LogFAQs > #969359918

CRON posted...

It's a completely different argument. With photography, even though it's a technical process, human creativity and acumen is required to make photographs look interesting.

AI art, like I mentioned, is literally just computer software making a gibberish composite of image databases. Until it improves to the theoretical point where humans can manipulate and modify the gibberish in 3D space, it's not artistic.

You're oversimplifying things because the tools being exposed to the public right now are simple, but what you're missing is the massive amount of tuning that happens behind the scenes to make it work. The sample data chosen. The hyperparameters tuned just right to avoid getting complete jibberish. Even the exact way you phrase things as input can have a drastic impact on what is generated.

It's not that AI art isn't art. It's that it is so new that an "AI artist" hasn't reached sufficient levels of skill to demonstrate its full potential in the way the first photograph is nothing like what a modern professional photographer can do.

EDIT: and to get philosophical, what do you mean by "gibberish"? I can point to plenty of modern art that's like... "I sneezed on a canvas" that is no more determinstic in its outcome than AI generation, but we call it art anyway. If we can call a literal blank canvas art I don't see how you can argue AI art isn't art just because you don't find it, what, more interpretable?

What's the difference between AI gibberish and this:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/6/AABJX0AAD3wM.jpg