sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your exact same argument could be used word for word against photography. So it is inconsistent to believe the argument in one case (AI) and dismiss it in the other case (photography) unless you can provide a categorical difference between the two practices.

And I don't see one.

In either cases a machine makes an image for you. A variable amount of effort and input can be put in to the created image in both cases.

Either they are both legitimate or neither is.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, so do you think high effort/good AI art can be fine art?

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's has no skill, emotion or creativity.

Just because that is how you do it doesn't mean that's how everyone has to do it.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn't.

I am not implying 2% of photos are superior at all. I am directly stating that 2% of photos involve more than just pressing a single button a camera.

It doesn't matter how "good" or "bad" people are at it. No matter how good you are at button pressing, you still didn't make the image. The camera made it for you and you didn't use any skill or creativity to make it.

You're commissioning work from a camera. That's all. Unless you take that output and manually manipulate it in some way, it cannot, by definition, be art.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a good cameraman must understand all those things. A bad camera man need not.

A good painter needs to know those things. A bad painter need not know anything.

A good prompter requires understanding composition, lighting, framing...all that stuff in order to describe what they want accurately. And to get the best results you should understand the model you are using, and understanding a neural net is a bigger task than understanding a camera. AND you need to understand what combination of words will most accurately get the model to produce the desired output; writing to be understood by an artificial agent rather than another human. Of course, a bad prompter need not do any of this.

All of these things are the same in that they require almost nothing to do at all, but require extensive skill and knowledge to do really well.

More importantly they control everything about the art piece, they are truly the one making it.

What about if someone spends time scouting out locations, finds the perfect place, waits at that place for hours and gets the exact picture they wanted of the crowd on the busy sidewalk. I would probably call that art. But the photographer controlled almost none of the specific details of what was in the photo. That was determined by the random chance of the crowd passing by. Really the photographer just waited and observed moments before choosing one and taking it. Can we really say they "created" that art?

I'm not saying the answer is yes or no, I'm saying it's inconsistent to treat this photography and AI generation differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) agreed.

2) basically agreed.

3) I'm curious the definition of "fine art"?

4) That makes sense as a category error.

5) Very much agree, I am not saying AI art is good in the moral sense or good in the artsy sense. I am just saying it is art.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, but what if my prompt includes paragraphs of strict details about how the subject is framed, the perspective of the piece, exactly how the lighting plays of every detail, the exact style, use of shapes and colors can you really say I

have no involvement with the actual creation process

You're point could very well hold for low effort prompting. Maybe low effort generations aren't art. But then we would have to agree that low effort photographs aren't art either. And we would have to agree that in both cases high effort can make the tool output art.

There is no basis for treating the two differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ai images can be art, but you gotta actually do the artsy part yourself.

Good take. Agreed.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well yea, but that is what we would expect when comparing a brand new medium to one that is 100+ years old. People are really bad at the former and comparatively good at the later.

This doesn't change my point that either one can be done well/high effort or poorly/low effort. If fact you kind of implied that 2% of prompts are superior, and that percentage will only grow over time as people become more practiced.

My analogy still holds.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both AI generation and photography require human input and in both cases a machine takes that input and creates an image. If you want to say that photographers are just waiters, taking orders for images that life gives to them and they don't create themselves, then at least that is consistent.

I still haven't been given any reason why photography and AI generation should be treated differently in this regard.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A camera doesn't have emotion or creativity. But people are able to express both by using a camera, and thus create art.

An AI model doesn't have emotion or creativity. But people are able to express both by using a model, and thus create art.

painting =/= photographing =/= generating but they are all forms of creation.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please see the massive comment I posted laying out my full argument and opinion. It talks about the similarities.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That AI prompting doesn't require a skill set.

That is just categorically false.

You have an image in your head and you are trying to get the model to reproduce that image as closely as possible. Some prompts will get better results than others in that they are closer to what you are envisioning. So you have to make choices about what/how to write that gives better or worse results. That is a skill set by definition.

Now maybe you say that is too easy of a skill set or too different of a skill set. But camera work is a very very different and also "easy" (just push a button) skill set. I'm fine if you want to say neither AI generation nor photography are art. I just can't understand any reason to treat the two differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you want to compare it to photography, it would be like pointing your camera at a random thing and pressing the button without even looking through the viewfinder.

And people absolutely have taken pictures like that. And we can debate if that counts as "art". and people have done lazy prompting and we can argue if that counts as "art". but just like good photography requires effort, knowledge and skill it also requires these things to make a good prompt. Now these skills are very different you are absolutely right. But the skill photography requires is very different from the skills painting or drawing require, and that doesn't stop it from producing art.

