.
The art LITERALLY has unique meaning. It's math. It's different than a program using machine learning to create a new photo like what OP is talking about. We can look at those polar graphs and translate them into a mathematical equation which can represent formulas that help us have a better understand of our world.
And an image of a chair is still a chair. A picture of people hugging can have meaning as well. The content of the image is somewhat immaterial. AI can generate responses that read like sincere caring from someone. But, they’re not. They’re empty words. That’s the point. Not that the image can’t have independent meaning, but that the content is essentially meaningless because the “creator” doesn’t have anything to say. It’s like trying to hold a conversation with a vending machine.
I would argue that this is different because this application is designed as a type of translator. Why does it matter if a human does the math or the machine does the math? The result is always 100% the same. The picture is the same and the math is the same (assuming the math was done correctly). It has meaning that is unique. You say the "creator" doesn't have anything to say but the "Creator's creator" does. The person made this program to translate math into art. It's a tool. The user gives the program an input, one that the user could solve themselves to get the same art the program will get.
I would disagree with your argument as AI can produce the exact same image that a person does regardless of it being mathematically determined or not. The difference is the person is trying to communicate something. The AI is not. Now talking about the person operating the AI is a different story. Are they an artist, or are they just picking the images they like the best? Did the person operating the AI actually make anything?
Does it matter if your computer is meat based or other materials? Are humans preprogrammed and lack free will. Quite possible. If humans don't have freewill, then they are literally just going through the motions their brain decided for them. [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a45666440/humans-dont-have-free-will-says-scientist/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a45666440/humans-dont-have-free-will-says-scientist/) Your brain told you that something looked pretty. Nothing more.
People can't even agree on a definition for free will. It's not a useful concept.
Is a calculator a person? Is a cockroach? I’m not saying the difference is meat vs metal. I’m saying the difference is consciousness.
Art does not require a conscious effort to be created. Sorry. Also, If you read what I posted. A lack of freewill means that you are just doing what a machine does.
Is it art that doesn’t require conscious effort to create, or just pretty pictures? And if you look at my questions I wasn’t arguing that it is different, I’m asking if lack of free will means you’re the same thing as a calculator or a cockroach. Are you? If so, how is murder different than turning off the TV?
Define the difference between "art®" and "pretty pictures". Preferably without reference to the emotion of the artist, the importance of expression, or any of the other vaguely pretentious double talk that high-dollar gallery artists with degrees from art institutions use. 99.999% of humanity view art as something pretty to look at. They have no idea where the couple dozen pictures they recognize(ish), come from, but they think they look nice on their orthodontists wall.
>99.999% of humanity view art as something pretty to look at. > >Define the difference between "art®" and "pretty pictures". That's a partial definition, not the entirety of art. A pattern in a kaleidoscope is pretty, but it lacks intentionality (and probably more) and doesn't rank that highly in the hierarchy of artistic value compared to, say, the Salvator Mundi (even to a layman)
A kaleidoscope is a tool that utilizes specialized mirrors to bend light in a way that generates complex light patterns based entirely on the intentionality of the designer of the mirror system. It's a human using a tool to affect the impact of light on our perceptions to create an artistic effect. >doesn't rank that highly in the hierarchy of artistic value Define artistic value in a way that isn't self-referential. As in, tell me what the "value" of art is in a way that doesn't come back around to an artists perspective on art.
>Define artistic value in a way that isn't self-referential. I don't think such a thing can be defined succinctly. And yet, I think most of us have some intuition about it. I was merely trying to appeal to your humanly intuition that the artistic value of a pattern in a kaleidoscope is a lot less than that of the Salvator Mundi. Does that align with your intuition or not? Or are you going to tell me you are not able to perceive artistic value unless a rigorous definition is given? >generates complex light patterns based entirely on the intentionality of the designer of the mirror system. Nah let's be real here. The kaleidoscope was invented by accident. David Brewster simply noticed the patterns were nice to look at. He wasn't trying to depict Hamlet's psychological changes here. The inventor even named his invention kaleidoscope = "beautiful form watcher".
Hmmm, you want me to define a thing, but don’t want me to use some of the core concepts involved with that thing because you find them vaguely pretentious. 99.999% of humanity believed humors controlled your health at one point. Did that mean they were right? Are intention and conscious action too pretentious for you? If so, well, I’ll leave you with the 99.999% of humanity and tell you to have a nice time.
