While I do agree on principle, it’s important to note that Miyazaki said this after being presented an AI that controlled a monster which he thought was insulting to disabled people
Yeah since it looked like it was writhing in pain. I have no idea why they chose that model to present
I just don’t understand why we have to moralize the subject like this, it makes the thing feel more threatening than it actually is.
Researchers used AI art generation to demonstrate how well they could model images+text (plus it pairs nicely with how these models are trained). They were not trying to replace artists because that’s stupid on the face of it. Guillermo points the core reason why pretty eloquently, the model doesn’t feel anything, it isn’t conscious, how the fuck is it gonna make art that resonates? I’ll go one step further: you can never make it spit out what is in your mind’s eye, that can only come about with you putting in the effort to bring it to reality with your own hands.
Of course, porky want money and some idiot is gonna try to make a movie generated entirely by AI in the next like 5 years or something. But it is going to suck, obviously. So, IMO the best course of action is to recognize that the tech is neat (because it obviously is) and laugh the idiots that want to SOLVE ART out of the room when they are inevitably proven wrong.
TL;DR: It’s not an insult to life itself, it’s a stupid techbro pipedream, don’t make them look cool
can we stop being weird about this and just make it a matter of artists getting paid
i’d agree with it (within the current circumstances) then
but when it’s all this mystical nonsense about the human soul or whatever i wanna support AI art just to spite it
but when it’s all this mystical nonsense about the human soul or whatever
This really sounds like the attitude of someone who really doesn’t like art? What is art if not an expression of humanity, the emotion of the artist and their experiences bringing them to make a particular piece of art that also inspires genuine emotion in you when you just stand there and look at it?
It doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that someone who really enjoys and appreciates art would ever think. When I look at any art at the gallery I am connected with the artist that made it, who stood or sat in front of it making it, sometimes hundreds of years ago, who had a variety of life experiences vastly different to my own and made the piece with the specific intents. What is there in AI pictures that can be considered art? “Ooo this algorithm is quite good” ? That’s it. There’s no expression of the “human soul” because none of the weight of being human is behind it.
Now, is it an insult? I don’t know about that. But it is pretty naff by comparison. Calling it soulless seems quite accurate to me at least.
only see the value in “photorealistic” pieces
:cringe:
(most of those have less value than even the worst ai stuff as far as im concerned)
When I look at any art at the gallery I am connected with the artist that made it, who stood or sat in front of it making it, sometimes hundreds of years ago, who had a variety of life experiences vastly different to my own and made the piece with the specific intents.
ok i can definitely say i’ve never done this
like analyzing techniques being used for whatever purpose i can do (although mostly i just go “wow cool art”)
but not this whole connection thing
Try it sometime. You’re not just looking at a pretty picture, you’re looking at something someone poured emotion into and intended to draw out various emotions in you, either with colour choice, aggression or softness, framing, and so on.
So, the thing is, that almost every art piece worth paying attention to is deeply connected to a moment in history, to politics, to religion, to culture.
Artemisia Gentileschi’s Judith beheading Holofernes was created by a woman who was sexually assaulted and then humiliated by the courts when she tried to get justice. It depicts a scene from the bible where a woman uses cunning to assassinate a foreign general leading an army against her people. Artemisia was exceptional as a woman who was able to make a career of fine art in a time where that was extremely uncommon.
Artemisia’s Judith Beheading Holofernes is part of a rich tradition of depicting this scene that stretches from the distant past to the modern day. By studying these paintings you can see the progression of European art through many phases. Judith Beheading Holofernes also has an important cultural role in representing how women were viewed and treated at different points in European history.
There is so much complex history and culture tied up in this theme. There are dozens of versions in dozens of artistic styles. Looking through them you can learn important things about the clothing of the time, the evolution of artistic techniques, even the evolution of European swords.
AI can’t do any of this. It just slavishly remixes what was fed in to it. It’s completely devoid of semantic meaning.
the linked article
I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”
definitely seems like that sort of shit to me
It is December 17th, 2022. Another AI Art struggle session has started on Hexbear. :manhattan:
The animation they Miyazaki looked creepy since it was a monster looking thing. If it looked like a cute robot figuring out how to walk I think it would’ve been received better
I think it was simulating walking which hardly seems like a bad thing to figure out for the sake of vehicles. Imagine a Mars rover with legs climbing up rocks
