[HN Gopher] How did you do on the AI art Turing test?
___________________________________________________________________
How did you do on the AI art Turing test?
Author : sieste
Score : 67 points
Date : 2024-11-22 19:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.astralcodexten.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.astralcodexten.com)
| sieste wrote:
| The only way I can explain people getting 98% accuracy on this is
| being familiar with the handful of AI artists submitting their
| work for this competition.
| Izkata wrote:
| It's a google form with no apparent time limit. It wouldn't
| surprise me if some people could do this (think of it like how
| older special effects in TV/movies look dated), but most likely
| they did an image search on each one and got one wrong.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I don't think that is AI art Turing test.
|
| An AI art Turing Test would be interactive with me telling it
| what to draw and what changes to make and see if what is
| producing the art is human or AI.
| egypturnash wrote:
| This species of test would also need a multi-day turnaround
| period on each image. And/or a video stream of the work being
| drawn.
|
| "Changes" are an interesting one, honestly as a professional
| artist who has to pay her rent, there is certain complexity of
| change beyond which I am likely to say "look, we're going to
| need to renegotiate the budget on this if you want this much of
| a change from the sketch you already approved", or even "no".
| equestria wrote:
| Eh, this is pretty unfair. That's a test of how good humans are
| at deceiving other humans, not a of how hard it is to distinguish
| run-of-the-mill AI art from run-of-the-mill human art in real
| life.
|
| First, by their own admission, the author deliberately searched
| for generative images that don't exhibit any of the telltale
| defects or art choices associated with this tech. For example,
| they rejected the "cat on a throne" image, the baby portrait, and
| so on. They basically did a pre-screen to toss out anything the
| author recognized as AI, hugely biasing the results.
|
| Then, they went through a similar elimination process for human
| images to zero in on fairly ambiguous artwork that could be
| confused with machine-generated. The "victorian megaship" one is
| a particularly good example of such chicanery. When discussing
| the "angel woman" image, they even express regret for not getting
| rid of that pic because of a single detail that pointed to human
| work.
|
| Basically, the author did their best to design a quiz that humans
| should fail... and humans still did better than chance.
| bena wrote:
| Also impressionism is probably one of the most favorable art
| styles for AI. The lack of detail means there are fewer places
| for AI to fuck up.
|
| A street with cafe chairs and lights, that's like an entire
| genre of impressionist paintings.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I think it's fair. It's the same thing humans do with their own
| art. You don't release the piece until you like it. You revise
| until you think it's don't. If a human wants to make AI art,
| they aren't just going to drop the first thing they generated.
| They're going to iterate. I think it's just as unfair to
| include the worst generations, because people are going to
| release the highest quality they can come up with.
| majormajor wrote:
| > It's the same thing humans do with their own art.
|
| How so? Humans distributed all those "I filtered them out
| because they were too obvious" AI ones that _aren 't_ in the
| test too. So they passed someone's "is this something that
| should get released" test.
|
| What we _aren 't_ seeing is human-generated art that nobody
| would confuse with a famous work - which of course there is a
| lot of out there - but IMO it generally looks "not famous" in
| very _different_ ways. More "total execution issues" vs
| detail issues.
| rurp wrote:
| Based on what I've empirically seen out in the world most
| people posting AI art are not using the same filtering as the
| author of this test. Plus the human choices used probably
| skew more towards what people think of as classic AI art than
| all human art as a whole.
|
| The test was interesting to read about, but it didn't really
| change my mind about AI art in general. It's great for
| generating stock images and other low engagement works, but
| terrible as fine art that's meant to engage the user on any
| non-superficial level.
| equestria wrote:
| > I think it's fair. It's the same thing humans do with their
| own art.
|
| No, hold on. The key part is that you have a quiz that
| purports to test the ability of an average human to tell AI
| artwork from human artwork.
|
| So if you specifically select images for this quiz based on
| the fact that _you, the author of the quiz_ , can't tell them
| apart, then your quiz is no longer testing what it's promised
| to. It's now a quiz of "are you incrementally better than the
| author at telling apart AI and non-AI images". Which is a lot
| less interesting, right?
|
| I'm not saying the quiz has to include low-quality AI
| artwork. It also doesn't need to include preschoolers'
| doodles on the human side. But it's one thing to have some
| neutral quality bar, and another thing altogether to choose
| images specifically to subvert the stated goal of the test.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I don't see why you wouldn't use the highest quality
| possible for both.
| npinsker wrote:
| But they didn't do this at all. They picked the most
| human-like AI images (usually high quality), and the most
| AI-like human images (usually mid).
