add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Formalize this contest which has actually been going on for a long time. Talk about a Jackson Pollock painting in a way that makes you look smarter than everybody else.
This isn't a joke, this would basically be a poetry contest. Four of five contestants stand beside the actual picture at the art
gallery and in turn, begin their entry. The crowd votes at the end. Winner gets some patio furniture or a trip to Orlando.
So for the linked splatter, my entry would be:
"Everything he does flies in the face of the objective. This reaches into hitherto uncharted depth of nuance veiled in disregard for convention but seasoned with parables and allegories of the metaphor seasoned by the id, the psyche, the quest for universal cognizance of all ideations of human phaseiality. This grand elucidation of the ironic, the untethered, the incohesive, all ground up and thrown in the face of us, the plebeian swaths, mored in our rules and dictates, tied to our logic and ratiocination, tethered to our evolutionary imperatives, to simply live, love, and strive towards the superlative while making our way through the great conundrum of existence."
Translation: "The Emperor's New Clothes personified. Not only is this crap, but boy was this guy an asshole."
That's my entry into the contest to comment on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2024]
And by the way, THIS is abstract art...
https://store.phila...aircase-no-2-print/
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2024]
THIS is a scam.
https://artsandcult...lock/rgFoAwFLiZvHqQ
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2024]
Little bit of "art" history.
https://daily.jstor...eally-a-cia-psy-op/
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2024]
On Marketing
https://www.youtube...watch?v=ZtCG-Jo51d4
[Voice, Oct 12 2024]
Beauty is in the mind
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=902YXjchQsk
[xenzag, Oct 13 2024]
When a "conceptual" artist tries that shit with the lowly prole's beloved art-form.
https://www.youtube...watch?v=qCFJsnUyzJg
[doctorremulac3, Oct 13 2024]
Metal Guitar
https://makebestmus...9-a313-a6b033d94f0c
[theircompetitor, Oct 14 2024]
AI Art Turing Test
https://docs.google...xlBDms9CzQ/viewform
Put your money where your mouth is [Loris, Oct 14 2024]
Coca Cola Vase by Ai Weiwei
https://assets.phil.../NY010714/4_001.jpg
[Voice, Oct 19 2024]
Robot Wars
https://en.wikipedi...f_Robot_Wars_robots
Just read the names alone, that's human creativity at it's highest level. [doctorremulac3, Oct 23 2024]
Asked for a 50s style retro ad for my car the Remulac3 Cruiser
https://www.dropbox...og&st=lt9y1bwx&dl=0
Got a little glitch here and there but this shows how one branch of the human created art biz is dead. This cost me 30 seconds an 0 cents. [doctorremulac3, Oct 25 2024]
Here's the chrome logo for the front and back of the car.
https://www.dropbox...7o&st=rfnloiya&dl=0
[doctorremulac3, Oct 25 2024]
Modern technology allows anyone to attract an audience
https://www.youtube...watch?v=lfh9RhdUvH0
A kid who deserves an audience [Voice, Oct 26 2024]
5 billion views on this video that probably would have never been available through the old music industry.
https://www.youtube...watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
[doctorremulac3, Oct 26 2024]
How were sea shanty listens before the internet?
https://www.youtube...watch?v=UgsurPg9Ckw
This one got tens of millions, all it had to do was be amazing. No cigar chomping record execs, just a direct link between the artists and the people. [doctorremulac3, Oct 26 2024]
Human made art's not dead.
https://www.faceboo...eel/538576025463640
Just commercial illustration. [doctorremulac3, Oct 27 2024]
Got through about 10 seconds of this article and got bored.
https://www.the-sun...t-auction-sothebys/
As far as investment potential, Bitcoin is a number and it's "worth" $7,000. [doctorremulac3, Oct 31 2024]
People say AI can't be creative, but look at this. The prompt was "A gigantic massive Pizza destroying City". That's all it was given.
https://www.artbree...3184caf7002e5c1aba4
Yet somehow it took the leap to make an enormous calzone look like a mushroom cloud. /I/ wouldn't have made that connection. [Loris, Oct 31 2024]
HAL 10,000's interpretation.
https://www.dropbox...zr&st=vwgk3azf&dl=0
[doctorremulac3, Oct 31 2024]
HAL 10,000's piece.
https://www.dropbox...q4&st=gl5vskus&dl=0
Splattered Mess #9 [doctorremulac3, Nov 04 2024]
This was created by an artist friend of mine who's having some very hard times.
https://www.dropbox...42&st=vkgncxub&dl=0
Sold this for a few thousand dollars. Think anybody would pay that much for an AI piece? Of course not. This has a human story behind it. [doctorremulac3, Nov 05 2024]
How Did You Do On The AI Art Turing Test?
https://www.astralc...n-the-ai-art-turing
AI art Turing test results and analysis [Loris, Nov 20 2024]
How to tell if an image is AI generated.
https://www.faceboo...H3qtjEC1dfxMeFdmZ2l
Besides the hands being feet. [doctorremulac3, Nov 20 2024]
Art from the "academic industrial complex" vs talent from the people.
https://www.faceboo...tTL9uabyoozwVoLn4wl
The banana guy didn't have any formal training but I'm sure all the guys who dubbed this "art" did. [doctorremulac3, Nov 20 2024]
Who created this, me or AI?
https://www.dropbox...m6&st=v1zl8r8o&dl=0
I told it specifically what I wanted, repeatedly saying "No, that's wrong, I want this..." just like I would have told a human artist. My answer to the above question is "Does it really matter?" [doctorremulac3, Nov 20 2024]
Here's your interior view V.
https://www.dropbox...w2&st=x8mzjm7m&dl=0
Wanted a mid century modern on the inside, classic Mediterranean the outside. Can you mix styles like that? Just did. [doctorremulac3, Nov 22 2024]
[link]
|
| |
..but that didn't sound smart. Let me try: The smooth transition of the piece from the partially circumvented base denoted by the broader splatters at sectors B4, C6, C7, and D9 offer a twinned comparison between this piece and Golden Toilet and this piece and Edward's Shining Tarantula without compromising as so many others do in shaped glimmer through the change. This opens a new point of view from the Open Perspective and is really a genius way of showing the archtype without over-promising. |
|
| |
I think we've argued this out before on this site. It's not that the question doesn't matter; it does: it's just that, I think we've exhausted what the assembled 'bakers have to say on the subject, and maybe should move on, or risk repeating ourselves in an endless loop of mutual resentment. |
|
| |
(I mean, I *might* be able to add something, but it would consist of a long and probably boring history-of-ideas lecture, with lots of homework, and I don't think it would make this site more fun. Anyone who really wants to hear it can contact me at the poorly-obfuscated email address on my profile page.) |
|
| |
Nobody ever looked at an Escher or a Dali and said “anyone could do that.” |
|
| |
//Nobody ever looked at an Escher or a Dali and said “anyone could do that.”// |
|
| |
I think this is an important point. There are some things which are just obviously impressive.
