If an AI created an image and it was very beautiful, would you call it art?
No, if art requires intention/effort?
Yes, if it evokes a strong emotion in you?
Yes, if it evokes a strong emotion in you?
26-30, M
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
Hmmm, interesting question. Probably not just the way I don't call beautiful natural scenery or patterns of snowflakes art. They are created by some algorithm exactly the same way. It's just that people were able to put it in numbers and visualize on screens. But otherwise it's the same old story. It's all nature, we are nature, we repeat patterns we observed around us in nature for centuries. We copy, we synthesize. Honestly, we give ourselves too much credit. People judge art by emotions it gives them but you can have a psychopathic singer giving a heartbreaking performance making you think it comes straight from her heart and experience and you feel emotional connection when in fact it all was just carefully observed on another people, copied and meticulously trained. (A real story I heard). So... 🤷🏻♀
Everyone acts as if human artists didn't synthesize and copy. Sorry but if you can't tell if the art piece was created by a human or AI and it attracted your attention, spoke to you, brought up great emotions in you then you need to ask yourself if you're truly interested in art itself or just the story around it. If you want to admire the art or the author behind it. If AI was capable of creating music that would sound exactly like Elvis Presley as if he just released brand new songs, a large portion of fans would reject it because it is not Elvis Presley. Therefore it has never been about the music but just about the cult of personality or idk, admiration of the brain and the anatomy of the vocal chords that were capable of creating such voice.
Art has always been something we ascribe to humans, something man-made. So I think that as long as people use AI as a tool to make the scenes in their mind visible and presentable to other people in original and creative way, it's still art. But if AI reached the point when it would create stuff perceivable by our senses on its own, I'd take it more as a part of nature, therefore something that is beyond us as humans. Man-made and original are crucial when we talk about art, I think.
Everyone acts as if human artists didn't synthesize and copy. Sorry but if you can't tell if the art piece was created by a human or AI and it attracted your attention, spoke to you, brought up great emotions in you then you need to ask yourself if you're truly interested in art itself or just the story around it. If you want to admire the art or the author behind it. If AI was capable of creating music that would sound exactly like Elvis Presley as if he just released brand new songs, a large portion of fans would reject it because it is not Elvis Presley. Therefore it has never been about the music but just about the cult of personality or idk, admiration of the brain and the anatomy of the vocal chords that were capable of creating such voice.
Art has always been something we ascribe to humans, something man-made. So I think that as long as people use AI as a tool to make the scenes in their mind visible and presentable to other people in original and creative way, it's still art. But if AI reached the point when it would create stuff perceivable by our senses on its own, I'd take it more as a part of nature, therefore something that is beyond us as humans. Man-made and original are crucial when we talk about art, I think.
View 2 more replies »
caPnAhab · 26-30, M
@CrazyMusicLover I'm interested in how the artist reacts to what he's putting on the paper. And the methods he uses to do it
Say for example, a slip of the hand creates a mistake and the vision for the whole picture needs to be improvised.
Or maybe a little accident ends up making it look better, but it's left in because the artist decided it
Say for example, a slip of the hand creates a mistake and the vision for the whole picture needs to be improvised.
Or maybe a little accident ends up making it look better, but it's left in because the artist decided it
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@caPnAhab Yep, same. That's what I admire and appreciate too. It takes talent to know what to do. And not just to satisfy one's artistic ideas but also make it the way that other people find it valuable too.
Ohplease47 · F
@CrazyMusicLover the human spirit is precious and can be imitated but never duplicated.
dirge · M
I'm having some trouble with the base assumption; that AI would create something that I'd call 'beautiful'. from everything I've seen, I can imagine calling ai art 'impressive', but I've yet to see anything I'd call beautiful. I'm a but torn, I feel like I want what I call art to take effort and/or talent. and maybe AI art takes a whole lot of prompt crafting that I don't know about, but it doesn't seem or sound like it.
anyway, overall I think I'd have a hard time calling it art. maybe I'd be more able to if someone included the prompt work they did with the presentation of the ai results, I'm usually more interested in 'the making of' any given art, but that might just be me.
overall - probably not, but I'm not saying that's a hard line. art is always moving and changing. 100 years ago, the idea of a movie being an art form would have been largely laughable.
anyway, overall I think I'd have a hard time calling it art. maybe I'd be more able to if someone included the prompt work they did with the presentation of the ai results, I'm usually more interested in 'the making of' any given art, but that might just be me.
overall - probably not, but I'm not saying that's a hard line. art is always moving and changing. 100 years ago, the idea of a movie being an art form would have been largely laughable.
