Take for example (an extreme example) the paintbrush. Do you care where each bristle lands? No of course not. The bristles land randomly on the canvas, but it’s controlled chaos. The cumulative effect of many bristles landing on a canvas is a general feel or texture. This is an extreme example, but the more you learn about art the more you notice just how much art works via unintentional processes like this. This is why the Trickster Gods, Hermes for example, are both the Gods of art (lyre, communication, storytelling) and the Gods of randomness/fortune.

We used to assume that we could trust the creative to make their own decisions about how much randomness/automation was needed. The quality of the result was proof of the value of a process: when Max Ernst used frottage (rubbing paper over textured surfaces) to create interesting surrealist art, we retroactively re-evaluated frottage as a tool with artistic value, despite its randomness/unintentionality.

But now we’re in a time where people are doing the exact opposite: they find a creative result that they value, but they retroactively devalue it if it’s not created by a process that they consider artistic. Coincidentally, these same people think the most “artistic” process is the most intentional one. They’re rejecting any element of creativity that’s systemic, and therefore rejecting any element of creativity that has a complexity that rivals nature (nature being the most systemic and unintentional art.)

The end result is that the creative has to hide their process. They lie about how they make their art, and gatekeep the most valuable secrets. Their audiences become prey for creative predators. They idolize the art because they see it as something they can’t make, but the truth is there’s always a method by which the creative is cheating. It’s accessible to everyone.

Of course you do, that’s why there are so many different types and sizes of paintbrushes, so you can exert exactly as much fine control as you want/need. Learning the craft is to learn to pick and use your tools to get the desired result. Being unable to microscopically predict where each bristle lands is not the same as not wanting to. Some times you’ll pick a more haphazard brush because the small amount of randomness is a feature (e.g. when emulating nature) and other times you’ll use a fine grained tool, maybe even a toothpick instead of a brush because you need it to be precise.

There are plenty of times in which people will prefer the technically inferior or less aesthetically pleasing output because of the story accompanying it. Different people select different intention to value, some select for the intention to create an accurate depiction of a beautiful landscape, some select for the intention to create a blurry smudge of a landscape.

I can appreciate the art piece made my someone who only has access to a pencil and their imagination more than someone who has access to adobe CC and the internet because its not about the output to me its about the intention and the story.

Saying I made this drawing implies that you at least sat down and had the intention to draw the thing. Then revealing that you actually used AI to generate it changes the baseline assumption and forces people to re-evaluate it. So its not "finding a creative result that they value, but they retroactively devaluing it if it’s not created by a process that they consider artistic

There are a lot of reasons why the intention of the artist is a bad metric for artistic value and there’s a ton of important literature about this

The first obvious point is that the meaning of communication is defined by its endpoint. If I send a message that says “I love you” and somehow the message gets garbled in transmission and ends up reading “I hate you,” then the message that I’ve sent is “I hate you” regardless of my intentions. You can take this a step further: if you want to write an essay attacking capitalism, but everyone who reads it comes out thinking more highly of capitalism and your essay is successfully used for years to help defend of capitalism from critiques, then what you’ve written is a defense of capitalism. This is the main gist behind what’s called Reader Response Theory: the meaning is generated by the reader (or in between the reader and the text) and not by the writer.

As a communications problem, this is even more relevant for art because art is indirect communication by its very nature. Storytelling, for example doesn’t ever actually try to communicate any single thing. The storyteller creates many fictional people, each of whom have their own messages they want to get across, and creates a web of relationships/events between them. It’s an ecosystem at heart. Without any clear/direct message, the margin for error rapidly increases. The artist obviously has to know that this is the case when they choose to make art. If they wanted to get across a single message or intention, then why did they choose a medium that’s so notoriously bad at getting across a single intention? Obviously some artists are just delusional and don’t accept the reality of their medium, but that doesn’t change the facts

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where a storyteller writes a story with a narrator that clearly handholds the audience and explicitly says what the artist means, but the audience doesn’t agree with the narrator. In that case, how many readers will praise the storyteller for their interesting use of an unreliable narrator? Art functions this way on its own, and this is another reason why intentionality is a bad metric: the artist has to make the art work, and that functionality has properties of its own that supersede the artists intentions. This was the main argument of an historically important essay entitled The Intentional Fallacy by Whimsat and Beardsley: Primarily, the story must work. The meaning comes secondarily from trying to understand why it works. We forget this, but the art that we engage with is always art that has been pre-selected by the demands of the art form itself, which no single artist has control over. We engage with art through survivorship bias.

Where I think most people get tripped up is that one of the recent and most popular demands of art has been Conceptual Art, which focuses on the idea or intention rather than the object itself. This is an outgrowth of an individualistic art movement that, honestly, is popular because of political motives. The CIA straight up funded it. I’m not saying that’s bad. Honestly I love any government that funds the arts. I’m just saying it’s not the entirety of art and we can’t be subservient to it and the ideology it represents. You don’t need to justify your enjoyment of a blurry image because it has a story behind it. Moreover, it doesn’t make sense to ignore the image and argue that the story is the meaning or the value of the art. Art that uses backstories effectively can just be redefined as multimedia art that combines the art medium with storytelling, and now suddenly what you thought was the intention of the artist is just the quality of the output again

There’s no gatekeeping in the processes of these works, no secrecy, not even really whatever you’re talking about. These works would in fact be utterly diminished by being produced by an LLM because they’re trying to capture the stories of real, existing people who had real, painful experiences. I have no empathy with a machine but I have all the empathy of a man who loved a man whose family hated him so much when he died they wouldn’t even leave his lover with anything more than a box fan and so he decided to declare the box fan to be art.