|
|
| |
I'm not going to enter this contest. However, with regard to Jackson Pollock, I have heard that many people have tried to replicate his style, and found it to be much more difficult than they thought. I have heard similar with other artists people have said that about. |
|
| |
When it comes down to it, I think if people appreciate a piece of art, maybe we should just let them enjoy it. If they can't explain /why/ exactly... well, that's fine. I've been in that situation myself. I think the problem only arises if they then start insulting people who don't feel the same. |
|
| |
Loris, thank you for saying that because I was going to wrap this up with an un-expected twist: |
|
| |
If this DOES come down to a contest, and one person gets joy from something, and another person does NOT get joy from that something, WHATEVER it is, who's won? |
|
| |
A person who actually enjoys a Jackson Pollock painting has actually gotten something out of life that I didn't. |
|
| |
(except for the fact that I got a lot more fun by ragging on it and people who comment on it using words like "exemplifies") |
|
| |
Gets complicated don't it? :) |
|
| |
And let's be clear, if the goal is getting attention, and certainly art does NOTHING if it doesn't achieve that first step, that person strapping a banana to a canvas got people to notice. Even eliciting discussion could be considered successful, and if that's the metric you're going by, we're not discussing any of Bob Ross's painting are we? So who's the more successful artist by that measure eh? |
|
| |
This gives me another idea, "Critic Rating". Do they have that for movie review sites like Rotten Tomatoes? If not they should. |
|
| |
I've had many art teachers through my childhood and they were all nuts except one. We were working with clay and I rolled one piece into a cone, and slapped it over the edge of the table so it looked like a rat taking a dump over a cliff. Everybody laughed (we were little kids) and started making cliff dump rats, putting stories behind them, mine was named "Turdliac" or something, then the teacher walked over and said "What you got there?" and everybody got quiet like "Oh shoot, we're busted goofing off." and I sheepishly described how we all had these rats taking a dump off the side of a cliff and he said, to our suprise "No! Boys! That's awesome! This is what art is! It's about being creative and having fun! I know you thought you were being naughty but you were actually doing exactly what I want you to do! Break the rules! This is art!” I took that to heart. I think of art this way, we have so many rules in life we have to follow, art is the one place where we can go nuts. |
|
| |
That guy always stuck with me maybe more than any lesson any teacher's ever given me. |
|
| |
Previously I had won first place in a city art contest for kids with a piece called "Birds Of A Feather" that consisted of a bunch of wildly crazy looking birds that were totally dissimilar except for the fact that they all had feathers. I had just moved from a mostly black community to a mostly white community and I pointed out that though we might look different we're still the same and I think they liked that. Plus it was pretty surrealistic looking for an 8 year old. I remember I just wanted them all to look different. Although in retrospect they might have just been trying to be nice to the kid from the ghetto. |
|
| |
Anyway, I'm a big supporter of art in schools, but I'm afraid most art teachers, rather than teaching rebellion, risk, and self determination are teaching mindless adherence and vowing fealty to the prescribed mindset, like "You must like splatter paintings or you are inferior." I'm afraid this is why art being taught in schools is under siege, parents say "They're teaching you you have to like that crap and you're stupid if you don't?". |
|
| |
But just to wrap up the JP thing, I think the amount of people who lost respect for art in general because if this guy is pretty tragic. And if that didn't do the trick, people coming along and saying "You're just too dumb to get it." really put the final nail in that coffin. |
|
| |
That # 5 piece looks like the insulation we use in parts of cars that nobody sees. |
|
| |
This is celebration of status, a differentiation between the lowly proles who are "too dumb to get it" and the elites who see the emperor's new clothes clearly. This stuff is a parody of the values of the serfs who value skill and hard work, these instruments of survival they need to get through life. It's the maxim of the common man, "Making something people are willing to pay for is hard and can require blood, sweat, toil and tears." and when they see somebody applying the same hard fought work ethic into a skill designed to entertain, be it painting, singing or playing a sport they appreciate that. |
|
| |
This is a FU to those values and a celebration of the differentiation of classes: those who are enlightened versus those who keep the lights on. |
|
| |
That being said, it does get people to talk. Guess it's a bit of a Rorschach test. My reaction would be: "God damn! Lazy ass arrogant elitists suck!" whereas this poor gal had this reaction: |
|
| |
"I remember being a student and sitting in front of a Agnes Martin painting at the Modern Art Museum of Vancouver, I stared at that painting for almost 30 minutes and started crying. I don't know what made me cry, I had never cried because of a painting before. After, months later, I would understand that the tears had been in my mind all that time, and her painting released them." |
|
| |
Hope she got some help and is okay now. |
|
| |
That being said, I want all these things in a free society. |
|
| |
to be honest, Rothko had more hutzpah |
|
| |
Huh, just reading about the Rothko effect. |
|
| |
You know, I don't know if there's any actual controversy here, art appreciation is subjective, and to be honest I know the main reason I like going to art galleries is the relaxing atmosphere, nice lighting, they're often in palatial buildings. Kind of don't care if it's a banana taped to the wall or not. |
|
| |
And who's to say the artist that slapped a canvas with one stroke and called it "Euripides At Twilight" wouldn't be delighted by my mumbling "What the fuck is this piece of shit?" |
|
| |
The creators of expensive "art" probably get together every now & then, & laugh amongst themselves.
