But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I agree, it’s all about the artist’s control of the art. Drawing, writing, programming, etc takes magnitudes more time and effort than asking a GenAI model, and therefore provides much more control.

    Without control, the rest of the art is made up of whatever the GenAI extrapolated from the prompt, and that’s not interesting.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I am not so sure about control or effort, there is art, made by humans, that let a leaky bucket of paint swing over a canvas. It is simple to do, not much effort involved, without much control, but since it is done in a novel process, it still is art IMO.

      Now if someone reads about this, and replicates it once, it might still art be, because it is new to them. But if anyone repeats it over and over, it is no longer art, but practice. Because the novel approach is missing. Generative AI do not produce art by themselves, because they just generate more of the same.

      It is not possible to decide wherever it is art or not by just looking at the product. But you can like or dislike it anyway.

      Art is also partly in the eye of the beholder, because it might be novel to them, even if it isn’t novel to the creator.