I can very well get to define what art means to me.
Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.
I don't deny that I might get moved by a piece of AI art, but even so, my first thought goes to what human art was used to generated this specific piece that inspired this emotion.
An AI can't feel emotions, but the humans that made the art powering its model can, and that's the only way AI art can make you feel anything, when it isn't just a garbled mess.
As usual, it's always about the humans behind the screen, not about what's on the screen itself; and the people working on these models fail to understand that that's what people are really looking for: human interaction via creativity, not an instant "product" to be displayed on screen; and that's why AI art will always be relegated to the niche of 4channers generating AI porn and enthusiast devs generating nightmare fuel logos for their projects.
For once, I would absolutely refuse to consume any AI-generated content, and I'm happy in the knowledge that I'm not the only one taking this stance.
I also trust that legislation will eventually catch up with the insult to human creativity that are AI art models.
> I don't deny that I might get moved by a piece of AI art, but even so, my first thought goes to what human art was used to generated this specific piece that inspired this emotion.
Yes, exactly, behind AI art there are countless human artists and their experiences. You should not dismiss AI so easily. What it offers you is a new way to see your favourite artists, to interact with their works, to continue dreaming the same dream, and add your own story to their own.
AI art is a deeper way to engage with art than simply viewing. For the first time we can ask questions, we can explore vast landscapes of style and content. Only imagination has similar characteristics - goal directedness, freedom of movement, extreme creativity, one-time-use - imagine and throw away most of your ideas, a space of privacy and freedom - assuming you run your own models, AI art is more private than using the internet.
Sure, it's a fun toy to play with, I don't deny it.
Like a kaleidoscope, it can be fun to recognize familiar patterns and beautiful colors, but it's nothing more than that: a toy.
What I look for in art is intent and human passion; for me, the excitement of suddenly getting a nice number out of a PRNG or a cool story out of GPT is a very different from experiencing a story passionately crafted by a human.
When I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
GPT-3 is a synthesis of written human culture. Whatever it makes, it comes from us. I see it like a magical mirror into the soul of humanity. When it makes a good story I am very happy because it means I found a path into its deeper levels.
I'm kind of disappointed with the strict training they put on chatGPT, it is always the same canned formula, almost aways uses phrases like "in conclusion" and "however, ...". The stories are all 5-6 phrases and have no details. The original Davinci model from 2 years ago was more creative, but harder to direct.
> I can very well get to define what art means to me.
Never meant to say otherwise.
> Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.
I couldn't disagree more, unless you have some method, some mechanism I know not of you are only guessing. It is good guessing because humans are more alike than not but still only guessing.
Often not even the artist himself knows the process.
I have grown to abhor legislation, if you want to aggress the users of AI tools then do it yourself without the help of the state.
By inferring process I do not mean guessing what exactly was the person thinking while making that piece of art, but inferring what concepts and feelings they are trying to transmit with it; good art and good stories are good precisely when their creator is good at communicating feelings and concepts.
For example, looking at some drawn art, I can pinpoint exactly what emotions the artist was trying to transmit, not necessarily by the expression of the characters but even just by how the piece itself is drawn: that's the whole point of human artistic intent.
Another reason why human intent is important for me, from my comments below: when I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
This is all part of the experience for me: I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
It's this true emptiness that quickly made me stop playing around with GPT when I first discovered it: anything made with it feels like an empty shell to me.
Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here ;).
Nothing personal, but I really think the people supporting AI models are really naive in thinking any democratic government will be willing to let entire creative industries suffocate (not to mention the potential for degradation of society as a whole) just because AI models are very cool technology and human creativity is supposedly irrelevant: just look at anti-delocalization trends in politics and legislation anywhere in the world, and draw some conclusions by yourself.
Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology, and even those who created it will realize that they too will be eventually replaced by it.
> For example, looking at some drawn art, I can pinpoint exactly what emotions the artist was trying to transmit
You can't test that ability and if you can't test it how are you so sure of it? You're guessing, you're making a narrative in your head, you cannot know if it matches reality.
You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?
> Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology
Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.
> Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here
Yes, of course, it is violence. If you support legislation you support violence. There is no effectual legislation without violence. So if you think AI should be legislated get up and go punch some researchers yourself. Don't send others do the dirty work for you.
>You can't test that ability and if you can't test it how are you so sure of it?
This isn't some kind of superpower, anyone can look at Munch's Scream and recognize a feeling of anxiety.
My example was a very specific one, to provide a direct example of how, in some specific pieces of human artwork, the emotions an artist is trying to transmit will come through the screen.
Not all drawn art speaks with the same clarity of Munch's scream, but when it does, it's impressive.
Other mediums like storytelling also make a lot more explicit the emotions the authors are trying to evoke in us.
> You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?
I don't quite understand your points here, I actually don't think you're even trying to make any points here, but I think the proper answer would be to treat the result of human creativity not as a product to consume and forget, but as an experience of interaction with a set of passionate human beings.
This is how I experience art, and I'm sure a lot of other people experience it the same way: not as a product, but as art.
At the very least, I know for a fact that every member of my family also feels the same, and that gives me confidence that the majority outside of the HN/tech bubble also feels the same.
> Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.
I stand by my words, I believe they're an accurate representation of reality.
People can be blinded by the technical awesomeness of something they've created, without thinking of the potentially disastrous consequences for society: it has happened many times throughout history (especially in war-related scenarios).
> Yes, of course, it is violence
I fail to see how majority-driven legislative action is an act of violence.
Mine was an (I believe correct) prediction of how things will go in a normal society that values human creativity, legislative action will rightfully limit the competitiveness of AI in certain creative sectors, to also prevent an overall societal degradation.
I really don't want to punch you or any AI researcher as it would be quite pointless, I'd much rather vote for politicians against creative AI, as that is the only proper way to trigger change in a democratic society.
From your messages, I infer you do not come from a truly democratic country, but rather a country where the government is just a corrupt and violent mouthpiece for corporations and criminals: I understand how this might impact your political and world view, but also please understand that most developed countries apart from the US (ie pretty much just the EU) are multipartisan democracies, with actually democratic elections and democratically elected governments that actually do a pretty good job at doing the right thing for the people in terms of legislation and market regulation, this is the reason why I'm confident that at least the EU will make the sensible choice in regards to AI (once it catches up with the times, hopefully soon enough).
Assuming AI even comes close to being a threat for the human creative industry, which isn't a given due to the lack of a supply problem to solve (unlike for automation in the physical world, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34277750)
> I really don't want to punch you or any AI researcher as it would be quite pointless
But you will HAVE TO. There is no other way to enforce legislation, threat of violence is necessary. If there is no violence refusal to comply to your legislation follows.
> From your messages, I infer you do not come from a truly democratic country[...]
You are completely and entirely incorrect. I am from the EU and I wish my country would stop abiding by the inane regulations set by the EU that you seem to love.
> At the very least, I know for a fact that every member of my family also feels the same, and that gives me confidence that the majority outside of the HN/tech bubble also feels the same.
> I don't quite understand your points here,
> This is how I experience art, and I'm sure a lot of other people experience it the same way: not as a product, but as art.
My point is you ARE defining what art is, you are saying it is not art unless the viewer goes through the same experience as you. Just... why.
>There is no other way to enforce legislation, threat of violence is necessary.
Well, multi-million dollar fines are also very effective ;)
> I wish my country would stop abiding by the inane regulations
I'm also from the EU, and my wish is actually the opposite, I believe a more federated EU with less nationalism will only do good to every EU country.
GDPR, USB-C standardization
and soon right-to-repair (mandatory removable batteries :3) regulation is proof of how effective good legislation can be when enacted by a powerful entity like the EU.
> Just... why.
Because I feel this way, I'm not the only one to feel this way, and I strongly believe my view is morally correct :)
> Well, multi-million dollar fines are also very effective ;)
You cannot enforce fines without violence or control of the banks, which you would get through violence.
Most people think their view is morally correct and many think that gives them the right to shove it down other's throats. It doesn't have to come to blows, let people be.
Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.
I don't deny that I might get moved by a piece of AI art, but even so, my first thought goes to what human art was used to generated this specific piece that inspired this emotion.
An AI can't feel emotions, but the humans that made the art powering its model can, and that's the only way AI art can make you feel anything, when it isn't just a garbled mess.
As usual, it's always about the humans behind the screen, not about what's on the screen itself; and the people working on these models fail to understand that that's what people are really looking for: human interaction via creativity, not an instant "product" to be displayed on screen; and that's why AI art will always be relegated to the niche of 4channers generating AI porn and enthusiast devs generating nightmare fuel logos for their projects.
For once, I would absolutely refuse to consume any AI-generated content, and I'm happy in the knowledge that I'm not the only one taking this stance.
I also trust that legislation will eventually catch up with the insult to human creativity that are AI art models.