I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.
while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?
Why would you need an argument beyond AI art is lifeless?
Because it means nothing to me. sorry to disappoint but I don’t even understand that argument, I saw plenty of AI images that looked full of life to me, so what does that even mean that it is lifeless? Maybe explain it instead of just being condescending about it.
It’s the difference between having a friend, and having an AI friend.
AI art proved beyond a doubt that death of the author was always 99% bullshit justifying media illiteracy. Now that we have art without an author and it is totally void of expression.
Death of the author is the idea that reader interpretation matters more than author’s intent, and it’s absolutely fair for media analysis. Sadly, too many people bundle it together with the idea that the author didn’t mean anything at all.
Heck, “the curtains were blue” applies authorial intent that there was no meaning behind the curtains. The death of the author reading shows that the curtains had a symbolic reason to be blue.
Who uses the Death of the Author to justify media illiteracy? I think you may be misunderstanding what the term means?
When people say “the author is dead”, what they mean is that, when interpreting a piece of art, it doesn’t matter what the original artist meant to say with it - for the purpose of the interpretation they are dead and you cannot ask them what they meant.
It’s always a personal matter what you see in art, any interpretation that makes sense to you is valid, even if it may not be what the artist intended. (That does not mean you can bullshit your way through poem analysis in school, different situation)
No, the thing that the author was trying to express has far greater validity than whatever the reader makes up. If that wasn’t the case, AI art, where the author lacks any intent, wouldn’t seem so lifeless.
So often I have friends read a book or watch a movie and say “I don’t really get it, it doesn’t make sense, I didn’t really like it” and then some time later they’ll come back and say “actually, I read the Wikipedia article about it and now I understand. The author actually intended it to be about [xyz]”
Um, what? If those themes and ideas were not evident in the original story, then what does it matter what the author intended? Surely the author also intended to write a cohesive and understandable story (and evidently failed, for you). Surely the author intended to convey those themes in the story itself. You didn’t enjoy the movie, you enjoyed reading the Wikipedia article about the movie.
If author intention actually matters to non-meta media analysis, then that totally undermines anything the author actually does to convey the ideas in the work itself.
If (to make a specific example) my friend watches Mamoru Oshii’s Angel’s Egg and concludes only from the Wikipedia article about it that it’s abstractly about Oshii’s loss of religion, then that totally ignores everything in the movie that does or doesn’t convey those themes just to create a shallow interpretation based on what the author was allegedly trying to do.
I get what you’re saying and I make that same criticism sometimes, but
Nobody outside of historians would be able to interact with like 80% of historical art if supplemental information wasn’t valid.
I’m not prepared to say that death of the author is entirely invalid, or even that the viewer has to accept the author’s intention, only that understanding or at least sensing that is a vital aspect of art.
I mostly agree although rather than saying author intention is a vital aspect of art I would say it can be, but that the raw, uninformed experience is almost always more important
That presumes you can read the author’s mind. It’s impossible to tell with 100% certainty what an author meant to say. You can make assumptions and some can be more plausible than others and people can agree that one interpretation seems more valid than another but that’s it. When a work of art is released into the world, the author has no authority over its meaning.
A good artist of course can make certain intentions very obvious and control, to a certain degree, what the recipient feels. That’s what you’re perceiving as missing in AI generated pictures.
I disagree strongly on that argument. I’ve seen many examples of AI generated images that have genuinely made me stop, and shake my head in amazement.
That says more about you than about AI.
No. I watched a video recently of one of the best figure tutors around. Upset with AI. As he critiqued them, multiple times he struggled to tell if it was AI or not. Now, if one of the top YouTube figure drawing instructors struggled at times to identify the difference in his attack against the tech, I’m pretty comfortable saying that it can absolutely move you.
Give us some examples of moving AI generated images.
The thing, even with human-made art, is that what’s “moving” is highly personal. Maybe accept that their experience is different from yours?
Art is a form of communication, to hear that someone can be moved by expressionless AI slop is kinda like hearing someone had an enlightening conversation with a dog.
Like sure I can imagine someone can interpret a dog’s barks to mean something, but it’s still a bizarre scenario that says more about the person than it does the art.
Some people find religious rapture from seeing the Virgin Mary’s image on a grilled cheese sandwich. The human brain is a strange and wonderful thing.
When you can’t tell if a machine made it, and it moves you personally, then what invisible metric are you defining, and judging it on?
Same metrics anyone judges art by, what it says to them. This is incredibly context dependent.
Show me the art and if just showing it to someone is insufficient, explain it to me.