AI wins a photography contest.

AI wins a photography contest.

https://www.eldagsen.com/sony-world-photography-awards-2023/

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's just creepy looking.
    Par for the course really.

  2. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The so-called judges couldn't tell it was an AI pic just by its fricked up fingers.
    What a joke. I can bet it was picked just to cause controvesy.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      This
      >Sony World Photography Awards
      lol
      https://www.ai.sony/

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it's fake because sony has an AI blog
        lmao artgay cope is HARD

  3. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    those hands are fricked

  4. 12 months ago
    sage

    >blue checkmark
    Tourist on this board really let the algorithm decide what they need to think.

  5. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can we admit that AI has as much 'soul' at this point than any human 'artist'?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      That looks like dogshit

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        You tell him, sister! Now do the thing where you really mog on him by posting your own work that is superior! You got this!

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is just aesthetic, not "soul", nothing there has a purpose or meaning, there's no story being told, nothing being expressed, its just "wow beautiful"

        Even that art won against human artists. No matter how shit it is, someone who was chosen to judge art judged it as the best

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is just aesthetic, not "soul", nothing there has a purpose or meaning, there's no story being told, nothing being expressed, its just "wow beautiful"

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who says it has no meaning? Why can't the artist tell a story with it?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          What ever happened to death of the author? Liberal art types were screaming about that one just a couple of years back as they razzed the classical literature section. But now you're telling me that it no longer applies? Help me out here. I'm trying to figure out how this works.

          Yes, although this is valid, the problem is that this isn't merely an option in AI art, its mandatory, its not that you can interpret it, you HAVE to interpret it, its mone akin to reading runes (attributing meaning to something that doesn't have any) than what we do when we interpret art.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            You could argue its more interesting to draw your own conclusion for the meaning of a picture than having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              >having to infer the artist's meaning of the picture.
              You don't have to, art appreciation is about how it resonates with you, not much about author's intention, the thing with AI is that it amounts to something like looking at the sunset or a landscape, yeah its beautiful but no one made that

              But there's human intervention in selecting which image is used and how the prompt is refined on the way to getting the final image selected. So there is a human story behind it. The guy who made it wasn't just like "computur mek pickchure" and then went with the first output he got. You're either completely ignorant or being deliberately obtuse and I feel sick to my stomach for even wasting this much of my life on you

              The bulk of the result is still AI, I'm fairly sure he didn't choose the lighting, color palette, subjects and a bunch of other things, yes he intervened, but its still more close to the other algorithmically generated stuff (like fractals) than a painting/drawing, (but there are people doing AI stuff but taking the driver's seat and contributing a lot more to the final result than just going with whatever comes out)

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                So the only real difference here is intention? Then we can make them two genres of art, different but still art with the capacity to be beautiful. Just like there's fiction and non-fiction.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So the only real difference here is intention?
                Yes, that's what differentiates a piece of art from any random thing, someone made it with purpose, a random rock in a river is a random rock in a river, but if someone put it there its art.
                >Then we can make them two genres of art
                I never claimed it wasn't art, I was talking more about the "soul" part, as I said, its more close to something like making fractal art then a drawing or painting, you can sorta shape the final result but it isn't something you crafted, its a spectrum, one side you have stuff like hand-made sculptures and paintings, in the other you have fractals, dadaism and AI, it isn't like one is better than the other, they are different, and most people are more drawn to those things that require more human input, more craftsmanship, not to say that they are better, but when people talk about art they are actually more likely than not talking about craftsmanship, they just don't realize it.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              >its more interesting to hear what i want to hear instead of trying to figure out what is being communicated
              i know this seems deep when youre new to art in general but “drawing your own conclusion” is not that deep once youre older than 27 years old and have been around art more than barely. the whole “death of the author” purism thing is fine while you’re building your tastes but then once you actually have a decent sensibility you can let the contexts back into consideration.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            But there's human intervention in selecting which image is used and how the prompt is refined on the way to getting the final image selected. So there is a human story behind it. The guy who made it wasn't just like "computur mek pickchure" and then went with the first output he got. You're either completely ignorant or being deliberately obtuse and I feel sick to my stomach for even wasting this much of my life on you

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        What ever happened to death of the author? Liberal art types were screaming about that one just a couple of years back as they razzed the classical literature section. But now you're telling me that it no longer applies? Help me out here. I'm trying to figure out how this works.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Death of the author is the principle that you can't say "this work is shit b-but the context of the author's life so it's actually good!", instead it must stand on its own and if people fail to interpret it like the author intended, it's because the author fricking sucks.
          There is no way to use death of the author to kill classical anything, only newfangled modernist garbage.
          Regarding AI-generated images, they're just way off and there are only two reasons they win: most artists are incapable of even the basics because of the modernist garbage they're corrupted with, and the judges are just as bad. For example,

          https://i.imgur.com/ly2zjD8.jpg

          Can we admit that AI has as much 'soul' at this point than any human 'artist'?

          only looks good at a far distance. Compare with early impressionist paintings (because later impressionism is also modernist trash): if you look closely, the whole disappears, but what you see is still aesthetically pleasing. It's like a poem that you can read both top to bottom or bottom to top such that it still makes sense but the meaning becomes inverted. Same deal with

          https://i.imgur.com/dinPSnH.jpg

          AI wins a photography contest.

          https://www.eldagsen.com/sony-world-photography-awards-2023/

          it doesn't look anything like a photograph of the time, the lighting pattern is just wrong as is the blur effect, for example. There is also nothing interesting about the subject, but that's another topic.

