alt Hacker News>Delegating the thinking and feeling parts of the human experience, mechanizing human creativity itself, is a direct attack on human dignity.
And I'm honestly sad for anyone who disagrees because it indicates they don't have a deeper relationship to art. For me, art is fundamentally about communication. It's someone sharing a little bit of themselves. AI might be able to produce pretty images and sounds, but it has no experience or feelings so the art it creates lacks that magic of a shared human connection. Pardon the crass analogy, but it's like if someone said "I don't need any intimate partner, I have internet porn". It's a depressing mindset because it indicates that people can't even see what they are missing.
Replies
> so the art it creates lacks that magic of a shared human connection.
I keep hearing this point, and the thought that comes up first is 'but blood diamonds'. Let me explain, you can buy a cheaper 'inauthentic' lab-grown gem that's chemically/physically identical to a (nearly hypothetical) flawless diamond, but we buy the 'natural, and imperfect' diamonds at a much higher price. The blood of the orphans that pulled the diamond rough from the minds soaked into the diamond raising it's value. The value isn't the blood, but the effort it took to produce that diamond, the story of how hard it was to mine is the value, not the end product (a shiny rock), which in the end, is all anyone can see.
The second thought I had was that what people find meaningful, beautiful, important varies wildly, to the point that landscapes are meaningful. Meaning can be found in anything, regardless of the existence of intent.
The third thought I had is communication does not survive the translation of art unscathed or unchanged. There is this disconnect, between the artist and the viewer. The viewer only ever sees a finished product. The viewer extracts meaning from the work entirely without the author/artist's involvement. This isn't communication, this is a soliloquy, frozen in time, the artist can not expand, explain, or sharpen (except in another works) those ideas once released into the world.
This disconnect is the rub. There are no 'magic' pixels that dictate secret meaning. There is no 'human color' that indicates intent. Meaning itself can't be painted. What relationship can ever take place between artist and viewer through those works alone. It's a 1-way conversation. And considering my second though, that intent isn't even needed to extract meaning, you can see the apathy and rise of the use of AI in art.
The point of making art isn't to make money, or to impress other people, or even change other people's thinking. It's to express yourself. That can't be taken by AI.
The point of viewing art is to reflect on how you perceive it. That's true regardless of the artist/author, and regardless of the blood (effort) (or not {AI}) used to craft it.
Well, Duchamp's fountain is a great illustration that "art is fundamentally about communication." does not entail that a cultural/artistic artifact has to be created by the author at all. I as well can create a short story with help of an LLM and say - this is my vision and what I always wanted to say.
> AI might be able to produce pretty images and sounds, but it has no experience or feelings so the art it creates lacks that magic of a shared human connection.
Who cares? I want it to do my taxes for me, it doesn't need to be Picasso
I can disagree with "direct attack on human dignity" while agreeing with "art is about communication".