[ThrowawayR2]

AI bros: "You're gatekeeping because you think the result isn't art!"

Rest of the world: "No, we're gatekeeping because we think the result isn't good."

If someone can cajole their LLM to emit something worthwhile, e.g. Terence Tao's LLM generated proofs, people will be happy to acknowledge it. Most people are incapable of that and no number of protestations of gatekeeping can cover up the unoriginality and poor quality of their LLM results.

[kouru225]

What concerns me is how easily the “rest of the world” is changing their opinions about what’s good. If the result isn’t good, then it isn’t good, sure. But in my experience there’s a large contingent of people, especially the youth, that are more reactionary about AI than they are interested in creativity. Their idea of creative value is inherently tied to self-expression and individualism, which AI and systems-based creative processes are threatening. When they don’t understand the philosophical case for non-individualistic/systems-based creative processes, they can’t differentiate between computer assisted creativity and computer assisted slop

[squidsoup]

The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit. Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.

[kouru225]

>The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit

Big opinions there. A large amount of art that you think comes from individual expression is often not. There are countless examples of artists that secretly used algorithmic processes. A great example is Vermeer: https://youtu.be/94pCNUu6qFY?si=M6UQ-XuHNtoj2-3a.

This is what I mean about how this individualistic philosophy of creativity actually just results in artistic gatekeeping and manipulation of the audience

It’s very common for artists to add on individual expression narratives at the end of the process just so they can market the art, and the reality is that the individualism was never there to begin with. It’s just manipulation and advertising, and it sucks because the success of advertising like this actually undermines the quality of the art world. Because audiences are so susceptible to advertising narratives, artists are forced to spend more time on advertising more than art

> Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.

This is also not true. This idea mostly comes from the Romantic period. Modern day versions of it are often really just referencing a single book from the 1930s called The Principles of Art by a guy named R.G. Collingwood. It’s a very recent way of seeing art. Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal

[squidsoup]

Well aware of Hockney's work related to the use of technology in art, but there's a difference between producing purely algorithmic work and using a specific technique. Vermeer's style and work is still uniquely his.

> Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal

If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be able to identify the style of individual artists and artisans, and yet we can of course, regardless of their intent. Giotto's only intent may have been to glorify god in his work, but of course, inevitably, his work is also a reflection of who he was.

This is precisely why AI art is so hideous and anti-humanistic - it can never been a singular reflection of the individual.

[kouru225]

We can retroactively value art of the past using an individualistic philosophy, but that doesn’t change how it was valued in past. Artists of the past were considered good artists when they were capable of putting their own selves aside and allow God to flow through them. We now value their individuality, but they probably would’ve seen their individuality as their failures. It was a virtue to be objective rather than subjective. In literature especially we have are tons of letters between writers where they insult each other for writing in styles that are unintelligible to other people

I don’t necessarily ascribe to their views, but I bring it up because you said art has always been this way and it hasn’t always been this way

[spopejoy]

> in my experience there’s a large contingent of people, especially the youth, that are more reactionary about AI than they are interested in creativity.

First off -- are you an artist? As in, are you making your argument with skin in the game for something you _need_ to do, not just a pastime that makes dayjobs livable?

Not gatekeeping! Trying to see if you are formulating your position as a creator or a consumer.

If the latter, hate to say it, but your opinion is kind of irrelevant. Ultimately, only artists really understand what's involved in creating real art. Not what's good or bad, but what's at stake and how to tell if somebody's for real.

If you're a creator I'm a little puzzled. Are you really worried that AI is so freaking great that the horrible luddites at bandcamp et al are going to "gatekeep" us away from incredible AI art? This is NOT something that keeps me up at night.