          Also you claim that "AI has soul" but neither image were generated de novo, the 'author' guided both, even modified them using editing tools. Would you say that photographers are also merely using nature so it's nature and not the artist that has soul? Or that it's paint that has soul, not the painter who made the picture?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Liberal art gays have no awareness that they are pawns to elites.
          Elites use shitty art as a medium of exchange to avoid taxes and as a black market currency.
          Corporations and countries buy Hunter Biden's "art" for millions of dollars. Is it really worth millions? Not to anyone who doesn't want to buy power from the current US administration. But if you need a bill passed or a permit, then it's worth far more than a couple of million.

          A politician buys some piece of shit painting for $2000. A rich frick buys it from the politician for $2,000,000 and then throws it in the garbage. The politician does his part "for free".

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was the hooman proompt that had soul, it just happened that he didn't have the skill to draw to express it which AI helped him with to compete against a bunch of postmodern soulless NPCs.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      I feel no emotion in this pic. There is literally no visible flow or pattern. When I look at the details, I'm instantly repulsed.
      It has no natural rhythm. Whoever judged these pictures as being good at all is a fricking moron.

      I can see AI as being good for conceptual or framework ideas, but it's absolutely 100% worthless elsewhere.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        That reaction is purely because you already knew it to be an AI painting.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hitler's uncanny paintings are guaranteed better than this AI shit.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            That reaction is purely because you already knew it to be an AI painting.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              No it doesn't. I'm just not impressed.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The world can never know

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're the kind of guy that knows everything was obvious after it already happened. it was obvious to you

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      You tell him, sister! Now do the thing where you really mog on him by posting your own work that is superior! You got this!

      [...]
      Even that art won against human artists. No matter how shit it is, someone who was chosen to judge art judged it as the best

      It was the hooman proompt that had soul, it just happened that he didn't have the skill to draw to express it which AI helped him with to compete against a bunch of postmodern soulless NPCs.

      Death of the author is the principle that you can't say "this work is shit b-but the context of the author's life so it's actually good!", instead it must stand on its own and if people fail to interpret it like the author intended, it's because the author fricking sucks.
      There is no way to use death of the author to kill classical anything, only newfangled modernist garbage.
      Regarding AI-generated images, they're just way off and there are only two reasons they win: most artists are incapable of even the basics because of the modernist garbage they're corrupted with, and the judges are just as bad. For example, [...] only looks good at a far distance. Compare with early impressionist paintings (because later impressionism is also modernist trash): if you look closely, the whole disappears, but what you see is still aesthetically pleasing. It's like a poem that you can read both top to bottom or bottom to top such that it still makes sense but the meaning becomes inverted. Same deal with [...] it doesn't look anything like a photograph of the time, the lighting pattern is just wrong as is the blur effect, for example. There is also nothing interesting about the subject, but that's another topic.

      Also you claim that "AI has soul" but neither image were generated de novo, the 'author' guided both, even modified them using editing tools. Would you say that photographers are also merely using nature so it's nature and not the artist that has soul? Or that it's paint that has soul, not the painter who made the picture?

      It didn't win against paintings. It was in the "digitally manipulated image" category. So it was up against a bunch of meme photoshoops not actual art.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's always the case with those AI images that win, but that's not the point either.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/dinPSnH.jpg

      AI wins a photography contest.

      https://www.eldagsen.com/sony-world-photography-awards-2023/

      You can tell an art is AI instantly so wtf are those judges smoking?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      there is nothing in the circle, the shapes are deformed. the ai is not thinking it's 1 step above a random noise generator

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >any
      No. At the VERY best I'll give you more soul than any artist on /ic/.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cope AI chud.
      You will never be a real artist.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Funny because being an artist for magic the gathering is what many artists dream of

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          And many dream of working at anime studios but that doesn't mean all the seasonal moe garbage is art.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          i dont know of any artists for whom that would be remotely true

  6. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like watching art trannies shitting and pissing on themselves as much as the next anon, but that looks like shit to me. I am barely artistic enough to sign my name and it still looks fricked to my eyes. I would imagine someone who actually knows what they are looking at can see that it's not right immediately. Arms are coming from weird directions, the right hand is a big bony man hand and the left is a feminine hand but with the wrist twisted around backwards, the left eye is all fricked up, there is a river running through the left cheek, and the right arm never stops being cloth. It doesn't look like anything special.

