inriconus

joined 2 years ago
[–] inriconus@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The best definition of Art that I have heard is "an object/piece that makes one feel things"

However, AI slop makes many people feel anger, so I don't know if that definition can really fit or not. Probably not.

There is art, such as music, that has the intent of of making people angry or frustrated too. So, it is a grey area and as you said, very messy.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago

That's a good point, it would be fraud, but art is very interpretive.

It reminds me of that Banksy painting that he put a shredder in the frame and it was put on auction. When the painting sold for $1.4 million, the painting proceeded to shred.

I don't know if that Banksy painting would be considered fraud or not, but he definitely made a statement.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago

I don't recall the term CGI slop during my college days of game and graphic design, but I do recall people hating movies with CGI in them. Then as they became better, that rhetoric faded for a few years, but then it came back with AI slop.

Humans can create slop in all aspects of life too. If we didn't, we would probably be living in a utopia. The problem now is that we create slop faster than ever, because it is like a get rich quick scam.

I treat AI as a tool, rather than a crutch. With the millions of people that are using AI for everything though, using it as a crutch is, unfortunately, far more common.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think you’re mostly right about how AI works, but I think some of the conclusions go a bit further than what the mechanics alone really show.

Yes, AI is an algorithm and it’s statistical. It learns patterns and maps inputs to outputs. I don’t really disagree with that part. Where I start to disagree is the idea that this automatically means the output can’t be novel or meaningful. A human brain is also a physical system processing information according to rules. Saying AI is “just an algorithm” only really works as a dismissal if humans aren’t doing something similar, which I’m not convinced is true.

The Excel average comparison also feels a little off to me. Averaging collapses information. Generative models don’t really do that. They explore and recombine patterns across a large possibility space, which feels a lot closer to how people learn and create than how a spreadsheet works. It’s true you could replicate an AI with enough paper and time, but the same thing applies to any finite physical system, including a human brain. That feels more like computability than about creativity or authorship. Another point I do agree with is how AI is used matters a lot. If someone is mostly prompting and picking outputs, that’s closer to curation than creation. But that isn’t really unique to AI. We’ve had similar debates with photography, sampling, filters, and procedural art. Art has never just been about manual effort anyway, it’s more about intent and judgment.

So I think what we aren't lining up on is less about what AI is, and (as some others have noted here) is more about where we draw the line for authorship and responsibility in how it’s actually used. I do appreciate your perspective on it, and it's definitely a very grey philosophical to discuss.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I do openly disclose my use of AI and I have no intention on selling them.

While anyone can bash on some keys, it is becoming more difficult to even prove something wasn't created by AI.

So, that spurs another question; If someone made it a goal to generate something fake and fool everyone that they create, while the artwork was generated and is not their own, the intention was to fool everyone to make a statement.... would the deception be a form of art?

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

That gif is one of my favorites to use lol

 

This question has been rolling around in my mind for awhile, and there are a few parts to this question. I will need to step through of how I got to these questions.

I have used AI as a tool in my own art pieces before. For example, I have taken a painting I had made more than a decade ago, and used a locally hosted AI to enhance it. The content of the final image is still my original concept, just enhanced with additional details and also make it into a 32:9 ultrawide wallpaper for my monitor.

From that enhanced image, I sent it through my local AI again (different workflow) to generate a depth map, and a normal map. I also separated the foreground, midground, and background.

Then I took all of that and loaded it into Wallpaper Engine (if you don't know what that is, it's an application that can be used to create animated wallpapers). I compiled each of the images proceeded to manually animate, track, and script it to bring the entire thing to life. The end product is something I really enjoy and I even published it on the wallpaper engine steam workshop for others to enjoy as well.

However, with all the AI slop that is being generated endlessly and the stigma that AI has in the art community as a whole, it brought the following questions to mind:

  1. Is the piece that I painted and then used AI to rework, and then manually reworked further, still my art?

  2. One step further, I didn't build any of the tools to make the original painting, I didn't create the programming or scripting languages. I didn't fabricate the PCBs or chipsets that I built my computer with to run all of those tools. The list can go on and on for how many things I use that were not created/generated by me nor would it be possible/feasible to give credit to every single person involved. So, is any artwork that I make actually mine? Or does it belong to the innumerable shoulders of giants of which we all stand upon?

  3. Those questions led me to the main question of this post. Say that a real human grew up with only the experience of seeing AI slop and, as such, can only reference that AI slop experience they had learned; if that human creates something with their own hands, is that piece they create still art? Is it even a piece that they can claim they made?

I'm curious to see what thoughts people have on this.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago

Lamarck philosophy, maybe?

Llama + rock + thinking of a pillar typically used with philosophy.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

"I don't like that rock.

It's pissing me off."

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] inriconus@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

I replied, but I realized I didn't answer your question. Yes, it can be crispy.

[–] inriconus@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Depends on the how many slices, wattage of the microwave, and how long it is put in for.

8-10 slices on high for 7-8 minutes, they will come out looking like #2 or #3. Then letting them cool uncovered on the counter, they'll finish cooking themselves from the radiant heat to between #3 or #4.

Once you figure out the general timing for your microwave, then you can get the perfect bacon that you like.

There is also the suggestion from the other reply you got. I never had one of those trays, but for people that I have known that have it, it can work pretty well too. My only issue with them is that it's a single purpose kitchen tool, unlike a plate that can be used for many things besides bacon. Anyway, I'm rambling.

view more: next ›