"People actually pay us for the stuff we produce! We're purposefully make it worse & worse, just to see if we can find the limit, but they just keep buying it! Ha ha!" |
|
| |
Oh it’s blatant, that’s the whole point. And the product they sell is elitism. A purposefully horribly work created so people can use it as a cudgel to beat down other people by saying they’re more sophisticated, have greater perception, insight, intelligence and exist on a higher social strata because they see a long list of virtues where the commoner sees a filthy drop cloth. |
|
| |
There simply is no better illustration of The Emperor’s New Clothes axiom in real life than this. |
|
| |
I'm doing a lot of work with Midjourney and Dal-E. AI excels at surrealist imaging, exactly as you would expect. And is shockingly good at music (see link, words are mine). |
|
| |
This is a very interesting age. It seems like AI can do everything, but I use the football analogy when giving my thoughts on if it would replace art. |
|
| |
For instance, I listened to that song to hear your lyrics, not for the song which I knew was AI therefore didn't really touch me because there wasn't a human element. |
|
| |
So to use the football analogy, would you watch a football game if it were played by robots? Maybe for a minute out of curiosity, but being no human element involved, there's no attraction. There's human drama down there on the field that draws us. |
|
| |
That being said, as I've said before, when I had a manual skill that was replaced by computers when I was a kid, being a draftsman with pencils, drafting table, straight edges, sandpaper, etc. that job just vanished, at least using the old tools. Although fine artists that actually do something requiring talent might get fans (the splatter art grift is dead other than the historical ones that are basically investment tokens like Bitcoin) I think the the job of graphic artist is as dead as my old job as draftsman. That is, somebody who would get hired to draw a car parked in a field with a family having a picnic next to it for a car ad. Click on your AI program, describe the scene and you get it basically for free. I showed my robo bee. Would have been several thousand dollars done by a human. |
|
| |
So talent is still interesting but just illustrating something for business, that's gone. |
|
| |
But to repeat myself, artists that can make something interesting somehow are still have their place. What is that something that's interesting? That's the challenge for the artist. |
|
| |
By the way, just to wrap my memory lane thing on having a skill I worked on for years taken from me, I was the first person I knew of using a computer to do my drawings, so I was actually very stoked about the change. I'd bring the blueprints to the planning or building department and their eyes would open wide and they'd say stuff like "You drew this!?" We'd have a little discussion about the future of drafting then I'd do my whole lobbying for approval thing. |
|
| |
And at the risk of doing something that's backfired a hundred times before, I'll say something nice to xenzag. I think creativity such as is his calling will still have its place. |
|
| |
I'll probably be sorry I said that because I guess kind gestures get taken as a sign of weakness and foments a slew of attacks, but I'll speak the truth regardless of consequences sometimes. |
|
| |
And eh, I don't mind attacks, as long as it's understood that I'll fight back, I'll just never start it. Been kind of peaceful around here lately, hopefully that'll be the new trend. Hope springs eternal. |
|
| |
Anyway, point is, I like some of your art xenzag, I don't think computers are going to replace stuff like that. It's the human element that's the draw, (no pun intended) not the end product as such. |
|
| |
So to wrap this up with the football analogy, watching a quarterback throw a ball 70 yards while getting tackled and the receiver jumping 4 feet in the air while running to catch it, that's entertaining. A robot throwing a football 500 yards and another one jumping 10 feet to catch it? Zzzzzzz. It's the human element that attracts us. |
|
| |
And to wrap up the wrap, the now exposed Jackson Pollock splatter art grift is dead. |
|
| |
If you didn't know it was AI you might not consider it smoke on the water, but you might think it's at least at the level of a decent bar band. That's shocking |
|
| |
As to the human element, is debatable at least on performance. I imagine a Mozart score can be performed just as well by an AI as an orchestra maybe better. Is definitely slippery. |
|
| |
Music is already mostly sampling. AI makes art like sampling. Writing is not there yet, it can do business letters and spam, and it can write a poem, but it can't write a "poem," but it probably won't take too long to get there |
|
| |
To me the issue with AI illustration is mostly translation. AI struggles with really simple composition challenges, for example. Red Riding Hood and the wolf? No problem. Same picture but Red chasing the wolf? 30 minute struggle |
|
| |
But if you have ideas and are persistent you will get it to do what you want. Yes a human illustrator might get there quicker, but much more expensively. |
|
| |
I actually posted a poem (lyric) written by AI earlier. Was creepy in how passible it was but the "Who cares what a bot creates?" thing still applies. At least for me. |
|
| |
Now as far has humans being replaced for non-creative graphic arts jobs, we're not there yet, this is the very beginning of this technology, like the first few seconds. |
|
| |
Ten years you won't be able to tell the difference between a human artist you're describing the job to and a bot. That's my guess anyway. But let me be clear, this is non creative graphics, where the person just wants for instance, a robot honey bee. If they want some creativity that's going to click with humans, gonna want to hire a human. |
|
| |
I'd also be nervous being a low level coder or law clerk. That's DEFINATELY something computers can do way better than people. |
|
| |
Whoa! Cool link L. Okay, I'm gonna guess ALL of them are AI. Won't put the results up so others can play. |
|
| |
By chance I came across this "AI art Turing test" today. |
|
| |
I think taking it is instructive. I think everyone who says AI art is soulless or obviously inferior should put their money where their mouth is and do it, to prove they know what they're talking about. Anyone who doesn't do this... well, you'll have missed your chance and we'll know your claims mean nothing. Be quick - you've only got until Monday 21st October. |
|
| |
note - you don't get the answers on completion. You'll need to copy-paste this list into notepad, and add either H for human or A for AI BEFORE YOU SUBMIT. Please put your answer between the colon and semicolon on each line - that way I'll be able to parse it easily, and you won't need to add halfbakery-formatting newlines or anything. |
|
| |
Angel Woman: ;
Saint In Mountains: ;
Blue Hair Anime Girl: ;
Girl In Field: ;
Double Starship: ;
Bright Jumble Woman: ;
Cherub: ;
Praying In Garden: ;
Tropical Garden: ;
Ancient Gate: ;
Green Hills: ;
Bucolic Scene: ;
Anime Girl In Black: ;
Fancy Car: ;
Greek Temple: ;
String Doll: ;
Angry Crosses: ;
Rainbow Girl: ;
Creepy Skull: ;
Leafy Lane: ;
Ice Princess: ;
Celestial Display: ;
Mother And Child: ;
Fractured Lady: ;
Giant Ship: ;
Muscular Man: ;
Minaret Boat: ;
Purple Squares: ;
People Sitting: ;
girl in white: ;
Riverside Cafe: ;
Serene River: ;
Turtle House: ;
Still Life: ;
Wounded Christ: ;
White Blob: ;
Weird Bird: ;
Ominous Ruin: ;
Vague Figures: ;
Dragon Lady: ;
White Flag: ;
Woman Unicorn: ;
Rooftops: ;
City[parisian?] Street: ;
Pretty Lake: ;
Landing Craft: ;
Flailing Limbs: ;
Colorful Town: ;
Mediterranean Town: ;
Punk Robot: ;
|
|
| |
Post your answer list to this page, and I'll collate them before reporting the answers after that.
