Hacker News Reader

Comment by trypt | Hacker News Reader

Randomly generated AI art is just a layer of abstraction on top of generative art. A more human form of AI created art is AI-assisted art. Art created by a human using AI tools to sculpt the art into their image which they couldn't otherwise manifest.

View on HN

There is still creativity in the architecture, the training data, and the sample selection. None of the art is randomly created, but carefully curated by a human.

Question is, how can we trust the artist if they are truly legit anymore?

Guiding a machine to generate art is no different than guiding a paintbrush rather than finger-painting or using a jackhammer rather than a hammer and chisel for sculpture.

I for one am excited for what crazy new stuff artists will create with better tools!

There's a slight difference in that mastering mechanical movement is no longer necessary to create art. I imagine there will still be a place for traditional artists and their unique talents, much like how music synthesizers have not gotten rid of our desire to appreciate live instrumentalists. Rather, some new people appreciate the DJ, while most still appreciate the real-breath/finger performance.

Mastering mechanical movement hasn't been necessary for a long time.

Art is the conveyance of meaning through a work, not the method by which the work was created (although that can sometimes contribute to the meaning).

No, today, "Art" is anything an artist can convince a source of cash that the cash they want is for this argument claiming some object/event/scribble/thought is "Art".

I'm a professional artist, where are these sources of cash I can convince to give me money instead of spending all my money from my day job on materials?

Let's say I have a machine which looks for mathematical theories. Upon finding and verifying some statements, I take some of the results and publish it. Who is the author and does it matter?

Isn't the credit important at some point? For e.g. it matters to me to decide if I should watch for your future work vs the subject itself.

If you're referring to predictors of future quality, does it still come from the human? Who is the author?

On a similar question, for the combination of credibility + relevance, do you look to metaphorical Google News, NYT, the journal from which the article is sourced, the science team being reported on, or the individual scientists on the team?

I imagine in the future of credibility we might discuss the forecasting abilities of specific models.

Generative art is truly a compositional creative medium using computers and algorithms to insert randomness and to tweak the composition in ways that use math.its the intervening of the artist in this process, the intentional choices of algorithm and training content, and the synthesis of these layers by the artist that delivers a work of art. Slapping someone else's code into a generic set of training content is just a coding excersise and the end result is maybe in the category of DuChamp calling a toilet a work of art, as a thought experiment...but I think the the lack of transparency and attribution to the original coder makes this much more an act of opportunism.

In Donnella Meadows http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to... she describes the many points within a system one can intervene for various effects. It's important to note where in the generative process the artist is intervening in what is otherwise just a creative coding excersize. It's in the intervention that the most talented generative artists demonstrate their gifts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com