While people do think like this, it misses the point.

Yes, all forms of art is FULL of randomness and people copying each other. The thing that makes it special is that it took people going out and living and having experiences to create it. They have to actively absorb prior art, learn about it, analyze it, generally be influenced by it. You have to seek out paints, clay, musical instruments, etc etc and at least somewhat learn how to use them. It's not about being difficult to do (although it's certainly impressive but not part of the emotional takeaway), but everyone's process is different and their experiences go into what they create. When I see a photograph of a tree, I think: "Someone went to where that tree is!" and that's part of the feeling and excitement of a really artful photo.

Now, someone who has only ever heard the term "free jazz" can sit in their parents' basement and type out "make me a free jazz song" and shit out the result onto the internet. It's really not the same thing at all.

Sometimes you do, which is why there’s not only a single type of brush in a studio. You want something very controllable if you’re doing lineart with ink.

Even with digital painting, there’s a lot of fussing with the brush engine. There’s even a market for selling presets.

Rest of the world: "No, we're gatekeeping because we think the result isn't good."

If someone can cajole their LLM to emit something worthwhile, e.g. Terence Tao's LLM generated proofs, people will be happy to acknowledge it. Most people are incapable of that and no number of protestations of gatekeeping can cover up the unoriginality and poor quality of their LLM results.

First off -- are you an artist? As in, are you making your argument with skin in the game for something you _need_ to do, not just a pastime that makes dayjobs livable?

Not gatekeeping! Trying to see if you are formulating your position as a creator or a consumer.

If the latter, hate to say it, but your opinion is kind of irrelevant. Ultimately, only artists really understand what's involved in creating real art. Not what's good or bad, but what's at stake and how to tell if somebody's for real.

If you're a creator I'm a little puzzled. Are you really worried that AI is so freaking great that the horrible luddites at bandcamp et al are going to "gatekeep" us away from incredible AI art? This is NOT something that keeps me up at night.

Big opinions there. A large amount of art that you think comes from individual expression is often not. There are countless examples of artists that secretly used algorithmic processes. A great example is Vermeer: https://youtu.be/94pCNUu6qFY?si=M6UQ-XuHNtoj2-3a.

This is what I mean about how this individualistic philosophy of creativity actually just results in artistic gatekeeping and manipulation of the audience

It’s very common for artists to add on individual expression narratives at the end of the process just so they can market the art, and the reality is that the individualism was never there to begin with. It’s just manipulation and advertising, and it sucks because the success of advertising like this actually undermines the quality of the art world. Because audiences are so susceptible to advertising narratives, artists are forced to spend more time on advertising more than art

> Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.

This is also not true. This idea mostly comes from the Romantic period. Modern day versions of it are often really just referencing a single book from the 1930s called The Principles of Art by a guy named R.G. Collingwood. It’s a very recent way of seeing art. Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal

> Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal

If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be able to identify the style of individual artists and artisans, and yet we can of course, regardless of their intent. Giotto's only intent may have been to glorify god in his work, but of course, inevitably, his work is also a reflection of who he was.

This is precisely why AI art is so hideous and anti-humanistic - it can never been a singular reflection of the individual.

I don’t necessarily ascribe to their views, but I bring it up because you said art has always been this way and it hasn’t always been this way

About 10 years ago we had a scenario where bots probably were only 2-5% of the conversation and they absolutely dominated all discussion. Having a tiny coordinated minority in a vast sea of uncoordinated people is 100x more manipulative than having a dead internet. If you ever pointed out that we were being botted, everyone would ignore you or pretend you were crazy. It didn’t even matter that the Head of the FBI came out and said we were being manipulated by bots. Everyone laughed at him the same way.

This was definitively not the case on HackerNews.

The exact same problem exists with writing. In fact, this problem seems to exist across all fields: science, for example, is filled with people who have never done a groundbreaking study, presented a new idea, or solved an unsolved problem. These people and their jobs are so common that the education system orients itself to teach to them rather than anyone else. In the same way, an education in literature focused on the more likely traits you’ll need to get a job: hitting deadlines, following the expected story structure, etc etc.

Having confined ourselves to a tiny little box, can we really be surprised that we’re so easy to imitate?

Then it seems like they’re started teaching to the bottoms of the class and added a bunch of terrible decisions: Substituting touch to select instead of touch to move cursor was a genuinely awful decision that now makes typing a constant chore, and it seems like their autocorrect is overcompensating so hard that it prevents me from writing perfectly good words simply because they’re not common ones.

Side note: anyone else have moments where you can’t press delete once predictive text has shown up?

Chiming in just to say: yes

About the only problem here is the increase of surveillance and you can avoid that by running your own models, which are getting better and better by the day. The fact that people are so willing to accept these criticisms without much scrutiny is really just indicative of prior bias

The idea that modern movies don’t take risks is absurd. Have you seen Poor Things? Have you seen Zone of Interest? Mickey17? OBAA? There are more movies taking more risks in this era of film than there has ever been before. You’re just not watching them.

The real story here is the way lighting has changed and how it makes you feel when you watch the movie.