[kuramitropolis]

"Working artists" (lol) are gonna be just as subservient with or without 2D typewriters, because the "creative industries" are to art basically what porn is to sex. (Anglophones have this linguisic quirk where half of the time "art" is synonymous with "graphics", which to other languages sounds like trying to tie your shoelaces with one hand fused to your face.)

Truth be told, I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-assisted work that provokes any internal experience other than thinking "hey, cool pixels/sounds/sentences/whatever". Not even the usual "somebody paid a lot of money to make this thing, so I better pay attention" which is the official function of commercial art.

It's certainly a very interesting academic exercise, and possibly a lucrative line of business. But if the value proposition is supposed to be "now it's easier for more people to create more complex stuff" (i.e. operate at a higher level of abstraction), why do I keep finding many "manually produced" works that speak to me on some level, even among the shitfountain of mass culture - while no AI-made thing has yet got me thinking anything other than "hey, cool tech?"

I'll start worrying when an AI chooses to ignore its incentives and, instead of doing something more rewarding, goes on to create a work of art just because. I'll also start worrying when people start becoming unreceptive to non-AI art, which I think is more likely to happen within our lifetimes.

Because what I see here is some cool tech for creating some ersatz sensory stimuli. And obviously, with enough compute you can make this advanced enough to confidently supplant the previous generation of tech for creating ersatz sensory stimuli. Somewhat less obviously, this reduces the risk of a spontaneous transcendental experience when perceiving AI art to a safe margin. Which is... probably good for business somehow?

At the end of the day, the human sensory system has a finite complexity, so you can create more and more compelling simulacra. Have at it. What'll happen is the next generation of humans will grow up awfully prone to Wile E. Coyote moments - tragic as well as comic.

[nonima]

>I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-assisted work that provokes any internal experience other than thinking "hey, cool pixels/sounds/sentences/whatever"

Maybe because you knew it was AI generated before you looked at it?

[kuramitropolis]

Or because I knew it was AI generated when I looked at it. Either way, that shouldn't be the differentiator.

An artwork is judged by how it exists within the totality of the context. We can consider "art" in the broadest sense, as "artifice" - and from that standpoint the algos themselves can be seen as staggering works of art in their own right. But on the other hand if we view the algos strictly as tools, and only consider individual pieces of content that are created through them, so far it's been only "meh" with a very occasional "hmm".

A similar example is the audio gear scene. There are many electromusical devices that are true works of art, worth of historical study even - then someone picks em up and starts by making bleeps and bloops that may have some novelty value but don't create a lasting impression.

I try to keep an open mind - even Facebook can be seen as AI-facilitated performance art evoking a profound feeling of dread, but that's a much broader context.

[selestify]

> while no AI-made thing has yet got me thinking anything other than "hey, cool tech?"

That’s just, like, your opinion man.

[kuramitropolis]

That's exactly what it is. Show me some mind-blowing AI art :-)