It reminds me to those hyper-realistic paintings that were trendy 15 years ago, they were impresive feats of skill but by the fifth in a row they became boring. AI is the same but without the skill.
I agree.To me art is an expression of the soul; it’s an expression of one’s perception of the world. It has spiritual qualities (in an atheist sense). There is an inner world that puts out together a piece of art that LLMs do not possess and that’s why they need to train on existing material that comes from human expression.
I highly doubt an LLM suffers, loves, hopes, hates and cries like us. Art is an expression of who we are individualy and collectively. LLMs only hallucinate with art made by humans. While we humans can find inspiration from other artists, it is not a necessity to train on vast databases of art pieces to put something together. They say that while it’s hard to define what art is, you know it when you see it. To me when I get that feeling from something made by AI, all I really see is a piece of an other artist’s soul trapped in some sort of simulacrum put together by an algorithm.
Cut the training material and AI “art” will stagnate. We, on the other hand, won’t.
That’s why I think AI art will never really be art… unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
AI generation is a gradient from clean up to controlling every pixel.
If an artist draws the line art, does basic coloring, but has a network do the sharing, that’s art. How far does that carry?
Surely, anything that had heart and soul poured into it is art, right? Text prompt, or otherwise. You don’t have to resonate with it. You can be scared of it.
But you said imagination, feeling, skill make up art. It is bold, or naive, to think those who create AI works doesn’t have these traits, like to say the hobbies, programmers, and the curious, aren’t artists.
I tend to agree with that. I also hate that of all the great uses for generative AI, this is the direction they took the tech. It’s not a replacement for whole jobs, and I knew that at the onset, but so many dumb business types thought it could replace entire departments, customer service, etc.
to be honest, i’m not only referring to images. any kind of what so called “art” since it’s possible now to make “music” with AI. thanks for the response anyway.
I don’t think we’re at the level AI prompting can be used to reflect the subtlety needed to make art. It’s like chainsaw art, cool and mebbe art but it’s not art like the old masters art.
Also everyone thinking that shitting out a Rembrandt liking image is fantastic does not understand what art really is.
The person inputting prompt modifications may have controlled the larger assets as a whole, but they did not curate the Gestalt of the image. If the input is text that a computer is to output as a literal estimation, then it is data, not art; if the input is data curated by a person who means for a computer to output it as plotted data, such as with a complex lineplot or 3D model or even text as ASCII images, then that can be art.
Yes even then. Writing a prompt is no more an artistic skill than describing your idea to an artist you’re commissioning. You didn’t create a damn thing. You will not be called an artist for commissioning a work.
If the person using the paintbrush is the artist - not the brush itself - then why doesn’t the same logic apply to AI? It’s just a tool, after all. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own. Sure, you could ask it to spit out a picture with no effort, but you can do the same with a camera. However, if you have a clear vision of how you want the final result to look, it’s a different story. Getting AI to output an image is easy. Getting it to output your image - that’s hard.
If you asked a human to draw an image of what you describe, it would be easier and you still would not be considered an artist. So why should a “prompt engineer” be considered an artist?
Well, firstly, “art” and “artist” are human-invented concepts - they don’t exist in the real world, only in our minds - so in the end, we’re essentially debating semantics. That said, if you hire an artist, then yes, they’re the artist, not you. But I don’t think that same logic applies to AI, because it’s not making any decisions on its own. It’s a tool, just like a paintbrush, camera, or drums.
If an elephant paints a picture, is that art? And is the elephant the artist? If a child bangs on drums and is just making noise, is that art? Are they the artist? If I grab a camera, point it somewhere, and press a button, is that art? Am I the artist? Personally, I’d say each of those is easier to do than writing a prompt that actually produces the image you had in mind, yet I doubt you’d come telling me that my photography isn’t art only becuse I didn’t put enough effort into it.
I’m not hugely experienced with AI image generators, but I have played around with one, trying to get it to create a specific kind of picture I had in mind - and I’ve ended up with something like 70 variations, none of which quite hit the mark. I’ve already spent over four hours on this project, and if I somehow manage to figure out the right prompt and finally get the image I’m after, then yes - I’d say that’s art and I’m the artist.
I don’t even consider AI generated images to be art since there is no expression of skill, imagination, or feeling in them.
It reminds me to those hyper-realistic paintings that were trendy 15 years ago, they were impresive feats of skill but by the fifth in a row they became boring. AI is the same but without the skill.