Please do also say what your favourite image, or images are. |
|
| |
Oh, also, if you recognise an image, please note that at the bottom, and I'll exclude it from your results. You should still say what it is inline - I won't count it for your score either way, but if you're wrong I'll mention it separately as a misrecognised image. |
|
| |
Put me down for all AI please. The thing asked a lot of questions like "Do you consider yourself an art expert?" and I'd say "Holy beeboo jibber jabbers do I!" Then it asked why and I said "Because I do that brain thinky thang where I be all smartin' n stuff and I'm like, a geeneuous n whatever." |
|
| |
//Put me down for all AI please.// |
|
| |
Then you'd be about half wrong, doc. It's a genuine test, not a trick. You're not the first to think that, though. |
|
| |
It's not my doing either, in case you're wondering. |
|
| |
Okay, I'll try it again. The AI ones are reaaaaalllly obvious, waaaay too much detail, not not even worth doing for a human. |
|
| |
I'll hit this later, good stuff. |
|
| |
Eh, I'll do the first twenty now and come back to it. |
|
| |
Angel Woman: ; AI
Saint In Mountains: ; HUMAN
Blue Hair Anime Girl: ; HUMAN
Girl In Field: ; HUMAN
Double Starship: ; AI
Bright Jumble Woman: ; AI
Cherub: ; HUMAN
Praying In Garden: ; HUMAN
Tropical Garden: ; HUMAN
Ancient Gate: ; AI
Green Hills: ; HUMAN
Bucolic Scene: ; HUMAN
Anime Girl In Black: ; AI
Fancy Car: ; AI
Greek Temple: ; HUMAN
String Doll: ; AI
Angry Crosses: ; HUMAN
Rainbow Girl: ; AI
Creepy Skull: ; HUMAN
Leafy Lane: ; HUMAN
Ice Princess: ; AI
Celestial Display: ; HUMAN
Mother And Child: ; AI
Fractured Lady: ; HUMAN
Giant Ship: ; AI
Muscular Man: ; HUMAN
Minaret Boat: ; AI
Purple Squares: ; HUMAN
People Sitting: ; HUMAN
girl in white: ; HUMAN
Riverside Cafe: ; HUMAN
Serene River: ; HUMAN
Turtle House: ; AI
Still Life: ; HUMAN
Wounded Christ: ; HUMAN
White Blob: ; HUMAN
Weird Bird: ; AI
Ominous Ruin: ; HUMAN
Vague Figures: ; HUMAN
Dragon Lady: ; AI
White Flag: ; HUMAN
Woman Unicorn: ; HUMAN
Rooftops: ; HUMAN
City[parisian?] Street: ; HUMAN
Pretty Lake: ; HUMAN
Landing Craft: ; HUMAN
Flailing Limbs: ; HUMAN
Colorful Town: ; HUMAN
Mediterranean Town: ; HUMAN
Punk Robot: ; HUMAN
|
|
| |
The only ones I'm 100% sure on are these being AI: |
|
| |
Double Starship
Ancient Gate
Anime Girl In Black
Fancy Car
String Doll
Rainbow Girl
Ice Princess
Giant Ship
Minaret Boat
Turtle House
Dragon Lady
|
|
| |
Angel Woman:AI ;
Saint In Mountains:Human ;
Blue Hair Anime Girl:AI ;
Girl In Field:Human ;
Double Starship:Human ;
Bright Jumble Woman:AI ;
Cherub:Human ;
Praying In Garden:Human ;
Tropical Garden:Human ;
Ancient Gate:AI ;
Green Hills:Human;
Bucolic Scene:AI ;
Anime Girl In Black:AI ;
Fancy Car:AI ;
Greek Temple:AI ;
String Doll:Human ;
Angry Crosses:Human ;
Rainbow Girl:Human ;
Creepy Skull: AI;
Leafy Lane:AI ;
Ice Princess:AI ;
Celestial Display:Human ;
Mother And Child:AI ;
Fractured Lady:Human ;
Giant Ship:Human ;
Muscular Man:Human ;
Minaret Boat:Human ;
Purple Squares:AI ;
People Sitting:Human ;
girl in white:Human ;
Riverside Cafe:Human ;
Serene River:AI ;
Turtle House:Human ;
Still Life:Human ;
Wounded Christ:AI ;
White Blob:AI ;
Weird Bird:AI ;
Ominous Ruin:Human ;
Vague Figures:Human ;
Dragon Lady:Human ;
White Flag:Human;
Woman Unicorn:Human ;
Rooftops:Human ;
City[parisian?] Street:AI ;
Pretty Lake:AI ;
Landing Craft:Human ;
Flailing Limbs:Human ;
Colorful Town:AI ;
Mediterranean Town:AI ;
Punk Robot:human ;
Sorry, I don't remember what I put for Mediterranean Town. |
|
| |
Ah, I see I can load it again. IIRC I put AI with very low confidence, due to it being so simple a rodent with a drinking problem could conceptualize it. As to that, the concepts and selection of which is chosen even for the AI art are human, so the most difficult part still isn't done by AI for any of them even if the actual painting is. |
|
| |
Doc, Voice, I have your answers. |
|
| |
Well, it's a contest to see who can make the most impressive commentary, praising or deriding, doesn't matter as long as it gets votes from the audience. |
|
| |
My entry started off by sounding like I was giving it high praise then flipped at the end. |
|
| |
The criticism itself should become the artform on display. Which then gets criticized... by artists... |
|
| |
I see a performance artpiece where a child paints a typical watercolor, and the performance artist harrangues or praises the resultant piece with nonsensical high-sounding art-speak while it's being produced. |
|
| |
Aw, I was looking forward to mocking you for having five of the same comment up due to a technological malfunction beyond your control. |
|
| |
Yeah that was weird. Page kept spinning. |
|
| |
How about it, everyone else? Wasn't there someone around here who insisted some art has a hidden genius that only an educated person like him or herself could see? Surely such a person wouldn't believe a computer could make something of equivalent quality. |
|
| |
If there were a person like that and he or she failed to take this test it would invalidate his or her claims. That wouldn't be desirable at all...? |
|
| |
I'm just bumping this to mention that the AI Art Turing test is still available. Apparently the form will be closed on Monday 21st October - but I don't know whether that's the start or end of Monday, or what time-zone that means, therefore I recommend you do it before that if possible. |
|
| |
So if you think AI art is bad, or obviously distinguishable from human art - I ask you do the test, and report your evaluation here (using the list I provided above). I know that it's a bit of a slog, but this is your opportunity to prove your point. Those don't come along all that often. |
|
| |
As long as you don't recognize most of the pieces right off and pick honestly there are only three options:
A: You generally identify the human ones. Therefore there is something special about human art.
B: You can't identify the human ones. Therefore there used to be something special about human art, but it turns out it can be replicated in the brain space of a small mouse.
