The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I do photography and I’ve heard people analyze my work and try and find some meaning, intention or a message that I’m trying to convey with it.

    The reality is that I took 150 pictures and that was the one I liked the best. There’s nothing to it for me except how it looks. The fact that I managed to capture that specific photo is hardly anything but an accident. There is no meaning to it and whatever meaning one imagines seeing there is just in their mind. It’s a story you’re telling yourself and you’d come up with a similar story from a piece made by AI that you didn’t realize was such. If it stops being art at the moment you learn it was made by AI but you accept it as art when it was made by human even if it was, in fact, an accident, then that’s exactly the gatekeeping I’m talking about.

      • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Tbf, that’s a lot of what making a good AI image is as well, messing with prompts and parameters then finding something you like.

        • Sergebr@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Art allows you to experience the world through someone else’s senses and unconscious. The AI didn’t choose to take pictures of something. The AI doesn’t have subjectivity, which is what makes art interesting. If I find a box filled with pictures and find one I like, that does say something about my tastes, but it doesn’t remotely make me an artist.

          But TBF, as an artist, I wouldn’t expect to connect with anybody who doesn’t care about the difference between human-made art and fancy statistical averages of troves of pillaged art.