Becky/TriciaOn a scale of 1 to 10, how good is AI "art"? (1 is complete slop, 10 is a masterpiece)
https://thelemmy.club/post/45507860 Original
What does this mean??? - The Lemmy Club
So, my friend was trying out AI and told it to generate a story where Character A was snoring that night at a sleepover with Character B. Character B said “You were snoring last night”. Character A told him he doesn’t snore, and Character B was like: “Yeah you do, it was like nose commentary but audio.” Is this its attempt at a roast? A joke? What does that even mean?? Do people actually say this, wouldn’t it just be better to leave it at “yeah you do”?? LOLL
its_kim_love1 it’s unmistakable how intentionless every part of the work is.
ScrubblesNon-comparable, apples and oranges. It exists, it’s there, you can generate it to make something quick, but it’s not art. You simply can’t compare something that someone poured their heart into and something that a prompt made
Hmm, that makes a lot of sense
OriginEnergySuxN/A.
Im not impressed when a calculator does math.
Thanks, I’m borrowing this. Too fucking correct!
Go for it
It depends on the piece. Occasionally it spits out something good.
On a scale of 1 to 10
My estimation is around the square root of minus one times zero to the power of e.
I’ll put it at a 2. The only way that I have seen AI go beyond a 1 has been when used by people without a talent in art use AI art as a way to assist in visually telling their story, like using it to help their D&D campaign or to provide the visuals for a comic book.
There is still a creative vision using AI. It just happens to be by someone without an artistic talent.
spankinspinachThis is actually a pretty good use case: one off, inconsequential, wouldn’t exist outside the scenario (or would even be considered to ask an artist), and adds a massive amount to a small party.
It is also a case where AI is contributing to a greater human act of creativity. It is one step above a character creation screen.
DFX4509BLots of AI hatred driving these. All emotional though rather than objective.
The question itself is also pretty stupid. My kids do “art” and it’s absolute slop. Most human made art is terrible, and never sees the light of day. It’s thrown in a recycle bin, forgotten by the mind, or sung to a shower wall.
A bunch of Art contests with AI winners (unknown by judges) have shown AI art can be as good or better than something done by an artist. This isn’t just for visual art either, they have been popular at producing songs too.
It feels like a lot of people are trying to reframe “art” as only things that have intentional meaning or an emotional story, rather than things you enjoy seeing and or hearing (or other senses).
AI songs can make me feel just as good as something from a musician. I don’t need all the “I saw them in person and got the t-shirt” bragging rights to enjoy them. I haven’t heard an AI song that’s as good as the best human made songs yet, but I’ve definitely heard AI songs that are far better than some of the worst human made songs (Anyone remember Rebecca Black?)
I have real paintings up on my walls, from artists I’ve never heard of, with images of things I have no connection or knowledge of. I didn’t buy them, they were purchased by someone else. They still look nice. Would I even be able to tell if they were AI? Probably not.
Does that mean that I can’t also enjoy specific pieces of art made by specific artists? Absolutely not. I will continue listening to Sandstorm by Darude until I die. I love a good Keanu Reeves movie. An Anne McCaffrey or Terry Pratchett Book.
AI art is a reflection of human art, so it must have some good parts. Will it take over all art? Never. Does anyone want it to? No.
Just like recordings of music didn’t kill live music, AI art will not kill real artists. It will definitely shake up the financial side of it though.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 AI generated “art” is essentially advanced paradolia and not art at all. So 1.
You can’t objectively rate art at all in the first place. This kind of thing always ends up in some sort of circular argument about historical relevance versus technical acumen versus subjective inference.