/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6423256
anon, you clearly have no idea how these algorithms work if you think they're just photobashing
>muh ai needs conscious human intelligence
you don't need actual sentience to create art anon, but perhaps it can be argued that only can actually interpret art. for now at least.
>improvement
dunno man, given the fact that we went from something like artgan to dall-e 1 in just six years time (and the fact that we can actually run them on consumer-grade hardware instead of massive cloud farms or supercomputers), and with relatively more coherent ai-generated videos in the horizon, i'd say that the rate of improvement so far is staggering, and it doesn't seem like progress will slow it down any time soon.

anyways, the cat is already out of the bag. we're already too late to stop ai art from being further developed (and there is no shortage of people or companies to take their place if they do), and i don't think the guys behind it are willing to hold back or even slow down for the sake of ethics when there's big money and competition involved. no amount of 'it will never be real art' will stop its progress, and frankly, i don't really care. it's just another tool, like many other tools that we've developed. the only people i see seething about it are those internet artists who fear that they're going to lose their jobs (which is fair i suppose, though i personally think its way overblown) and people who are just pissy that they're being beaten by literal fucking equations. it has happened with digital art, it has happened with photography. i don't see how this current controversy is any different.