Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Slobberchops_ t1_j2npbyr wrote

Reply to comment by TheTomatoBoy9 in Could a robot ever recreate the aura of a Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece? It’s already happening | Naomi Rea by [deleted]

Very interesting comment, thanks for your time. I do “get” that a masterpiece has a whole story and context behind it — I’m not disputing that Van Gogh, Shakespeare, and Beethoven will still be revered for centuries to come.

I think this AI poses a much more direct threat to people lower in the art world’s pyramid than world-class geniuses — jobbing creative designers, for example, should be concerned and should take the challenges posed by AI more seriously than I think many of them do. A lot of art is absolutely created to have generic pretty things to put in your house.

I dispute the assumption many of the commentators made that they could easily distinguish AI and human art.

1

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j2nsnsk wrote

>I dispute the assumption many of the commentators made that they could easily distinguish AI and human art.

Well, for now, it is often VERY easy to distinguish. The tech isn't all there yet, but I think the biggest factor is who is posting AI art. It has a lot of potential in the hands of professional artists with technical skills, but the reason so much of the AI art is easily recognizable right now is that most people that post it are layman's that don't have the technical skills to either spot the irregularities nor the technical skills to fix them.

And it's also why I do have a little bit of an issue with the attempt from some to say AI art is equal to manual digital art and that it doesn't need identification. It's a scale problem.

At a quick glance from an untrained eye, a photograph of Mount Fuji might not seem far apart in quality, but upon closer examination or looked at by people interested in photography, one will be able to distinguish the photo taken during a family vacation in Japan vs the photo take as an art piece.

Despite both being photographs, most art or photo sites will usually prohibit someone from uploading his whole family vacation photo file of unfiltered snapshots. That's the scale problem.

>that a masterpiece has a whole story

You also don't need to go to masterpieces to see that phenomenon. People naturally gravitate towards artists' production because of a variety of factors, most of them unrelated to just the pretty pictures. Branding, story, style, etc.

AI art will indeed most likely disrupt the artistic production of mass market where the story isn't as important (graphic t shirt, consumer furniture design, toys, etc). But (hopefully) an artist will stay in the creative loop to fix, choose, guide what goes to market. It will simply take fewer artists for that hence the job loss.

But as soon as you are talking about books, movies, music, "high" art, etc, only AI creations will probably face a lot of natural push back. Not because they just hate the future. But because the public will have a hard time relate to it.

Now, if the AI is simply used as a tool to create an artist vision, then it might pass better.

3

Slobberchops_ t1_j2nu2fm wrote

Lots of great content in that comment, thank you! I appreciate your perspective — the art world isn’t something I know as much about as you clearly do.

My job involves text production — and that’s a world that absolutely is just starting to become aware of the tsunami that’s coming. The speed that the AI is improving is absolutely incredible — and, perhaps because I’m not an expert, I see no reason why the artistic AIs can’t also rapidly improve.

1