|
| The anime pictures are particularly poor and look much
| worse than commercial standard work (e.g. https://pbs.twi
| mg.com/media/FwWPeNhXoAQZGW8?format=jpg&name=...) -- but
| of course those would be too easy to classify, wouldn't
| they? I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking the provided
| examples are AI.
| viraptor wrote:
| > They picked the most (...) the most AI-like human
| images
|
| Why do you think so? I didn't see that explicitly claimed
| in the post (or did I miss it?)
| cicdw wrote:
| This article has an implicit premise that the ultimate judge of
| art is "do I/people like it" but I think art is more about the
| possibilities of interpretation - for example, the classics/"good
| art" lend themselves to many reinterpretations, both by different
| people and by the same person over time. When humans create art
| "manually" all of their decisions - both conscious and
| unconscious - feed into this process. Interpreting AI art is more
| of a data exploration journey than an exploration of meaning.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| That's one of my problems with AI art. AI art promises to bring
| your ideas to life, no need to sweat the small stuff. But it's
| the small details and decisions that often make art great!
| Ideas are a dime a dozen in any artistic medium, it's the
| specific way those ideas are implemented that make art truly
| interesting.
| cicdw wrote:
| I couldn't agree more; I love what you said in your other
| reply: "AI art punishes the viewer who looks closer"
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Eh. That's an artificial goalpost. Realistically, it's a tool
| in the toolkit.
| tpmoney wrote:
| I feel like AI art promises the ability to raise the baseline
| art available for people who want some artwork for some
| purpose from stick figures drawn in MS paint to something
| reasonably artful. The sort of things that would previously
| have been filled by a Google image search, ripping something
| off deviant art or just browsing a stock images / clip art
| website until you find something "good enough". I think part
| of the problem with AI art discussions is we do these side by
| sides with "real art" while glossing over all the places
| where "art" is used all the time and doesn't need to rise to
| the level of "something that will be displayed in a museum".
| viraptor wrote:
| When the quality AI images are created, like these in the
| post, that description doesn't really apply. If you hang out
| in those discords, you'll see people obsessing about details
| and inpainting things that don't look like what they wanted.
| The high end of results is very specific in the
| implementation.
| dpig_ wrote:
| Agreed. AI art subtracts intentionality.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| There does not need to be intentionality for people to
| interpret it. Humans have interpreted intentionality behind
| natural phenomenon like the weather and constellations since
| pre-history, and continue to do so.
|
| And I contest the original claim that AI art has no
| intentionality. A human provided a prompt, adjusted that
| prompt, and picked a particular output, all of which is done
| with intent. Perhaps there is no specific intent behind each
| individual pixel, but there is intent behind the overall
| creation. And that is no different to photography or digital
| art, where there is often no specific intent behind each
| individual pixel, as digital tools modify wide swathes of
| pixels simultaneously.
| viraptor wrote:
| The Rorschach test is quite literally an example of people
| finding meaning in randomness.
| Izkata wrote:
| 66% here. I was pretty much scrolling through and clicking on
| first instinct instead of looking in any detail.
|
| Interestingly I did a lot better in the second half than the
| first half - without going through and counting them up again I
| think somewhere around 40% in the first half and 90% in the
| second half. Not sure if it's because of the selection/order of
| images or if I started unconsciously seeing commonalities.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| I feel like the comment made by the author's friend captures a
| lot of my feelings on AI art. AI art is often extremely detailed,
| but that detail is often just random noise. It's art that becomes
| worse and makes less sense the more carefully you look at it.
|
| Compared that to human art. When a person makes a highly detailed
| artwork, that detail rewards looking closely. That detail forms a
| cohesive, intentional vision, and incentivizes the viewer to
| spend the time and effort to take it all in. A person could spend
| hours looking at Bruegel's Tower of Babel paintings, or Bosch's
| "The Garden of Earthly Delights".
|
| Overall, I've never felt the need to spend the time looking
| closely at AI art, even AI art that I couldn't tell was AI right
| away. Instead of rewarding close inspection with more detail, AI
| art punishes the viewer who looks closer by giving them
| undecipherable mush.
| morkalork wrote:
| It's exactly what isn't captured in the training data. The AI
| knows what the final texture of an oil painting looks like but
| it doesn't, know if what it's creating isn't possible from the
| point of view of physical technique. Or, likewise, it doesn't
| see the translation from mental image to representation of that
| image that a human has. It's always working off the final
| product.
