You don't get to define what is art. Art can and does move people who have absolutely no idea of what the process to create it was.
You have your way to experience art, it isn't the only way. In fact you have a limited ability to learn about the process, how much of it are you making up in your head?
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
- Rudyard Kipling
This said, according to the renown authorities on the matter, it's definitely about the process. :-)
Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.
I don't deny that I might get moved by a piece of AI art, but even so, my first thought goes to what human art was used to generated this specific piece that inspired this emotion.
An AI can't feel emotions, but the humans that made the art powering its model can, and that's the only way AI art can make you feel anything, when it isn't just a garbled mess.
As usual, it's always about the humans behind the screen, not about what's on the screen itself; and the people working on these models fail to understand that that's what people are really looking for: human interaction via creativity, not an instant "product" to be displayed on screen; and that's why AI art will always be relegated to the niche of 4channers generating AI porn and enthusiast devs generating nightmare fuel logos for their projects.
For once, I would absolutely refuse to consume any AI-generated content, and I'm happy in the knowledge that I'm not the only one taking this stance.
I also trust that legislation will eventually catch up with the insult to human creativity that are AI art models.
Yes, exactly, behind AI art there are countless human artists and their experiences. You should not dismiss AI so easily. What it offers you is a new way to see your favourite artists, to interact with their works, to continue dreaming the same dream, and add your own story to their own.
AI art is a deeper way to engage with art than simply viewing. For the first time we can ask questions, we can explore vast landscapes of style and content. Only imagination has similar characteristics - goal directedness, freedom of movement, extreme creativity, one-time-use - imagine and throw away most of your ideas, a space of privacy and freedom - assuming you run your own models, AI art is more private than using the internet.
Like a kaleidoscope, it can be fun to recognize familiar patterns and beautiful colors, but it's nothing more than that: a toy.
What I look for in art is intent and human passion; for me, the excitement of suddenly getting a nice number out of a PRNG or a cool story out of GPT is a very different from experiencing a story passionately crafted by a human.
When I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
I'm kind of disappointed with the strict training they put on chatGPT, it is always the same canned formula, almost aways uses phrases like "in conclusion" and "however, ...". The stories are all 5-6 phrases and have no details. The original Davinci model from 2 years ago was more creative, but harder to direct.
Never meant to say otherwise.
> Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.
I couldn't disagree more, unless you have some method, some mechanism I know not of you are only guessing. It is good guessing because humans are more alike than not but still only guessing.
Often not even the artist himself knows the process.
I have grown to abhor legislation, if you want to aggress the users of AI tools then do it yourself without the help of the state.
For example, looking at some drawn art, I can pinpoint exactly what emotions the artist was trying to transmit, not necessarily by the expression of the characters but even just by how the piece itself is drawn: that's the whole point of human artistic intent.
Another reason why human intent is important for me, from my comments below: when I read an amazing story like the Iron Widow, I feel respect towards the skills of the author, excitement for her future plans for the sequel; I follow the author on twitter and maybe interact a bit, because I appreciate what that human made me feel.
This is all part of the experience for me: I can't do the same for a GPT story, because even if it was generated from multiple human stories, there is no actual human intent behind it; no one to thank, and no one to blame in case of messups: it feels like an empty shell.
It's this true emptiness that quickly made me stop playing around with GPT when I first discovered it: anything made with it feels like an empty shell to me.
Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here ;). Nothing personal, but I really think the people supporting AI models are really naive in thinking any democratic government will be willing to let entire creative industries suffocate (not to mention the potential for degradation of society as a whole) just because AI models are very cool technology and human creativity is supposedly irrelevant: just look at anti-delocalization trends in politics and legislation anywhere in the world, and draw some conclusions by yourself.
Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology, and even those who created it will realize that they too will be eventually replaced by it.
You can't test that ability and if you can't test it how are you so sure of it? You're guessing, you're making a narrative in your head, you cannot know if it matches reality.
You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?
> Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology
Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.
> Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here
Yes, of course, it is violence. If you support legislation you support violence. There is no effectual legislation without violence. So if you think AI should be legislated get up and go punch some researchers yourself. Don't send others do the dirty work for you.
