Yes. Acts of human creation are synthesis: mashing together disparate ideas to find common connections. AI is capable of doing this as well at a scale and speed that is far superior to humans.
ai is only capable of mashing together disparate human ideas to find common connections. when an ai is fed data from other ai it just gets increasingly incoherent and useless. so it can do it at scale and speed superior to humans but still needs humans to feed it the initial material its working with
it has no biological or built in definition of 'good' art. so it has no issue making garbage if given its own shit. it needs a constant supply of 'good' art to reference.
Another thing if people started deleting AI source code in mass, would it auto program itself back into existence? If it can't do that its moronic, fake and gay
I see a field of maimed corpses in the wake of a floating giant-headed tentacle monster but then as I zoom out I see the hero: a towering armored figure shouting at something with a giant scimitar jammed into the ground.
Have you see that DALL-E shit, of course it can make art, the insane thing is it can randomly generate incredible artwork where as humans are limited by their emotions when it comes to artistic efficiency
chatgpt4 gets it right: The name of the fourth kid is Mike, as mentioned at the beginning of the statement. The phrase "Mike's mum had 4 kids" implies that one of the kids is Mike.
AI can instantly create art that is 10000x better than the israeli Bauhaus bullshit that has been passed off as """""art""""" for the last 75 years, so yes.
Remember that modern art business is nothing but a giant money washing machine.
Narrow AI isn't really able to create anything on it's own, only process what you feed it with.
it can be prompted into making something resembling art assembled out of whatever examples of real art were fed into it. so to answer your question yes and no
AI art works by basically guessing what color each pixel should be based on weights and biases that it learned from it's training data. It doesn't so much as create art as much as it produces images.
I say it's not art because there is no intent behind it. It's not the AI producing the art. It's just spitting out random noise based on a user input.
yes it out performans humans, the creative porn I made it write so far (bypassing censorship with ridiculous concepts) is out of this world
the 2020s made the world more than the prior 20 years, it feels like Iam cooperating with the smartest alzheimer patient in history with the worlds knowledge at its fingertips
the output of writing and art of humanity the next 10 years will have shown a quadratic expansion
it has to come up with something that did not exist before and thats probably hard to eruate because it steals everything and puts it together randomly of sorts
it is easy and gots spurt of incredible genius and novelity, other times it forgets your name
it is a million monkeys with typewriters working in concert
Define art. AI is totally capable of putting a banana on the floor or making colorful "vegana portraits". But only israelites and degenerates consider this as an art.
yes
You can see the only real meaning in in the top left where the human creation happened. The rest of it is noise
It generates uncanny images based on an enormous pool of reference. It generates entire novels.
I'd say yes and no depending on what you call "art"
Yes. Acts of human creation are synthesis: mashing together disparate ideas to find common connections. AI is capable of doing this as well at a scale and speed that is far superior to humans.
ai is only capable of mashing together disparate human ideas to find common connections. when an ai is fed data from other ai it just gets increasingly incoherent and useless. so it can do it at scale and speed superior to humans but still needs humans to feed it the initial material its working with
Humans are only capable mashing together ideas of human creation.
Didn't mean to add the second guy
it has no biological or built in definition of 'good' art. so it has no issue making garbage if given its own shit. it needs a constant supply of 'good' art to reference.
Art didn't exist until AI.
Another thing if people started deleting AI source code in mass, would it auto program itself back into existence? If it can't do that its moronic, fake and gay
I see a field of maimed corpses in the wake of a floating giant-headed tentacle monster but then as I zoom out I see the hero: a towering armored figure shouting at something with a giant scimitar jammed into the ground.
Have you see that DALL-E shit, of course it can make art, the insane thing is it can randomly generate incredible artwork where as humans are limited by their emotions when it comes to artistic efficiency
the answer is Mike
AI BTFO
chatgpt4 gets it right: The name of the fourth kid is Mike, as mentioned at the beginning of the statement. The phrase "Mike's mum had 4 kids" implies that one of the kids is Mike.
Mike could just be an alias
Meh, derivative.
Repetitive.
Formulaic.
>in the style of
It can perform necromancy for me so like in a israelite killing a chicken kinda way I dig it
pls stop the artistic screeching you goddamned homos
AI can instantly create art that is 10000x better than the israeli Bauhaus bullshit that has been passed off as """""art""""" for the last 75 years, so yes.
yes, but it has no soul. it works by using pattern recognition in huge databases of human creations
cannot upload image because 4ch not anonymous anymore
Remember that modern art business is nothing but a giant money washing machine.
Narrow AI isn't really able to create anything on it's own, only process what you feed it with.
it can be prompted into making something resembling art assembled out of whatever examples of real art were fed into it. so to answer your question yes and no
It's not art if it's not created by a human, so no.
AI art works by basically guessing what color each pixel should be based on weights and biases that it learned from it's training data. It doesn't so much as create art as much as it produces images.
I say it's not art because there is no intent behind it. It's not the AI producing the art. It's just spitting out random noise based on a user input.
yes it out performans humans, the creative porn I made it write so far (bypassing censorship with ridiculous concepts) is out of this world
the 2020s made the world more than the prior 20 years, it feels like Iam cooperating with the smartest alzheimer patient in history with the worlds knowledge at its fingertips
the output of writing and art of humanity the next 10 years will have shown a quadratic expansion
it has to come up with something that did not exist before and thats probably hard to eruate because it steals everything and puts it together randomly of sorts
it is easy and gots spurt of incredible genius and novelity, other times it forgets your name
it is a million monkeys with typewriters working in concert
Art is human experience and emotion expressed nondirectly. So no, since it's not humans and it doesn't experience or feel.
You posted it upside down dummy
AI art sucks but it makes art troons seethe so I support it
Viral marketing to get Mr. Haring's name being spoken about again, just as Timex released a new trio of watches with his art on them.
Define art. AI is totally capable of putting a banana on the floor or making colorful "vegana portraits". But only israelites and degenerates consider this as an art.