Genuine question; if you cant tell, why does it matter?
I like to use the example of chess. I know that computers can beat human players and that there are technical advancements in the field that are useful in their own right, but I would never consistently watch a game of chess played between a computer and a human. Why? Because I don't care for it. To me, the fun and excitement is in seeing what a HUMAN can achieve, what a HUMAN can create - I apply the same logic to art as well.
As I'm currently learning how to draw myself, I know how difficult it is and seeing other people working hard at their craft to eventually produce something beautiful, after months and years of work - it's a shared experience. It makes me happy!
Seeing someone prompt an AI, wait half-a-minute and then post it on social media does not, even if the end result is of a reasonable quality.
To me AI generated art without repeated major human interventions is almost immediately obvious. There are things it just can't do.
But when the art style is more minimalist or abstract, I find it genuinely difficult to notice a difference and have to start looking at the finer details, hence the mental workload comment. Often times I'll notice an eye not facing the right direction or certain lines appearing too "repetitive", something I rarely see in the works of human artists. It's difficult to explain without actual inage examples in front of me.
You can’t know that for sure. It’s the toupée fallacy.
The success rate of AI evading detection will only increase; the issue with "too many fingers" was solved years ago, and there's probably companies actively working on avoiding AI detection already. And on detecting it. It's the new spam / anti-spam, virus / anti-virus arms race.
So what the human is achieving in this case is having been trained by AI.
Today I learned: LLMs and their presence in society eventually force one to producing/crafting/making/creating for fun instead of consuming for fun.
All jokes aside, you got the solution here. ;)
People post AI art to take credit for being a skilled artist, just like people posting others art as their own. Its lame.
If I am to be a bit controversial among artists; we're exposed to so much good art today that most art posted online is "average" at best. (The bar is so high that it takes 20+ years to become above average for most)
Its average even if a human posted it but fun because a human spent effort making something cool. When an ai generates average art its ... just average art. Scrolling google images to look at art is also pretty dull, because its devoid of the human behind.
But I think thats less generally applicable. There is alot of the online art community and market that is really circular; people who like art do art and buy/commission art from others they follow and know.
That market will likley never disappear even if AI fully surpass humans; because the specific humans were the point all along.
But I think my previous comment applies more broadly beyond that community.
It's about implications, and trust. Note how AI art is thriving on platforms where it's clearly marked as such. People then can go into it by not having the "hand crafted" expectation, and enjoying it fully for what it is. AI-enabling subreddits and Pixiv comes to mind for example.
It is, if you're managing a warehouse; then it's a wonderful marvel. And it is a hidden benefit to everyone who receives cheaper products from that warehouse. Nobody cares if it's a human or the Komatsu doing the heavy lifting.
It is patently obvious (though clearly not to every one) that the person you’re replying to is describing a situation of seeing a human weightlifter VS a mechanical forklift doing the same in a contest, for entertainment. The analogy works as a good example because it maps to the original post about art.
When you change the setting to a warehouse, you are completely ignoring all the context and trying to undermine the comment on a technicality which doesn’t relate at all to the point. If you want to engage with the analogy properly, you have to keep the original art context in mind at all times.
Of course, that could definitely happen. My point is that I don’t think it did in this case, and that it stretched the analogy so far beyond its major points, that it made it clear to me a pattern that I have seen several times before but could never pinpoint clearly.
I am grateful to that comment for the insight. Understanding how people may distort analogies will force me to create better ones for more productive discussions.
All analogies are limited. That’s the point of an analogy: to focus on a shared element.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...
> There are indeed people who get great entertainment out of machines that do heavy lifting, and they don't care how much a person can lift.
But crucially not the person making the analogy. They didn’t say a lifting machine would be uninteresting to everyone, only that it isn’t worth their (the commenter’s) time. They made an analogy to explain what they themselves think, not to push their point of view as ultimate universal truth.
But that particular reply did not constrain itself to the context. It implied that a forklift lifting 150kg is not interesting at all. Which offends those of us who do appreciate watching heavy machinery do its work. That explains the unavoidable kneejerk replies of "actually, it is [interesting]".
It's like spam. Something like art used to have a value, like a message, because someone had to go to the trouble of making it. Now, nothing matters or has value because it's a flood of meaninglessness, like spam, so it stops mattering whether you can tell if it's a scam or whether maybe some random person DOES have a neat idea for stopping my back from hurting.
That person, and any artist, is now out of luck, because of volume. There are too many cheap reasons to pretend to be them, and like spam it's just unmanageable.