Hacker News Reader

Comment by solumunus | Hacker News Reader

This is such a strange position to hold. At some point in the future may be confronted with an image that is emotionally stimulating, and you will have no idea whether a human or AI created it. Are you suddenly going to dismiss and discard it just because you subsequently learn it was AI generated? You must see how silly that is.

Your "logic" for making AI art illegal is basically "don't like it". Your personal and subjective opinion is that it's not art by definition.. This is like refusing to eat artificially grown meat because you have some strange idea about what food "should" be. Even if the meat was made MORE delicious you would still claim it wasn't food and turn it away. There's no logical consistency to your position, it's purely reactionary.

View on HN

A good chunk of art is just that, to my understanding. People go to art shows with a knowledge by whom, when and “how” the art was done. They will be very confused if asked to tell two pics apart if you time-travel to Picasso, ask him to paint a new unique pic and then generate another one with AI. They can even find an idea, symbolism and what he felt/thought of behind an AI version.

All this boils down to a simple fact that egos like to think of themselves (and of artistic interaction) much more than there actually is.

I remember a story when a literature teacher insisted on a definite symbolism of some minor detail in a novel. People contacted the author about it and he said no, there is nothing behind it. It was just a filler without any second thought. Makes you think how much symbolism is far-fetched in classics, where you cannot simply email an author.

My position is perfectly logically consistent. Art is distilled human experience and human emotions emerging in a particular context after a chain of events. None of this is true of AI "art".

What is not logically consistent is to claim that a black box utilizing statistical relationships between pixels in a giant dataset is an "artist" and that its products create "value".

The compiler is not a programmer, AI can never be an artist.

The chain of events:

Step 1: Tweak settings and type text

Step 2: Look at the result

Step 3: If you like the result, go to step 4, otherwise go back to step 1.

Step 4: Save and share the result

Feels like art to me. Ultimately it's still a human using a tool to create art. For me AI art is just the name of the art style.

By that logic, a google image search + sharing results you like is also art. But it really isn't. At best it's curation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com