| card_zero wrote:
| That makes it sound like impressionism. But the phony details
| have a more intense bullshitting quality, like the greebles on
| a Star Wars spaceship.
| doawoo wrote:
| There's a lot of thought that goes into things like the
| greebles on a spaceship, like the shape language, the values
| and hues, etc.
|
| Impressionism might seem "random" like what a model would
| output, but the main difference is the human deciding how
| that "randomness" should look.
|
| The details on a model generated art piece are meaningless to
| me, no one sat down and thought "the speckles here will have
| to be this value to ensure they don't distract from the rest
| of the piece."
|
| That's more what I look at when I digest art, the small,
| intentional design choices of the person making it.
| lupire wrote:
| Hmm? Impressionism is noted for extreme _lack_ of detail,
| that still is suggestive of something specific, because the
| artist knows what details your brain will fill in. (8bit
| pixel art is impressionistic :-) )
| card_zero wrote:
| Yes, a suggestive smudge, a _vague_ mark, as the artist in
| the article said (the one talking about the "ruined gate"
| picture). That's like an honest communication between
| artist and viewer, "this mark stands for something beyond
| the limit of my chosen resolution". It's like a
| deliberately non-committal expression, like saying "I don't
| know exactly, kinda one of these". In contrast, we have in
| AI art misleading details that contain a sort of
| confabulated visual nonsense, like word salad, except
| graphical. Similar to an LLM's aversion to admitting "I
| don't know".
| majormajor wrote:
| The gate picture has the same problem as as the cat one that he
| didn't filter out. There's a lot going on, and the lighting
| does seem to be one of the somewhat-inconsistent issues IMO,
| but it's just generally weird about why there's cats of all
| different sizes, why some of the smallest cats have the same
| coloring as the biggest ones, but some don't, what's going on
| with the arms of the two darker cats on the right, why aren't
| the sides of the throne symmetric, etc.
|
| Everything is consistent in terms of "the immediate pixels
| surrounding it" but the picture as a whole is just "throw a LOT
| at the wall."
|
| It passes the "looks cool" test but fails the "how likely would
| a human be to paint that particular composition" test.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| The cat picture really shows the "noisy detail" problem with
| AI art. There's a lot going on on the area directly above the
| cat with a crown, as well as on the armrests and the upper
| areas of the wall background. But it's all random noise,
| which makes it both exhausting and distracting. A human
| artist would probably either make those areas less detailed,
| or give a more consistent pattern. Both would let those parts
| fade into the background, which would help draw our focus to
| the cats and the person.
|
| There's other, more general issues too. The front paw on the
| big cat on the left is twisting unnaturally. The cat on the
| right with the pendant thing looks like it only has one front
| paw. The throne looks more like a canopy bed then a throne,
| with the curtains and the weird top area. The woman's face is
| oddly de-emphasized, despite being near the center of the
| piece.
|
| Most of these things are subtle, and can be hard to
| articulate if you aren't looking closely. But the picture
| reeks of AI art, and it doesn't surprise me that the author
| was able to identify it as such right away.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Reading this comment chain is kinda confusing to me. Y'all
| really not aware that there are countless works of art that
| predate AI art that look literally just the same?
|
| Missing symmetry is super frequent in hand drawn art, and
| overusing/adding too much detail that ultimately detract
| from the art is something any aspiring artist has done at
| some point.
|
| I get that you don't like to look at pictures like that,
| but it's really not unique to AI art.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| My point wasn't that you can't find art made by a human
| that has the characteristics of AI art. My point was more
| that it's just bad art.
| why_at wrote:
| Maybe the author's friend is just way better than me at this,
| but I tried applying her advice to some of the other images and
| I don't feel like it would have helped me.
|
| Looking at the human impressionist painting "Entrance to the
| Village of Osny" that lots of people (including me) thought was
| AI, it seems like there's lots of details which don't really
| make sense. The road seems to seamlessly become the wall of a
| house on the right side for instance. On the other hand, even
| looking at the details, there's no details in the cherub image
| that I could see which would give anything away.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| It's impressionist. It's not supposed to make sense in the
| sense that it's an accurate reflection of reality; it's
| supposed to make sense in that you can understand why the
| details were drawn in the way they were because someone put
| thought and intention into them.
| aarong11 wrote:
| I guess a good example is things like the physical
| characteristics of a line drawn by the stroke of a paint
| brush. You can often see they all align generally in the
| same direction, and have a sort of "fingerprint"
| npinsker wrote:
| I was able to tell because the distant houses are placed in a
| nonsensical formation in the AI image, but in the human image
| they make sense (they're more of a 'swoosh').
