People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
You're viewing a single thread.
You mean when you strip away people's knee-jerk negative bias to AI art, people really just like art that looks good? Shocking. It's almost as if the push against AI art is futile as, despite people's complaints, it can pretty consistently produce good outputs.
not everything you don't like is knee-jerk reaction...
a lot of people have minds with or without your ability to imagine other perspectivesTrue but irrelevant as the sudden general hatred for generative art truly is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.
for some, i suppose... but by and large, these individuals do have actual reasons...
you can pretend like everyone that hates it is just following a trend, but it's not useful and just a strawman.it may seem like a "sudden general hatred" but generative images are relatively only suddenly good... so any reaction would be likewise sudden.
personally, i'm on both sides. i've seen some cool stuff, and see it as a great tool for artists to build off of, and for enabling non-artists to create cool pictures for whatever reason...
however, the fact that the data set is mostly copyrighted works and the artists who actually trained the ai aren't being compensated... and never gave permission...
as well as a shit load of poseur artists pretending like they made something, or pretending like tweaking prompts makes them an artist...there's a whole thing in studying art with understanding the background of the artist... the context and environment, and the meaning of the work...
there is no perspective in ai generated images... (until AGI, i suppose)
it might be the same to the average person, but that doesn't really matter. the average person wouldn't appreciate most contemporary artwork...As someone been in the field a long time before tha AI boom, just trust me. It's knee jerk. They have no good reason to hate generative art, even the idiotic way they fed copyrighted work into some models does not explain in the least why anyone should hate an entire way of making art
i pretty much explained it so, ok...
No you did not and have a very limited view of what generative art is.
Do you realise that in the eighties when the first generative artists arrived it was without this knee jerk shit, and studied just as much as the other art
In whatever case you may not decide what is art and not, nor pretend that it only seems sudden. It is sudden. Hatred for no good reason, just because it's popular opinion. It will very soon feel really foolish to have such a stance because some of the big companies are disrespectful. It is just an art form. Nothing worth hate about it
yeah, you're not making art if you tell AI to draw you a pretty picture... neither is the ai...
get over itAnything someone calls art is art. If they only shit, it's art. It's important you understand this.
It's valid for you to say "I don't care for AI art and think it's cheap" which, I also agree with, however, what you are engaged in is harmful aggressive rhetoric.
And no. Generative art is not telling ai to draw. You are delusional and blinded by rage.
Stop being a child, as soon as possible.
ok, your mom is art then...
Anything someone calls art is art.
and you're extremely wrong to say it's not " valid" to say that...
No
yOu JuSt DoN't LiKe iT is almost never an honest argument.
Is it futile because of how easy to use and usually used by creatively bankrupt annoying tech bro, or is it futile because they have multibillion company backing them?
Idk, i can't tell.
I dislike AI art because of the process of its creation, rather than its visual quality. Everyone faking art with AI can fuck right off.
So let me ask you something. Like with the people in this article, if you see an image and it captures your attention, inspires you, makes you go "wow that's stunning & thought provoking!", then after the fact you learn it was made by AI, do all those previous feelings become invalid?
It just seems like you're having to convince yourself that it's bad. Like suddenly deciding a cake tastes bad because you learned the badder was mixed in a pink mixing bowl, despite previously saying how much you liked it. As if your enjoyment of the final product is somehow meaningless compared to how it got there.
All those feelings become invalid because the thought that was provoked by the image will be some generic and unoriginal thing picked up by the GenAI during training rather than new, original ideas by the author. If that thought was intended by the author of the GenAI image that'd be cool with me, but there's frankly no way of knowing for sure and it's very unlikely, so I just reject all GenAI art.
I see we have a fundamental disagreement on what ultimately matters in a piece of art. You believe it is the artist's thoughts and intentions that are important, while I believe that it is the thoughts and emotions each individual feels when experiencing the final product.
Personally, I try to learn as little about the artist as possible before judging a work. It doesn't matter to me if the artist was an accomplished French artisan with decades of experience, or if they were a 7 year old Chinese girl. I don't really care if the artist was channeling their feelings of loneliness in a chaotic world by depicting a lone rowboat in a lake, or if they just passingly thought a rowboat would be a good addition to their pretty lake painting. I prefer interpreting a work from an unbiased perspective, I suppose that's why it doesn't matter to me if a work of art was made by a human or AI, because it doesn't fundamentally change the final product or my experience of it.
people really just like art that looks good?
This is simply false, and completely misses the point of art.