←back to thread

125 points akeck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
causality0 ◴[] No.33582415[source]
Is a photograph of a girl on a motorbike the artwork of the photographer?
replies(2): >>33582521 #>>33585648 #
1. dendriti ◴[] No.33585648[source]
The fact that you think this is a "gotcha" is a strong indication that you have no business discussing the topic.