| vunderba wrote:
| This is why I'm baffled when people want to put this kind of
| stuff on their Behance/Artstation profile.
|
| Can AI art be useful? Sure but I'd argue only in the pursuit of
| something else (like a cute image to help illustrate a blog
| article), and certainly not for art's sake.
|
| Posing it as "ART" means that the intent is for viewers to
| linger upon the piece, and the vast majority of AI art just
| _wilts_ under scrutiny like that.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| so much of the value of art, which Scott has actually endowed on
| these AI generated pieces, is the knowledge that other people are
| looking at the same thing as you.
| arjie wrote:
| Generative AI is so cool. My wife (a creative director) used it
| to help design our wedding outfits. We then had them embroidered
| with those patterns. It would have been impossible otherwise for
| us to have that kind of thing expressed directly. It's like
| having an artist who can sketch really fast and who you can keep
| correcting till your vision matches the expression. Love it!
|
| I don't think there have been any transformative AI works yet,
| but I look forward to the future.
|
| It's unsurprising to me that AI art is often indistinguishable
| from real artists' work but famous art is so for some reason
| other than technical skill. Certainly there are numerous replica
| painters who are able to make marvelous pieces.
|
| Anyway, I'm excited to see what new things come.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It would have been interesting to know how much time most people
| spent per picture because if you look at the quoted comment from
| the well scoring art interested person mentioned:
|
| _" The left column has a sort of door with a massive top-of-
| doorway-thingy over it. Why? Who knows? The right column doesn't,
| and you'd expect it to. Instead, the right column has 2.5 arches
| embossed into it that just kind of halfheartedly trail off._"
|
| You can find this in almost every AI generated picture. The
| picture that people liked most, AI generated with the cafe and
| canal, the legs on the chairs make little sense. Not as bad as in
| non-curated AI art, but still no human would paint like this.
| Same for the houses in the background. If you spend say a minute
| per picture with AI art you almost always find these random
| things, even if the image is stylized, unlike human art it has a
| weird uncanniness to it.
| lolc wrote:
| I agree that the cafe had tells, just like the city street. But
| Gauguin also ended up in my AI bin. With the latter I feel the
| cropping was very infavourable.
|
| Even though I was warned of the cropping, I didn't think the
| works would be cut that badly. Since I was working under the
| assumption that good specimens of each category would be
| chosen, the cut Gauguin didn't make it.
|
| But in the end I'd convinced myself that Osny also had tells
| apart from the composition. So what do I know?
| 12_throw_away wrote:
| Oh come on. I guess I missed the part in the "Turing test" where
| a human filters out 99.999% of the machine's output prior to the
| test.
| vntok wrote:
| They did the same with human-produced art.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Duchamp rolling in his grave about this post!
| housecarpenter wrote:
| Can you elaborate on why?
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Wringing our hands so much about the art as Art. This thing
| in general where people feel the need to validate or justify
| AI art in the same terms one does other art is like the
| antithesis of anything you could remotely call the avant
| garde. To, in fact, take surveys about it, calculate
| conclusions... To _care_ about what people think at all,
| about what they simply see with their retinas, as if art is
| somehow _for_ them. It all smacks of precisely the kind of
| thing he hated, or at least tried to distinguish himself
| from.
| maldusiecle wrote:
| Fine art is a matter of nuance, so in that sense I think it does
| matter that a lot of the "human art" examples are aggressively
| cropped (the Basquiat is outright cut in half) and reproduced at
| very low quality. That Cecily Brown piece, for example, is 15
| feet across in person. Seeing it as a tiny jpg is of course not
| very impressive. The AI pieces, on the other hand, are native to
| that format, there's no detail to lose.
|
| But those details are part of what make the human art interesting
| to contemplate. I wouldn't even think of buying an art book with
| reproductions of such low quality--at that point you do lose
| what's essential about the art work, what makes it possible to
| enjoy.
| gyomu wrote:
| That's a great point, in a similar vein I routinely see people
| post photos on social media taken with their phone, side by
| side with a photo taken by a high end camera, saying "I bet you
| can't tell the difference, expensive cameras are a waste of
| money when phones are so good".
|
| Well of course, you're comparing 1.5 megapixels compressed
| JPEGs. If you display those photos on a large monitor - let
| alone print them - the differences will be immediately obvious.
| skybrian wrote:
| Yes, but sometimes that's moving the goalposts when the
| purpose was to post a picture on the web.
