AN AI band has 900,000 monthly listeners

How would one go around to making AI music...

Or more likely, I make music and have AI supplement it or make changes to it (like change my tone to a Synthpop sound or something like that)?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

By that metric it can have artistic value becuase it's a human operating the AI. As long as they have something clever or meaningful to say with it, it can be meaningful in the same way the toilet is.

For example, I'd argue that the way the Twitch streamer and youtuber wayneradiotv uses it has artistic value because he uses it cleverly. Maybe not a huge amount of artistic value, but at least as much as standard youtube fare
The original question was "is human art more of greater value than AI art?"

Humans can, in fact, use AI, just like any tool, to make art. But I would argue that putting a prompt into an LLM to create a "watercolor painting of a lake" does not have the same value as actually producing a watercolor of a lake because art is not just a product, it's an expression. The act of putting a brush to paper is as much a part of the art piece as the final product.

So yes, humans can use AI to create art. Which has value, because a human is doing it. But I would argue that whatever the AI produces isn't art. When the human uses the AI product to express something, now they have created art.
 


Or, more simply: why is human expression valued?

Because we are self-aware and have emotion that goes into our art and other creations. For example, the RPG stuff you create will always have more value than anything created solely by any AI or Bot, at least until they achieve Data levels of awareness and self-function. And even then, he still needed an emotion chip installed to be equal to humans in that area.
 

Because we are self-aware and have emotion that goes into our art and other creations. For example, the RPG stuff you create will always have more value than anything created solely by any AI or Bot, at least until they achieve Data levels of awareness and self-function. And even then, he still needed an emotion chip installed to be equal to humans in that area.
Rhetorical question. I was making a point, not asking a question. :)
 

You could also ask is an original piece of art of greater value than a fake or a replica? If so, why?
Conventional wisdom would seem to say yes, but when you look at digital art and really examine what's happening the answer is probably no. Every time you move a file between drives you're making a copy and deleting the original. Every time you move files between servers you're making a copy. For digital art even what passes as the master copy is probably a copy of a copy of a copy. Traditional art differs but that's arguably a matter of resolution; a photograph of the mona lisa doesn't copy the painting atom for atom; if you somehow did copy the painting atom for atom, isotope for isotope, there would be no way to even say which was which
 

You could also ask is an original piece of art of greater value than a fake or a replica? If so, why?

Why is a Van Gogh more valued than a photocopy I made of a tree?
If we accept the implication of this is it raises the followup question: Is there any justice at all in the film and recording industries being so much more profitable and respected than live performers?

A movie star does their job once with nobody watching and peddles a bunch of cheap copies. A live actor does their job directly for the customer every day and gets paid less. I think the movie people need to be taken down a peg.

Anything you buy on spotify is already a replica, regardless of whether a human or an AI produced it.
 

Humans can, in fact, use AI, just like any tool, to make art. But I would argue that putting a prompt into an LLM to create a "watercolor painting of a lake" does not have the same value as actually producing a watercolor of a lake
I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees. The prompt is a human artifact, and it likely came from an emotion and may well create an emotion in the viewer, and it requires every bit as much skill and mastery as anything created by Jackson Pollock
 

I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees. The prompt is a human artifact, and it likely came from an emotion and may well create an emotion in the viewer, and it requires every bit as much skill and mastery as anything created by Jackson Pollock
Wow, and I absolutely disagree. I feel like you are communicating a really reductive view of art and artists as just creators of products and ignoring the fact that art is expression, movement, social response, and an almost uniquely human endeavor.

Typing a prompt into AI is nowhere near what artists do. And I don't just mean professional artists, I mean a kid with a crayon, a bored office worker doodling in their notebook, an art student in college, a tourist taking pictures of the beach. They are expressing themselves, exploring their relationship to the world around them, and creating something that literally no one else would create. That's art.

Typing something into an AI prompt is skipping all the process part of art, all the parts of us that help us question and understand our place in the universe, and go straight to the product. It's a facsimile of art, and it is not an artistic process.

I feel like you name dropped Jackson Pollock because splats of paint on a canvas seem easy to create? But that's ignoring that Pollock understood color theory, the chemistry of paint, and was exploring abstract art as a rejection of certain political movements. In other words, whatever the product, the process of Pollock creating his work is what gives it value. You could create a million prompts to ask AI to create a Jackson Pollock painting and yet it would not have the same cultural value as an artist (professional or amateur) creating art.
 

I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees.
This is the most crucial part imo. It is easy for many to reject 100% AI art based on prompting alone. But AI as part of a creative process? Giving AI original concept art, generating many developed versions, and then modifying those into a final product?

The boundaries get fuzzy, human expression is more involved, and many of the anti AI arguments break down.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top