Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 9237667" data-attributes="member: 57112">It is both easy and worthwhile to target AI &quot;art&quot; for the things it does incredibly poorly; faces and hands tend to be the most common &quot;gotchas&quot;, as well any kind of written text. But the problems go deeper: you mention the proportions and composition, of course, which goes into AI's inability to understand depth of field and... well... yeah, composition. But the problems go deeper still. And here I'm not even touching on the thornier ethical issues concerning &quot;training data&quot; or artists losing work, which are also both incredibly important.It's worth answering. What is art? There's no good specific answer to that, and anybody who tells you there is is almost certainly selling you something. But I think, even with all the back and forth and gatekeeping, there's a basis for a definition that anybody with actual academic or philosophical interest in the subject can agree upon: it's that it's a human activity. It's an act of expression, of creativity, of imagination. AI is incapable of any of those things, and will always be incapable of those things. All of those technical problems with AI &quot;art&quot;? The depth of field, the composition, proportionality, frakking fingers, eventually, and probably sometime soon, AI will probably get better at all of those things. But I doubt we'll reach a point where, beyond some basic imagery, we'll stop being able to tell human art and AI &quot;art&quot; apart, because the AI's output will always be lacking in express. It will always lack soul. And thus, what AI produces is not art at all; subpar or otherwise. Can it produce images? Sure. Can those images contain aesthetic quality? Sure. Is AI capable of aesthetic quality with dubious &quot;training&quot; on actual human artistic endeavors? Probably not. I'd trust AI prompts to create clipart. Icons, even. But I would trust it to create artwork, because it can't actually do that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 9237667, member: 57112"] It is both easy and worthwhile to target AI "art" for the things it does incredibly poorly; faces and hands tend to be the most common "gotchas", as well any kind of written text. But the problems go deeper: you mention the proportions and composition, of course, which goes into AI's inability to understand depth of field and... well... yeah, [I]composition. [/I]But the problems go deeper still. And here I'm not even touching on the thornier ethical issues concerning "training data" or artists losing work, which are also both incredibly important. It's worth answering. What is art? There's no good [I]specific [/I]answer to that, and anybody who tells you there is is almost certainly selling you something. But I think, even with all the back and forth and gatekeeping, there's a basis for a definition that anybody with actual academic or philosophical interest in the subject can agree upon: it's that it's a [I]human activity. [/I]It's an act of expression, of creativity, of imagination. AI is incapable of any of those things, and will always be incapable of those things. All of those technical problems with AI "art"? The depth of field, the composition, proportionality, [I]frakking fingers, [/I]eventually, and probably sometime soon, AI will probably get better at all of those things. But I doubt we'll reach a point where, beyond some basic imagery, we'll stop being able to tell human art and AI "art" apart, because the AI's output will [B][I]always [/I][/B]be lacking in [I]express[/I]. It will always lack [I]soul[/I]. And thus, what AI produces is not art at all; subpar or otherwise. Can it produce images? Sure. Can those images contain aesthetic quality? Sure. Is AI capable of aesthetic quality with dubious "training" on actual human artistic endeavors? Probably not. I'd trust AI prompts to create clipart. Icons, even. But I would trust it to create artwork, because it can't actually do that. [/QUOTE]

Verification