I've been off and on thinking about the ML generated imagery that is creating a bit of discussion in certain circles (especially those circles where people use the artistic talents they've developed to put food on the table), and for a while I've had this imagery of John Henry playing in my mind as I do so. (No it's not a good analogy, it's just something my brain was doing.)
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Your friendly 'net denizen (cstanhope@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Sep-2022 23:04:45 JST Your friendly 'net denizen -
Embed this notice
Albert ARIBAUD ✎ (aaribaud@mastodon.art)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Sep-2022 23:04:39 JST Albert ARIBAUD ✎ As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to say "ML generated images" rather than "art", because, well, precisely.
Also: I understand the benefit of ML for *extracting* info from sources, not for creating new material. I trust ML to answer questions like "Based on all scores written in the 17th century, what's the probability that *this* pourportedly 17th-century score is genuine?"; but if I want a "new 17th century-like score", I'll ask a human.
-
Embed this notice
Your friendly 'net denizen (cstanhope@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Sep-2022 23:04:44 JST Your friendly 'net denizen But I think I'm coming to the conclusion that on top of other issues around ML generated art, it's also just another example of ML pollution. Machines we've built to churn out streams of seemingly coherent, but ultimately useless and dissatisfying content that overwhelm our senses and our sense making and just add to the stresses of life.
-
Embed this notice
Albert ARIBAUD ✎ (aaribaud@mastodon.art)'s status on Tuesday, 20-Sep-2022 23:13:02 JST Albert ARIBAUD ✎ *purportedly
-
Embed this notice