• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m so sick of this. there are scenarios in which so-called “AI” can be used as a tool. for example, resampling. it’s dodgy, but whatever, let’s say the tech is perfected and it truly analyzes data to give a good result rather than stealing other art to match.

    but a tool is something that does exactly what you intend for it to do. you can’t say 100 dice are collectively “a tool that outputs 600” because you can sit there and roll them for as long as it takes for all of them to turn up sixes, technically. and if you do call it that, that’s still a shitty tool, and you did nothing worth crediting to get 600. a robot can do it. and it does. and that makes it not art.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      So do you not what generative art is. And you pretend to stablish catedra on art.

      Generative art, that existed before even computers, is s form of art in which a algorithm created a form of art, and that algorithm can be repeated easily. Humans can replicate that algorithm, but computers can too, and generative art is mostly used with computers because obvious reasons. Those generative algorithms can be deterministic or non deterministic.

      And all this before AI, way before.

      AI on its essence is just a really complex and large generative algorithm, that some people do not understand and this are afraid of it, like people used to be afraid of eclipses.

      Also, you seems not to know that photographs also take hundreds or thousands of pictures with just pressing a button and just select the good ones.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        cameras do not make random images. you know exactly what you’re getting with a photograph. the reason you take multiples is mostly for timing and lighting. also, rolling a hundred dice is not the same as painting something 100 times and picking the best one, nor is it like photographing it. the fact that you’re even making this comparison is insane.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          If you know how to use an AI you also know how it’s working and what are you going to get, is not random. It’s a complex generative algorithm where you put in the initial variables, nothing more.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            the AI itself doesn’t know what it’s doing, neither are you. the fact that you’re putting in words to change the outcome until the dice fall somewhat close to where you want them to fall doesn’t make it yours. you can’t add your own style to it, because you’re not doing it.

            • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Please, do not extend your lack of knowledge to me. Thanks.

              Also, most traditional artists never develop a style of their own. If you believe that every single artist has its own unique style… You’d be much incorrect. That does not make it less of an artist.

              I remember back in the day when lots of people followed the Bob Ross style to do some nice paintings. Luckily you are here to gatekeep them from doing art.

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                there’s a difference between not having a unique style and physically being unable to have a style because you have next to no input in the process.

                • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Because mixed media does not exist.

                  Nothing forbid anyone to train an AI with its own drawings in its own style.

                  Once again, AI is a tool. Like many others used in digital art. It’s just a statistically driven generative algorithm. People can use a tool as they please to make art, same as they can use any other tool, and you have not the authority to gatekeep an artist of doing art just because you think their tool, their style, the object or anything about the artist does not fit with your morals.

                  And they also can, and will, mix it with other tools to produce the piece of art they want to create.

                  Also all this discussion about “the style™” could be just disproven given the fact that if you weight your variables and use a specific dataset you can generate consistent images in a determined style. And some AI artists does have a representative style due to this… So…

                  • pyre@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    again, there are instances, like resampling, depending on the algorithm, where “AI” (misnomer) can be used as a tool.

                    what people generally mean when they say “AI art” is not that.