Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Of course, everyone creates things from their own perspective and context, but it kind of feels like a trap that somehow suffering is essential to the artistic process, which I personally don't feel would be a healthy perspective for myself as a musician at least.

Suffering may be too strong a word. You have to feel something to make good art. There needs to be at least a kernel of something raw and real.

That’s the difference between art art and hotel lobby art. Art art expresses something the artist wanted to say. Hotel lobby art just fills space. Both can be good, but the goals are different. You can even make art art on commission for a hotel lobby! And most passersby will intuitively see that there’s a difference, it feels not bland somehow.

Or for example last night I did something creative: drawings. It wasn’t art art, I wasn’t expressing anything, I just wanted hand-drawn pictures of a few plants and an hour of relaxing.

I later asked ChatGPT to redraw one of my drawings. The result was far superior in every technical aspect. But somehow bland. You could tell it wasn’t _my_ venus fly trap, it was a generic representation of a cartoon idea of a venus fly trap. More of a pictogram really. A lot of what these AIs create has that same feeling of generic nonspecificity.




I suspect that it wasn’t trained well enough on your art, or even trained to reproduce a generic style.

With enough data and training you might be convinced.


> I suspect that it wasn’t trained well enough on your art

No no, it’s not that the style wasn’t mine, the subject was generic.

ChatGPT did the typical thing that messes people up when they draw: It was drawing a representation of the thing, instead of the shapes it sees. The AI clearly went “AH! That’s a venus flytrap. Here is a drawing of a venus flytrap”. But it wasn’t _that_ venus flytrap :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: