AI Actors & Writing Are Not Eligible For Oscars, The Academy Announces

[Creyk 18,568]

12 hours ago, Chromanne said:

Wait. Was someone considering to give Oscar awards for AI writing? Who do they really give the award to? 

Yes, that K-POP demon hunter song made big waves for example.

[PartySick 172,120]

2 hours ago, RenegAde said:

The strong militant stances against AI always make me roll my eyes. Like I get but at the same time people always ignore the nuances.

I've come around to AI in a big way, even some forms of generative AI, but I think what people find the most insulting, aside from how energy hungry AI infrastructure is, is calling images or sounds generated by AI "art" or "music".

Art is a human creation and anything generated by an AI is just a conglomeration of material sourced from the internet.

There is no such thing as "AI art" or "AI music", or even an "AI actor". It's just pictures, sounds, and mannerisms spit out by an algorithm and is therefore artistically worthless. Beyond that, the fear is it will basically outsource creative work to algorithms for lazy people who would otherwise commission an artist for a project.

We're already seeing AI "musicians" compete on the charts with actual humans. I see no problem with being militantly against that garbage.

I'll sit and have a "conversation" with Gemini in place of a Google deep dive on niche topics 'cause I'm bored or curious but I'll never ask that thing to "make" "art" that I plan on posting as if I created something or profiting off of it when it was likely made with stolen content.

It's just an ethical stance on creative integrity tbh. AI has great potential and makes a lot of mundane things convenient but it doesn't have a place in creative spaces.

[Hadrian 2,414]

Every time there's an AI discussion on here, I'm reminded of that overly-literal Shadow of a Man AI music video 

"Lonely as the streets pass me by" - Gaga's walking alone on a street.

"Staring at myself in the eye" - Gaga's looking in a mirror.

"I don't want to be the one to fall on the knife" - Gaga's fallen on the floor with a knife.

 

It's so creative to completely match the lyrics.

[RenegAde 20,308]

4 hours ago, PartySick said:

I've come around to AI in a big way, even some forms of generative AI, but I think what people find the most insulting, aside from how energy hungry AI infrastructure is, is calling images or sounds generated by AI "art" or "music".

Art is a human creation and anything generated by an AI is just a conglomeration of material sourced from the internet.

There is no such thing as "AI art" or "AI music", or even an "AI actor". It's just pictures, sounds, and mannerisms spit out by an algorithm and is therefore artistically worthless. Beyond that, the fear is it will basically outsource creative work to algorithms for lazy people who would otherwise commission an artist for a project.

We're already seeing AI "musicians" compete on the charts with actual humans. I see no problem with being militantly against that garbage.

I'll sit and have a "conversation" with Gemini in place of a Google deep dive on niche topics 'cause I'm bored or curious but I'll never ask that thing to "make" "art" that I plan on posting as if I created something or profiting off of it when it was likely made with stolen content.

It's just an ethical stance on creative integrity tbh. AI has great potential and makes a lot of mundane things convenient but it doesn't have a place in creative spaces.

I recognise how dangerous the rise in AI art can be it really scares me too however...

Generalising all AI use as  “lazy” ignores the individuality in artistic process. It ignores the fact that using AI doesn't always mean completely outsourcing creative work to algorithms. Professionals are also able to use AI as a tool to flesh out ideas, refine results and speed up process which is not really new to art tbh, photo retouching and auto-tune have existed for years because art evolves with technology and there's really no way to stop it.

If people are truly finding a creative outlet through generative AI and other people are genuinely connecting with it then it is indeed ART and therefore does has some value and that is something we can't take away from those creators no matter cheap it may seem to the rest of us. Because art is subjective. A lot of what we now consider as great artistic styles were once rejected as cheap or tacky and over time it gained recognition because people connected with it.

I'm not saying that this automatically make AI equal to traditional art but i also think there should be a space for AI-generated work to be recognized on its own terms and not just dismissed like it always is when this topics come up.

It's shouldn't be put on the same pedestal as traditional art but it’s not completely effortless either. Getting good results still takes some level of skill, passion, experimentation, and understanding of the tools.

 

[PartySick 172,120]

19 hours ago, RenegAde said:

If people are truly finding a creative outlet through generative AI and other people are genuinely connecting with it then it is indeed ART and therefore does has some value and that is something we can't take away from those creators no matter cheap it may seem to the rest of us. Because art is subjective.

I mean, we're gonna disagree regardless 'cause we have different definitions of these words.

I wouldn't call someone who types prompts into an algorithm a "creator" and I wouldn't call the resulting image (or whatever other media is produced) "art"  

To me, it sounds as ridiculous as calling paper "food". Like sure, you can eat it. But it's not food