45

Before we start, let's just get the basics out of the way - yes, stealing the work of hundreds of thousands if not millions of private artists without their knowledge or consent and using it to drive them out of business is wrong. Capitalism, as it turns out, is bad. Shocking news to all of you liberals, I'm sure, but it's easy to call foul now because everything is wrong at once - the artists are losing their jobs, the slop being used to muscle them out is soulless and ugly, and the money is going to lazy, talentless hacks instead. With the recent implosion of the NFT space, we're still actively witnessing the swan song of the previous art-adjacent grift, so it's easy to be looking for problems (and there are many problems). But what if things were different?

Just to put my cards on the table, I've been pretty firmly against generative AI for a while, but I'm certainly not opposed to using AI or Machine Learning on any fundamental level. For many menial tasks like Optical Character Recognition and audio transcription, AI algorithms have become indispensable! Tasks like these are grunt work, and by no means is humanity worse off for finding ways to automate them. We can talk about the economic consequences or the quality of the results, sure, but there's no fundamental reason this kind of work can't be performed with Machine Learning.

AI art feels... different. Even ignoring where companies like OpenAI get their training data, there are a lot of reasons AI art makes people like me uneasy. Some of them are admittedly superficial, like the strange proportions or extra fingers, but there's more to it than that.

The problem for me is baked into the very premise - making an AI to do our art only makes sense if art is just another task, just work that needs to be done. If sourcing images is just a matter of finding more grist for the mill, AI is a dream come true! That may sound a little harsh, and it is, but it's true. Generative AI isn't really art - art is supposed to express something, or mean something, or do something, and Generative AI is fundamentally incapable of functioning on this wavelength. All the AI works with is images - there's no understanding of ideas like time, culture, or emotion. The entirety of the human experience is fundamentally inaccessible to generative AI simply because experience itself is inaccessible to it. An AI model can never go on a walk, or mow a lawn, or taste an apple, it's just an image generator. Nothing it draws for us can ever really mean anything to us, because it isn't one of us. Often times, I hear people talk about this kind of stuff almost like it's just a technical issue, as if once they're done rooting out the racial bias or blocking off the deepfake porn, then they'll finally have some time to patch in a soul. When artist Jens Haaning mailed in 2 blank canvases titled "Take the Money and Run" to the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art, it was a divisive commentary on human greed, the nature of labor, and the nonsequitir pricing endemic to modern art. The knowledge that a real person at that museum opened the box, saw a big blank sheet, and had to stick it up on the wall, the fact that there was a real person on the other side of that transaction who did what they did and got away with it, the story around its creation, that is the art. If StableDiffusion gave someone a blank output, it'd be reported as a bug and patched within the week.

All that said, is AI image generation fundamentally wrong? Sure, the people trying to make money off of it are definitely skeevy, but is there some moral problem with creating a bunch of dumb, meaningless junk images for fun? Do we get to cancel Neil Cicierega because he wanted to know how Talking Heads frontman David Byrne might look directing traffic in his oversized suit?

Maybe just a teensy bit, at least under the current circumstances.

I'll probably end up writing a part 2 about my thoughts on stuff like data harvesting and stuff, not sure yet. I feel especially strongly about the whole "AI is just another tool" discourse when people are talking about using these big models, so don't even get me started on that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Frank@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago

Yeah, pretty much. Ai images are just noise, devoid of meaning and content. And "take the money and run" is a transformative piece of work for the 21st century in much the same way as that toilet installation that most people don't get the context of.

[-] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 9 points 7 months ago

My dad had a story he probably made up from being a kid and going on some field trip to an art gallery and one of the paintings was a line across the top of the canvass and a line going down the left side. He used this to illustrate that art that isn't trying to be a photograph is bad. My man can't draw a stick figure well but go off. So at one point I asked what the thought about the other pieces he saw that day and he couldn't remember any. My brother in christ, you've spent over a decade thinking about these lines and can't remember anything else from the gallery? I think we can say it was a pretty good piece of art then.

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 3 points 7 months ago

I think we can say it was a pretty good piece of art then.

god i fucking hate this mentality so much. "you think it sucks but you remember it and not any of the mid stuff you saw around the same time, which makes it good" what a garbage rick and morty framework.

[-] Frank@hexbear.net 2 points 7 months ago

I love that, it's a great example of weird art's effectiveness. : )

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 3 points 7 months ago

Ai images are just noise, devoid of meaning and content.

no i don't think that's accurate. ai art contains signifiers. there's a weird jump that we're tripping on between the prompt and the machine output but even if it is correct to say there's no meaning or content i don't see how that doesn't also apply to marble painting or whatever dogshit cia-funded "art" we're supposed to defend.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13539 readers
775 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS