Hacker News Reader

Comment by trention | Hacker News Reader

>I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't.

This has literally never been the criteria for what art is.

Well if that isn't the criteria that's being asserted, then what is? Art has to be generated by a human? Art has to be "original"? Any definition you come up with is going to be wrought with counter-examples unless you make your definition so restrictive as to eliminate much of what typical people would call art, including many examples of fine art in art museums.

>Art has to be generated by a human? >eliminate much of what typical people would call art

Can you give me a single example of something that was produced pre-2021 and that the average person will consider art that was not "generated by a human"?

This was the topic of the parent comment. Also, there has never been AI art before now.

No, it wasn't the topic for the parent comment which tilts the definition in this direction: >they have no idea as to "what" they are painting.

You just shifted to "you can't distinguish" - a common tactic for wanna-be AI hypists.

> there has never been AI art before now.

This is a bold claim. I disagree with it.

Here is a book from 2006 that already touches on genetic AI creatures evolving and similar topics as art.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731768/metacreation/

I’m the GP, this wasn’t the topic of my comment above.

Also, there has never been AI art before now.

There has however been machine generated art since at least the 50s. How is this not just the natural evolution of that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com