this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
217 points (87.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
2329 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I find that i can spot AI Images fairly easily these days, especially the sort of fantastical tableaus that get posted to the various AI communities around lemmy. I'm tired of seeing them; it all looks the same to me. Was wondering if im being too sensitive, or if other people are similarly bored of the constant unimaginative AI spam...

For the record, I block any explicit AI Art communities that pop up in the feed, but there are more every day...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

I can’t stand anything AI generated, but people are free to post it wherever they want. I just block/filter it when I see it.

I’ll also add: it’s not art. No one punching a sentence into a text field is EVER going to be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless images ever be called art.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Funnily enough people said the same thing when photography was first invented ("No one pressing a button and getting a perfect representation of the real world will EVER be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless imitations be called art.")

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how often this has happened in history. Imagine the first person making a handprint on a cave wall being told that it only counts as art if you make stacks of animal bones.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But even this application is limited to the mere reduction of copying of works previously engraved or drawn; for, however ingenious the process or surprising the results of photography, it must be remembered that this art only aspires to copy, it cannot invent. The camera, it is true, is a most accurate copyist, but it is no substitute for original thought or invention.

-The Crayon, 1855

In particular, art historians are wary of the "high-tech" look of computer-generated images, and they tend to keep away from them for that reason alone. In a sense, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: as long as the majority of art historians shy away from computer art, the historical discourse surrounding the new images will remain an impoverished "ghetto"... ... It is true, I would point out, that any new technology seems at first to have an overwhelming, often irrelevant meaning that comes from the peculiarities of its medium. When prints first appeared in the fifteenth century, they had such a different "look" that they were segregated from more traditional media.

-James Elkins, Art Institute of Chicago, 1993

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Freaken crazy. I admit I was being a bit cheeky, I didn't think anyone ever wrote something like that and published it. It just feels so obvious, of course photography and computer generated art is art. Thanks for doing the homework!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

it's not art

Oooh, a chance to ask my favourite question!

Why not?

See, I have never really gotten what most would call "art". I've been to museums across the world, big and small; I can appreciate skill in creating a complex piece. But I'm not "good" with art. Most of what I saw in the MoMA I wouldn't call art. Two solid black circles on a white page, I wouldn't call art; nor "found art" like an unmade bed or a broken toilet; nor the seizure that is Pollock's work. But others do, and I accept that they find something in it even though I don't understand how someone can pick up a bucket with a hole in it from the curb and put it on a stool under a spotlight, and call it "art".

So yeah, what makes AI art not art? And who made you the arbitrator?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s not art. Accept it or don’t. I don’t care, but it’s not up for debate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why isn't it up for debate? Pretty sure every idea can be challenged. Maybe it isn't up for debate because you don't want to exert the effort to defend your viewpoint and want us to take you on faith

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Punching a short sentence into a text field and expecting to be called an artists is the same as asking a computer to write a song for you and saying you’re a musician.

It’s an affront to art, and cringey as fuck when these AI “artists” think they’ve accomplished something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Please produce the person who did this. I want a name and a date.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Everyone that creates shit. You want me to name everyone? Check instagram. There’s plenty of these talentless wannabes posting their garbage there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sorry about your luck, kiddo. Consider this a lesson on not getting what you want.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pretty typical when something doesn't exist. I should have known from dealing with theists all my life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

My refusal to answer your stupid question is in no way the proof you needed to make your ridiculous point. I saw your “gotcha” a million miles away kiddo. And it’s dumb. Therefore I am refusing to let you lead the discussion in that direction.

Oh, and by the way…

The whole- yu diDn’T aNsWeR me sO tHaT mEaNs i’M riGhT!” trope has never worked on people that actually know that that isn’t how things work. I get that your friends in school kick rocks over shit like that, but it doesn’t work in the real world.

I’m not obligated to answer dumb questions by immature children trying to create an argument out of my opinion.

AI isn’t art.

Deal with it.

Lastly, how exactly am I a theist? I’d love to know how you made that leap. Should be hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I hope all those traditional artists are paying royalties to the people who invented their instruments and brushes and pencils. I hope they are paying royalties to Monet for being inspired by his work, and to Neaderthal Tregg the first to sharpen a stick, et al.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

It’s amusing that you think this is an argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, reasonable people have reasons for believing the things they do, so I think I'll just label you unreasonable and move on with my day, random internet stranger.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That’s fine. I can be unreasonable to you. Just like you accusing me of being unreasonable, while seemingly not accepting that I can have an opinion is both ironic and hypocritical.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't want to defend current ai art but writing sentences falls under art for me even if they get adapted on their way to the final product.

Though I also think programmers, knitters... can create art.

An AI use case I think is OK and is art. Is using your own sketches and ideas and taking them to the finish by filling in the background or coloring/shading it.

Edit: On another note. Let's look at it from the perspective of an indie game developer using Godot. He programs his game logic finishes his sketches with ai. Generates materials with ai and maybe even 3d models in the future.

He won't hire artists. So they don't get paid. However he also uses insane amounts of open source libraries written by thousands of programmers. They don't get anything either. If he is kind they get attribution maybe some will even get donations. The indie dev could create something he would not have been able to create without these technologies.

A big corporation creating AAA games can also cut costs massivly. Absuing the work of artists by using their data without paying. These companies also take from open source and give nothing back.

I think the abuse of artists that is starting to happen, is very similar to the abuse open source has been suffering for a long time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

It's very much art, it's just not very good art if it's not well-directed, but you can certainly get there. I don't understand this gatekeeping like it takes anything away from human-generated art. It is, after all, still based on works made by people.

That said, I've met a couple of artists who could learn a thing or two from the AI stuff. 😅

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

'its not art." But here it is making you talk about it and feel emotions.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think there can never be a standard definition of art - and that's the beauty of it. Perhaps some broad characteristics, namely that art conveys emotions. Nevertheless, I think it is unfortunately true that creativity has never been accorded the status it deserve in most societies, at least if monetary remuneration is the measure of appreciation, as is the consensus in most societies. Unfortunately, this seems to me to be a persistent social grievance - not the result of a particular technology. For me, technology is first of all value-free - it is not the technical capability that is bad in itself, it is what we make of it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For me, technology is first of all value-free -

North Korea has artillery canisters loaded with bioweapons. If it is all a question of what we make of things what positive thing would you make out of a canister full of anthrax designed to be fit in an artillery gun?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The canister could be used for research into a vaccination.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How? How can you possibly use an artillery shell for vaccine research? I want to see you do it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Anthrax is an infection caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. If you had a canister full of that bacterium, you could use it for vaccine research - or as a weapon if you are straight up evil. Why are you asking me random questions?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

You are allowed to walk back a claim. It is fine.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (16 children)

It's also initiated and selected by a human. Just because they aren't placing every pixel or wiping a brush on a medium doesn't mean it's not expression.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago