Does AI-generated art posted on lemmy bother you?
Does AI-generated art posted on lemmy bother you?
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're viewing a single thread.
Reading through the comments, I think OP's question is skipping the root of the controversy here, which is whether or not that content even is art.
As a child of the 90s, a good example that comes to mind would be something like the Windows Media Visualizer - colorful and fun to look at, but it's just an algorithm interpreting a sound.
If I sneezed into a microphone, ran that recording through Windows Media Player, then posted a screenshot of the swirly colors here exclaiming "Hey Lemmy - Do you like this art I made?" ...would that even be an honest question? It'd probably just get downvoted cuz folks would take one look at it and conclude "You didn't make that, and it's not art."
If I posted that same picture but instead with the title "Lol I sneezed into Windows Media Player, and the visualizer went nuts!" I'd probably get a more positive response - it'd still be a shitpost, but readers wouldn't feel like they're being lied to.
So... is an algorithm even capable of producing art?
And if no, is it the end product we have an issue with, or just the perception of being misled? ...cuz even if something isn't "art" doesn't mean it can't have beauty or some other feature worthy of our attention. Another poster mentioned sunsets - those aren't art, but we still admire the hell out of them.
My take on all of the above:
- Don't give a fuck if it's technically art or not
- If it's presented in a dishonest way, I don't like the post, and will downvote regardless of the content.
- If the content looks cool, I can appreciate that in-and-of-itself; so, as long as the presentation isn't misleading, I don't mind it at all.
If I sneezed into a microphone, ran that recording through Windows Media Player, then posted a screenshot of the swirly colors here exclaiming “Hey Lemmy - Do you like this art I made?” …would that even be an honest question? It’d probably just get downvoted cuz folks would take one look at it and conclude “You didn’t make that, and it’s not art.”
I'd argue there is potentially up to three artists here. The creator of the algorithm, the creator of the sound/music, and the person mashing the two together to create the final product. Just because a machine is used in the process doesn't remove the acts of expression.
Same with most AI tools. You have the creators of the training material (or culmination of inspiration), the engineers creating the AI, and the person leveraging both to create a derivative work. All artists in their own right, IMO.
Even if you created an LLM that just took a randomized seed and spit out trash poems and displays them only in an enclosed dark box all without any human interaction, I'd still consider that art. Put that in an art gallery installation and people would stand around and speculate over what was happening in the black box.
Anything can be art, it just needs someone to curate it and present it as art. The more important question is if it's good art.
So… is an algorithm even capable of producing art?
What is it exactly do you think humans do? An algorithm is a sequence(s) used to achieve goal(s). Isn't problem solving one of the most important aspects of our existence?
If you truly think human learning is anything like an algorithm you're even more delusional than I imagined.
Do you find insulting people to be convincing?
Why not just show your data? Prove that the human mind is not just a very complex biological computer? Preferably with math.
I'm not bothering because you're an LLM maximalist troll who's consistently had the most braindead, utterly ridiculous takes in any thread even vaguely related to AI, and anything I say gets ignored because you're too busy gargling OpenAI's balls. So instead, I'll just point and laugh at your absurdist takes. :)
Personal attacks will get you nowhere.
That example reminds me of a scene in exit through the gift shop where 'Mr Brainwash' has lined up a hundred pieces of paper on the floor and is splashing them with paint because he agreed to make artworks for every visitor and there's only a few minutes before opening.
Would it be art when the Slow-mo Guys or Mythbusters sell the backdrop from an explosives test involving paints?