←back to thread

125 points akeck | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.968s | source | bottom
Show context
knaik94 ◴[] No.33581116[source]
It's becoming harder to have a meaningful discussion on the topic of what defines art and what place AI generated images have moving forward. It feels like defending either side will cause backlash and people will implicitly include extra conclusions with a response.

There is a place for AI art generation and there is a place for artists. NFTs were interesting in how they overvalued otherwise mediocre art. These models are interesting in how they bring down the cost and experience needed for making derivative art.

To me, the creativity still lies in someone being able to produce something meaningful. Art is about being able to convey ideas in a way that's impossible to communicate in some other way. An artist is someone that makes art. In that sense everyone who has generated art is an artist. Oversaturating the world with derivative art will only make novel things stand out more.

It's very hard to share a nuanced take on this topic because this argument has become framed in such a binary way. With something like medicine, the value of a doctor's opinion is very clear to a layperson. But when it comes to art, the value of an artist's perspective is not clear at all. However, I think making parallels to music makes it clear for me. AI generated music will replace elevator music at best, but I don't think the public fears ai models will ever replace musicians. At most ai will complement the art creation process. The "soul" and novelty in art will always come from an idea another human wants to communicate.

replies(5): >>33581164 #>>33581409 #>>33581666 #>>33581811 #>>33582018 #
1. causality0 ◴[] No.33581164[source]
In terms of "what is art" I think it's just normal ludditism. AI is a tool just like the "sharpen" button in Photoshop. Sure it takes it easier, but so does using a computer and being able to draw on different layers make it easier than using paint and a canvas. People, now just like decades ago, are just grumpy at the idea of someone having an easier time than they had.
replies(1): >>33582320 #
2. jonathanstrange ◴[] No.33582320[source]
I don't think that's true in general, it really depends on the AI and the workflow. I've seen prompt-based "art" on r/stablediffusion that almost certainly violates existing copyright and looked very much like photoshopping existing images onto each other, violating the copyright of each of them. It is well-known that this type of work can be derivative and original, but it need not be. With some of the newer models, prompts can be literally one line of text like "photorealistic image of a girl on a motorbike." Even if the result counts as art, it is definitely not the artwork of the person who wrote the prompt.
replies(1): >>33582415 #
3. causality0 ◴[] No.33582415[source]
Is a photograph of a girl on a motorbike the artwork of the photographer?
replies(2): >>33582521 #>>33585648 #
4. jonathanstrange ◴[] No.33582521{3}[source]
That cannot be answered in general because it depends on the jurisdiction, the circumstances, and the settings. For example, in some European countries you need to get permission from the people you photograph unless they are persons of public interest. There may also be considerations about the motorbike (esp. logo and brand names on it) and things like buildings in the background, etc. To give another example, 3d car models in racing games need to be licensed by the car manufacturer, that's why e.g. Forza Horizon lacks certain car brands entirely.

But in any case, the difference is huge between writing a one-sentence prompt and choosing and arranging a motive, arranging the photo setting & lighting (unless it's a Paparazzi snapshot), getting and paying the models, and so on. If you compare this to prompt-based AI, some complex prompts may be judged as creative work, others are too simple to count as it. Changing the color, contrast and sharpness of an existing image also doesn't necessarily count as original artwork (but see some of Andy Warhol's work for differing opinions, of course).

replies(2): >>33583253 #>>33584139 #
5. fiedzia ◴[] No.33583253{4}[source]
> 3d car models in racing games need to be licensed by the car manufacturer

Is it a licence (in practice) for a right to brand name or really the look? Could Forza make a model that looks almost exactly like a Ferrari but name it Furrari?

6. causality0 ◴[] No.33584139{4}[source]
But in any case, the difference is huge between writing a one-sentence prompt and choosing and arranging a motive, arranging the photo setting & lighting

You know you're comparing the best example of photography with the worst example of using an AI, right?

A photographer may carefully study their craft and set up their shots. They can also be someone who puts no thought at all into taking an almost random photo. Same as someone can carefully tune the parameters of a model and refine their prompt until they get something which meets their exacting specifications, or they can be someone who grunts into a text box and clicks generate.

Playing around with Stable Diffusion running locally, comparing my output to the things held up as AI art removes any doubt in my mind as to whether the creators are artists. They are.

replies(1): >>33584837 #
7. jonathanstrange ◴[] No.33584837{5}[source]
You're restating what I said. Anyway, I agree, they're a bit like artists. One-paragraph poets, if you will.
8. dendriti ◴[] No.33585648{3}[source]
The fact that you think this is a "gotcha" is a strong indication that you have no business discussing the topic.