I know I expressed this already but the wind analogy doesn’t work here. It isn’t random nor undirected.
As far as copying goes - considering your staunch stance on what is and isn’t art I think it’s fair to say you have some involvement with it.
Regardless of the medium we all start the same way. Imitation. In traditional art we are trained by observing what the masses find pleasing. When we observe most artists work we can identify these roots. Very few artists art is not based in the works of those before them.
This article does a fine job of expressing the above.
AI assisted (generative) art is a tool that provides a user access to a compendium of learned styles. It lowers the barrier of entry to express yourself through art.
I posit that this is such a divisive topic because there is so little difference between how we learn and how these models do. It garners a lot of the same negativity that a prodigy might. “Why is it so easy for them when I worked so hard. They don’t appreciate it as much as me.”
In the end art belongs to nobody and everybody. Art is amorphous; formless. Art and artistic expression can exist anywhere- even here. I personally am not so high minded to gatekeep such a broad field.
I have no involvement with art. I have a lot of involvement with ai. I know what it makes is not art because I make the sausage, and that sausage is nothing but blown about and recombined shredded versions of everyone else’s art.
Ai doesn’t learn. That’s marketing. It can’t reason. It can’t create. It can only generate an endless stream of anything but art. It’s the antithesis of art.
I won’t respond to your next comment for what it’s worth. This conversation stopped having value five replies back.
Be that as it may: considering your involvement you should have known the differences between random copy and paste and pixel prediction. I’m afraid I doubt your claims. Your views on art were pretty polarized - I’m pleased to have provided contrast to them.
I know I expressed this already but the wind analogy doesn’t work here. It isn’t random nor undirected.
As far as copying goes - considering your staunch stance on what is and isn’t art I think it’s fair to say you have some involvement with it.
Regardless of the medium we all start the same way. Imitation. In traditional art we are trained by observing what the masses find pleasing. When we observe most artists work we can identify these roots. Very few artists art is not based in the works of those before them.
This article does a fine job of expressing the above.
AI assisted (generative) art is a tool that provides a user access to a compendium of learned styles. It lowers the barrier of entry to express yourself through art.
I posit that this is such a divisive topic because there is so little difference between how we learn and how these models do. It garners a lot of the same negativity that a prodigy might. “Why is it so easy for them when I worked so hard. They don’t appreciate it as much as me.”
In the end art belongs to nobody and everybody. Art is amorphous; formless. Art and artistic expression can exist anywhere- even here. I personally am not so high minded to gatekeep such a broad field.
I have no involvement with art. I have a lot of involvement with ai. I know what it makes is not art because I make the sausage, and that sausage is nothing but blown about and recombined shredded versions of everyone else’s art.
Ai doesn’t learn. That’s marketing. It can’t reason. It can’t create. It can only generate an endless stream of anything but art. It’s the antithesis of art.
I won’t respond to your next comment for what it’s worth. This conversation stopped having value five replies back.
Enough value to respond though. Interesting.
Be that as it may: considering your involvement you should have known the differences between random copy and paste and pixel prediction. I’m afraid I doubt your claims. Your views on art were pretty polarized - I’m pleased to have provided contrast to them.