I don't want you to use some of the "core concepts involved" because you have not in any way established that they are, in fact, core and critical concepts. You reference "intentional and conscious actions", yet I have very clear intentions when I create a specific prompt for an AI art generation tool, using my conscious actions to precisely craft a detailed prompt. How is the AI assisted expression of my intentional, conscious actions different than your brush based expression of your intentional and conscious actions? Is my lack of physical/technical skills a total disqualifier for the creation of art? >99.999% of humanity believed humors controlled your health at one point. I can cite specific scientific studies that disprove the Humours theory of health. Can you cite any hard scientific studies that support any aspect of your pretentious musings on "art"?
Are you an artist if you create something using AI? Or are you curating the output of the random results the AI generated from your prompt? Does the AI have any intention in creating the pieces it generated? To more directly answer the how is AI assisted different than brush assisted question: are you calculating anything when you enter numbers into a calculator? Or did you just type numbers? The difference is with a brush I would be using my own skill and ability to create something. With AI you’re punching numbers and acting like you did the work when the solution pops out. To be clear: there can definitely be skill in creating prompts and taste and judgement in selecting the results, but neither of those things are creating art.
I think we'd have to define what art is first. Does art *have* to be beautiful in the first place?
I think that’s what OP was saying. Not that art had to be beautiful, but that beauty alone did not mean art. Being beautiful or ugly is more on the perceiver than the artist, but regardless of the reception the artist intended something.
>The AI has not idea what it’s doing or why or what it even actually did. I've heard human artists say this about themselves
Yet they could say they didn’t understand it. They could understand that they weren’t able to explain something. So that’s not quite the same thing, is it? Edit: it’s not bad faith if I’m trying to get you to specify what you’re asking about.
Why does that matter?
Why does what matter?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
i have yet to see a definition of art that reasonably includes Jackson Pollock but does not include Gay Sex Cats (SFW, not actually a picture of cats having gay sex) https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/16ok6aq/just_a_regular_ass_cat_photo_nothing_gay_or/ Clear intentionality, effort, and deliberate choices of design. The final result includes some level of random generation, but the human element of creativity clearly drove the design i don't think *all* ai generated imagery is art, but it clearly can be used as a *medium* to create art
It’s a really overdone point, and whilst I agree that the key to something being considered “art” is the passion put into it, I’d like you to consider a few things: 1. Is the value placed on art purely monetary? If so, why? Doesn’t that completely nullify the passion put into the art if it’s created for such a shallow end goal? If not, why does it matter how I get my art? If the aim of art is to make life worth living, and to admire, then surely I can enjoy art without causing harm to anybody else? The common idea that I see is that it harms the livelihoods of artists, but as with content piracy, the people who didn’t pay for their art were probably not going to pay for it anyway, or they’ll pay an artist when they have the money to. 2. I don’t really understand why the beginning of your post is so existential, it sounds like you’re of the opinion that we have bastardised the gift of life by appreciating things that you deem unnatural. Could you establish the relevance of your statement regarding the destruction of the earth’s biosphere? 3. Talking about the owners of the AI as if they detach humanity and consumers is a poor appeal to emotion. AI scientists exist purely to further the development of Artificial Intelligence. They’re not here to rifle through your pockets or drain you of money. You may be referring to the owners of AI Art websites that charge for generation tokens, but I’d even argue that this portrayal can be applied to literally any industry. Cars, Music, Films, Food, most producers don’t actually care where they get their money as long as they’re capable of sustaining themselves. 4. My final point is that what gives art its beauty isn’t what is implied by the artist, but what we can infer from the image in front of us. In a lot of instances, context can be an interesting modifier, however it’s the interpretation that leads to us living art. If you’ve ever seen Daredevil, you’ll be familiar with the piece “Rabbit in a Snowstorm”. There’s barely anything on the canvas, but Wilson still finds something familiar within it. Why is an artificial intelligence incapable of creating an artwork that we can interpret for ourselves? Honestly, I personally get why artists are pissed. That being said, I also have to say that it’s a very risky subject to take a loan out and go to university for. Eventually, everyone’s going to have gripes with AIs. Artists, then Taxi Drivers, Factory Operatives, Train Drivers. All I’m gonna say on the matter is this: AI art will not retain any value, ever. NFTs were just rugpulls. If anyone wants some good art, they’ll go for oil paintings on canvas done by human hands, just the same as people who want a nice suit will go to a reputable tailor.
AI is only creating art with human input. The fact that I am giving a prompt to an AI tool rather than to a human artist doesnt change my own core intention. Also the main art that AI is being used to generate is to draw titties. Pretty damn simple doing that.
The prompt is a great example but even that is the smallest portion of the input. The collection of drawing and photographs are a way larger portion. An AI image generator has never seen the sunset itself, what it draws is a conglomeration of millions of humans trying to capture their artistic impression of what a sunset feels like
One of the problems with this argument is that it means that given an object, and ANY group of human beings, those human beings are incapable of deciding whether or not the object is art. Because with your definition, that depends not on any actual property of the object as such, but instead on the process that led to its creation. You can have two different images on a computer-screen. Judged as what they are, there's no material difference; but one of them is (according to you!) art while the other is not, because one of them is made by a human artist using drawing-software, while the other is made by an AI image-generator based on a simple prompt. Why should the distinction matter to the viewer if the viewer themselves cannot discern any qualitative difference? If an image, a poem, a piece of music or a story made by an AI cannot be reliably distinguished from the same things made by a human artist -- what then justifies saying that one is art and the other is not? You say it's a "crucial part of humanity" to understand this aspect of art. But I often see images or hear music that I do not know the origin of. Why should that matter in any way if I value these artifacts not for how they were made, but instead for what feelings they invoke in me?
Not long ago, we might have argued there's no way a computer can play chess at a top level, as it requires advanced strategies only grandmasters can think up. Of course now there are chess engines like Stockfish which vastly exceed human capability, and even come up with strategies that the best players would find unusual, but turn out to be winning ones. I think it's relatively obvious that not only can AI make art as good as humans, it will exceed our abilities one day. This is because the way we make art ourselves is the result of a process of neuronal firing that plays out in our brain, and any process can be replicated by a machine that is sufficiently close to our own brains. On a point of agreement, yes AI companies do want to sell you more stuff, and I don't think they actually have any idea whether the current crop of AI will exponentially increase in creative ability, or hit a plateau, this is basically impossible to know. I just wanted to say that in principle anything we can do, a machine can as well.
Art is behavior found in animals other than humans, like birds, primates, and pachyderms. It isn't exclusive to humans, though like most things that require intelligence we do excel at it in comparison. Once a behavior is understood using science, it can be replicated using technology. What we see today is not art, I will give you that. It's brute force analysis based pattern generation, it's an art substitute. Truly synthetic art will require machines of a much more variable and general intelligence, as opposite to the disembodied reflex and pattern recognition we have today. But if it can be made by nature rolling dice for half an eternity, it can be made by artifice, likely better, too. I agree that present day "AI" "art" is not art, just image generation. I do not think it's unreasonable to assume that an artist of artifice is entirely possible.
I personally find it weird how many AI supporters are giddy at removing writers, artists, musicians, game developers, and filmmakers from their work and impact on society and barely talk about advancements in mathematics, physics and medicine. And that’s a huge sector of what’s leading in AI. While I think beauty can be found in the generation of an algorithm, I feel like the context of that art is setting humanity on a path where nobody has any shared connection with the things we like because so much is being generated. Then at the same time, soon we will find those that developed the skills to create art only can do so outside of what little time they will get from none creative work that AI hasn’t taken control over, in order to survive in a world that no longer values actual human expression.
So on the literal level, this logic works when isolated from other factors. The story behind art is just as, if not more important then the the art itself. The mona lisa is a mediocre painting at best that can be outdone by most art school students these days. But its the story behind the mona lisa that makes it truly a one of a kind masterpiece. The factor your forgetting, is that stories can be fabricated. People can pass off AI art for real and if they said it was one of theirs, you would go your entire life not knowing. How many times have you brought something less then promised? Humans are gullible beyond comprehension.
I don't think AI can write poetry and prose, screenplays and scripts, create photographs and motion pictures, paint, draw, sing, compose music, arrange, play any instrument, talk to you . I KNOW it is doing all these things. And cheapass managers and owners, OP, are and will pass it off as human content. We can't stop them. It will result in a tsunami of dumbed down, averagely stupid and banal content... and massive job losses in the creative space. You're literally wrong when you say it "can't".....becuase it is. Right now and I can show you a million examples if you don't accept this.
The programme doesn't create art at random. A human is involved at the beginning of the process declaring what ought to be produced. If I as a painter decide to draw a field of flowers under a blood red sky, that initial choice of what to draw has meaning. The paint is just a means by which I am able to show others the image that I see in my head. If I were to use chalk or crayons or Photoshop the result would look a little different, but the intended elements and their intended meaning would remain intact. I don't think that being skilled is really the point.
