Thread

Replies (52)

All artists borrow from others. Some even try to imitate as close to the original artist as possible. However, because they are human, they can not help but incorporate their own life experience or personality into their imitation, which creates a new original piece of art which inspires others and continues the process. AI is so good at imitating that the new piece feels hollow because there is no soul or artist personality incorporated into it. Maybe someday that will change.
↩ replying to npub1u006...vyvu
Wouldn't you agree that we can't make a blanket statement about all AI art having no soul/personality? I feel like that's the entire point of art is that it's so subjective. I've generated some AI art that stirred emotion and wonder in me due to how cool and interesting it looked, so what should my interpretation of that experience be through the lens of this discussion?
↩ replying to npub1rc8m...er0w
The more I think about it, the more I feel AI is just a tool used to make art. Like a synth. For example an artist could decide to make a piece of art with whatever they found in their trash and randomly place it in a collage. But the art is initiated by the idea to create the art which comes from the brain of the artist. The same with AI. It creates art but it is based on an initiating act from the user / artist. At some point AI could be capable of creating its own art using its own ideas. So, yes AI art is art as valid as any other form. But it has not made the leap to actually becoming an artist like a human… yet.
↩ replying to Silberengel
But why can't we say the same thing about person-generated art? Not every piece of human-made art is or even deserves to be saved just due to the basic reason it was created by a person. I think that it's too subjective, and this topic of discussion is guaranteed to go in circles, because the core premise of why art is a beautiful thing is that it is the essence of a subjective experience. For every million people who say AI art is worthless and garbage because it can be so easily produced, there will be someone out there like me who finds it to be beneficial and a wonderful and unique experience and saves the images that it generates.
I don't agree. The difference is humans are capable of creating something new. Being inspired by previous works. Currently, AI isn't creating something new because it doesn't think, reason, doesn't have lived experience, etc. It is an algorithm which given some inputs (the prompt) is predicting what is the most likely combination of pixels to output based the training set. Its why you ask a model produce a cartoon crab underwater and it gives you something reminiscent of Mr. krabs from sponge Bob (since that was part of the training set). You ask a human to do this and you will get wildly different results based on the person and their lived experience. One day when ai is better I'll agree, but right now its hardly ai to begin with and more a fancy curve fitting algorithm. Not to mention this argument feels like it misses the point: as a creator it feels so shitty knowing you built something and shared it on some platform only for the platform to use it to make money of your work. It may also be illegal, though thats a different story altogether. I don't think any amount of "well acshually all art is stolen content" will change that.
↩ replying to jb55
I don't agree at all and I'm not sure our current understanding of the human brain is in line with what you're saying. Humans don't go about the world predicting the right word to say next. There is understanding of what was said to them to help formulate the response. Also the choice of words you use may change based on who you're talking to, the socio-economic context you're in, etc. There is certainly an element of memorization for learning language and even how we engage with the world but it is much more complex than simply predicting or curve fitting. If human brains worked this way, GPT models would be much better than they are and wouldn't need millions of training data points and thousands of learning hours to mimic what we do. There are obviously very large differences in how we think and how these algorithms work.
↩ replying to npub16phx...7gjy
I have generated AI art that inspired wonder/emotion in me because it was so interesting to look at. It may be a derivative, but because I don't know the original inspirations, what I saw was new to me and thus I had a brand new subjective experience. I'd be interested to hear your take on this. Not using blanket statements, just thinking about on an individual level. What is the difference between me seeing AI-generated art and person-generated art if I don't know or care about the source, and the end result is the same? A novel, subjective experience that is different for me than other people due to my memory, experiences, and path through life. Is it still a net negative in that situation, or still just a "fancy curve fitting algorithm"? Or is it just... art at that point?
↩ replying to npub1rc8m...er0w
How you experience art is not the same question as whether or not the output of an AI model is art. It is interesting that ai generated images evokes those emotions in you. I find them souleless and same-y for the most part. But as you pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But yes, to me what makes art is the human behind it or the experience of consuming it. Both can be art. But without both, you have products. Its why even in a distant or not so distant future where ai generated music is topping charts and many people are enjoying it, those same people are unlikely to go to a concert for such things. There will be some people that would of course and its interesting to imagine what an ai concert would look like but part of going to concerts nowadays is to support a band you love, feel the energy from them performing live, from the crowd, feeling the passion for the music they wrote ooze out of them. With ai generated music, you won't get that though consuming the songs may invoke similar feelings as it the ai generated image did for you.