ThirstenHowl · M
no, it isn't art, it is just plagiarism as it is constructing something based on all of the material it was "trained" on (without any permission from the owners of the material, which makes it ironic for companies like Google to complain when someone else "steals" their own AI, and many of the AI crawlers do not respect the robots.txt bot exclusion standard at all)
aside from plagiarism, the electricity and water appetite of AI is only adding to our environmental woes, threating to break our power grids, and giving backwards conservatives a pretext for building new fossil fuel and nuclear fission power plants to meet the demand for something no one asked for or needed to begin with (and companies like Google are trying to cover up their water usage, plus also get all other utility ratepayers and/or taxpayers to fund the new energy and water demands of the AI companies)
AI is disgusting in every way, and that's only at this current primitive stage with LLM's ... the long term existential threat to humanity of more advanced AI (cited by people like Stephen Hawking) has not gone away
moreover, in the nearer term, as the job losses from AI accelerate, and intersect with the lack of restrictions on overpopulation, it has the potential to make democracies fail if something like a universal basic income is not implemented by conservative welfare skeptics .... if enough people become desperate enough, there is likely to be something resembling revolutions, even if the militaries of these countries can easily crush the uprisings
moreover, "AI psychosis" is already leading to human deaths even now
the heads of the AI companies themselves are already keenly aware of all of this, but they still nonetheless prioritize profits over the risks and damage to humanity and the environment they are causing and will continue o cause
aside from plagiarism, the electricity and water appetite of AI is only adding to our environmental woes, threating to break our power grids, and giving backwards conservatives a pretext for building new fossil fuel and nuclear fission power plants to meet the demand for something no one asked for or needed to begin with (and companies like Google are trying to cover up their water usage, plus also get all other utility ratepayers and/or taxpayers to fund the new energy and water demands of the AI companies)
AI is disgusting in every way, and that's only at this current primitive stage with LLM's ... the long term existential threat to humanity of more advanced AI (cited by people like Stephen Hawking) has not gone away
moreover, in the nearer term, as the job losses from AI accelerate, and intersect with the lack of restrictions on overpopulation, it has the potential to make democracies fail if something like a universal basic income is not implemented by conservative welfare skeptics .... if enough people become desperate enough, there is likely to be something resembling revolutions, even if the militaries of these countries can easily crush the uprisings
moreover, "AI psychosis" is already leading to human deaths even now
the heads of the AI companies themselves are already keenly aware of all of this, but they still nonetheless prioritize profits over the risks and damage to humanity and the environment they are causing and will continue o cause
Ohplease47 · F
Your question shows the danger of the whole concept of artificial reality.
How can we live in a world where half our lives is supposedly real and the rest a fax
And we literally cant tell them apart
And they are not the same
Yet we must choose our very reality itself and risk getting it wrong half the time
Guaranteed chaos...and disruption untold...and the cultural madness that creates...?
How can we live in a world where half our lives is supposedly real and the rest a fax
And we literally cant tell them apart
And they are not the same
Yet we must choose our very reality itself and risk getting it wrong half the time
Guaranteed chaos...and disruption untold...and the cultural madness that creates...?
caPnAhab · 26-30, M
@Ohplease47 aside from art, I think abuse of AI brings up worrying security risks
Ohplease47 · F
@caPnAhab yea, nothing much stays the same when the gobsmacking truth is we are all owned people-dolls already...
FreestyleArt · 36-40, M