Conversation

Notices

1. Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 03:42:03 JST Eugen Rochko

   I've been brewing on this thought for a while, but I think it comes down to, AI has no place in the arts. Machine-generated art has the appearance of what it is emulating, but no substance. Like cake made entirely of fondant. Or cardboard.

   • DJGummikuh (djgummikuh@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 03:44:30 JST DJGummikuh

     in reply to

     @Gargron I don't believe it to be so black and white. I mean it's always a question of focus in my opinion. Having e.g. some procedurally generated crowds as background to just flesh out an image that doesn't focus on background would be a valid usecase in my opinion. But yeah, fully-generated images are essentially just minced meat of everything that came before.

   • RG (ravigupta@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 03:53:03 JST RG

     in reply to

     @Gargron Does using Lightroom to de-noise your photos count as machine generated? Where do you draw the line?

   • Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈 (lazarou@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 03:53:21 JST Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈

     in reply to

     @Gargron Spot on, Art is about Humanity, no Humanity, no Art.
     There's no thought behind it, so who cares?

   • Pyperkub (pyperkub@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 03:55:22 JST Pyperkub

     in reply to

     @Gargron people said the same of photoshop and I think this may age the same way, FWIW, and I am blown away by Burt Monroy's artwork (I ran the computer labs for his photoshop classes, and he is amazing): https://www.bertmonroy.com/

   • Mullaney (mullaney@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 04:00:12 JST Mullaney

     in reply to

     @Gargron What if a writer uses speech to text AI to transcribe their words? What if they use it to suggest changes to grammar, or identify cliches in their writing so they can change it?

     Can a photographer not use any smart phones made after 2022 because of AI built into the exposure process?

     If a photographer uses AI with in painting to remove something from the background of an image is it not art?

     If a video editor uses AI to remove a safety wire from a video is that not art?

   • poldemo (poldemo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 04:05:34 JST poldemo

     in reply to

     @Gargron … and now, essays, art or not? 😉

   • RedtheBean (redthebean@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 04:27:02 JST RedtheBean

     in reply to

     @Gargron I think if working people owned the means of production, artists could use AI as a tool instead of being used like tools by its capitalist owners

   • Wotan Wagner 🇪🇺🇩🇪🇺🇦 (xstian@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 04:44:04 JST Wotan Wagner 🇪🇺🇩🇪🇺🇦

     in reply to

     @Gargron Well, it is actually the guy in front of the device, who defines and refines the prompt. I think it is more like variations of notes what the AI does. That is why my verdict is not that absolute.

   • KydiaMusic (kydiamusic@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 05:33:33 JST KydiaMusic

     in reply to

     @Gargron AI art, especially when compared to original human art, is fairly easy to spot—it lacks a certain mood or vibe—it conveys no emotion and lacks a point of view. It’s something about the way it attempts to use “light”—it’s directionless and without vision. Even a Thomas Kincaid painting conveys more emotion and artistic perspective than an AI generated image.

   • Nari (narinarinari@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 05:45:28 JST Nari

     in reply to

     @Gargron Unfortunately, for most people the appearance is what they care about, not the substance.

     In some cases the situation is even worse -- they don't care about the appearance or the substance of the art itself, they just care that they're seen consuming the kind of art that presents them in the best light.

   • Steve Barnes (starfia@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 06:45:25 JST Steve Barnes

     in reply to

     @Gargron –

     That's a fair characterization at least of the *current* forms of AI we've seen, but it sounds like you're only considering AI in the role of an artist – that's far from "no place." The whole sentiment sounds a little to me like: "paintbrushes don't even emulate anything – they're inanimate objects that just sit there. They have no place in the arts."

   • Healthcarer (healthcarer@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 06:55:54 JST Healthcarer

     in reply to

     @Gargron Sadly perhaps there is no choice. It may well routinely outsell any direct human product. But it is also a human product if that offers any comfort. A very few humans may find a bigger audience.

   • ikanreed (ikanreed@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 07:10:04 JST ikanreed

     in reply to

     @Gargron But cakes made entirely of fondant and cardboard both are used within the arts, aren't they?

     I don't mean this from a mean spirited place: don't garbage media have things to say?

   • sneaka 🫠 (sneaka@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 07:17:47 JST sneaka 🫠

     in reply to

     @Gargron I only read hand-written books, the printed word lacks humanity just saying lol

   • Aiono (aiono@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 07:35:46 JST Aiono

     in reply to

     @Gargron
     Also even if it could, like why would you automate one of the most entertaining part of being a human?
     Why not automate jobs so we work less and do more art?

   • TorontoWill (torontowill@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 07:39:55 JST TorontoWill

     in reply to

     @Gargron Agree. What gives art its meaning and impact is not just how it looks or sounds. It’s also the context of how it was made, what it’s trying to say, and what it says about the people who created it.

     E.g., the stunts in a Buster Keaton or Tom Cruise movie—What makes those exciting is knowing how dangerous and difficult they were to pull off, it’s not just how they look.

     Art that originates from effortless automation is soulless. Its only value comes through imitiation and deception.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 07:47:22 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     • Aiono

     @aiono Exactly!

   • naught101 (naught101@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 09:00:47 JST naught101

     in reply to

     @Gargron perfect for advertising then?

   • AT-AT Assault 🏳️‍⚧️ (atatassault@universeodon.com)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 10:31:52 JST AT-AT Assault 🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     @Gargron

     Difficult coming to terms with recognizing you're an organic computer? Because you are, and AI becoming as skilled, if not more so, than us, can be terrifying.

     But please don't delude yourself, or try to do the same to others, thinking that you're somehow intrinsically special. Magical thinking is FUCKING DANGEROUS. Magical Thinking has driven every genocide, every war, every crusade.

     AI is here to stay, and it makes damn good pictures. Don't discredit it, adapt to the new reality.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 10:31:52 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     • AT-AT Assault 🏳️‍⚧️

     @atatassault Lol. Lmao.

   • Max™ (maxthyme@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 10:33:05 JST Max™

     in reply to

     @Gargron Doctorow said llms are blurry jpegs of the web, and I agree.

   • The OwlChemist (owlchemist@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 15:07:29 JST The OwlChemist

     in reply to

     @Gargron I remember film photographers saying the same thing about digital.

     Then when digital became the preferred art form of photography, they all said the same thing about photoshop and digital manipulation.

     It’s interesting to behold this cycle of fear about new technology somehow invalidating the status quo, but it doesn’t. Film is still art. Digital is still art. Photoshopping and digital tweaking is the gold standard now.

     AI has a place in the arts, it just makes you uncomfortable.

   • Eugen Rochko (gargron@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 15:23:15 JST Eugen Rochko

     in reply to

     • The OwlChemist

     @owlchemist People say lots of things. The work of a photographer is inspiration, composition, framing, choice of medium, being in the right place at the right time. When that is reduced to "Generate a stunning photo of the Sistine Chapel" there is indeed nothing there left, and I for one have absolutely no interest wasting any time at all viewing an image that no human spent time and effort creating.

   • The OwlChemist (owlchemist@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 08-Dec-2023 22:40:45 JST The OwlChemist

     in reply to

     @Gargron when people take shots at AI, they almost always conveniently ignore that of course having an AI 100% generate an image is not art. The same way uploading someone else’s picture onto my camera isn’t art.

     But a camera is still an artistic tool. An AI that an artist works alongside is still an artistic tool.

     If you label the whole of AI as “not art”, without specifying that depends on how it’s used, maybe it’s not about art. It’s just popular to attack the low hanging fruit.