Jack sees a Shapeshifter and Shapeshifting is about a virtue and character, he’s the guy who came to meet me at the park, with his friends in a spiritual real, like the movie matrix @jack there is a saying trust is earned, and you have to treat your business like yourself
To me, most of this discussion seems to be luddites, artists who's work is profoundly derivative, where they have little value to add other than their ability to use graphic design software, or people who don't even have that but simply wish that they were artistic and don't like that their dreams are now even more unrealistic. So I feel for them, but how bad should I have felt for scribes when the printing press was invented?
Man has a body and consciousness with which he experiences the world, has emotions with which he reacts to it, and finally has a language with which to describe it. Reducing art to gluing together pieces of someone else's text or arranging pixels is close to ignorance. Especially since the phenomenon of art has been dealt with by the greatest thinkers and they have not, as far as I know, come to any consensus.
AI is just another tool, for the time being. Later, we can discuss whether AGI represents a new paradigm. I agree with you—we shouldn’t turn our backs on it. The smartest approach is to embrace and adapt to it; otherwise, we risk looking like those who once branded technological advances as witchcraft centuries ago 🧙🪄🤣
I am faster than the computer and the human, Like, for example, just by glimpse of a look at a picture of trinity kissing me , but we are humans were meant to be physical, because because it feeds the brain on a certain level, though, another hand when men are physical just with anyone, they become violent, ignorance, defiant, and so on
But it’s when they project to people like most people do you know what is right and wrong what is the projection of a healthy relationship have healthy, sexual relationship is like, pretending you know say you don’t need bigger boobs you need to read more more books while you sticking your dick in anybody’s titties
I don’t even wanna have this discussion, but what I’m just trying to say, is that false profit? Like a pretends to be the shepherd and I’m not talking about you well, what other people who come and tell me how to look at yourself
It’s like everybody wants to know the original, Like how people want to know God, but then when Jesus Christ came, and did Godly stuff people said, how dare you, because people have this illusion of how it should be and how it should look like
If you buy that a violation of copyright is stealing, then 1) even cases where a human artist created a fundamentally new work but none the less “copied” the original work, it was considered copyright infringement. “Rogers v. Koons”. 2) The infrastructure of AI requires “copying” the work into their database for learning. This copy is as a fact distributing the work without permission. 3) All techniques of AI are fundamentally “pattern matching” through math where the algorithms and their cost functions attempt to minimize the error of reproducing the pattern. Which is a fancy way of “copying”. 4) As a practical matter if creators are not able to enforce their copyrights by excluding others from copying and distributing their works without their permission they will not have an incentive to produce those works, if everyone goes to ChatGPT for a cake recipe, many of the recipe websites they scrapped from will not get their ad impressions and won’t be able to pay their server architecture, eventually they will close shop. Which will benefit the first movers OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, etc who have already copied the corpus of the web used in these AI implementations. I think creators, authors, and artists have a legitimate complaint. They should be able to extract payment from a license to use their works. Like they would if anyone else was going to create a derivative work from their efforts. If Sampling a baseline for use in your music even if you modify it is a violation of copyright, then it should be atleast as restricted as generating a model artifact that can reproduce your bass line with any transformations requested.
Its not stealing in a statist sense, its just very disrespectful to the artist, if done without their permission. And everybody knows that they would not give permission. Ergo it is a gold mine, based almost entirely on disrespect. And like every new mine, its a gray area in law, giving companies more freedom than they have in older, already regulated gold mines. Same also applies to code generation. One of the many reasons why I moved away from Github.. Btw regarding stealing: in a naturalist viewpoint we do not own things absolutely, not even our body. Owning is an abspraction of respect. You can only "own" things, if other humans respect you, either because of fear (like in our so-called modern societies) or because you showed that you actually deserve what you dare to "own". Now if we go back to KI: who "owns" the output of the KI? Since its entirely based on disrespect: nobody. But that certainly will change when the KI actually becomes AI.