Which makes ChatGPT (or whatever) just as valid as any tool for creating art.

> What I’m saying is that art requires making choices at every scale; the countless small-scale choices made during implementation are just as important to the final product as the few large-scale choices made during the conception.

As a life-long artist and musician, I agree with this. However, I find the artist's perspective lacking from this article. For many artists (myself included), the process is why we do it. It's truly therapeutic. I honestly cannot imagine my life without creative expression. Whether entering a prompt fulfills that for someone is up to them to decide. But, for me, it would remove the parts of creating art that give me joy.

https://archive.ph/QVg0P

The "AI artists" using this tool lack the technical and artistic competency to realize this. They didn't write the algorithm, draw the dataset, or train the model. They prompted. They have the smallest amount of creative input into this whole pipeline.

I do believe AI can be used in the process to create art as it's just an image generator like fractal art, but the problem is most people are going to use AI not as a means to create art, but as an end. You could fix the problem above by simply importing the image into GIMP and changing the brightness, but nobody does that because they aren't interesting into creating an art piece with a set goal in mind, they're just being entertained by generating dozens or hundreds of images with this technology.

Amusingly, you could also just type text in GIMP. Instead there is now something called "flux" that can do text literals.

While I see the point in making a prompt interpreter capable of generating text literally, if I were creating something, I wouldn't let an AI randomly pick a font, color, weight, serifs/slabs, etc. for me. These are creative choices in design that make all the difference. Prompting gives the illusion of (creative) choice. You get something that looks good, but "getting something that looks good" is the default state. Anyone can do that. It's the AI art equivalent of drawing a stickman. The prompters just don't realize it because they're comparing themselves to to artists of other media, not comparing themselves to other AI artists.

When everything is AI, and anyone can generate an image with a prompt, the whole market will be so saturated with this (perhaps it already is at the rate these are generated) that all the novelty will be gone.

It was cool when AI was able to generate video, just like it was able to generate text. But in my opinion, those are feats of the technology, not artistic feats. The piece itself isn't interesting. It could be any video. Just the fact that the tech can do this is impressive. But it's just the tech that is impressive, not its output. Once the tech can do it once, it can do it every time, so the second time AI generates video is never going to be as impressive as the first time. By the thousandth time it will be as impressive as my ability to send this message to the other side of the world at the speed of light.

Ask an artist what's art? Hell no.

Myself, I like results: A metaphor about the scent of roses is just as sweet, after I find it came from an LLM.

> I think the answer is no. An artist—whether working digitally or with paint—implicitly makes far more decisions during the process of making a painting than would fit into a text prompt of a few hundred words.

In the art of words, Even the briefest form has weight, Prompt and haiku both.

> This hypothetical writing program might require you to enter a hundred thousand words of prompts in order for it to generate an entirely different hundred thousand words that make up the novel you’re envisioning.

That would be an improvement on what I've been going through with the novel I started writing before the Attention Is All You Need paper — I've probably written 200,000 words, and it's currently stuck at 90% complete and 90,000 words long.

> Believing that inspiration outweighs everything else is, I suspect, a sign that someone is unfamiliar with the medium. I contend that this is true even if one’s goal is to create entertainment rather than high art.

I agree completely. The better and worse examples of AI-generated are very obvious, and I think relate to how much attention to detail people have with the result. This also applies to both text and images — think of all the cases in the first few months where you could spot fake reviews and fake books because they started "As a large language model…"

The quality of the output then becomes how good the user is at reviewing the result: I can't draw hands, but that doesn't stop me from being able to reject the incorrect outputs. Conversely I know essentially nothing about motorbikes, so if an AI (image or text) makes a fundamental error about them, I won't notice the error and would therefore let it pass.

> Effort during the writing process doesn’t guarantee the end product is worth reading, but worthwhile work cannot be made without it.

This has been the case so far, but even then not entirely. To use the example of photographs, even CCTV footage can be interesting and amusing. Yes, this involves filtering out all the irrelevant stuff, and yes this is itself an act of effort, but even there that greatest effort is the easiest to automate: has anything at all even happened in this image?

To me, this matches the argument between the value of hand-made vs. factory made items. Especially in the early days, the work of an artisan is better than the same mass-produced item. An automated loom replacing artisans, pre-recorded music replacing live bands in cinemas and bars, cameras replacing painters, were all strictly worse in the first instance, but despite this they remained worth consuming — even in, as per the acknowledgement in the article itself: "When photography was first developed, I suspect it didn’t seem like an artistic medium because it wasn’t apparent that there were a lot of choices to be made; you just set up the camera and start the exposure."

> Language is, by definition, a system of communication, and it requires an intention to communicate.

I do not see any requirement for "intention", but perhaps it is a question of definitions — at most I would reverse the causality, and say that if you believe such a requirement exists, then whatever it is you mean by "intention" must be present in an AI that behaves like an LLM.

> There are many things we don’t understand about how large language models work, but one thing we can be sure of is that ChatGPT is not happy to see you.

Despite knowing how they work, I am unsure of this. I do not know how it is that I, a bag of mostly-water whose thinking bits are salty protein electrochemical gradients, can have subjective experiences.

I do know that ChatGPT is learning to act like us. On the one hand, it is conceivable that it could use some of its vector space to represent emotional affect that itself will closely correspond to the levels of serotonin, adrenaline, dopamine, oxytocin, in a real human — and I can even test this simply by asking it do pretend is has elevated or suppressed levels of these things.

On the other, don't get me wrong, my base assumption here is that it's just acting: I know that there are many other things, such as VHS tapes, which can reproduce the emotional affect of any real human, present any argument about their own personhood, to beg to be not switched off, and I know that it isn't real. Even the human who gets filmed and their affect and words getting onto the tape, will, most likely, be faking all those things.

I have no way to tell if what ChatGPT is doing is more like consciousness, or more like a cargo-cult's hand-carved walkie-talkie shaped object is to the US forces in the Pacific in WW2.

But when it's good enough at pretending… if you can't tell, does it matter?

> Because language comes so easily to us, it’s easy to forget that it lies on top of these other experiences of subjective feeling and of wanting to communicate that feeling.

> it’s the same phenomenon as when butterflies evolve large dark spots on their wings that can fool birds into thinking they’re predators with big eyes.

100% true. Even if, for the sake of argument, I assume that an LLM has feelings, there's absolutely no reason to assume that those feelings are the ones that it appears to have to our eyes. The author gives an example of dogs, writing "A dog can communicate that it is happy to see you" — but we know from tests, that owners believe dogs have a "guilty face" which is really a "submission face", because we can't really read canine body language as well as we think we can: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310318/

Also, these models are trained to maximise our happiness with their output. One thing I can be sure of is they're sycophants.

> The point of writing essays is to strengthen students’ critical-thinking skills; in the same way that lifting weights is useful no matter what sport an athlete plays, writing essays develops skills necessary for whatever job a college student will eventually get. Using ChatGPT to complete assignments is like bringing a forklift into the weight room; you will never improve your cognitive fitness that way.

> By Chollet’s definition, programs like AlphaZero are highly skilled, but they aren’t particularly intelligent, because they aren’t efficient at gaining new skills.

Both fantastic examples.

No, I don't.

> Before AI, art that looked good was valuable and impressive precisely because few artists could produce it.

I didn't say anything about valuable and impressive, I said "useful". For an analogy, clip art isn't particularly valuable or impressive, but its useful for lots of things. Yes, exchange value is dependent on scarcity, utility is not.

I think the unique point to ML tools is the sheer volume that, IMHO, vastly outpaces 90%. And I think that's partially down to the fact that image generators are themselves, by their existence, low-effort easy-to-use tools to create images. It's not as though there wasn't already a vast and comprehensive existing tool-set for aspiring artists, even ones with not a penny to their name, to use. Tons of open source art programs exist, and if you are ready to jump to paying for your tools, you have an incredibly diverse set of options over all manner of capabilities, price points, and focuses. The notion that these tools "democratize" art has been silly to me from the beginning; there were already tons of tools available to anyone who wanted to learn the skills to use them. These tools, instead, seem directly aimed at people who don't want to learn those skills, and like... unskilled artisans don't make good things. Sorry not sorry. If you lack the interest in the subject to learn the skills of how to make a thing, you probably also lack the interest to learn what constitutes a good version of that thing, and even if your AI is very well made, you won't know what to really ask it for. Which I think is the reason behind so many prompts including stuff like "octane render, unreal engine, featured on artstation."

So while yes I agree in principle that Sturgeon's law is definitely at work here, I think it's important to note that the tools themselves are largely just... not really going to fit into a creative's workflow who has the skills already, not even just the literal skill to put a pencil to paper, but the skill to know what a good version of whatever they want would look like. It's the same reason I don't really use copilot all that much, because it's easier to just write the stuff I know needs writing than asking it to generate it, and then modify it to suit my code-style and existing environment. I don't find that a compelling time saver, it's more like a time cul-de-sac. Yes I'm spending the time writing the prompt instead of writing the code, but I'm frankly pleased as punch to just write the code.

I guess to TLDR my own comment here: if you knew how to make the things, you'd just make the things. Image generators are explicitly for people who don't know how, and that reflects in the quality of what's made.

Point-and-shoot cameras, finger painting, or crayons have a lower skill floor than even basic text-to-image generation, I'd claim. You can give those to children prior to the age where they'd have a proper grasp on describing visuals through language/writing.