| egypturnash wrote:
| It's interesting that the impressionist-styled pieces mostly
| fooled people. I think this is because the style requires getting
| rid of one of the hallmarks of AI imagery: lots and lots of
| mostly-parallel swooshy lines, at a fairly high frequency.
| Impressionism's schtick is kind of fundamentally "fuck high-
| frequency detail, I'm just gonna make a bunch of little
| individual paint blobs".
|
| One of the other hallmarks of AI imagery was deliberately kept
| out of this test. There's no _shitposts_. There 's _one_ , as an
| example of "the dall-e house style". It's a queen on a throne
| made of a giant cat, surrounded by giant cats, and it's got a lot
| of that noodly high-frequency detail that _looks_ like something,
| but it is also a fundamentally goofy idea. Nobody 's gonna pay
| Michael Whelan to paint the hell out of this and yet _here it
| is_.
| d--b wrote:
| I think what gave AI away the most was mixed styles. If one part
| of the painting is blurred, and another part is very focused, you
| can tell it's AI. People don't do that.
|
| I got all of Jack Galler's pictures wrong though. The man knows
| how to do it.
| throwawayk7h wrote:
| You can't really draw many conclusions from this test, since the
| AI art has already been filtered by Scott to be ones that Scott
| himself found confusing. So What do any of the numbers at the end
| of this really mean? "Am I better than Scott at discerning AI art
| from human" is about the only thing this test says.
|
| If you didn't filter the AI art first, people would do much
| better.
| riffraff wrote:
| I had the same thought, but a counterargument is that the human
| art has also been filtered to be real artist stuff rather than
| what a random person would draw.
|
| It's still impressive that pleasant AI art is possible.
| nyrulez wrote:
| The point isn't to compare random AI art with random human art.
| The overarching sentiment lately has been that AI art feels bad
| and has this "Fake" quality to it.
|
| This survey is refuting that argument. AI art can be used in
| media just like human art and people can't really tell (or care
| if they can't tell the difference).
| jncfhnb wrote:
| AI Art can be hard to identify in the wild. But it still largely
| sucks at helping you achieve specific deliverables. You can get
| an image. But it's pretty hard to actually make specific images
| in specific styles. Yes we have Loras. Yes we have control nets
| (to varying degrees) and ipadapter (to lesser degrees) and face
| adapters and what not. But it's still frustrating to get
| something consistent across multiple images. Especially in
| illustrated styles.
|
| AI Art is good if you need something in a general ballpark and
| don't care about the specifics
| vunderba wrote:
| Yep, that's why you see AI art a lot as generic blog
| hero/banner images.
| readyplayernull wrote:
| Easy to defeat. AI can't come up with ambiguous art:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous_image
|
| There is a strategic feature to it based on retrospection.
| oezi wrote:
| Why wouldn't AI be able to retrospect?
| readyplayernull wrote:
| I didn't say it can't retrospect. What it can't do is
| retrospect as a human mind, it can only read the
| intepretation a human mind has of its retrospection, and the
| human mind can't fully explain what its way of thinking is.
| So it doesn't have a useful model of the human mind, that it
| would need for the strategy. And strategy is a whole complex
| feature, that would use overlapping models for the ambiguity.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Not "out of the box" maybe, but yes, it can. It can even do it
| in ways which humans find impossible.
|
| Proof:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMRi6pNAoag&list=LL&index=74...
| readyplayernull wrote:
| Same as the other comment. It's merging, not construction
| from a self-generated strategic plan to cause ambiguity.
| ValentinA23 wrote:
| Diffusion Illusions: Hiding Images in Plain Sight
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.03817
| readyplayernull wrote:
| That is cool, but it's mostly merging, that is a partial
| solution and the strategy is defined by the developer. The
| results aren't good enough.
| plank wrote:
| Not sure I understand the article. The author specifically chose
| art from humans and AI that he found difficult to categorize into
| human or AI art. The fact that people had a 60% success rate
| suggest that they are a little better in seeing the difference
| then he was himself?
|
| (What am I missing? This is not like "take 50 random art objects
| from humans and AI", but take 50 most human like AI, and non-
| obvious human art from humans)
| vunderba wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _So maybe some people hate AI because they have an artist 's eye
| for small inadequacies and it drives them crazy._
|
| This is it 100%.
|
| When somebody draws something (in an active fashion), there is a
| significantly higher level of concentration and thought put
| towards the final output.
