Post #2605976
2022-12-12 23:18 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@mattblaze@federate.social 2022-12-12 23:26
@Manigarm@mastodon.social It seems relevant that similar discussions seem to have occurred throughout history every time a new artistic medium is introduced, especially those involving some kind of automation. Is photography art? What about music played on synthesizers? Acrylic paints? And so on. Much impassioned hand-wringing about the "end of art" with all of these, all of it seeming very silly in retrospect.
-
@SteveBellovin@mastodon.lawprofs.org 2022-12-12 23:34
@mattblaze@federate.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social And photography was once (and sometimes still) thought of as not art, since the camera did all the work. AI is a medium, just like oil paint, bronze sculpture, photography, and many, many more.
-
@linebyline@bytetower.social 2022-12-12 23:38
@mattblaze@federate.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social I'm only mostly comfortable saying that someone who writes his name on a urinal is not thereby making art. I'm ENTIRELY comfortable saying that someone who commissions an artist to make a bunch of pictures is not the one making art, and that this doesn't change if you replace the (actual) artist with a machine. @byterhymer@mastodon.social Didn't the Steve Jobs version of that aphorism famously end, at least by implication, with "but not from me"?
-
@zalcarik@mastodon.social 2022-12-12 23:38
@mattblaze@federate.social @Manigarm@mastodon.social I think photography is another useful reference--the photographer doesn't create the imagery they capture from nothing, but they choose what to photograph, tuning parameters of the camera (which they probably didn't build either), making tweaks to an image after the fact, etc. We don't have as much trouble assigning a creator in those instances--are the AI designers like the camera makers? are the images input into the model like the made objects that appear in a photo?