I agree.To me art is an expression of the soul; it’s an expression of one’s perception of the world. It has spiritual qualities (in an atheist sense). There is an inner world that puts out together a piece of art that LLMs do not possess and that’s why they need to train on existing material that comes from human expression.
I highly doubt an LLM suffers, loves, hopes, hates and cries like us. Art is an expression of who we are individualy and collectively. LLMs only hallucinate with art made by humans. While we humans can find inspiration from other artists, it is not a necessity to train on vast databases of art pieces to put something together. They say that while it’s hard to define what art is, you know it when you see it. To me when I get that feeling from something made by AI, all I really see is a piece of an other artist’s soul trapped in some sort of simulacrum put together by an algorithm.
Cut the training material and AI “art” will stagnate. We, on the other hand, won’t.
That’s why I think AI art will never really be art… unless if one day they somehow develop a “soul” themselves and start to express an inner world of their own.
Gaius Baltar enters the chat.
Exactly this.
AI generation is a gradient from clean up to controlling every pixel.
If an artist draws the line art, does basic coloring, but has a network do the sharing, that’s art. How far does that carry?
Surely, anything that had heart and soul poured into it is art, right? Text prompt, or otherwise. You don’t have to resonate with it. You can be scared of it.
But you said imagination, feeling, skill make up art. It is bold, or naive, to think those who create AI works doesn’t have these traits, like to say the hobbies, programmers, and the curious, aren’t artists.
I tend to agree with that. I also hate that of all the great uses for generative AI, this is the direction they took the tech. It’s not a replacement for whole jobs, and I knew that at the onset, but so many dumb business types thought it could replace entire departments, customer service, etc.
to be honest, i’m not only referring to images. any kind of what so called “art” since it’s possible now to make “music” with AI. thanks for the response anyway.
Even if the image was regenerated with tweaked prompts until the generated image expressed what the prompter wanted to convey?
I don’t think we’re at the level AI prompting can be used to reflect the subtlety needed to make art. It’s like chainsaw art, cool and mebbe art but it’s not art like the old masters art.
Also everyone thinking that shitting out a Rembrandt liking image is fantastic does not understand what art really is.
The person inputting prompt modifications may have controlled the larger assets as a whole, but they did not curate the Gestalt of the image. If the input is text that a computer is to output as a literal estimation, then it is data, not art; if the input is data curated by a person who means for a computer to output it as plotted data, such as with a complex lineplot or 3D model or even text as ASCII images, then that can be art.
Yes even then. Writing a prompt is no more an artistic skill than describing your idea to an artist you’re commissioning. You didn’t create a damn thing. You will not be called an artist for commissioning a work.
Then it’s still just a commissioned work
But would that then imply that all commissioned works aren’t art?
Or does the difference of who (or more specifically what) you commission to produce something decide whether it’s art?
An artist has done the art in question. That makes all the difference.
If the person using the paintbrush is the artist - not the brush itself - then why doesn’t the same logic apply to AI? It’s just a tool, after all. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own. Sure, you could ask it to spit out a picture with no effort, but you can do the same with a camera. However, if you have a clear vision of how you want the final result to look, it’s a different story. Getting AI to output an image is easy. Getting it to output your image - that’s hard.
It’s not hard. What are you, a „prompt engineer“?
If you asked a human to draw an image of what you describe, it would be easier and you still would not be considered an artist. So why should a “prompt engineer” be considered an artist?
Well, firstly, “art” and “artist” are human-invented concepts - they don’t exist in the real world, only in our minds - so in the end, we’re essentially debating semantics. That said, if you hire an artist, then yes, they’re the artist, not you. But I don’t think that same logic applies to AI, because it’s not making any decisions on its own. It’s a tool, just like a paintbrush, camera, or drums.
If an elephant paints a picture, is that art? And is the elephant the artist? If a child bangs on drums and is just making noise, is that art? Are they the artist? If I grab a camera, point it somewhere, and press a button, is that art? Am I the artist? Personally, I’d say each of those is easier to do than writing a prompt that actually produces the image you had in mind, yet I doubt you’d come telling me that my photography isn’t art only becuse I didn’t put enough effort into it.
I’m not hugely experienced with AI image generators, but I have played around with one, trying to get it to create a specific kind of picture I had in mind - and I’ve ended up with something like 70 variations, none of which quite hit the mark. I’ve already spent over four hours on this project, and if I somehow manage to figure out the right prompt and finally get the image I’m after, then yes - I’d say that’s art and I’m the artist.