It’s not a physical painting made by a well known artist.
It’s trying to hard to be a late Monet.
How much of our opinions are driven by context, rather than the actual subject? If Monet’s work is not so great without the context, is it still great? Or is context a critical piece of the art itself? Do we need to view a Monet piece within the scope of other Monet pieces, other artists, time periods, blindness, etc?
I’d say for art, a lot? There’s a ton of art that a halfway decent painter could do now, the art of it was being the one to do it originally. At least that’s how I, as an absolute philistine in that regard, understand it ;)
If we learn anything from all studies in this field, that is barely possible if not impossible at all, to change people’s mind. Even when they face clear evidence of their own mistake.
This is like asking people to rate this plate of bugs while serving them chicken. Even if tastes great, of course some people who will have a visceral reaction against it.
I think this HN commenter is also being fooled by the AI. It's likely that a lot of comments on HN are bots, so here you got an AI to comment about AI criticizing AI.
AI art enjoyers and missing the point of art: name a better duo.
No one has ever claimed AI cannot imitate a Monet, but however good the imitation, it still isn't art any more than a Xerox of a painting is art. This is the exact reason why most people feel bad after discovering that what they felt was work of human ingenuity, is just a fake, a simulacrum of it. The creation of art, arguably the most human of instincts, cannot be separated from the emotions and effort that went into it.
All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not.
Good points, but consider what this post does prove: people’s arguments against AI art are shallow; they often attack the artifacts themselves instead of making your deeper argument.
> All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not.
It goes beyond that. It proves that many people have an inherent bias against AI itself that's unrelated to whatever it generates. "This was made by AI, therefore it's bad in every way".
Another sign that the context and the human factor will always play a huge role in how we experience art. For example, AI generated music can sound perfect, but still we value it less if we don't know anything about the musician's life.
Shows nothing about AI, shows a lot about how low the bar has fallen for not taking everything you see on social media at face value.
Enticing an easy and predictable knee jerk reaction from a couple dozen users also hardly proves anything.
I know, but it could be AI-generated as well, because people can't tell them apart. The point was that even if AI could imitate Monet perfectly, it's not Monet. It's a worthless test.
1: the answers posted are cherrypicked to prove a speicific point
2: some of the (albeit mislead) answers basically say "it's nice but it's not something a person willingly outlined and drew" and they are not wrong
3: some answers complain on the lack of depth and detail, color blurbs, and we have to agree the tested version is of very low resolution
so in the end we are left with: "some people who were told it was AI knee-jerked negatively" and i can't even start to see what's surprising about it
Two interesting replies:
It’s not a physical painting made by a well known artist.
It’s trying to hard to be a late Monet.
How much of our opinions are driven by context, rather than the actual subject? If Monet’s work is not so great without the context, is it still great? Or is context a critical piece of the art itself? Do we need to view a Monet piece within the scope of other Monet pieces, other artists, time periods, blindness, etc?
> How much of our opinions are driven by context
I’d say for art, a lot? There’s a ton of art that a halfway decent painter could do now, the art of it was being the one to do it originally. At least that’s how I, as an absolute philistine in that regard, understand it ;)
Very good. We need more of these experiments in all areas. Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias.
I do think this reveals peoples' biases, but not in the way you probably do.
I think Monet just wasn't as good as his renown purports.
If we learn anything from all studies in this field, that is barely possible if not impossible at all, to change people’s mind. Even when they face clear evidence of their own mistake.
This is like asking people to rate this plate of bugs while serving them chicken. Even if tastes great, of course some people who will have a visceral reaction against it.
But they’re confidently asserting a whole bunch of specific made up reasons this is shittier than a real Monet.
It’s like the sommeliers who can’t detect red vs. white wine when blindfolded.
Seems the poster is the one fooled by the AI more than anything, because most likely the bulk of the replies are bots, so you got AI to criticize AI.
it was all engagement bait to auction off some NFT nonsense.
The absolute irony of this comment being the equivalent of the responses to that post.
> Seems the poster is the one fooled by the AI
I think this HN commenter is also being fooled by the AI. It's likely that a lot of comments on HN are bots, so here you got an AI to comment about AI criticizing AI.
all right, all right, who got a bot to write this comment then?
bzzz, clank
https://xcancel.com/jediwolf/status/2054776716770320631
AI art enjoyers and missing the point of art: name a better duo.
No one has ever claimed AI cannot imitate a Monet, but however good the imitation, it still isn't art any more than a Xerox of a painting is art. This is the exact reason why most people feel bad after discovering that what they felt was work of human ingenuity, is just a fake, a simulacrum of it. The creation of art, arguably the most human of instincts, cannot be separated from the emotions and effort that went into it.
All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not.
Good points, but consider what this post does prove: people’s arguments against AI art are shallow; they often attack the artifacts themselves instead of making your deeper argument.
> All this proves is that most people cannot tell if that picture is a Monet or not.
It goes beyond that. It proves that many people have an inherent bias against AI itself that's unrelated to whatever it generates. "This was made by AI, therefore it's bad in every way".
Another sign that the context and the human factor will always play a huge role in how we experience art. For example, AI generated music can sound perfect, but still we value it less if we don't know anything about the musician's life.
I think the more interesting thing going on here is the growing anti-AI sentiment. (Which I very much feel in myself too.)
That’s nothing new.
That’s just the art scene already ridiculed in the movie Interstate 60 with James Marsden and Gary Oldman and from 2002
https://youtu.be/HHwI37hkWfM?si=iFsWo3M5oSjLgE2F
Shows nothing about AI, shows a lot about how low the bar has fallen for not taking everything you see on social media at face value. Enticing an easy and predictable knee jerk reaction from a couple dozen users also hardly proves anything.
Shows the pretentiousness of the twitterati more than anything else
Is it really showing just "the pretentiousness of the twitterati" when there are comments in this HN thread making the same kind of flip responses?
Trading on pretentiousness in cliques has been a thing in art long before the internet and Twitter.
Cherry picked, contrived, biased; in a word, slop.
Being able to imitate Monet doesn't make you Monet. AI can't create anything original.
Define «original».
Under many definitions, where novel composition of existing knowledge or techniques is counted, it certainly can.
This is a real Monet.
I know, but it could be AI-generated as well, because people can't tell them apart. The point was that even if AI could imitate Monet perfectly, it's not Monet. It's a worthless test.