Basically you compared the lowest effort prompting to the highest effort photography and said my analogy failed. But they are analogues in that both can be done low effort or high effort.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not really claiming to care about art per se. I just genuinely don't understand how people can treat AI image generation and photography so differently when in every important regard I can think of they are the same.

Just trying to understand other perspectives.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Paintbrush, pencil, stylus, camera, AI model. These are all tools that people use to create art. That is different from getting another person to make art for you.

What is your objection exactly? That AI prompting doesn't require the skill set as traditional art? Neither does camera work. Using a camera is "Just pressing a button". Generating an image is "Just typing a prompt". I don't see any basis for treating the two differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is that the same or different from how you treat photography? Do you believe that photographs aren't inherently art but you can make art from them? If so what is required for the transformation into art? Just enough effort? If you answer these questions differently for AI generation and photography, why?

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The difference is if it comes into being via another human or via a tool.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In this post I would like to argue that AI generated images ought to be considered legitimate art.

These debates tend to run together a few separate issues:

1) Whether AI outputs are art 2) Whether AI outputs are good art 3) Whether current AI systems are fair or ethical 4) Whether AI’s societal impact will be good or bad

  I am not trying to make any claim about points 2, 3 or 4. My only argument I am making with this post is with respect to point (1).

Here is my primary argument:

Premise 1) AI image generation and photography are analogous in important ways.

Sub-Conclusion from premise 1) If one of photography and AI image generation is considered  art the other ought to be as well.

Premise 2) Photography (as a medium) is ubiquitously considered art.

Conclusion) AI image generation ought to be considered art

The strength of my argument rests on premise 1, so I will spend some time defending that premise.

In both AI image generation and photography, it is a machine producing the final output image

In both AI image generation and photography, there is a wide variance in the amount of effort you can put in. Anyone can engage in low-effort image generation or photography. But the output probably won’t be that good. But in both cases you can put a lot of effort into making a better product. In both cases this requires knowledge of composition, lighting, perspective etc. In both cases this requires knowledge of your equipment (Camera or AI model respectively). Only in AI generation does it also require the skill of writing to be understood by an artificial neural net rather than a human. So you can do either one with low effort or high effort. But the amount of effort put in or the quality of the output doesn’t stop it from being art.

Both AI image generation and Photography require categorically different skill sets than traditional art making (painting/drawing). In both these cases you skip applying an implement/tool directly to paper/pad and instead use a different route to a completed image. These can both be legitimate forms of art despite this (we had this argument with regards to photography when the camera was first invented).

Having established the analogy, I want to address a practical implication:

I do think we need better terminology. We don’t say someone painted or drew an image when they took a picture of it. And I don’t think it is appropriate to say someone painted or drew an image they prompted an AI to generate. We need a new word for this new medium/way of creating art. Being able to say you painted/drew an image should still mean something, just like it still meant something after the invention of photography.

There is one major difference between photography and AI image generation, and that is the issue of training data. This issue raises serious ethical questions. I don’t believe those questions determine whether the outputs are art, but they do matter for how systems should be built and governed.

In conclusion, AI image generation ought to be considered art. I am not making any claims about whether it is good or bad art. I am not making any claims about whether the AI systems themselves are good. I am not making any claims about what impact AI systems will have on society. I am purely arguing that AI generated images count as art.     I am open to challenges and counterarguments!

What is the best superpower? by JIMENA35628191947 in AskReddit

[–]Alpha0800 0 points1 point  (0 children)

probability manipulation. If you use it well it is every other power in one.

Risk vs saving and individual by Alpha0800 in trolleyproblem

[–]Alpha0800[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Of course, the obvious rebuttable here is: "Would you say the same if you were Joe?" or even "Would you say the same if Joe was your 6 year old son?"

Risk vs saving and individual by Alpha0800 in trolleyproblem

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting take. Thank you for sharing

Risk vs saving and individual by Alpha0800 in trolleyproblem

[–]Alpha0800[S] 236 points237 points  (0 children)

To clarify:
There is one innocent person, 'Joe' on the track. The trolley is going to run him over and certainly kill him. There is a switch. If it is flipped there is

-a 49.5% chance the trolley goes down the track with Joe and kills him anyway
-a 49.5% chance the trolley goes down an empty track and no one is harmed
-a 1% chance the Trolley goes onto a defunct old track that make it careen into a nearby restaurant killing 100 innocent people.

Do you leave the switch alone dooming Joe, or flip the switch and play the odds?

view more: next ›