|
Föderation EN Fr 07.03.2025 21:31:25 I was listening to a podcast where the guest argued: when it comes to art, today's AI is like a tool, but in the future, maybe it could be an artist. As he explained why, it became clear why I disagree with him. He defines "art" as a product that is valued by art critics and by consumers. I agree that AI generated content may become more common and broadly accepted in the future, but I don't think that's a good thing, and I wouldn't call it art! I see art as more of an activity than a product. An artist does art. Whatever the output of that process is, valuable or not, is also called "art." Am I saying only humans can make art? Not at all. But to be "art" it has to be self-expression. The artist must have something to say. As long as we are designing the AI, training it, and prompting it, then it will be a tool. Without us it has no initiative, no opinion, and no creative urge. |
|
Föderation EN Fr 07.03.2025 21:37:29 @ngaylinn I haven't thought any longer than a few nanoseconds about this... but the one thing I've ever noticed about art is that it is generally hugely subjective... and I guess that would also imply "having something to say" is probably akin to "speaking one's own language"... so then you'd have to back up and start to define what it means to have something to say... no? |
|
Föderation EN Fr 07.03.2025 22:14:38 @PHolder That's a good point! Let me clarify my wording. To some extent, I think every person (and every language model) has a unique language--or at least a unique dialect, style, etc. People and AIs can generate text, either in their own "language," or by imitating someone else's. But when they do this, the human doesn't always "have something to say," and the AI never does. "Having something to say" is about an urge to express or communicate a particular feeling or idea. It has to matter to you, at least a little. An AI does not care. It feels no urges. It has no experience or opinion to share. So, it may generate text, but it has nothing to say. A person may make art that nobody understands or appreciates. It may be utterly trivial and private. But if they express themselves in a way that is artistically meaningful to them, then they're doing art. |
|
Föderation EN Fr 07.03.2025 21:38:53 @ngaylinn I have seen actual, real art made with ai generators, but they were made by actual, real artists. ai doesn't generate art, the artist does, but the whole selling point of generators seems to be the promise that you too can get art, just without all that pesky and ardous business of sitting down and make art |
|
Föderation · Fr 07.03.2025 22:25:54 @ngaylinn@tech.lgbt Whether intentionally or not the rhetoric you report being used by this podcast guest fits into a larger trend of using dehumanizing and eugenic language to discuss "AI". Those willing to suggest machines will surpass people at what many of us think of as deeply human activities aid those--like capitalists, or state actors--who want people to actually be machines. Machines can be owned and operated, or discarded when they break. They can be counted and classified and controlled. They don't demand a say in what's done to and with them. |
