On genAI and art: "A machine can ostensibly produce the same results as a basketball player, throw a ball in the hoop and score points against other machines. But [...p]eople don't watch sports for the concept of throwing balls in hoops, people watch sports for human spectacle and physical ability."
Reposted from
chira 🎋
genuine question and I hope it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable answering. If it does feel free not to!!
I know LLM's, l… —
Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh.
'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a huma…
retrospring.net/@chira/a/113...
I know LLM's, l… —
Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh.
'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a huma…
retrospring.net/@chira/a/113...
Comments
GenAI: "There are chairs in the background of similar paintings."
Artist: "Because that's where he likes to sit, and that's the sort of chair he likes to sit in. That's his chair. That's 𝘩𝘪𝘮."
Details matter.
Sunsets are pretty universally better in person. So are waterfalls. We still photograph them.
the human connect is the human feeling of knowing what a sunset is. Connecting with that.
Then someone wonders "Wonder what a sunset localized entirely within in kitchen looks like." That's the human moment, no matter what tool is used.
The people YOU’RE referring to are programmers, not artists. The artist of a photo is the photographer, not the engineers who built the camera, who then have no say in how the image looks. AI has no photographer.