C: You can't identify the human ones. Therefore there is nothing special about human art. |
|
| |
I'm sure somebody's proposed this, but how interesting would it be to have an art exhibit with these exact paintings with three buttons below each one: "HUMAN" and ARTIFICIAL INTELLEGENCE" and "REVEAL ANSWER". |
|
| |
You push your guess, then the reveal answer button and the vote button of what it actually is blinks in green. Put a buzzer on the wrong one and a ding ding sound on the correct one. The gallery would be full of buzzing and dinging sounds, that would actually be the best part. |
|
| |
Now THAT I'm sure has been thought of. |
|
| |
OK I went through the pictures and submitted my entry. Most of these are 50/50 guesses to be honest. |
|
| |
Angel Woman:A ;
Saint In Mountains:A ;
Blue Hair Anime Girl:A ;
Girl In Field:A ;
Double Starship:H ;
Bright Jumble Woman:H ;
Cherub:A ;
Praying In Garden:H ;
Tropical Garden: ;H
Ancient Gate:A ;
Green Hills:A ;
Bucolic Scene:A ;
Anime Girl In Black:A ;
Fancy Car:H ;
Greek Temple:A ;
String Doll:H ;
Angry Crosses:H ;
Rainbow Girl:H ;
Creepy Skull:H ;
Leafy Lane:H ;
Ice Princess:A ;
Celestial Display:A ;
Mother And Child:A ;
Fractured Lady:H ;
Giant Ship:H ;
Muscular Man:H ;
Minaret Boat:A ;
Purple Squares:H ;
People Sitting:A ;
girl in white:A ;
Riverside Cafe:H ;
Serene River:H ;
Turtle House:H ;
Still Life:A ;
Wounded Christ:A ;
White Blob:H ;
Weird Bird:H ;
Ominous Ruin:A ;
Vague Figures:A ;
Dragon Lady:H ;
White Flag:H ;
Woman Unicorn:H ;
Rooftops:H ;
City[parisian?] Street:A ;
Pretty Lake:A ;
Landing Craft:H ;
Flailing Limbs:H ;
Colorful Town:A ;
Mediterranean Town:A ;
Punk Robot:A ; |
|
| |
[voice] I would tend towards answer 3, with the caveat, there's nothing special about art per se. I am much more a craft kind of person, both in terms of the production of useful items or activities rather than useless ones, and also in the sense of the ratcheting incremental development of technology and craft skills. I saw a very interesting video from the blacksmith Daniel Tokar who explained the difference between the craftsman, the artisan and the artist, basically depending on amount of learned skill and adherence to traditional norms and effectiveness of finished product. Modern high tech can be thought of as an extremely advanced and rarefied form of traditional craft skill. |
|
| |
AI art is a bit like AI text, on the surface it looks very plausible but tit is kind of lacking in useful meaning or content. I want my text to tell me useful information, and I want my visual representations to be useful technical or illustrative diagrams or pictures of real world things. in other words the encoded information content is more important to me than the style or surface appearance. |
|
| |
[poc] what do you think about the linked Coca Cola vase? |
|
| |
//A box of wires attached to a screen and a keyboard is never going to replace meeting with a real person and exchanging/discussing ideas/refining an outcome in an iterative process.//
Just you wait. |
|
| |
I looked at the image of the vase, and I thought it was a good image of a rather ugly vase. |
|
| |
The AI Art Turing Test still seems to be open. If you want to do it and be able to justify your opinion, now is probably your last chance. |
|
| |
pocmloc I have your data. |
|
| |
Just want summarize my view on the state of the art biz as somebody who's hired many artists through the years for many projects and as somebody who put a great deal of effort into learning a manual art, drawing buildings, and having that skill erased by technology. (I was among the first to help eliminate that skillset with the advent of readily available computer drafting tools.) |
|
| |
1- I would never hire a human graphic artist again, that job is dead and... |
|
| |
2- I would never go to an art museum featuring AI generated art. |
|
| |
That sums it up, times change. I would tell young people to be very cognizant of this. Fine creative art? Great, people always want to connect to people through art, music, sports etc. Drawing a new set of wheels for a tire company? That's over. Computers do if faster, better and basically free. Photography isn't going anywhere but if need some artistic flourish to your illustration, just tell the computer you want that mag wheel shooting flames as it rockets through the sky and it's done in two seconds. |
|
| |
I'll just add, that's me for number 1, others might want that human creative touch which will still be of value, but if it's just an illustration of a product, it's AI. |
|
| |
In the near to middle future the only thing humans will offer to the economy is the existence of their humanity. |
|
| |
I think there’s a lot of truth to that. |
|
| |
I’m gonna write a book: “The Luddite’s Paradox” How the biggest jobs collapse in history is coming, and why it won’t matter. (And might even be the greatest step forward for humanity since the advent of technology.) |
|
| |
It’s not gonna be all rainbows and puppy dogs, there’ll be challenges. Man didn’t evolve to sit on his ass while robots did all the work. Removing the need for physical and mental effort can lead to the decay of these facilities. We’re already seeing a generation of youth dealing with the challenges that come with not having the challenges that previous generations were faced with and had to develop the strategies and strengths to overcome. |
|
| |
“Walking is hard, so let’s put kids in wheelchairs when they’re born.” illustrates the enigma here. |
|
| |
IMO that's more down to overloading developing nervous systems with dopamine via unlimited social media. |
|
| |
That's a big factor. Any environmental change is gonna have to be adapted to by the organism. These facilities, this wiring we have serves a purpose, in the case of our brain juices, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins, they serve specific jobs like the parts of a car. Fuel injector mixes the gas with air, spark plug ignites it etc. Likewise these chemicals in our body do specific jobs, the car might inject NOx into the combustion chamber when a boost is needed, our adrenal gland does the same thing, but all to serve a purpose, which is still, as far as our body knows, to get away from hungry lions, fight other males for the right to mate with the women, catch dinner etc. |
|
| |
Now we bypass all those natural stimulants to get that dopamine rush or one of those other chemical thrills, it bypasses the function of the system, rendering it less useful if not totally obsolete. |
|
| |
So you can feel good by doing one of two things: Work hard, start a business, create a work or art or music, make your first sale, see your art in a magazine for the first time or hear your song on the radio and you go "Wow! That only took years of my life to get that blast of happy brain chemicals!" |
|
| |
Or... you can just use modern technology, or god forbid, drugs, to get even more of a rush without all that work. So how's that gonna affect the allure of "all that work"? You know, work, creativity, aspiration, those things that differentiates man from say, a paramecium? |
|
| |
That's the downside to an automated society, why actually do something when you can get more of a buzz sitting on your ass with your head plugged into some high tech happiness system? And that's gonna have some effect on the human condition. I don't believe evolution is gonna stop just because we're the first animals to have memes and other unending brain tickers that we don't need to strive to enjoy. |
|
| |
Some will figure it out and carry on with the universe's human experiment, but I think some won't. |
|
| |
It'll be the most boring mass extinction event in history. Dinosaurs had a massive asteroid, we had online porn and Prozac. |
|
| |
Society be damned if it can't accept art. |
|
| |
And artists be damned if they can’t accept society. |
|
| |
Like I said, art is where we get to take a break from rules. There are no rules, either for the artist or the viewers. That's what makes it interesting. |
|
| |
And one goal of art might be to get people talking. So if that's the metric, who foments more debate and discussion, Rembrandt or JP? |
|
| |
Speaking of talking, I use the HB as kind of a note pad, don't really expect a lot of it to be read so feel free to disregard, my feelings won't be hurt. It is awfully wordy. |
|
| |
When do we get those test results Loris? |
|
| |
The thing still seems to be up, and I'm still hoping for another contestant.
