It's this delusional notion that there's enough intellectual properties to pull from that can be fed into an algorithm. Algorithms might be able to tell a story using tropes and writing its fed, but it's creatively empty from the beginning.
It pisses me off when people reduce art to logic or magic. Art isn't a science nor is it mystical. The artist is beholden to their perception and experiences of the world and that influencess their art. When people talk about "soul" what they really mean is the personal feeling you get from good art that shows you someones unique perception of the world. You are almost getting a peak through someone elses eyes. This provides a unique connection to another human being. It's that feelng of "Oh, so that's what I look like to you, ha ha." it gives you a taste of someone elses mind.
That's why AI sucks and I hope it only gets used for jokes and curiosity. Because you can't get someone elses perspective from an algorithm that mashes up and replicates from others.
Consider the Go-playing AI, KataGo. A truly magnificent creation of machine learning, it beats top level players with relative ease and has revolutionized how we think about the game.
Except it doesn't actually know how to play Go. You can beat it every time with one simple trick. What we've created isn't "artificial intelligence" at all, but a machine that replicates Go playing without understanding what it's doing or why.
AI "art" is exactly the same as KataGo. The machine doesn't know what words mean, it doesn't understand the shapes or colors it puts on a canvas - the only thing it can do is mimic human artists, and rely on human observers to impose a meaning on the images or text it generates.
:porky-happy: might be fine with that, because Capital has no use for art. Meaningless images that have their interpretation imposed on them by the viewer is literally what capitalism has been telling human artists to create for almost a century now. The machine can and will replace corporate "art", but the images generated by machine-learning-algorithms are not and will not ever actually be art.
It's this delusional notion that there's enough intellectual properties to pull from that can be fed into an algorithm. Algorithms might be able to tell a story using tropes and writing its fed, but it's creatively empty from the beginning.
I hate this :meow-tableflip:
deleted by creator
It pisses me off when people reduce art to logic or magic. Art isn't a science nor is it mystical. The artist is beholden to their perception and experiences of the world and that influencess their art. When people talk about "soul" what they really mean is the personal feeling you get from good art that shows you someones unique perception of the world. You are almost getting a peak through someone elses eyes. This provides a unique connection to another human being. It's that feelng of "Oh, so that's what I look like to you, ha ha." it gives you a taste of someone elses mind.
That's why AI sucks and I hope it only gets used for jokes and curiosity. Because you can't get someone elses perspective from an algorithm that mashes up and replicates from others.
deleted by creator
Yeah capitalism is bad for art in general.
deleted by creator
so like...
Consider the Go-playing AI, KataGo. A truly magnificent creation of machine learning, it beats top level players with relative ease and has revolutionized how we think about the game.
Except it doesn't actually know how to play Go. You can beat it every time with one simple trick. What we've created isn't "artificial intelligence" at all, but a machine that replicates Go playing without understanding what it's doing or why.
AI "art" is exactly the same as KataGo. The machine doesn't know what words mean, it doesn't understand the shapes or colors it puts on a canvas - the only thing it can do is mimic human artists, and rely on human observers to impose a meaning on the images or text it generates.
:porky-happy: might be fine with that, because Capital has no use for art. Meaningless images that have their interpretation imposed on them by the viewer is literally what capitalism has been telling human artists to create for almost a century now. The machine can and will replace corporate "art", but the images generated by machine-learning-algorithms are not and will not ever actually be art.
Until the machine can truly learn, which isn’t impossible. It’s honestly more likely than there ever being a space colony in our lifetimes.
deleted by creator
I think it would probably be one of those indistinguishable things. But either way it doesn't bode well for creatives. Not like capitalism ever was.