I disagree with the idea that we should be singling out LLM generated content on principle. I don’t really see LLMs as being fundamentally different from other forms automation.
Just because we might have that thought or understand this, doesn’t mean that other people will feel obviously conned or lied to when they consume something they think isn’t “A.I” generated only to figure out it is. I don’t have an issue with A.I but I don’t want to consume any writing or pieces created by it. Don’t want to limit anyone from doing so, nor do I have an issue with the art on a moral or philosophical level. Often, I can just tell, just as I was able to with this one and it doesn’t spark any artistic curiosity or appreciation for it.
This is why I brought up charcoal painting, I don’t really care for it nor have any appreciation for it myself nor do I want to limit people from it. But in every “media website” or collection, I can filter out specific forms of media or expression. “A.I” should be subject to that as well…like any other form of art.
Is the graphic, or song, or a piece of writing effective. Does it convey something useful, is it resonating with the viewer, etc.
All of that goes out the window when the original viewer feels as if they are conned. Priming that the piece is made with LLM or “A.I” prevents and circumvents that entirely. Someone complaining about A.I on a filtered post actively chose to view an A.I piece and complain about it. With any other form of art, presenting it as a comic/graphic novel media and finding out it was old-school traced (this is an example) feels deceptive even if it was a legitimate form of expression and art. It comes down to proper classification to me, honestly.
EDIT: I should say there has been a piece or two that has struck me as good, but I should be able to seek those things out specifically amongst other forms of art if I so chose.
I’m going to argue that this is just a short term phenomenon we’re seeing right now because this tech is new, and people are really fixated on whether LLMs were used to make something or not. In a few years, this will just become another tool that everyone uses, and completely accepted practice for creating content.
What’s going to be interesting to watch is how art form evolves now that the barrier for making images that used to require a lot of technical has been drastically lowered. We kind of saw this happen in video game industry already where graphics have gotten so good now, that simply making a game graphically impressive is no longer a selling point. The space is saturated with tons of great looking games, and it’s no longer the interesting aspect. As a result, we’ve actually seen a resurgence of indie games and styles like pixel art. There’s charm in having simpler graphics, and focusing on interesting and innovative gameplay has become the real challenge. I suspect that a similar thing will be happening in the art world where people will start focusing on other things than simply making something look technically impressive.
I’m going to argue that this is just a short term phenomenon we’re seeing right now because this tech is new, and people are really fixated on whether LLMs were used to make something or not. In a few years, this will just become another tool that everyone uses, and completely accepted practice for creating content.
I don’t disagree with you. There’s plenty of forms of automation that are widely used in every form of media today. In terms of static imagery/art-pieces though, there is still some definitive “genres” of expression, forms and pieces. I also think there is going to be plenty of pieces that wont use these forms of automation; not all, I would say most, art is meant to be competitive or “breaking edge” and plenty still use classical or “antiquated” methods of automation for creation.
I think no matter what, people should still be able to choose what forms of expression or art they want and there will be plenty of people to satisfy that need/want.
Right, I don’t think generative tools are going to replace traditional art any more than Photoshop has. These forms will continue to coexist side by side. If anything, I’d argue that once production of commercial art becomes automated, people will actually start producing more art for the sake of art itself. People will paint, make music, and write novels because they have an urge to express themselves and share an idea in their heads with others.
To me that’s what art is about at the end of the day, and the way I’d define slop is not based on the tool used but based on the intent. Things like advertisements, commercial illustrations, and so on, that are generated by humans have far less artistic value than LLM generated images that somebody made because they wanted to express some idea they had.
Just because we might have that thought or understand this, doesn’t mean that other people will feel obviously conned or lied to when they consume something they think isn’t “A.I” generated only to figure out it is. I don’t have an issue with A.I but I don’t want to consume any writing or pieces created by it. Don’t want to limit anyone from doing so, nor do I have an issue with the art on a moral or philosophical level. Often, I can just tell, just as I was able to with this one and it doesn’t spark any artistic curiosity or appreciation for it.
This is why I brought up charcoal painting, I don’t really care for it nor have any appreciation for it myself nor do I want to limit people from it. But in every “media website” or collection, I can filter out specific forms of media or expression. “A.I” should be subject to that as well…like any other form of art.
All of that goes out the window when the original viewer feels as if they are conned. Priming that the piece is made with LLM or “A.I” prevents and circumvents that entirely. Someone complaining about A.I on a filtered post actively chose to view an A.I piece and complain about it. With any other form of art, presenting it as a comic/graphic novel media and finding out it was old-school traced (this is an example) feels deceptive even if it was a legitimate form of expression and art. It comes down to proper classification to me, honestly.
EDIT: I should say there has been a piece or two that has struck me as good, but I should be able to seek those things out specifically amongst other forms of art if I so chose.
I’m going to argue that this is just a short term phenomenon we’re seeing right now because this tech is new, and people are really fixated on whether LLMs were used to make something or not. In a few years, this will just become another tool that everyone uses, and completely accepted practice for creating content.
What’s going to be interesting to watch is how art form evolves now that the barrier for making images that used to require a lot of technical has been drastically lowered. We kind of saw this happen in video game industry already where graphics have gotten so good now, that simply making a game graphically impressive is no longer a selling point. The space is saturated with tons of great looking games, and it’s no longer the interesting aspect. As a result, we’ve actually seen a resurgence of indie games and styles like pixel art. There’s charm in having simpler graphics, and focusing on interesting and innovative gameplay has become the real challenge. I suspect that a similar thing will be happening in the art world where people will start focusing on other things than simply making something look technically impressive.
I don’t disagree with you. There’s plenty of forms of automation that are widely used in every form of media today. In terms of static imagery/art-pieces though, there is still some definitive “genres” of expression, forms and pieces. I also think there is going to be plenty of pieces that wont use these forms of automation; not all, I would say most, art is meant to be competitive or “breaking edge” and plenty still use classical or “antiquated” methods of automation for creation.
I think no matter what, people should still be able to choose what forms of expression or art they want and there will be plenty of people to satisfy that need/want.
Right, I don’t think generative tools are going to replace traditional art any more than Photoshop has. These forms will continue to coexist side by side. If anything, I’d argue that once production of commercial art becomes automated, people will actually start producing more art for the sake of art itself. People will paint, make music, and write novels because they have an urge to express themselves and share an idea in their heads with others.
To me that’s what art is about at the end of the day, and the way I’d define slop is not based on the tool used but based on the intent. Things like advertisements, commercial illustrations, and so on, that are generated by humans have far less artistic value than LLM generated images that somebody made because they wanted to express some idea they had.