When I put together the “Two and a half minutes” piece for 3QD (below), I experimented with DALL-E to compose some art to accompany it. I ended up going with something less literal, but here’s what the AI did with the prompt “A painting of a muddy landscape with humans climbing out of brown pods”:
Looks like AI can pass the “think up some depressing imagery” test.
I hate to admit it (although my reticence bothers me at an existential level), but if one of my students had produced this, I would be wonderfully impressed (albeit only if they were able to wax eloquent about their ‘process’) and give them a 95% grade…100%, would they have included a more nuanced color scheme using variegated washes (or blending in this/your case).
I have briefly looked at AI-generated ‘art’ and have been happily underwhelmed. I am not enthusiastic with the likes of yourself showing me that I am (epistemologically) probably dead wrong in my need to feel it is invariably sub-human.
…”what epistemological foundation is there for such an artificial discrimination?”…ha! Joke’s on me.
Anyway, thanks. You are truly helping me/us come to terms, always appreciated.
I have not experimented with AI. I do use a program, MobleMonet, to suggest directions for me. There’s quite a bit in the news about AI creative, writing as well as art. Why not, I say. We are evolutionary beings.
Thanks for the comments, ld and Dave. I think the coming of PDGAI (pretty-darn-good-AI) is going to raise a lot of new questions for us, especially over whether we value adequate outcomes over more squishy stuff (like human connection, the process of creation, what we value in created objects). I am with you in finding current AI creations a mix, sometimes very interesting and sometimes flat and bland, but I would expect there to be some progress in coming months or years.