  7. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ai is so bad at generating realistic images that people are giving it awards for making pictures that look eerie. Sad.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      agreed this is pretty sad.
      Why are humans so crazy?

  8. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    that looks like garbage what the frick

  9. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lie that you took a photo
    Rules are simple, show photo taken with a camera

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      underrated post

  10. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    attention whoring on the ai hype

  11. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no way the didn't know it was an AI image. The hand is glitching out for frick's sake

  12. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I submitted some things to art comps before this all took off as being well known.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's a very nice composition, too bad the image is so bad.

      >So the only real difference here is intention?
      Yes, that's what differentiates a piece of art from any random thing, someone made it with purpose, a random rock in a river is a random rock in a river, but if someone put it there its art.
      >Then we can make them two genres of art
      I never claimed it wasn't art, I was talking more about the "soul" part, as I said, its more close to something like making fractal art then a drawing or painting, you can sorta shape the final result but it isn't something you crafted, its a spectrum, one side you have stuff like hand-made sculptures and paintings, in the other you have fractals, dadaism and AI, it isn't like one is better than the other, they are different, and most people are more drawn to those things that require more human input, more craftsmanship, not to say that they are better, but when people talk about art they are actually more likely than not talking about craftsmanship, they just don't realize it.

      That's modernist troonery logic. The difference between art and not art is if it's deliberately made and looks good, period. An architectural building made for habitation and not for art purposes, can be art. A status can be not-art.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and looks good
        According to whom? The intergalactic art committee? Popular vote of the current living humans and their standards?
        >A status can be not-art
        what?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          statue*
          >According to whom?
          People with working brains.
          >the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance
          >the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings:

  13. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow its look like dogshit

  14. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    If anything, all this shit has proved is that the so called judges don't actually look at the work, or at least haven't been briefed on tell tale signs (as of now)

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      They shouldn't need to check if it's AI or not at all, they should judge based purely on if it's good or not. They don't do that, though.

  15. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >those creepy fricked up hands
    >body blurred the frick out of it
    haha yeah AIbros. Winning was totally and I mean TOTALLY accidental. No way $10,000,000,000 (10 billion) of dollars from Microsoft and billions of dollars from other companies are mixed up in this. No way money played any role here at all, it was just coincidental that exactly OpenAI picture won the award out of thousands from Midjourney and Stable Diffusion (which are way better looking).

    I REPEAT MONEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. THERE IS NO FRAUD. AGAIN, THERE IS NO FRAUD. YOU ARE JUST ARTgayS SEETHING AT AI SUPERIORITY. And don't forget to get your 8th vaccine booster that is also totally not a fraud, because there is surely no way a huge company would commit to a fraud.

    #TrustThePlan #2moreWeeksUntilAGI

  16. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    how could they not tell?
    this looks fake as frick

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      There's something more behind things like this (as always).

  17. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    art is whatever was made by an artist. is the chatgpt an artist? no its just matrix algebra.

  18. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    nobody will ever convince me that contemporary art (1800s onwards) can match the classical style that actually looks impressive and aesthetic. AI can win these contests because the bar for art form is so incredible low thanks for incels like van gough and pablo basedcasso whose art pieces look like that are drawn by children. it's one of few things in like that unironically makes me seethe seeing the course in history that art has taken

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      this looks as shit

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        this more your style? homosexual

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >pre-1799 art enjoyer
          >strawman arguer
          checks out

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            post some art then b***h before I frick u up

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every argument on BOT
            >i have A opinion
            >oh, so you have X, Y, Z opinion?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pollock is great, you can like both.

  19. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no way they couldn't tell this was AI generated. Maybe they thought it was shopped, but that wouldn't fool an amateur.

  20. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can tell it's ai, but maybe a boomer couldn't. Also I notice it's a lesbian theme, possibly incest, and there's semen at the top of the picture

  21. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    So they gave the award because it's an image with two assumed lesbians
    Then got scammed because it's obviously AI but politics
    Fricking kek

  22. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    this looks like garbage the hands are fricked up and the dude in the back looks like a melting paul mccartney

  23. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI always fricks up the hands and feet

  24. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >that fricked up lightning on the face in the back
    >judges fall for this

  25. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I genuinely cannot fathom how low one's IQ would need to be to see this image and not immediately know that it was doctored so I'm going to assume that this is another publicity stunt and everyone involved knew it was an AI image the whole time.

  26. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    from that article:
    >The work SWPA has chosen is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge.
    it's not 100% AI. they still fell for it.
    hope they don't sue the guy for fraud or something.

  27. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    its clearly AI generated wtf are they smoking, look at the hands, all the details are shit

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *