Yeah, because you aren’t describing the picture you want to see to the brush, and letting it generate the picture for you without any further input. A paint grenade requires a hand to throw it, and there is a direct correlation between what the hand does and what the paint grenade does. There is no such direct correlation when you tell a machine “make an art piece depicting three children in a trench coat trying to sneak into a building labelled ‘the internet’ with a cardboard cutout of a bouncer in their way.” You are a commissioner, not an artist, and the machine isn’t an artist either, which means the image produced is not art.
As if tweaking a prompt seventeen times has less intent than whether your finger twitched while lobbing a paint-covered grenade.
So I’m an art commissioner, except the fictional scenario depicted visually is not art, because it was created by a robot, except the robot can’t create things, so it’s not an artist, because what it makes isn’t art, because it’s not an artist, and oh no I’ve gone cross-eyed.
Again, the prompt that you spend all that time tweaking can be considered literature, which is art. The image you get when you feed that literature into a machine and tell it to do its thing isn’t art.
I compared you to a commissioner because that’s literally the role you’re playing. I didn’t say the robot can’t create things, I said the robot can’t create art. There is no meaning behind the carbdboard cutout of a bouncer because the machine does not know what cardboard or bouncers are. It doesn’t have any thoughts or feelings or opinions or intent regarding anything in the image it produces. It doesn’t know what age verification is, let alone have anything to say about the subject.
You’re being so incredibly disingenuous here. I haven’t made a single circular argument. My position has consistently been that these machines cannot create art because they cannot think or feel. They are not analogous to a brush, because there is no direct correlation between the input you provide and the output it produces.
It doesn’t know what age verification is, let alone have anything to say about the subject.
Yet the image conveyed that it’s about age verification.
You know what the image is about, and if an image is about anything, that is meaning. Should your philosophy require blaming a person, there’s only one human in the loop.
The robot doesn’t know what bouncers or cardboard are, yet it can represent them, on command. Someone used those concepts to visually communicate an abstract thought. You’ve demonstrably understood their intent. Yet you blame the robot, then say robots can’t be blamed, so this image cannot do what it’s already done.
The model is simultaneously too much of an inert tool to ever imbue qualia, and too active a participant to credit any meatbag.
But if I dip a grenade in a paintbucket, then every charred flake goes precisely were I intended.
I’m starting to get bored with this, and I feel like my entire opinion can be summed up by
If I tell a human to draw a cool red dragon sitting on a pile of gold, then I didn’t draw that dragon, that other person did. Replacing that human with an AI doesn’t suddenly mean that I drew it. Ergo, prompt engineers are not visual artists.
Art necessitates intent on the part of an artist, and machines have no intent. The machine has no opinion about why the bouncer is there, nor the implications of children accessing the internet without actual age verification. Those elements are there on the picture solely because that is what was described in the text, and not to convey any meaning.
It is meaningless because the “artist” didn’t mean anything when they made it.
It’s also just not a very interesting piece in general. It’s shallow at best. Just because I can see that the different elements represent different things doesn’t mean it means anything. It doesn’t have anything to say about its very subject matter. They’re just there.
Yeah, because you aren’t describing the picture you want to see to the brush, and letting it generate the picture for you without any further input. A paint grenade requires a hand to throw it, and there is a direct correlation between what the hand does and what the paint grenade does. There is no such direct correlation when you tell a machine “make an art piece depicting three children in a trench coat trying to sneak into a building labelled ‘the internet’ with a cardboard cutout of a bouncer in their way.” You are a commissioner, not an artist, and the machine isn’t an artist either, which means the image produced is not art.
As if tweaking a prompt seventeen times has less intent than whether your finger twitched while lobbing a paint-covered grenade.
So I’m an art commissioner, except the fictional scenario depicted visually is not art, because it was created by a robot, except the robot can’t create things, so it’s not an artist, because what it makes isn’t art, because it’s not an artist, and oh no I’ve gone cross-eyed.
If it’s not art, what are we looking at?
Again, the prompt that you spend all that time tweaking can be considered literature, which is art. The image you get when you feed that literature into a machine and tell it to do its thing isn’t art.
I compared you to a commissioner because that’s literally the role you’re playing. I didn’t say the robot can’t create things, I said the robot can’t create art. There is no meaning behind the carbdboard cutout of a bouncer because the machine does not know what cardboard or bouncers are. It doesn’t have any thoughts or feelings or opinions or intent regarding anything in the image it produces. It doesn’t know what age verification is, let alone have anything to say about the subject.
You’re being so incredibly disingenuous here. I haven’t made a single circular argument. My position has consistently been that these machines cannot create art because they cannot think or feel. They are not analogous to a brush, because there is no direct correlation between the input you provide and the output it produces.
A picture.
Yet the image conveyed that it’s about age verification.
You know what the image is about, and if an image is about anything, that is meaning. Should your philosophy require blaming a person, there’s only one human in the loop.
The robot doesn’t know what bouncers or cardboard are, yet it can represent them, on command. Someone used those concepts to visually communicate an abstract thought. You’ve demonstrably understood their intent. Yet you blame the robot, then say robots can’t be blamed, so this image cannot do what it’s already done.
The model is simultaneously too much of an inert tool to ever imbue qualia, and too active a participant to credit any meatbag.
But if I dip a grenade in a paintbucket, then every charred flake goes precisely were I intended.
I’m starting to get bored with this, and I feel like my entire opinion can be summed up by
If I tell a human to draw a cool red dragon sitting on a pile of gold, then I didn’t draw that dragon, that other person did. Replacing that human with an AI doesn’t suddenly mean that I drew it. Ergo, prompt engineers are not visual artists.
Art necessitates intent on the part of an artist, and machines have no intent. The machine has no opinion about why the bouncer is there, nor the implications of children accessing the internet without actual age verification. Those elements are there on the picture solely because that is what was described in the text, and not to convey any meaning.
It is meaningless because the “artist” didn’t mean anything when they made it.
It’s also just not a very interesting piece in general. It’s shallow at best. Just because I can see that the different elements represent different things doesn’t mean it means anything. It doesn’t have anything to say about its very subject matter. They’re just there.
A flimsy guard against children acting adult on the internet has nothing to say, says meaning understander.
Someone should’ve scribbled it on a napkin, then it would intend to communicate an idea. It would be art!