Post by @zalcarik@mastodon.social

2022-12-12 23:38 UTC

@mattblaze@federate.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social I think photography is another useful reference--the photographer doesn't create the imagery they capture from nothing, but they choose what to photograph, tuning parameters of the camera (which they probably didn't build either), making tweaks to an image after the fact, etc. We don't have as much trouble assigning a creator in those instances--are the AI designers like the camera makers? are the images input into the model like the made objects that appear in a photo?

Replies (2)

@mattblaze@federate.social 2022-12-12 23:54

@zalcarik@mastodon.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social Yes, I think photography is a good example. When I make a photograph (and I use the word "make" quite deliberately instead of "take"), I'm trying to produce art. We can argue about whether it's good art or bad, but there's no longer any serious question, here in the 21st century, done with intention, that photographs can be art. Why is selecting the input and curating the output of an AI system any different?

Open ##2605986
@sehe@fosstodon.org 2022-12-13 00:22

@zalcarik@mastodon.social @mattblaze@federate.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social The difference is the photographer has the "eye" to discover/uncover beauty in their surroundings. They cannot photograph what isn't there (although they can manipulate a fair deal). With AI generated art, the discovery part is crucially less valuable. You can basically say "give me a beautiful composition" and you'll have one, often more intriguing than every day art works, because they don't have the same limitations as traditional artists.

Open ##5362985