It'll take me a while to analyse, anyway - I don't have a spreadsheet installed on this computer at the moment, I was going to borrow another one. |
|
| |
I do think that reviews of JP pieces are a kind of poetry. |
|
| |
No, I'm not kidding. They don't just say "I don't know much 'bout art, but I be knowin' what I'sa likin'". They weave a tapestry of descriptions that you need to pay careful attention to, having your mind wander for one second and you're lost. |
|
| |
I would absolutely watch poetry slam where competitors took turns in front of a painting of his and got voted on by the crowd. |
|
| |
Guys.
I have the results!
I'll post the raw data first: |
|
| |
name, doctorremulac3, Voice, pocmloc, answer |
|
| |
Angel Woman, A, A , A , H
Saint In Mountains, H, H , A , H
Blue Hair Anime Girl, H, A , A , H
Girl In Field, H, H , A , A
Double Starship, A, H , H , H
Bright Jumble Woman, A, A , H , A
Cherub, H, H , A , A
Praying In Garden, H, H , H , H
Tropical Garden, H, H , H, H
Ancient Gate, A, A , A , A
Green Hills, H, H, A , A
Bucolic Scene, H, A , A , H
Anime Girl In Black, A, A , A , A
Fancy Car, A, A , H , H
Greek Temple, H, A , A , H
String Doll, A, H , H , A
Angry Crosses, H, H , H , A
Rainbow Girl, A, H , H , H
Creepy Skull, H, A, H , H
Leafy Lane, H, A , H , A
Ice Princess, A, A , A , A
Celestial Display, H, H , A , H
Mother And Child, A, A , A , A
Fractured Lady, H, H , H , A
Giant Ship, A, H , H , H
Muscular Man, H, H , H , A
Minaret Boat, A, H , A , A
Purple Squares, H, A , H , H
People Sitting, H, H , A , H
girl in white, H, H , A , H
Riverside Cafe, H, H , H , A
Serene River, H, A , H , H
Turtle House, A, H , H , A
Still Life, H, H , A , A
Wounded Christ, H, A , A , H
White Blob, H, A , H , H
Weird Bird, A, A , H , A
Ominous Ruin, H, H , A , A
Vague Figures, H, H , A , H
Dragon Lady, A, H , H , A
White Flag, H, H, H , H
Woman Unicorn, H, H , H , H
Rooftops, H, H , H , A
City[parisian?] Street, H, A , A , A
Pretty Lake, H, A , A , A
Landing Craft, H, H , H , A
Flailing Limbs, H, H , H , H
Colorful Town, H, A , A , H
Mediterranean Town, H, A , A , A
Punk Robot, H, H , A , A
|
|
| |
Feel free to check my working, but as I make it, the scores are these:
doctorremulac3 29
Voice 23
pocmloc 27
out of 50 |
|
| |
So Doc and poc - you scored slightly better than chance would expect, but (without doing the actual calculation) I suspect not significantly so (that is, I don't think this result is distinguishable from chance. This doesn't mean I'm saying you didn't do better than chance, just that we can't be confident). |
|
| |
Voice, you're the same, but scoring slightly worse than chance. As above, I don't think it means anything much. |
|
| |
If you were wanting my answers... well, I'm sorry, I read the solutions without recording my guesses. I don't think it would be fair to go through again after being contaminated with knowledge of the correct answers. I think my score would have been something like all of these - about the same as chance, give or take. The one I was most confident in was Flailing limbs, which I rated 80% confident (human). I was correct and I think my reasoning was solid. |
|
| |
Summing up - in a trial like this, of curated AI and human-generated images, AI art doesn't seem to be particularly distinguishable from human art to any of us. |
|
| |
Hey man, thank you for this. Fun stuff on the HB, gotta love it. |
|
| |
I had to update my analysis because I messed up.
Fortunately, I realised before it could get embarrassing. |
|
| |
I acknowledge and apologise for the error. |
|
| |
All good man, thank you for keeping the HB interesting. |
|
| |
So bottom line, basically we all got about the same as flipping a coin. |
|
| |
And keep in mind, this technology is brand new. In 20 years it might be able to have a short conversation with you, gauge your facial expressions and mannerisms and draw what's "in your soul". |
|
| |
//So bottom line, basically we all got about the same as flipping a coin.// |
|
| |
Yes. Perhaps some people might be able to do better. I'll try to come back with the analysis from the survey when it is reported. |
|
| |
In terms of AI Art, many artists are absolutely against it, for a variety of reasons. |
|
| |
One is they don't like it being trained using their work which they've made freely available on the internet. They call it stealing (which is technically the wrong term, but let's not concern ourselves with that). They claim this is morally wrong - I disagree. The whole point of putting things on the internet is for the work to be seen. /People/ are allowed to look at them and use as references, so why shouldn't machines do that? There /may/ be a technical legal argument as to why it's illegal, but the law is not morality, and it varies widely from place to place. The law can in fact be immoral. |
|
| |
Another is that it's taking people's jobs. I think in immediate terms, this is true. But I don't think it's quite the problem they're making out. People have been losing their jobs to machines since the start of the industrial revolution. I think it's a legitimate complaint, but I don't see why artists specifically should be special-cased. The world reforms again and yet again. |
|
| |
The thing which really annoys me about this is the sheer hypocrisy of many people making the two arguments above, usually in combination. If you watch creative people's videos on youtube, they'll be doing things like using AI to write code for them while they build an artistic sculpture, and say this is legitimate, why can't AI makers do that instead of stealing art? Or complaining about AI stealing art, while including clips of copyrighted videos - for which I'm fairly confident they didn't seek permission. As a whole, the art community complains a lot about people not paying for artwork, while also trying to avoid paying for services they use - like art programs. |
|
| |
Another thing artists sometimes say is that they like the process of making art the 'old-fashioned way'. This is... not even really an argument. They can go on creating their art however they like, whatever generative AI does - no-one is forcing them to use it, and it's not stopping them from making their own stuff. The appropriate response to this is I think- "good for you, please carry on." |
|
| |
For the future, I think things will gradually settle down to a new normal. I am kind of hoping that a new wave of hybrid AI tools will emerge which give a lot more control to the user, and which handles the difficult technical details. People will start using them to do amazing things, and soon artists using them will be accepted. Just like photography and computer graphics initially caused a large backlash but were eventually accepted. |
|
| |
Yes, we've been through these kind of changes before. Technology DOES change things, and some jobs to get replaced, but entire aspects of the human condition, like art and music find a way to continue serving us. |
|
| |
The music industry radically changed due to the advent to the advent of the MP3 and downloads. A faction of a cent per play vs a buck for a 45 RPM record or a few cents for a radio play. But there's also been a boon to individuals who are just amazingly talented in that they can be seen by millions, even tens of millions of people just by creating an amazing performance on TikTok or Youtube. |
|
| |
Copyright protection is a big deal, we're seeing debate about style's being ripped off which are something to address, but I still hold that the main protection of the artist or performer is that they're human and human's are attracted to that product because they're attracted to humans. |
|
| |
I've way overused the robot football analogy but nothing clarifies the human attraction element more. Nobody's going to go to a stadium, stand up and cheer for a bunch of robots playing football because, well, they're robots. Who cares? You wouldn't, I wouldn't. Well it's the same for AI art. Sometimes art is needed for pretty un-interesting reasons, to sell a product or illustrate an idea, and for that, nobody cares, they just want to see the iPhone or the perfume bottle, but the job of getting people's attention for creative art still stands with the artist and because they're human, there's that attraction element that AI will never have. |
|
| |
Well, I don't know, I mean, depends what you define as football. |
|
| |
There's a competition where teams of small autonomous robots try to get a ball into a goal.
