[mrmetanoia]

I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway. This is pointless. Art will get made. Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art. This article is not part of anything, it's just throwing punches at air in a tantrum.

[llamaimperative]

> The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art

> This article is not part of anything

Seems incoherent I think?

[mrmetanoia]

In my mind no - because it was hardly concerned with looking at what artists are producing with AI and why its interesting or not interesting, and felt much more concerned with just putting a stop to something it doesn't care for. Which seems anti-creative in a way.

[lubujackson]

I agree that the article is poorly argued. I think the reason why won't AI can't create art (at least in the near term) comes down to your definition of art. To me, it is a form of communication. This certainly doesn't mean AI can't produce something that people consider art, it means it is incapable of differentiating something humans will consider artistic vs. copy pasta vs. hallucination.

In the end, there is a human curator that decides which creation by the AI is art. There is a human that writes the prompt that creates it. There is human intent as part of the mix, so AI can certainly create art but it is no different than a camera that remove many of the choices people make and presents new ones - which means it is a tool for creating art at a different level of abstraction.

[mrmetanoia]

Yes! It reminds me of when electronic music, which went through a similar inquisition. I recall bjork at one point saying if the person behind the computers puts their soul into it it will have soul.

Something about this article just felt like a kind of gatekeeping in hopes that they can convince people its not worth even trying.

[throwaway201606]

I agree; can’t know what AI will do at this point so punditry like this is just meh.

… and this analysis generalizes all types of AIs based on characteristics of just one type of AI - LLMs - that select the “next best word “ (my layman’s understanding of what they do). With so many other types of AI out there, we will eventually definitely get new approaches to AI where the arguments presented won’t make sense

About throwing punches in the air in a tantrum - that was a funny comment. So funny that I wanted to see if someone made art of it. Found something and sharing a link here that is pretty short and to the point, sweet and cool

(I hate mystery links so some info - it’s an performance art piece called “Plastic Bag” on YouTube, 5 mins long, about 60k views, where someone throws punches in the air at a plastic bag)

https://youtu.be/-W6rn2cWs2g

[andsoitis]

> Art will get made.

There's art. And then there is Art.

[bookofjoe]

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." — Wittgenstein(Tractatus 7)

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway."

HN is an excellent place to find hundreds of articles and comments predicting the future, i.e., something authors cannot know but like to guess at anyway, especially regarding the future capabilities and predicted use of "AI". There has been a steady stream of this gibberish pertaining to "AI" ever since the announcement of ChatGPT.

In a recent HN poll a majority of voters indicated they thought that "AI" was overhyped.

The parent comment is an yet another example of a comment that tells us something the commenter cannot know but wants to guess at anyway. For example,

"Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art."