Comment

Comment on A cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inman

ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.

source

Sort:hotnew top

agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
That’s like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.

source
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I’d argue it’s more like creating the menu, specifying the contents of the menu but having someone/thing else actually make the food.
  
  source
ech@lemmy.ca ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

the how is really quite irrelevant

That’s our point. The how is entirely relevant. It’s what makes art interesting and meaningful. Without the how and why, it’s just colors and noise.

source
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  it’s just colors and noise.
  
  But that’s exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye…might as well just get it auto-generated.
  
  source
  - ech@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    That you can’t see or appreciate the intent of the artist behind those doesn’t mean it’s not there or not important. Why they were made or how they are used in the end is not important. All that matters is how they were made.
    
    source
    ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨57⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
    I would honestly argue that the way an artist makes art is also completely irrelevant. The art is only meaningful in the way it’s perceived, how the artist physically makes it is of very little importance. The tools and materials are just a means to an end, it’s the finished product that inspires feelings and thoughts, not the process of how it came to be.
    
    source