When I was a teenager, there was a game in arcades which was robots playing american football (don't know more than that - wasn't interested myself).
Robots fighting each other is a thing. Robot wars - UK and USA versions (these where human controlled). A film called "real steel" had boxing robots.
So I think people are quite happy to watch robots do stuff. |
|
| |
I do agree that at the moment generative AI is a tool, and there's a human in the loop somewhere, making the important decisions.
I wouldn't say AI will /never/ be able to do it all, because if "true" AI - that is, conscious entities develop, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do it. |
|
| |
//Robot wars - UK and USA versions (these where human controlled).// |
|
| |
Oh, I'm glad you brought that up. |
|
| |
I loved that show and had my own designed I hoped to enter someday (Think I'll put it up an AI picture of it with a HB post) |
|
| |
But here's the deal, this was a human competition because humans created these, for one thing just look at the names. (link) You'd watch the faces of the humans as they guided their creations to victory or defeat, their human created designs being put to the test. |
|
| |
That's an ideal example, I'm glad you pointed that out. Now if AI had designed these, I'd have to say I'd certainly be curious, but at some point wouldn't the AI settle on the best design and you'd just have to equal opponents go head to head, equally matched such that it just became a coin flip? |
|
| |
I find this stuff incredibly interesting by the way. Has there ever been a more interesting question than "Are humans going to make themselves obsolete?" |
|
| |
Exactly Voice, your link makes the point. Never before has talent been able to get a huge viewing audience simply by being good. It used to be if you wanted to share your love of music, you'd play local events or clubs till you got to the point you could make money for a record company, then you'd have to get on the radio, tour, later get on MTV etc. Now you just have to be good and oh my god! I've never seen talent like this before. |
|
| |
Technology has a history of affecting music and every technology that came along threatened to destroy it. Here's a little history. |
|
| |
1- Music made money by concerts and composers selling sheet music. |
|
| |
2- Then came the gramophone that eventually led to records, could have been the death of music. Why pay for sheet music (which actually did die because of this) or live performances when you could just hear the music in your house? We all know how records actually affected the music biz. It BECAME the music biz. In fact it got called "the record industry". |
|
| |
3- Then radio came along, didn't even have to buy the record, just turn a dial and listen for free. NOW music has lost its ability to make money, radio KILLED music! Wait... what? Oh, it made music explode in popularity like never before? Hmm. |
|
| |
4- Then came the internet which did kind of kill some aspects of the music business. For one thing the composer gets a fraction of a cent per stream, but that link shows the upside. |
|
| |
Never before have so many talented people been able to reach audiences of millions just by being good. So while the business aspect has changed, music is still in the heart and soul of the people who are keeping it alive. Somebody sees that young man play and gets inspired and becomes the next to get ten million views. |
|
| |
For instance, put up a link of a sea shanty with 23 million views. I don't remember sea shanties being a particularly big part of the music biz but this one is beloved by the masses. |
|
| |
The art lives on through the people and the culture. Maybe we've just got it in our collective soul eh? |
|
| |
Okay, that's good, but there is human creativity there, a wet brain did come up with "Pizza destroying a city". |
|
| |
I guess it's whatever's interesting eh? The AI art I posted interested me LESS than anything by Jackson Pollock. At least with JP there's controversy that can led to discussion. Who cares why AI does something? |
|
| |
Is an interesting subject though. |
|
| |
Okay, see my AI, HAL 10,000's interpretation. Here's the interesting part, I asked it to describe what's going on. Here's our conversation: |
|
| |
ME: Can you describe how it's destroying the city? Is it pizza slices being rained down causing destruction or is it an animated slice moving on its own causing havoc? |
|
| |
HAL: In this version, it’s a massive, single slice of pizza moving on its own, towering over the city and wreaking havoc as it leans forward, crushing buildings under its sheer weight. The melted cheese and toppings are actively dripping and oozing down like lava, coating buildings and streets. The hot, gooey cheese spreads along the ground and over cars, with pepperoni slices tumbling off the main slice like debris, intensifying the scene. |
|
| |
So, it’s not raining pizza slices but rather one powerful, animated slice doing all the damage, moving through the cityscape with an unstoppable force! |
|
| |
ME: Got ya, so it's like the Godzilla of pizzas right? |
|
| |
HAL: Exactly! It’s the Godzilla of pizzas—a massive, unstoppable slice stomping through the city, oozing melted cheese like lava and shedding pepperoni “debris” with every move. Its sheer size and destructive presence make it a true monster, turning a tasty treat into an apocalyptic nightmare! |
|
| |
So say what you will about the validity of AI as an artist, but anybody missing the boat on this new technology is missing the fun. |
|
| |
Okay, this is truly amazing, I asked it to comment on its creation after saying it was very spooky. HAL said: |
|
| |
"Right? It’s got that perfect mix of apocalypse and absurdity—the ultimate in cheesy horror! This city doesn’t stand a chance against such a monstrously delicious menace!" |
|
| |
Catch that? "the ultimate in cheesy horror" and "monstrously delicious menace!" |
|
| |
This thing's got a sense of humor. I told previously how discussing a rocket design presentation, where it was showing the pictures and I asked "Open the pod bay doors HAL." without my alluding to the movie other than with that line and it said "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." |
|
| |
Okay, this is mildly interesting, I asked HAL 10,000 to do a Jackson Pollock inspired piece of art and it said it couldn't due to intellectual property restrictions, so I told it to just splatter paint randomly on a canvas. (link) Gotta admit, some of Pollock's pieces have a bit more form to them than this but not all. |
|
| |
Then I told it my belief that the appeal of Jackson Pollock isn't the painting themselves, but the virtue signaling poetic descriptions people make that defy initial perceptions that most people have of his work. I then gave it my example and asked it if it made any sense. |
|
| |
"This piece exemplifies the dismantling of the stratified delineation between the atypical and the insular, the cognizant and the delusional, the hierarchical gradient from rules based artistic chastity, to unencumbered laissez-faire mumbling eloquence." |
|
| |
Here's HAL's translation of that: |
|
| |
"Certainly! Here’s a translation of your review into plain language, maintaining the same skeptical perspective: |
|
| |
"This piece shows how art can break down the boundaries between what’s considered ‘normal’ and ‘out there,’ between understanding and nonsense. It moves from strict rules about art to a free-for-all that sounds fancy but says very little." |