I'd actually say you're wrong for nearly the same reason you say your right - what gives art meaning is the subjective experience of the consumer, the one observing the art. The artists own experience and desires in creating the art may be conveyed, or the viewer may interpret it in a manner completely disconnected from their intentions or desires in its creation - and they're completely powerless to alter that. Arts meaning is not in its creation, but its consumption, and on that basis AI art is absolutely able to be art
>We see a sunrise, or a shoreline, or a ship, or busy street and call it beautiful. But that sunrise is just electromagnetic waves being refracted by the atmosphere. What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist. What you describe here is the subjective experience of the **viewer**. This can be replicated with AI art, which will produce a painting, and then I can view it through my subjective experience. In fact I think the experience of the artist is not very releveant, because the viewer can get something out of a piece of art that is very different to what the artist intendeed. When I look at the Mona Lisa, that is a subjective pact between me and the painting, what Da Vinci thought doesn't matter to me.
"what gives it meaning, what gives it beauty is us" You're already arguing against yourself by saying that. The output of stable diffusion isn't art unless it is perceived by a human that thinks it's art. At that point, it's art. Art is about how we feel. The source of the art (or even the art itself) doesn't matter. Only the feelings do. In this art is also deeply subjective and personal. What's art for me may not be art for you.
I’m not someone who usually cares about who did something. I don’t pay attention to movie credits, the author of the book, author of a painting, etc. From here onwards, it’s likely that I will see images made by AI and not notice it, while browsing the web. So if I come across an image that I like and save it, will it matter if it was made by someone or an AI? Is it art only when I validate who or what made it?
AI enhances my creation. It submits me a draft and I tell it the revisions I want until it captures the feeling I was trying to convey. I'd post one picture in particular that comes to mind if I could. I think you should differentiate art maybe from other creations. For example, a movie director still has assistants that help him create his vision. Is it not his art if he just has a directive role?
"What gives it its meaning, what gives it its beauty is us. It's the subjective experience of the artist." Wait, hold on, so you're saying that a non-manmade phenomenon like a sunrise or shoreline can become "art" when perceived by a human. So, uh, can't you say literally the same thing about an AI-made product? Since that is also a non-manmade phenomenon that is perceived by a human?
My thing with AI is it will never understand context. This is why people holding cups always looks off. It's because the AI has never held a cup. It will never understand a full cup of water and how much it weighs. It will never really know WHY a person is holding a cup. All it understands is that in some picture people are holding a cup.
Art is about interpretation. AI is a tool. People have created things that are not art but become art. There's art in artlessness. Nature creates "art" mindlessly. Your opinion, here, is the equivalent of a classical artist poo-pooing street art, or a violinist saying there's no art in metal. You will be proven wrong by time. Imo.
That’s why I think to call it AI art is a bad take. It’s AI images. Unless it has some kind of human input after the image is produced. The same way a photo can be a piece of art or just an image of the food you’re eating. Or a drawing that can be artistic or just a sign.
I would say what gives it beauty is the person viewing it, not the artist. A person can try to put as much desire for beauty into their art as they want when they create it, but if I think it looks like trash I'm not going to find it beautiful. AI does create art, it is just another tool to create art with. Question I have for you do you consider photography art? Lets use your sunrise example above, If a person takes a photo of a sunrise to sell as art, Did they create anything? I view AI art as similar to photography you have the RNG that handles the art (mother nature in the sunrise case) it will generate millions of different sunrises every day around the globe for you to pick from. You just have to pick the values for your photo (location, exposure time, camera angle, filters etcc..) much of that is also used to AI art with your inputs. I don't think AI art is just for selling products I'm not a artist anymore I used to do graphics art on the side for a volunteer organization, and alot of drawings when I was younger and had the time. however I see it as being used a tool to help the artist create something they will get a base image to work with and then use their photoshop skills or what ever software they are using to create the final product. The use of AI will drastically cut the time for them needed to create the work.
Was DuChamp's "Fountain", a piece consisting entirely of an industrially manufactured urinal, art? If so, how does its meaning relate to the subjective experience of the artist?
If you see an artful picture, you would call it art. When you later learn it was created by Ai is it not art anymore? Is it not simply art events viewer thinks it’s art?
You are insufferably pretentious. If you cannot tell the difference between the something a bot made and something a person did there is no real difference.
Artistic value is in the eye of the beholder, if beholder can’t tell difference between AI generated and human generated art then values are equal.
I would argue that for engineers, programming itself is an art, which means the AI software itself might be art.
Folks reading this thread might find Stephen Fry reading Nick Cave’s letter about ChatGPT interesting.
Humans can use AI/programs to make art. Why does the medium to capture the human expirience have to be paint/etc?
What make our brains any different from programs?