I wonder, when it comes to discussion on the creativity and AI, whether those standards are consistently applied to other art. It's hard to tell because obviously different people can oppose AI art for different reasons and even a single individual can have multiple objections, so it's not always easy to tell what exactly the problem is. And then when we have discussions, it's usually not framed on testing our ideas against multiple different examples of art.
Leaving aside the ethical concerns, I was wondering how people who object to generative AI on the grounds that it's not human creativity making the art consider analogue generative art also not to be real art? I remembered this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOD7HQOnKAE) of an artist who puts paint in a bucket with some holes and then swings it above the canvass and uses the dripping paint to create his art.
It seems to me that there are a couple of parallels in the methods. In both the case of the swinging bucket and generative AI, it is using a tool to create the product. The artist does not personally place the paint or pixels. I'd say the bucket and ropes are analogous to the AI model. Neither the bucket nor the generative AI will do anything without human input. In the case of generative AI, the human input comes in the form of a written prompt while, in the case of the swinging bucket, the input is in the form of whatever paint is added and the force used to swing the bucket above the canvas.
As a side note, there are plenty of comments on the video that say that is not real art.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I wonder, when it comes to discussion on the creativity and AI, whether those standards are consistently applied to other art. It's hard to tell because obviously different people can oppose AI art for different reasons and even a single individual can have multiple objections, so it's not always easy to tell what exactly the problem is. And then when we have discussions, it's usually not framed on testing our ideas against multiple different examples of art.
Leaving aside the ethical concerns, I was wondering how people who object to generative AI on the grounds that it's not human creativity making the art consider analogue generative art also not to be real art? I remembered this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOD7HQOnKAE) of an artist who puts paint in a bucket with some holes and then swings it above the canvass and uses the dripping paint to create his art.
It seems to me that there are a couple of parallels in the methods. In both the case of the swinging bucket and generative AI, it is using a tool to create the product. The artist does not personally place the paint or pixels. I'd say the bucket and ropes are analogous to the AI model. Neither the bucket nor the generative AI will do anything without human input. In the case of generative AI, the human input comes in the form of a written prompt while, in the case of the swinging bucket, the input is in the form of whatever paint is added and the force used to swing the bucket above the canvas.
As a side note, there are plenty of comments on the video that say that is not real art.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~