Would be ironic if the image was AI generated. I’ve been tempted to play around with this. Kinda like Picasso and Braque. Make real things that look fake and fake things that look real aka make hand made things that look AI generated and make AI generated things that look real and put them in a collection together and let the people decide which pisses them off more and why. Part of actual art is a commentary, making people feel something, making people question and question themselves. Capturing that quality of AI generated by hand sounds like a real shit show and a half for people pissed by seemingly AI generated images.
I get the idea, but I don’t think there’s any real benefit in intentionally muddying the waters further on this stuff. I’m not personally a fan of pouring more fuel on the dumpster fire, and there’s been a lot of deep discussions about all of this already. There’s not much room for “good faith” discussion in this shit as it is.
Art can be for any reason and sometimes it’s only to rattle some cages. What exactly are people pissed at. Is it the style they determine to be AI generated or is it actually the concept of what they thought was human generated having no human touch. What’s actually the pain point here, or is this evolving into like a new prejudice where anything remotely AI is bad regardless of how it was generated. I think there’s a lot of valuable questions to ask about what seems to be a whole mountain of animosity. Let’s clear shit up a little. Without questioning does someone even know where they stand on a subject?
Besides aesthetic, I think the heart of the issue is that those generative AI tools were trained on art made by humans, generally without the consent or payment of said humans. Now you’ve got an interaction where you want art, you get it from a machine made by an AI company that is effectively ripping off artists, and nowhere in this loop are the artists that made this art generating machine possible.
To play devil’s advocate, how are organic neural networks trained aka human brains? Should any artists who ever consumed content they didn’t appropriately pay for be discredited and if not then where is the line? Does the line change if we learn that these systems have become sentient?
Trust me I totally agree there’s more than a few issues here. I’m not a fan of content with zero (known) willful intent. Of course breaches of copyright are also a major issue.
Ah so you weren’t actually asking a question, just looking to debate.
Both? Yeah both. There’s so much emotional energy around this topic. So many actually deep philosophical questions involving what is a mind, copyright, the very essence of art. Aka there is so much fuel here to generate art which makes people think, feel, and question. Any medium is a valid medium to make art in so long as one isn’t committing illegal violence to do so.
Take banksy who creates works that really trigger people to think and feel but typically in an unlawful medium.
