And others…

  • passepartout@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’d like to agree, but:

    around works utilizing creative or imaginative talents

    […]

    generally through an expression of emotional power, conceptual ideas, technical proficiency, or beauty.

    […]

    There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and its interpretation has varied greatly throughout history and across cultures.

    There is creativity needed to come up with a general idea of what you want to generate. Imagining prompts and workflows is more of a technical requirement than a “creativity” one, but this is part of the definition above. Programming e.g. needs creativity as well, in the form of abstracting real world objects and their behaviour in a formal language.

    Would a caveman consider an oilpainting not to be art just because the tools have changed over time?That being said, generative AI is illegitimately built on top of the output of all humanity. This and the sheer amount of low effort slop out there is probably why people refuse to acknowledge it as “Art”. But there has been art which constitutes a high level of craftsmanship one the one side, and so to speak sloppy art before this as well.

    It also needs insufferable amounts of energy and most of the infrastructure is in the hands of ~5 big corporations. This may change when the bubble pops and inference hardware gets available comprehensively.

    We opened Pandoras box, there is no way back.