73 pts ยท May 19, 2025
That's kind of a hard question to answer. I don't know that I'd describe any of his behavior as morally reprehensible. But even if I did, I would have to take into account his delusions. Someone having delusions could do something horrible, but if their reality had them convinced it was the *right* thing to do, was it morally reprehensible?
No, its a misunderstanding of what the defining characteristics of a category are. An undertrained model learns that hands have fingers. It takes a certain amount of training for it to reach the point of learning that hands have a specific number of fingers.
True character? Wtf are you talking about? During an episode their brain isn't working correctly. They become convinced of things inconsistent with reality. Its not their true character coming out. Its a sick person in need of help. I grew up with a schizo friend. Didn't manifest until early 20s. Sweetest guy I know. His "true character" wasn't just hiding for 20 years.
I think that's backward. I think art is something that is experienced/consumed. Its the experiencing that makes it art. An artist is both producing and experiencing art during the creation process. But the experience is the defining characteristic. I think we nearly agree. Your point about recontextualization is very close to my understanding of art.
So the difference between art and not art is whether it's in a frame?
Nor does it change my question.
Okay. It doesn't really change my position.
Why does it need to be recontextualized? The photo taken by accident doesn't need to be recontextualized. Someone can just discover the photo and decide they like it. Is it not art at that point?
Anything can be art does not mean that everything is art. I don't have a source for this. Its reasoning I arrived at without being told its true.No. I am not religious. I said, specifically, that art does not require a creator.
This entire basis of this conversation is whether AI art is, in fact, art. And it supposedly sitting outside the definition of art is used as justification to keep it out of the art community.If someone can use a photo someone else took by accident and intend for it to be art, why can't the same be applied elsewhere? Such as a bird nest, or an image generated by an AI model?
I think it can be. If its consumed as art.
You want a citation on what, exactly? Would you like to provide a citation that Merriam-Webster is an authority on philosophical questions?
I think you misunderstand. I was stating the opposite. It doesn't matter what the intent or creation process is; if it's consumed as art... its art.
Alright. So I'm holding a camera as I'm walking through the city. Without my knowledge, I bump into something and snap a photo by accident. Later, someone finds the photo and likes the aesthetic of it. Its beautiful. They put it on display and it gets a lot of attention. But hold on... they find out it was a photo taken by accident... I guess they have to take it down, because its not actually art. Right?
"What is art" is a philosophical question that Merriam-Webster has no authority on. Your definition of art doesn't encompass everything that people consider to be art.
Because researchers are still divided on it; I'll grant you that point, if you like. I just don't think it matters if art is defined by how it's consumed, which is the definition that best encompasses all things people would consider to be art.
This suggests that art cannot be made by accident. I can imagine a scenario where art is created without intention behind it, so I don't think that requirement works.
There have been studies on animals producing art since the 50s. Its pretty egotistical to think humans are the only beings capable of making art.Though, my definition of art clearly differs from yours. I think of art as something primarily stemming from consumption. Art evokes something from people when its consumed. It doesn't require a creator. Just someone to observe/appreciate it.
Weird. Researchers would disagree.
So animals can't make art?
Why not?
Spilling milk is transforming beauty into another form; even if I didn't intend to do it. So, does that mean the person who takes a photo of the spilled milk is an artist? Simply providing the missing ingredient of *intent* earns him that title?
Then, I think you and I just differ in our definition of art. I don't think creation is the fundamental component of art. Experience is the core component.Here's another example. I spill some milk on a table, by accident, and walk away. Someone else comes by and is immediately drawn to the spilled milk. In their minds eye, that milk has formed a particular shape or pattern that moves them; evokes emotion.Does art require intent? If so, who made the piece that moved them?
Is the Grand Canyon art?
I mean, I guess it could make sense that Fascists would enjoy AI art, merely through the lens of removing bargaining power from people. Probably more accurate to say that's a consequence of corporate greed. But, ironically, trying to limit the definition of art by excluding pieces made through a particular process sounds very... Fascist.
Yeah, that's fine. But I think it raises an interesting question. If the person ordering the food isn't a chef; who is? Its my opinion that art can't be dismissed just because the process isn't to one's liking. So, if AI art is art, is the model the artist?
Again, I don't think you're understanding how that training process works if you characterize it as theft.I want you to think for a moment. If I look at 1000 different paintings, and then decide to paint for myself, should I seek the permission from the artists of those 1000 paintings? Because, I guarantee you, my piece will be influenced by what I've seen.
Except you guys are pretending the resulting meal is somehow not food... not really an apt metaphor.
Alright, this take I'm not sure I even understand.
Even generative AI, its a gross misunderstanding to call the process theft. During generation, it has no access to materials that were used for training. To be consistent, you'd need to expect human artists to study the arts without observing any art.
That's kind of a hard question to answer. I don't know that I'd describe any of his behavior as morally reprehensible. But even if I did, I would have to take into account his delusions. Someone having delusions could do something horrible, but if their reality had them convinced it was the *right* thing to do, was it morally reprehensible?
No, its a misunderstanding of what the defining characteristics of a category are. An undertrained model learns that hands have fingers. It takes a certain amount of training for it to reach the point of learning that hands have a specific number of fingers.
True character? Wtf are you talking about? During an episode their brain isn't working correctly. They become convinced of things inconsistent with reality. Its not their true character coming out. Its a sick person in need of help. I grew up with a schizo friend. Didn't manifest until early 20s. Sweetest guy I know. His "true character" wasn't just hiding for 20 years.
I think that's backward. I think art is something that is experienced/consumed. Its the experiencing that makes it art. An artist is both producing and experiencing art during the creation process. But the experience is the defining characteristic. I think we nearly agree. Your point about recontextualization is very close to my understanding of art.
So the difference between art and not art is whether it's in a frame?
Nor does it change my question.
Okay. It doesn't really change my position.
Why does it need to be recontextualized? The photo taken by accident doesn't need to be recontextualized. Someone can just discover the photo and decide they like it. Is it not art at that point?
Anything can be art does not mean that everything is art. I don't have a source for this. Its reasoning I arrived at without being told its true.
No. I am not religious. I said, specifically, that art does not require a creator.
This entire basis of this conversation is whether AI art is, in fact, art. And it supposedly sitting outside the definition of art is used as justification to keep it out of the art community.
If someone can use a photo someone else took by accident and intend for it to be art, why can't the same be applied elsewhere? Such as a bird nest, or an image generated by an AI model?
I think it can be. If its consumed as art.
You want a citation on what, exactly? Would you like to provide a citation that Merriam-Webster is an authority on philosophical questions?
I think you misunderstand. I was stating the opposite. It doesn't matter what the intent or creation process is; if it's consumed as art... its art.
Alright. So I'm holding a camera as I'm walking through the city. Without my knowledge, I bump into something and snap a photo by accident. Later, someone finds the photo and likes the aesthetic of it. Its beautiful. They put it on display and it gets a lot of attention. But hold on... they find out it was a photo taken by accident... I guess they have to take it down, because its not actually art. Right?
"What is art" is a philosophical question that Merriam-Webster has no authority on. Your definition of art doesn't encompass everything that people consider to be art.
Because researchers are still divided on it; I'll grant you that point, if you like. I just don't think it matters if art is defined by how it's consumed, which is the definition that best encompasses all things people would consider to be art.
This suggests that art cannot be made by accident. I can imagine a scenario where art is created without intention behind it, so I don't think that requirement works.
There have been studies on animals producing art since the 50s. Its pretty egotistical to think humans are the only beings capable of making art.
Though, my definition of art clearly differs from yours. I think of art as something primarily stemming from consumption. Art evokes something from people when its consumed. It doesn't require a creator. Just someone to observe/appreciate it.
Weird. Researchers would disagree.
So animals can't make art?
Why not?
Spilling milk is transforming beauty into another form; even if I didn't intend to do it. So, does that mean the person who takes a photo of the spilled milk is an artist? Simply providing the missing ingredient of *intent* earns him that title?
Then, I think you and I just differ in our definition of art. I don't think creation is the fundamental component of art. Experience is the core component.
Here's another example. I spill some milk on a table, by accident, and walk away. Someone else comes by and is immediately drawn to the spilled milk. In their minds eye, that milk has formed a particular shape or pattern that moves them; evokes emotion.
Does art require intent? If so, who made the piece that moved them?
Is the Grand Canyon art?
I mean, I guess it could make sense that Fascists would enjoy AI art, merely through the lens of removing bargaining power from people. Probably more accurate to say that's a consequence of corporate greed. But, ironically, trying to limit the definition of art by excluding pieces made through a particular process sounds very... Fascist.
Yeah, that's fine. But I think it raises an interesting question. If the person ordering the food isn't a chef; who is? Its my opinion that art can't be dismissed just because the process isn't to one's liking. So, if AI art is art, is the model the artist?
Again, I don't think you're understanding how that training process works if you characterize it as theft.
I want you to think for a moment. If I look at 1000 different paintings, and then decide to paint for myself, should I seek the permission from the artists of those 1000 paintings? Because, I guarantee you, my piece will be influenced by what I've seen.
Except you guys are pretending the resulting meal is somehow not food... not really an apt metaphor.
Alright, this take I'm not sure I even understand.
Even generative AI, its a gross misunderstanding to call the process theft. During generation, it has no access to materials that were used for training. To be consistent, you'd need to expect human artists to study the arts without observing any art.