• 1 Post
  • 107 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: January 15th, 2024
  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.nettomemes@lemmy.world•Terry, no!
    41·
    2 months ago

    “Putting a piece of yourself” is magical thinking to me.

    It’s a metaphor. You’re ndt supposed to take those literally. 🙄

    Any creator will inevitably put their worldview and skill level into their art. So-called “AI” has neither.

    Ai makes mistakes too

    Those mistakes stem from a mathematically inaccurate model. Human mistakes tell something about the creator

    people rant endlessly about how useless it is and that is what people used to call ‘slop’.

    Not why it’s called “slop”, homie.

    f a human making the mistake makes it desirable instead then this is once again not the reason but a justification.

    Not what I said. Any detail in human art is there because a human put it there. It’s a form of (sometimes involuntary) communication that computers lack.

    But that’s the issue, you don’t know what oop prompted to make this. They could have been arbitrarily simple or elaborate with what they asked and you couldn’t tell beyond that they were happy with this result enough to post it. And I’d argue the amount of intent in a prompt is still independent of its length as they could’ve tried longer descriptions and found that the results of shorter ones align with what they seek better.

    Again: not what I said. I’m saying that the intent behind so-called “AI art” starts and ends with the used prompt.

    I choose to believe the joke came from them and given that this is an internet meme that exists to deliver the joke, I don’t dwell on the visuals.

    Then you choose to be complicit in the normaliztion of so-called “AI art”, which leads to tangible problems in the real world.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.nettomemes@lemmy.world•Terry, no!
    61·
    2 months ago

    Intent is a concious thought. Just because the artist had an intent while making the art doesn’t imbue every detail with the intent. Every subconsious microdecision doesn’t necessarily align with the artist’s intent and neither could I hope to extract meaningful information from them. I can only understand what the artist intentionally put in there. But I get what they’re saying, there are countless conscious decisions an artist makes while making their thing.

    I disagree. The fact that art includes the intended bits, as well as the unintended ones makes it so interesting IMHO. The fact that you always put a little piece of yourself (as well as your artistic abilities) into the art is amazing and impossible to recreate from a machine.

    Take the sanic meme, or “It’s Friday” by Rebecca Black. None of these people wanted to make “bad” art, but they still put it out there and the imperfection made the pieces so popular.

    Anyhow, IMO the visuals of a meme is the last place to seek artistic intent. Especially with these ‘joke with visual assist’ kinds of memes the grand majority of artisitc intent is the joke with the visuals being a tool to adapt it to a visual medium. If anything I think the visuals of this meme have more artistic intent than the recurring characters of a webcomic strip telling a joke to each other.

    Even the worst webcomic carries more artistic intent than some AI slop. You can clearly measure the “artistic intent” of whateis contained in AI slop: it’s the prompt. If I prompt an AI “Make a funny comic”, then the artistic intent is “make a funny comic” (and maaaaybe all the other prompts beforehand that I didn’t want to propagate).