troy_s Jan 19, 2023

I’ve lost follower acquaintances for saying this, so I’m saying it again: If you think that Statistical Nonsense Machines (wrong terms “AI” or “ML”) make art, you don’t have a clue what art is.

No, really. Go study it.

Art is sociological artifact. Remove the cognition to create interpreted intent in relation to the sign and signified, and the concept of “art” is removed.

Literally *not* art.

Show threadHerstoryJan 19, 2023
@troy_s art is made by human beings, computers ie AI or machine learning can copy the style or content of the art that humans make but if there were no art made by humans there would be nothing for the computers or their algorithms to copy. But yes a sandcastle made o the beach by a kid, or a drawing or a sandcastle by a kid is individual and is art, an AI sandcastle is a copy
Show threadHerstory
@troy_s there may be some computer art databases (I use computer art or machine art because AI implies that the computers are intelligent which is not yet the case) where a mixture of artists and programmers have programmed the computer art generator to produce art in a certain way in response to prompts. In which case the artists are the artists and programmers (involved in developing the generator) not the computer
Jan 19, 2023 at 8:00amWeb
Show threadtroy_s Jan 19, 2023

@Herstory Would probably disagree even from the rather naive “tool” construct. The reason is rather straightforward.

The *logic* behind the sign / signified relationship is critical to the *interpreter*. That is, feeding the Statistical Nonsense Machine a prompt is a fundamental *disconnect* between this critical aspect of art-as-artifact, and mere statistical mashup.

There is a significant cognitive comprehension difference.

They theory of “tool” is predicated on top of nonsense.