I remember reading a blog post by a pixel artist
showing you their thought processes in designing a simple game graphic. Stage one looked okay (a point where many people would think it was finished - the sort of thing AI can generate), but then they tidied it up and stylised it so by the end it was undeniably a far superior image.
I wish I could find that post, because AI art always seems to be at the "it looks about right" stage, when the real depth of knowledge seems to come after that. The article really made you focus on the subtleties of such work.
Whilst AI art tools are impressive/scary, it does seem another massive leap for it to understand creativity in any way. By design, it feels like it will always head toward the average, when interesting art needs something unique.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 12:49,
Reply)
I wonder if growing up in an age where most imagery has been generated by AI will further blind people to the flaws of AI art, not unlike the way many have become deaf to the lifelessness of autotuned vocals in pop
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Fri 21 Apr 2023, 21:15,
Reply)
It only has to be good enough to 'fool' us,
like a mimic in nature only has to look close enough to the real thing from the perspective of its prey. I think it could do this within a decade, and without achieving/suffering consciousness. Plants can mimic.
(
brb Monkhouse Stampede, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 0:17,
Reply)
In nature mimicry exists in the context of the 4 Fs
And when it comes to matters of life and death, evolution seems to favour erring on the side of caution.
My point was about the effect of exposure on aesthetic preferences
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 5:47,
Reply)
If you look at movies or music now
and how they use things like cgi or autotune, then you can see both interesting use, practical use, and lazy use. The good stuff is still there.
Unfortunately the lazy use seems the most popular with the public, though.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Sat 22 Apr 2023, 9:14,
Reply)