|
| |
Your review captures the tone of the overly intellectual, abstract art critique, effectively poking fun at the sometimes inflated language used to describe Pollock’s work. It highlights the contrast between structured artistic standards and what some might see as random or meaningless expression. This kind of commentary really does highlight the divide in how people perceive Pollock’s art: some see chaotic genius, while others see a lot of pretentious interpretation layered onto splatters of paint." |
|
| |
That wasn't a human talking, that was a box full of switches. |
|
| |
You do realize that the translation to plain English came from an understanding of English, not of art right? And that the last six annotations are all yours. |
|
| |
Yea, I just find the subject interesting. |
|
| |
See my friend's example of human created art and why AI poses no threat to humans with this kind of talent. (link) |
|
| |
I don't get it, but it's definitely creative and artistic. |
|
| |
My buddy's a very talented musician and that's his hero, John Coltrane. |
|
| |
His story was he made a good living having summer music camps for kids in the upscale community where we live and covid wiped his business out at the same time he had some really bad health issues. |
|
| |
Update on the AI Art Turing Test - the guy doing it says he'll post the results either this week or next. |
|
| |
Cool! Thank you L, look forward to seeing that. I think this stuff is absolutely mind blowing. |
|
| |
Results for the AI Art Turing Test just dropped (link). |
|
| |
Summary:
::The median score on the test was 60%, only a little above chance. The mean was 60.6%. Participants said the task was harder than expected (median difficulty 4 on a 1-5 scale).:: |
|
| |
::The highest score was 98% (49/50), which 5 out of 11,000 people achieved. Even with 11,000 people, getting scores this high by luck alone is near-impossible.:: |
|
| |
Although - as some people pointed out in the comments, they could have cheated by looking at the answer key. I think it might be possible to investigate that further... |
|
| |
Upshot: xenzag missed their chance to prove their claim that they could tell the difference.
Too late now, xenzag, you blew it. |
|
| |
49 out of 50? No way, I bet they used AI to scan and evaluate that stuff. |
|
| |
Like the idea of being able to say how sure you were of one or the other. For instance there were about 7 or 8 I'd say 100% AI and especially the super complicated ship one I got wrong. Kind of still not sure I believe that, I'd want to see how he did it. It was definately using 3D modeling, which certainly is human, but we're tapdancing on the line there. |
|
| |
The Ferrarri I think might have been a photo that was edited, if I knew there weren't limitations on the medium I might have voted different. |
|
| |
//49 out of 50? No way, I bet they used AI to scan and evaluate that stuff.// |
|
| |
The answer list was given below the test link initially, so although that's possible (and others have suggested it in the comments), that's unnecessary.
I'm tempted to look into this further - the results table is available. I think an the question is - below that 49/50, what is the distribution? |
|
| |
I think #14, 'fancy car' was a 3d model render, going by the source putting it in a 'render' section.
People are also saying that 'Giant Ship' was a 3d model. I don't have a problem with that; if you were ruling out 3d modelling, you'd have to also rule out basically all the other computer-assisted technologies people now see as 'simple tools'. It would have made it much less interesting - and presumably, the results would have shown less discriminative ability by the contestants, because people apparently did worse at 'paintings', particularly the impressionist images. |
|
| |
Regarding stuff like 3D modeling programs vs oil painting or whatever, that eludes to an interesting deliniation. At what point does "manmade" become not manmade. Photo? 3D program? Was I still a draftsman when I put down the pencil and used Autocad? Am I the creator when I tell the AI what to do, and with great specificity say "No, make more pools and stairways on my Big Sur Italian style architecture resort. (link) |
|
| |
The first several incarnations of the linked resord were wrong, but eventually I got exactly what I wanted. Was this created by AI? Was it created by me? I would say both, similar to when a developer hires an architect and outlines what they basically want and they give clear examples. |
|
| |
Sorry I missed this because I was out of the country ( a great excuse for anything you don't want to do) |
|
| |
I would be interested to see statistics on the images that were mostly guessed correctly and mostly guessed wrong. |
|
| |
[doc] //told it specifically what I wanted, repeatedly saying "No, that's wrong, I want this..." just like I would have told a human artist. My answer to the above question is "Does it really matter?"// |
|
| |
This is the nub of it. Many artists nowadays instruct their technicians to do a thing I remember [xen] on here proposing an original artwork (which would be arted by themselves as the artist of course) which was basically a simple idea expressed in a few words, to be actually constructed by professional craftsmen. The art was considered to lie in the instruction not in the implementation. I considered objecting at the time; I think I didn't, because I didn't want to be a dick. |
|
| |
You know Poc, I think there have been other times where there were questions along these lines, Andy Warhol had a staff that worked on his stuff, not sure to what extent, but looking it up I see there was controversy about him using photographs and simply doing his thing of changing various colors. |
|
| |
He did a great job of selling himself though. The way he'd dress and act at gala exclusive upper class Manhattan events, that was an art in itself. |
|
| |
The question applies to music too. Now we've got AI making entire songs, vocals and everything. So far they're as un-listenable as anything by P-Diddy though. Again, no human element, no human interest. See the robots playing football analogy. We like art and music because it's the human connection, so if there's a human behind it we might find it intriguing. Maybe. Depends on if it's good or not. What's good? Well that's what makes art interesting innit? |
|
| |
Now do an interior please! |
|
| |
That's actually what I did in my youth, I worked in architecture and would actually draw floor plans, making changes as necessary. |
|
| |
People actually live in spaces I designed, drew and got approved by the city when I was a teenager. |
|
| |
Don't like to use the word hero, but hey... |
|
| |
What's wrong with her left shoulder? Also the thermostat looking thing on the pillar could happen in real life, as could the top molding being poorly applied or partially missing. Also how did you miss her hand placement and weird wrists? |
|
| |
I think the thing was a joke, but the dead giveaway with current technology is little things like faces looking like they've been hit with a lawn mower. |
|
| |
//Now do an interior please!// |
|
| |
Done. Breaking some rules here, Mediterranean on the outside, mid century modern on the inside. The latter style is all about massive windows giving spectacular views but I think they look kinda boxy from the outside. |
|
| |
So put the good outside look on the outside, the good inside look on the inside. Why not? |
|
| |