There aren't many pictures of it, but my mind jumped to that right away. I think I've seen a documentary where it looks a lot more similar.
In particular that hallway in the middle, where I remember that there was a statue kind of as a worship place. And on the right side of that dark halway there is what appears to be a statue.
Sadly all I was able to find were these:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/...
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fz...
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
Given these and that it changed over its history I think it's kind of a stretch to just say "it looks nothing like the Kowloon Walled City".
The framing implies they understand little of art at all; beyond gurgling and clapping like a child at the colors and shapes they find most stimulating.
Is true art a hermetic endeavour which must be gate-kept to seal out the lesser folk?
If so, then why lambast the lesser folk over their ignorance of the secret knowledge?
It is also not inventive. It's rehashing and regurgitating. That point is a bit muddy, because many humans do that too. But ask a generative "AI" to make something better than what it has learned from and new, and you will probably be disappointed.
I am not an art buff, but I can sort of see, why one wouldn't consider it proper art.
Kind of. If everyone on the planet can paint the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, then it’s not anything special anymore is it? Especially if it reduces the process to asking the world’s most prolific counterfeit machine to do it for you.
Why is that a problem?
That to me sounds like the opposite of a problem.
Used effectively, these tools are elevators, enhancing the capabilities of everything they touch.
Telling them to paint you a picture results in the word you envision.
Painting a picture with them is how you see mine
What's your criteria then for who is allowed to produce art? If allowing everyone to create it lessens its value such that it becomes worthless, there must be a cutoff.
If your goal is to ensure the continuity of human expression, limiting who is allowed to create art and narrowly defining art to great works kind of misses the point.
This isn't worse - it's different. MJv2 was a happy accident machine. NBP is a precision tool.
If you want the coarse aesthetic, prompt for it: "rough brushstrokes, visible canvas texture, unfinished edges, painterly, loose composition". NBP will give you exactly that because it actually understands what you're asking for.
The real lesson: we're in a transition period where prompting strategies that exploited old model quirks no longer work. That's fine - we just need to adapt our prompting to match what the model was designed to do.
> Consider: consideration. That's what you should consider.
Come on man
And you will also see how fucking sad and inferior all these ai images are. Really, trust me, please. There is more to art than this. There is more to life.
Were those “feelings” not authentic?
Art that provokes emotion in a cheap or manipulative way is often, if not always, bad art.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can...
As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that).
And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.
At a certain point, we need to be realistic about the amount of effort involved in artistic creation. Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art? They certainly had the vision to put those two specific paintings together, and they used a tool to create that vision in reality!
Yeah, it gets really murky there. For that specific thought experiment, I would say it depends on if it's something that people will see and think about and talk about, etc. For example, a collection of pairs of images of people that were assassinated over the years and an image of their assassin would certain get people talking (some in a good way, some bad).
When it comes to effort, I think that's only a factor, too; and not even necessarily a good one. There's art out there like
- Someone taped a banana to a wall (and included instructions for taping another banana to replace it)
- Someone (literally) threw a few cans of paint at a canvas and created something chaotic looking
Both of those things are "low effort" at first glance. But someone spent time thinking about it, and what they wanted to do, and what people might think of it. And, without a doubt, there's people that would refer to both as art.
It feels like AI art is often just a version of: "I take all the things and mix them! You can't tell which original work that tree is taken from! Tiihiiihi!"
Where "tree" stands for any aspect of arbitrary size. The relationship is not that direct, of course, because all the works gen AI learns from kind of gets mixed in the weights of edges in the ANN. Nevertheless, the output is still some kind of mix of the stuff it learned from, even if it is not necessarily recognizable as such any longer. It is in the nature of how these things work.
