• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    It only becomes art once a mind observes it and appreciates it. If AI generates a picture but no one sees it, it’s not art. Generated images become art when observed, because that’s when it gains value. They don’t even have to like it, per se, but someone needs to experience it.

    Value still comes from labor.

    • stray@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      What if a blind person draws something to the best of their ability, but keeps the image in a private journal where no sighted person ever experiences it? (For the purposes of this hypothetical, they haven’t used a marking method that allows them to experience their creation via texture.)

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        They still experienced their creation as they drew it, though. Art is still art even if it is only experienced once by a single person.

        • stray@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          That’s very interesting, thank you. Do you include non-human minds? I assume a Roomba detecting an obstacle doesn’t count because it doesn’t have a meaningful internal reaction, right? I’m thinking about a future iteration of AI experiencing art, either via creation or observation. If nature has programmed my mindless cells to feel things, it stands to reason that we should be able to program mindless rocks to feel things.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            AI could experience art, but nothing we have right now is AI. Roombas can’t experience art and ChatGPT can’t experience art. They aren’t even close tbh