this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
1069 points (95.3% liked)

Memes

45673 readers
893 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 109 points 4 months ago (6 children)

So the problem isn't the technology. The problem is unethical big corporations.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

depends. for "AI" "art" the problem is both terms are lies. there is no intelligence and there is no art.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Any work made to convey a concept and/or emotion can be art. I'd throw in "intent", having "deeper meaning", and the context of its creation to distinguish between an accounting spreadsheet and art.

The problem with AI "art" is it's produced by something that isn't sentient and is incapable of original thought. AI doesn't understand intent, context, emotion, or even the most basic concepts behind the prompt or the end result. Its "art" is merely a mashup of ideas stolen from countless works of actual, original art run through an esoteric logic network.

AI can serve as a tool to create art of course, but the further removed from the process a human is the less the end result can truly be considered "art".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

i won't, but art has intent. AI doesn't.

Pollock's paintings are art. a bunch of paint buckets falling on a canvas in an earthquake wouldn't make art, even if it resembled Pollock's paintings. there's no intent behind it. no artist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The intent comes from the person who writes the prompt and selects/refines the most fitting image it makes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

that's like me intending for it to rain and when it eventually would, claiming i made it rain because i intended for it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

AI is a tool used by a human. The human using the tools has an intention, wants to create something with it.

It's exactly the same as painting digital art. But instead o moving the mouse around, or copying other images into a collage, you use the AI tool, which can be pretty complex to use to create something beautiful.

Do you know what generative art is? It existed before AI. Surely with your gatekeeping you think that's also no art.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

there is no intelligence and there is no art.

People said exact same thing about CGI, and photography before. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody scream "IT'S NOT ART" at Michaelangelo or people carving walls of temples in ancient Egypt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the "people" you're talking about were talking about tools. I'm talking about intent. Just because you compare two arguments that use similar words doesn't mean the arguments are similar.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Intent is not needed for the art, else all the art in history where we can't say what author wanted to express or the ones misunderstood wouldn't be considered art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Note that one of the first regulations of AI art that is always proposed is that AI art be clearly labeled as such, because whomever propose it do know the above.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. "The problem isn't the technology, it's the creators, users, and perpetuators" is tautological.

And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

But not al users of AI are malignant or causing environment damage.

Saying the contrary would be a bad generalization.

I have LLM models running on a n100 chip that have less consumption that the lemmy servers we are writing on right now.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Technology is a product of science. The facts science seeks to uncover are fundamental universal truths that aren't subject to human folly. Only how we use that knowledge is subject to human folly. I don't think open source or open weights models are a bad usage of that knowledge. Some of the things corporations do are bad or exploitative uses of that knowledge.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Always has been

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Considering most new technology these days is merely a distilation of the ethos of the big corporations, how do you distinguish?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Not true though.

Current AI generative have its bases in# Frank Rosenblatt and other scientists working mostly in universities.

Big corporations had made an implementation but the science behind it already existed. It was not created by those corporations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This has been going on since big oil popularized the "carbon footprint". They want us arguing with each other about how useful crypto/AI/whatever are instead of agreeing about pigouvian energy taxes and socialized control of the (already monopolized) grid.