|
| By its very nature, GenAI is mostly using an inadequately
| descriptive medium (e.g. text) which a user then must WAIT until
| an output that _roughly_ matches your vision "pops" out. Can you
| get around this? Not entirely, though you can help mitigate this
| through inpainting, photobashing, layering, controlnets, loras,
| etc.
|
| However, want to wager a guess what 99% of the AI art slop that
| people throw up all over the internet doesn't use? ANY OF THAT.
|
| A conventional artist has an internal visualization that they are
| constantly mentally referring to as they put brush to canvas -
| and it shows in the finer details.
|
| It's the same danger that LLMs have as coding assistants. You are
| no longer in the driver's seat - instead you're taking a
| significantly more passive approach to coding. You're a reviewer
| with a passivity that may lead to subtle errors later down the
| line.
|
| And if you need any more proof, here's a GenAI image attached to
| _Karpathy_'s (one of the founding members of openAI) twitter post
| on founding an education AI lab:
|
| https://x.com/karpathy/status/1813263734707790301
| Rant423 wrote:
| Previous submission:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42202288 (1 comment)
| maeil wrote:
| Even with this hand-picking I got 70% and am nowhere near an
| expert on either AI or human art, having dabbled in it for a day
| or two back when DallE and Midjourney first became popular. I'm
| sure someone who's into the image generation field could score
| 80%+ consistently even over a larger dataset just as handpicked
| as this one.
|
| Telltale signs of AI:
|
| - Cliches. "Punk Robot" is a good example, a human artist capable
| of creating that would've somehow been more creative. - Obviously
| facial expressions and limbs are telltale signs, very uncanny
| valley - If there's an accurate geomtric repeating pattern, it's
| extremely unlikely to be AI. Something like "Giant Ship" is afaik
| still practically impossible to generate. - Weird unfinished
| parts of a world. See "Leafy Lane". Why is there a vantablack
| hole at the end of the road? It's not physically impossible but
| it makes little sense and a human wouldn't put it there in that
| painting.
| unraveller wrote:
| Like all ai-or-not tests this fails to keep a similar high
| quality threshold for both kinds so it intends to waste time not
| appreciation of either kind of art.
|
| The curator was selecting human output for overlap with ai
| flaw/artifacts that are likely to confuse at a glance. He wasn't
| selecting randomly above a high quality threshold for both kinds
| as implied.
|
| Typically AI is boring, takes the easy way out upon further
| inspection, likes lone straight lines and face front on shots and
| it just so happens there are many tests which he found old human
| examples of this, with large perspective/lighting flaws as well.
|
| I don't care what the point of art is consesused to be, or if
| elephant-made art is distinguishable from a 5th grader's art.
|
| The turing test was "obsolete" before eliza time, the solution
| was: it doesn't matter to me because i'm using it as if it were
| human.
| sourcepluck wrote:
| > By this standard, I submit that Sam Altman is the greatest
| artist of the 21st century.
|
| That was below the belt!
| turtles3 wrote:
| I appreciate this survey for how thought-provoking it is.
| Ironically, I'd say that the survey is itself art. And not a
| piece of art that AI in it's current state could ever pull off.
| Maybe that's when the AI art turing test will truly be passed,
| when AI is capable of curating such a survey.
|
| For me what really distinguished the more obvious human art is
| that it had a story. It was saying something more than the image
| itself. This is why Meeting at Krizky stands out as obviously
| human, and so is The Wounding of Christ whereas muscular man is
| not.
|
| As with other commenters, I'm surprised the author liked the big
| gate so much. To me it was one of the easier AI pieces just by
| virtue of it's composition. It's a big gate. With no clear reason
| for being there, there are no characters that the gate means
| something to. It's just a big gate. Obvious slop. Paris scene on
| the other hand, did convince me. It does a pretty good job of
| capturing a mood, it sort of feels a bit Lowry but more french
| impressionist.
|
| I think this has similar parallels to good character writing. A
| few words of dialogue of action can reveal complex inner beliefs
| and goals. The absence of those can feel hollow. It's why "have
| the lambs stopped screaming?" is more compelling than "somehow,
| palpatine returned".
|
| To some extent, we already have had this competition between
| human made high art and human made generic slop for hundreds of
| years. The slop has always been more popular to the chagrin of
| those that consider high art to be superior. I don't blame anyone
| for consuming slop. I do. It's fun.
|
| This is a bit of a ramble but I honestly appreciate that this
| survey genuinely adds another perspective to the question of what
| art is. Sorry if that sounds extremely pretentious. But then
| again, I like slop.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-23 23:01 UTC)