Art doesn’t have to fulfill a practical purpose nor does it usually have security vulnerabilities. Not taking a position on the substance, but these are two major differences between the two.
my point exactly. practical purpose and security are things you can analyze and solve for as a machine at least in theory. artistic value comes from the artistic intent. by intent I don’t mean to argue against death of the author, as I believe in it, but the very fact that there is intent to create art.
Art fulfills many practical purposes. You live in an abode designed by architects, presumably painted and furnished with many objects d’art such as, a couch, a wardrobe, ceiling fixtures, a bathtub; also presumably festooned with art on the walls; you cook and eat food in designed cookware, crockery and cutlery, and that food is frequently more than pure sustenance; and, presumably you spend a fair amount of time consuming media such as television, film, literature, music, comedy, dance, or even porn.
Art can be flawed. Programming is an exact set of instructions for a computer to comprehend in the most literal sense. There isn’t nearly as much room for errors. A hallucination during image generation won’t cause any damage. A hallucination regarding those very specific instructions can cause problems.
Armchair amateur here but there’s often a lot of talk about O(n), memory optimization, trash cleanup, compression methods, race conditions, vertex choice in matrices etc…
It reminds me of the neo-plasticists, whose argument was there is no significant difference between painting a farmer next to a pile of hay vs painting a pink square next to a yellow square: both are just arranging representative symbols on a canvas.
AAA gamedev here. Had a guy scream at me on here on a different account for several days straight last week that “AI will eventually take your job, too, just wait and see” after I told the guy “all you have to do as an artist is make better quality work than AI slop can produce, which is easy for most professionals; AI is still useful in production pipelines to speed up efficiency, but it will never replace human intuition because it can’t actually reason and doesn’t have feelings, which is all art is and is what programming requires”.
Got told that I was a naive and bad person with survivorship bias and hubris who doesn’t understand the plight of artists and will eventually also be replaced, as if I’m not a technical artist myself and don’t work with plenty of other artistic and technical disciplines every single day. Like, okay, dude. I guess nearly a decade of senior-level experience means nothing. I swear, my team had tried and tossed away anywhere from 5 to 10 potential “cutting-edge AI production tools” before the general public had even heard about ChatGPT because most of them have such strict limited use-cases that they aren’t practically applicable to most things, but the guy was convinced that we had to boycott and destroy all AI tools because every artist was gonna be out of a job soon. Lol. Lmao, even.
Just checked and the mods removed all my comments in that convo, but left the other guy’s up, despite me providing objective evidence and research (from Harvard, no less). The annoying social media circlejerk from resentful losers is so real.
Computer programs need lots of separate pieces to operate together in subtle ways or your program crashes. With art on the other hand I haven’t heard of anyone’s brain crashing when they looked at AI art with too many fingers.
It’s not so much that AI can’t do it, but the LLMs we have now certainly can’t.
i agree llms can’t do shit right now, what I was talking about was a hypothetical future in which somehow these useless techbros found a way to make them worth a shit. they certainly would be able to make a logical program work than infuse any artistic value into any audio or image.
programs can be written to respond to a need that can be detected and analyzed and solved by a fairly advanced computer. art needs intent, a desire to create art, whether to convey feelings, or to make a statement, or just ask questions. programs can’t want, feel or wonder about things. they can pretend to do so but we all know pretending isn’t highly valued in art.
I get the idea that it’s only temporary, but I’d much rather have a current gen AI paint a picture than attempt to program a guidance system or a heart monitor
it’s funny that some people think programming has a human element that can’t be replaced but art doesn’t.
Art doesn’t have to fulfill a practical purpose nor does it usually have security vulnerabilities. Not taking a position on the substance, but these are two major differences between the two.
my point exactly. practical purpose and security are things you can analyze and solve for as a machine at least in theory. artistic value comes from the artistic intent. by intent I don’t mean to argue against death of the author, as I believe in it, but the very fact that there is intent to create art.
Art fulfills many practical purposes. You live in an abode designed by architects, presumably painted and furnished with many objects d’art such as, a couch, a wardrobe, ceiling fixtures, a bathtub; also presumably festooned with art on the walls; you cook and eat food in designed cookware, crockery and cutlery, and that food is frequently more than pure sustenance; and, presumably you spend a fair amount of time consuming media such as television, film, literature, music, comedy, dance, or even porn.
Art can be flawed. Programming is an exact set of instructions for a computer to comprehend in the most literal sense. There isn’t nearly as much room for errors. A hallucination during image generation won’t cause any damage. A hallucination regarding those very specific instructions can cause problems.
Programming is definitely not an exact science.
Armchair amateur here but there’s often a lot of talk about O(n), memory optimization, trash cleanup, compression methods, race conditions, vertex choice in matrices etc…
It reminds me of the neo-plasticists, whose argument was there is no significant difference between painting a farmer next to a pile of hay vs painting a pink square next to a yellow square: both are just arranging representative symbols on a canvas.
Yeah but what about those 18 toed porn girls with stumpy legs?
AAA gamedev here. Had a guy scream at me on here on a different account for several days straight last week that “AI will eventually take your job, too, just wait and see” after I told the guy “all you have to do as an artist is make better quality work than AI slop can produce, which is easy for most professionals; AI is still useful in production pipelines to speed up efficiency, but it will never replace human intuition because it can’t actually reason and doesn’t have feelings, which is all art is and is what programming requires”.
Got told that I was a naive and bad person with survivorship bias and hubris who doesn’t understand the plight of artists and will eventually also be replaced, as if I’m not a technical artist myself and don’t work with plenty of other artistic and technical disciplines every single day. Like, okay, dude. I guess nearly a decade of senior-level experience means nothing. I swear, my team had tried and tossed away anywhere from 5 to 10 potential “cutting-edge AI production tools” before the general public had even heard about ChatGPT because most of them have such strict limited use-cases that they aren’t practically applicable to most things, but the guy was convinced that we had to boycott and destroy all AI tools because every artist was gonna be out of a job soon. Lol. Lmao, even.
it’s just people with no skills and all resentment.
Yep.
Just checked and the mods removed all my comments in that convo, but left the other guy’s up, despite me providing objective evidence and research (from Harvard, no less). The annoying social media circlejerk from resentful losers is so real.
Computer programs need lots of separate pieces to operate together in subtle ways or your program crashes. With art on the other hand I haven’t heard of anyone’s brain crashing when they looked at AI art with too many fingers.
It’s not so much that AI can’t do it, but the LLMs we have now certainly can’t.
i agree llms can’t do shit right now, what I was talking about was a hypothetical future in which somehow these useless techbros found a way to make them worth a shit. they certainly would be able to make a logical program work than infuse any artistic value into any audio or image.
programs can be written to respond to a need that can be detected and analyzed and solved by a fairly advanced computer. art needs intent, a desire to create art, whether to convey feelings, or to make a statement, or just ask questions. programs can’t want, feel or wonder about things. they can pretend to do so but we all know pretending isn’t highly valued in art.
I get the idea that it’s only temporary, but I’d much rather have a current gen AI paint a picture than attempt to program a guidance system or a heart monitor
por que no los fucking neither, is what i think.
deleted by creator