But it’s not that easy. If this rando dev’s creation never catches the public’s attention how can they love it, hate it, forgive it and love it again. So this positive-quality-creature can’t be a star.
And how about acting? You don’t think that acting is an art. That actors actually create a character, that’s either boring for the audience or catching it’s empathy. If there’s no actor creating this character, than the rando dev has to create them.
And to make a movie they have to create a lot of different characters and some will turn out to be better in creating characters than others. So they will be famous for doing it great. The public will admire them and they will have their moments on the red carpet and get the chance to make a racist remark or slap someone in the face.
You know, Mark Twain was such a rando dev. And he got a lot of fame. And now the fame will be coming back to the authors…
I don’t think the question is art vs not art. “Art” is an abstraction bestowed upon something by the viewer.
I think a lot of people are still struggling with this, but popular “art” is already largely devoid of humanity, and reduced to formulaic focus group fluff, and has been for a long, long time now. AI just streamlines the processes we already have.
Any additional debate on this will reduce to linguistics. You can - “I know it when I see it” - all you want, but that’s a cop out. The reality is that media which produces a specific neurochemical response in humans doesn’t, and never has required human input. A breathtaking landscape. A feeling of tranquility during snowfall. A kinship with an animal. An AI generated image. These are all the same process.
Once it’s been trained on the data of every movie ever made, won’t the AI be able to figure out what exactly makes a performance nuanced and captivating? We’re at the very start of this AI journey and it’s often indistinguishable from real life already.
If I teach a neural network to draw with only my picture, the art is mine and of all people who contributed to creating the AI technology, including theory, software, hardware (because each of them contribute to the final result as much as the training data - even more in reality)…
If I teach someone to draw, and I am the only input he’s ever had in his life, art is his, but I contributed to it.
But it’s not that easy. If this rando dev’s creation never catches the public’s attention how can they love it, hate it, forgive it and love it again. So this positive-quality-creature can’t be a star.
And how about acting? You don’t think that acting is an art. That actors actually create a character, that’s either boring for the audience or catching it’s empathy. If there’s no actor creating this character, than the rando dev has to create them.
And to make a movie they have to create a lot of different characters and some will turn out to be better in creating characters than others. So they will be famous for doing it great. The public will admire them and they will have their moments on the red carpet and get the chance to make a racist remark or slap someone in the face.
You know, Mark Twain was such a rando dev. And he got a lot of fame. And now the fame will be coming back to the authors…
I don’t think the question is art vs not art. “Art” is an abstraction bestowed upon something by the viewer.
I think a lot of people are still struggling with this, but popular “art” is already largely devoid of humanity, and reduced to formulaic focus group fluff, and has been for a long, long time now. AI just streamlines the processes we already have.
Any additional debate on this will reduce to linguistics. You can - “I know it when I see it” - all you want, but that’s a cop out. The reality is that media which produces a specific neurochemical response in humans doesn’t, and never has required human input. A breathtaking landscape. A feeling of tranquility during snowfall. A kinship with an animal. An AI generated image. These are all the same process.
Once it’s been trained on the data of every movie ever made, won’t the AI be able to figure out what exactly makes a performance nuanced and captivating? We’re at the very start of this AI journey and it’s often indistinguishable from real life already.
Yeah I’m not sure why people think art is only creatable by humans.
Because an AI is created by humans. If an AI can create art, that art is ultimately created by humans
So if you teach someone to paint all their art is created by you?
Don’t think that stands up really.
If I teach a neural network to draw with only my picture, the art is mine and of all people who contributed to creating the AI technology, including theory, software, hardware (because each of them contribute to the final result as much as the training data - even more in reality)…
If I teach someone to draw, and I am the only input he’s ever had in his life, art is his, but I contributed to it.
Computers are not people
People aren’t anything special. We are essentially pattern recognising computers. Our hardware is just very different.
You know those AI programs making AI art… the content made is by definition art. It’s in the name.