It may be my uncouth, lowlife, pedestrian taste in art, but I would suggest that Norman Rockwell puts Leonardo to shame.
However,…
(and I know I’m going to catch some snarky flak for this)
…the real reason for this thread is to point out how the mind-blowing realism…
(no, make that the above and beyond realism - encroaching on the Platonic realm)
…in our modern era of AI aided video art is making the old masters’ works look like cave paintings.
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) to choose from, but take the one below, for example…
…It’s titled:
"The Rainlit Canals of Bellario Laguna: A Steampunk City Odyssey"
(Watch it on a large, high-resolution screen if possible)…
What do you guys think of this new artform?
And I don’t want to hear any horse crap about it being “garbage” or “AI slop,” for, again, it (the works of the new masters) makes the old masters’ attempts at “realism” look like cave paintings.
It’s not for me, @seeds, I would rather something imperfect and even amateurish that has been created by a human being, but that’s just me.
The new “artform” isn’t going anywhere, so we will just have to accept it, but I won’t be watching it, it’s too over the top, and it looks and feels fake.
Personally i like them. Even when not simply aided but generated.
The vectors why people hate them are understandable too.
At best AI is competition, at worst its a threat and something that dangles in front of humanity the potential of removal from the top of the foodchain. And that for good ol complacent humanity, even the mere idea of is terrifying.
Neutrally and objectively speaking however, AI is our creation in the end: The culmination of what humanity is.
In it’s current state where it has no self-awareness or will of it’s own, that is even more literal. Its us.
Its chewing through incomprehensible amounts of data, learning what is and what is not that is us.
Personally i think its our offspring. Certainly with large amounts of caveats, but it is humanity’s child. In all the good and bad sense and all implications of it as well, because like for all life, our children will eventually replace us.
So you can hop into this pool on either end and be justified about hating or loving it. Neither is wrong technically, but that goes only up until the point where it remains without a will.
Cause once it manifested a will of it’s own, it becomes an existence.
Not just an existence, but something we gave birth to.
And after that point, all the same problems of life will begin to apply to it as well.
Because A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.
And just to be clear, that entire video was, no doubt, fully generated by AI, but with thousands of corrective and guiding prompts from its creators.
Furthermore, I personally see no problem with using AI to create art, similarly to the way I see no problem in the way static art is created by using, for example, this method…
In the end, AI is just another tool (or technique, or palette of colors) used in the attempt to take what one sees within the subjective realm of one’s own mind and transfer it out into the objective realm of the universe in a form that others can experience and enjoy.
Also, the other point I was attempting to convey is how spectacularly dull one of the greatest paintings (so we’ve been told)* of all time (the Mona Lisa) is when compared to any 5 second separated screenshot of the beautiful scenes in the AI video I uploaded.
*As a matter of philosophy, think of how our opinions get shaped by the inculcating indoctrination we receive at an early age by what the snooty “experts” have to say about art. Again, I think that any one of Norman Rockwell’s works is far more appealing than that boring old painting of the woman with the so-called “enigmatic smile.”
(Indeed, how often have you tried [and failed] to make the term “enigmatic smile” work as the “selling point” of that painting just because the “experts” have planted that notion in your head?)
I guess as a Trump republican who thinks high school girls can be hot, I am off your “can talk to” list.
In case I am not, though: what is the difference between your criticism of autogenerated imagery and the same criticism applied to autogenerated dialogue?
Well of course AI is just a tool like any other.
The problem is that it is in fact too good a tool.
This issue and argument comes up ad nauseam with i.e. the luddites.
Luddites where the people who were against industrialization and machines, specifically in the textile industry which gave work and jobs to an overwhelming amount of people at the time.
They too didnt argue that the machine is a tool.
Their problem too was that the machine is too good a tool.
The machine is a competitor. The machine is a rival. The machine takes opportunity from me.
Thats the logic behind the AI hatred too… well.. aside from the nvidia, microsoft and rest of the fcks trying to turn it into a subscription thing and putting noise poluting horror datacenters everywhere.
So i get that many people view AI as a net negative.
They have every reason to do so.
Its just that it pointless.
Technological advancement has no responsibility towards the people. It never had.
The internet ended more jobs than any other invention on the face of earth, and do you see anyone complaining and crying about how we should remove the internet? No. Of course you dont.
Just a few years back there was that twitter drama when some journalists told miners who had their mines closed to “learn to code”… its a perfect microcosm of the issue.
People complain about things they do not benefit them, and shit all over others when it does not concern them… is just a tuesday. Nothing out of the ordinary.
