this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
328 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
59385 readers
932 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People are mad to realize something they thought was spiritual and purely human can be reduced to a mathematical algorithm and be generated by machines.
Some claim they're mad that it's because the training looked at art without permission to develop the algorithm (which everyone knows all artist do, making those people look like complete hypocrites), but that just sped it up. It would have happened eventually anyway, because the fact is, art is not spiritual or uniquely human, it's patterns and shapes, which computers are great at.
This seems disingenuous, because you equate algorithm training to human brain. I hope you dont seriously thing the process of looking at and thinking about art is that same for a human artist or an algorithm.
The point were it doesnt equate is the idea of style. Each artist is constantly refining their style of art. But the algorithm doesnt have it's own style and can only ape a style that already exists.
The foundational premise of this argument is purely that there's something "special" about human thought and that the way humans do pattern recognition is somehow "better" than a machine's.
Hey, don't claim to represent my opinion if you don't understand my reasoning. I don't think art is mystical or spiritual at all, not in the way you're describing it. Art is absolutely about patterns, and I agree that those patterns are inevitably going to be learned by computers.
My objection is not to "AI Art" in general, but to the specific type of art which is brute-force trained to mimic existing art styles. When organic artists take inspiration, they reverse engineer the style and build it up from fundamentals like perspective and lighting. Stable Diffusion and other brute-force ML algorithms don't yet know how to build those fundamentals. What they're doing is more like art forgery than it is like art.
And even then, I don't really take issue with forgery if it's done in good faith. People sell replicas of famous paintings, and as long as they're honest about it being a replica, that's cool too. Ethically my objection is that AI artists typically "hide their prompts" and try to sell their forgeries as originals.