• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    i won’t, but art has intent. AI doesn’t.

    Pollock’s paintings are art. a bunch of paint buckets falling on a canvas in an earthquake wouldn’t make art, even if it resembled Pollock’s paintings. there’s no intent behind it. no artist.

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, but where do you draw a line in AI of having an intent. Surely AGI has intent but you say current AIs do not.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            yes because there is no intelligence. AI is a misnomer. intent needs intelligence.

            • aname@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              How can you tell there is no intelligence? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, why is it not a duck?

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                because if you teach me to pronounce some japanese words without teaching me what it means, i may say them perfectly, and even trick some people who don’t see my face into thinking I’m speaking native japanese, even though i don’t know what the fuck I’m saying. the fact that i tricked some people into thinking otherwise does not make me a japanese person.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The intent comes from the person who writes the prompt and selects/refines the most fitting image it makes