Technology

59374 readers

7113 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

378

Redditors Vent and Complain When People Mock Their "AI Art" (futurism.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

266 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Respectfully disagree. There's a plethora of artists with exceptional skills that create photorealistic art in several mediums. While the process takes an inordinate amount of time it is completely devoid of any creative input. These are essentially human xerox machines that match color values from a photo using the naked eye. The skill is impressive, the art: not so much.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Isn't that what the person you replied just said?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

No. The person I replied to was exclusively praising skill and emphasizing its relevance to the final product. I pointed out that effort does not by default result in an original or creative product. OP dismisses effort and equates time with quality. Take for instance japanese calligraphy: the master places only a handful of strokes to render something gorgeous. On the other hand, someone could spend 80 hours meticulously recreating a photorealistic portrait in watercolor but it's just a human xerox at that point. The human element is completely missed.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They didn't say that though? The last paragraph made it clear (to me) that they were saying the end result isn't the only part of at that makes it impressive, but also the effort/skill involved

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I guess you're right. I suppose this last phrase threw me off:

i don't need to take time to look at stuff people didn't take time to make

The way I read it this statement stands apart from the rest of their comment. Skill is nice--I agree--but I stand by my original statement: time or effort does not by default result in an artistic product. I suppose I could have read it wrong in that the comment as a whole is a bit disjointed.

load more comments (4 replies)