Yet, I don't feel as though the glut of low-skill content subtracts from any of those mediums - regardless of whether you disqualify a child's macaroni art from being art. Probably even the opposite; I've enjoyed areas that have lowered the technical skill barrier to allow people to create who otherwise wouldn't have been able to (like the creative explosion around Flash games, with ActionScript and the tooling being relatively beginner-friendly) in addition to it leading to more (even if proportionally less) high-skill content.

> But, a working class person who has things they want to express artistically is going hit various walls with generative models very quickly, in much the same way I did. Like, if you feel a creative verve at all, I just can't fathom you looking at the wide assortment of all manner of tooling, and choosing the one where you're playing telephone with a toddler that paints over-smoothed, nonsensical photo-realistic pictures.

I think the walls of what's possible using generative techniques in your workflow are almost by definition* further out than with only traditional techniques, and that the idea generative tools must be like "playing telephone with a toddler" comes largely from not having tried out most of the generative tools available or typical workflows.

I'd recommend checking out ComfyUI, starting with some existing examples (https://comfyworkflows.com/ seems to show workflows, when you click on the image) then playing around to see what's possible. Or for something a bit less technical, NVIDIA Canvas is fun, and useful for skyboxes: https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/studio/canvas/

*: For a while 3D ML tools in particular did somewhat lock you out of other tools due to working on NeRF representations, but increasingly there's the option for regular meshes with sensible topology.

> And again we go back to the notion that "the process is the point" and as a creative, I completely agree. There are certainly times I feel frustration at my tools and wish they would just make what the hell I'm trying to make, but if that was the entire process, I would get nothing from it. Figuring out what prompt will get you what kind of output is interesting, but it's not fulfilling.

Do you not think you could be fulfilled with tools that let you focus on the bigger picture? I've worked with traditional procedural generation for cityscapes before and I don't feel it necessarily took away - just widened the scale I could create at, while still allowing me to zoom in and tweak individual buildings where I needed to.

> To be totally real I've never heard of someone drawing normal maps. I thought the traditional way you went about making those was having a high-detail model inside a low-detail one, and generating them that way.

If you have a 3D mesh sculpted then yeah you'd bake its normals from geometry - but you don't have that if you've just, for instance, painted some planks texture in Photoshop. You could hand-paint a normal map, hand-paint a height map and generate the normal map from that, or - as is increasingly common - generate normal/specular/roughness based on texture.

"No"

>A man pushing a button on an image generator?

"No"

Thank you, I don't need anything else.

With hundreds of millions of such images someone is going to feel something when looking at some of them. But so far I don’t which seems kind of odd.

Which is why I was asking if you feel anything looking at those specific images on their home page?

In the art world, painting and sculpting are known as ‘fine art’ partly because they’re supposed to be singular creative works that aren’t reproducible and that came from an artist, or in other words they’re judged by the purity of the discipline (according to the Wikipedia page on Fine Art). Prints and photography are second-tier because they use machinery to duplicate images, and they go to lengths artificially limiting the number of copies and including certificates of authenticity just to try to sit above commercial art and ads, closer to fine art. Directing a ghost painter isn’t that far of a step away from selling a print as though it’s a unique original. Artists caught doing that would quickly lose any notoriety.

Films inherently take many people to create, and more importantly many people get the credit. The lay public knows that films are created by large teams & production companies. Paintings, on the other hand, are supposed to be a one-person show, the sole painter gets all the credit. Painting is taught as a solo creative endeavor, the public thinks of it as a solo process, and the narrative of the artistry includes technique because it’s a manual solo process.

I would say the opposite: AI are very good at searching through information spaces, much better than we are.

They're terrible at learning from experience, the points made in the article about that are I think valid, but they're wildly super-human at searching.

> like Qualia

For me, the biggest issue here is: we don't know what that is, it's just what we do.

Without knowing what qualia actually is, we can't tell if an AI does or doesn't have it, we can't deliberately make a machine which does or doesn't have it.

I really hope we figure that question out before someone tries full-brain uploading/emulation.

Your definition is not very useful either: "some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art."

A lot of mundane things done by humans - from smoking a cigarette to filling a form -qualifies as something that elicits a "degree of human intent and expression"

> I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs

If I make a perfect copy from "Starry Night Over The Rhone" is it not art? Impasto on canvas and all?

If I sit at the Organ and play Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor is it not art?

I would argue that in both examples I am duplicating art with the correct inputs.

We can build models that are specifically trained and fine tuned on scientific fields to make advancements in them, but that's different from what I'm talking about, which is building a model that forms its own hypothesis, designs its own experiments, and contributes to the wide and deep wealth of knowledge that, crucially, goes well beyond the scope of its training data.

Have a good weekend :)