Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Good thing that this isn’t what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that “pro-lifers” use to reframe the argument about abortion and women’s rights.
It’s always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren’t compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn’t even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they’d rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That’s what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.
Imagine arguing that flavor is what is important in a dish and not the type of knife used to cut the vegetables, and have someone respond he’d rather drink piss.
Its more like arguing a soulless robot should make your food built upon stolen recipes, not only are the recipes stolen but that robot cannot taste nor understand flavor. All it understands is the words of the recipes and sometimes not even that, it than needs to make new recipes without being able to taste it. Your food will taste as bland and souless as the robot who cannot taste it, even if it does taste good you’ll know its basically just a worse version based on stolen recipes.
Bruh a “stolen” recipe made by a robot tastes exactly the same as a purchased recipe made by a human. “Love” is not actually a real ingredient in a meal.
And all things being equal… I would rather have a robot serve me than coerce some human.
Yes but in this analogy, the Twitter user is saying burned toast is always better then the finest processed foods.
I will always attribute more value to human made images, just like I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digitally painted pieces, but I dont attribute it disproportionately as to create two rigid categories.
I’m just saying broad sweeping statements don’t make much sense and are an awful way to judge and consume art.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a huge amount of the food that is eaten in the world is made by “robots”. It ain’t the Keebler Elves in those factories baking your vanilla sandwich cookies, that’s for sure.
Go watch any video on mass produced food and you’ll see that it is made by machines. Drinks are mixed, bottled and packed without any human intervention. You would have a hard time trying to find a dish that you eat that was not prepared in some part by soulless, tasteless machines.
AI are also still configured by humans, since they are the ones choosing which training data is used. So automatically generated art is still human art.
The needed training data is so enormous, it is not cherry picked by humans. Furthermore, transforming random data until it fits the given description enough according to a “neural network” that was statistically curve fitted to the training data, is not in any way human.
Furthermore, transforming random data until it fits the given description enough according to a “neural network” that was statistically curve fitted to the training data, is not in any way human.
You’re confidently stating something that, literally, no scientist would claim. We have no idea how neurons form our mind.
The reason that we use the term neural network is because the functions implemented in the individual neurons in neural networks are based on functions derived from measuring actual neurons in real brains. The model weights are literally a mathematical description of how different neurons connect to each other and, when trained on similar data computational neural networks and organic neural networks form similar data processing structures.
Inspired by biological vision, the architecture of deep neural networks has undergone significant transformations. For instance, the design of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) draws inspiration from the organization of the visual cortex in the brain, while Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) emulate the mechanisms in the brain for processing sequential data.
If AI art only used ethically-sourced data, there’d be a lot less objection to it.
I can say, for sure, that this isn’t true.
People still catch the exact same flak for using generative fill in Photoshop despite Adobe training their models on artwork with the explicit permissions (and compensation) of the artists involved in making the training data.
People treat every model like it has personally eaten ever drawing and macaroni painting that they’ve ever done.
I don’t think that means what you seem to think it means. You’re coming of sounding like the phrase excuses unnecessarily supporting labor theft and exploitation by AI companies.
The actual problem is the exploitative system of “IP” and having to serve capital in order to survive, not people making pictures with computers.
Indeed. The major problems really are that we live on a capitalist hellscape and that the technology is contributing to destruction of the biosphere in a major way.
Because if you use words that only have objective definitions then you can arbitrarily move your definition around if people come up with counter-examples.
It’s a way of creating an argument that means nothing and also can’t be argued against on Internet forums where there are no rules (unlike, say a debate stage or court room where you have to rationally prove your points).
Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Ok weirdo. Enjoy your literal poop!
Good thing that this isn’t what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that “pro-lifers” use to reframe the argument about abortion and women’s rights.
It’s always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren’t compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn’t even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they’d rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That’s what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.
Imagine arguing that flavor is what is important in a dish and not the type of knife used to cut the vegetables, and have someone respond he’d rather drink piss.
Its more like arguing a soulless robot should make your food built upon stolen recipes, not only are the recipes stolen but that robot cannot taste nor understand flavor. All it understands is the words of the recipes and sometimes not even that, it than needs to make new recipes without being able to taste it. Your food will taste as bland and souless as the robot who cannot taste it, even if it does taste good you’ll know its basically just a worse version based on stolen recipes.
Bruh a “stolen” recipe made by a robot tastes exactly the same as a purchased recipe made by a human. “Love” is not actually a real ingredient in a meal.
And all things being equal… I would rather have a robot serve me than coerce some human.
It simply is, premade and mass produced machine food simply doesn’t taste as good as if you make it yourself (if you’re decent at cooking)
Yes but in this analogy, the Twitter user is saying burned toast is always better then the finest processed foods.
I will always attribute more value to human made images, just like I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digitally painted pieces, but I dont attribute it disproportionately as to create two rigid categories.
I’m just saying broad sweeping statements don’t make much sense and are an awful way to judge and consume art.
I mean I eat food made by a robot basically every day and it’s pretty good.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a huge amount of the food that is eaten in the world is made by “robots”. It ain’t the Keebler Elves in those factories baking your vanilla sandwich cookies, that’s for sure.
Go watch any video on mass produced food and you’ll see that it is made by machines. Drinks are mixed, bottled and packed without any human intervention. You would have a hard time trying to find a dish that you eat that was not prepared in some part by soulless, tasteless machines.
Those robots were still configured by humans to produce a product the humans designed.The automatically produced food is still human food.
AI are also still configured by humans, since they are the ones choosing which training data is used. So automatically generated art is still human art.
The needed training data is so enormous, it is not cherry picked by humans. Furthermore, transforming random data until it fits the given description enough according to a “neural network” that was statistically curve fitted to the training data, is not in any way human.
You’re confidently stating something that, literally, no scientist would claim. We have no idea how neurons form our mind.
The reason that we use the term neural network is because the functions implemented in the individual neurons in neural networks are based on functions derived from measuring actual neurons in real brains. The model weights are literally a mathematical description of how different neurons connect to each other and, when trained on similar data computational neural networks and organic neural networks form similar data processing structures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1566253524003609
what if the knife were made out of the skulls of infants
Then that is a fucked up knife, but doesn’t change anything about the dish.
The argument is: the dish requires the use of the fucked-up knife.
If AI art only used ethically-sourced data, there’d be a lot less objection to it.
I can say, for sure, that this isn’t true.
People still catch the exact same flak for using generative fill in Photoshop despite Adobe training their models on artwork with the explicit permissions (and compensation) of the artists involved in making the training data.
People treat every model like it has personally eaten ever drawing and macaroni painting that they’ve ever done.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
The actual problem is the exploitative system of “IP” and having to serve capital in order to survive, not people making pictures with computers.
I don’t think that means what you seem to think it means. You’re coming of sounding like the phrase excuses unnecessarily supporting labor theft and exploitation by AI companies.
Indeed. The major problems really are that we live on a capitalist hellscape and that the technology is contributing to destruction of the biosphere in a major way.
Yes, it is. We live in capitalism.
Why does AI art have “no authenticity”?
Because if you use words that only have objective definitions then you can arbitrarily move your definition around if people come up with counter-examples.
It’s a way of creating an argument that means nothing and also can’t be argued against on Internet forums where there are no rules (unlike, say a debate stage or court room where you have to rationally prove your points).