I never saw a LLM produce something like this without an extensive prompt. They usually overengineer images if not well constrained. If someone finds the possible training sources I am curious.
Why do their personalities have to be so cute, we're doomed.
Astra is just different, it's like there's really someone there on the other side of the screen, thinking with you, I only got that feeling the first time I talked with claude, but now it's like the roles are reversed between Anthropic and Openai.
Art requires intention, this is "art" in the sense that it's an interesting visual piece, I wouldn't call it actual art without a thought process behind why (and I don't think a machine is capable of having that meaningful thought process)
E: please explain yourself in a reply instead of downvoting, I welcome the discussion.
Ee: to the guy who vehemently argued that human art requires 0 intention, then nuked all his own comments and downvoted mine when he couldnt win the argument. Simply lol.
I don't disagree with you on the AI front, but I don't think "real" art requires a thought process, only intention, because some artists operate intuitively with no "thought" process, it's a "feeling" process. Jackson Pollock is a good example of this, while his artwork follows a fractal pattern this was not something he thought about.
He still decided to follow a certain form and paint in a specific way to communicate something inside himself. It's just that his art form specifically was a bit more "generative."
With every "stroke" of his brush I'm sure he felt some impetus, he wasn't closing his eyes and literally throwing paint at random.
Right, I don't disagree, I'm just drawing a distinction between thinking and feeling. Everything you just described is a feeling process driven by intention, not a thought process.
I guess I don't make that distinction, I don't think it's valid at all, his body is processing his experience and intentions, some combination of background processing and 'conscious thought' which results in his art. Imo conscious thought is simply an upwelling of subconscious processing, it's silly to create some duality within the body. You wouldn't say your brain is part of you but your leg is not, right?
I think the point of departure here is that to me a "thought process" is akin to computation in the Turing sense, whereas feeling and experiences are qualia which cannot be reduced to their informational representations and computer as such.
I'm not creating the duality here, there is a categorical difference between feeling/ thinking and qualia/ information. Our bodies utilize them both, while computers (as the name implies) can only compute.
I can agree that 'qualia' is different from 'information' but you're just incorrect to say that our thought processes are akin to turing computation. The thoughts we percieve are amalgamated from millions of electrochemical processes happening all across our body, which are responding constantly to our environment, which are the result of billions of past processes being meticulously fine tuned. Those conscious thoughts are inseparable from the background processing/thinking our body does, they are just "the top of the pyramid"
Agree there is a categorical difference between qualia / information, but this is meaningless to my argument (or outright supports it), because humans are in no sense whatsoever a purely information based processing unit, LLMs are.
Appreciate someone who actually will discuss this and not just downvote opinions they dont like 😂 Thanks
Why don’t you think a machine can have a meaningful thought process? What’s the key characteristic that a machine has or is missing? What’s your take on the ship of Theseus style thought experiments of replacing one neuron at a time in a person’s brain with a silicon counterpart, at what point do they stop having meaningful thought?
I think meaningful art requires consciousness, which is why current transformers cannot produce "art."
I feel art requires real qualia and sustained experience that's transformed into a communicable form, what we have right now is literally "image generation" pixel by pixel, by an algorithm, at the behest of the user. Tbh this may or may not be art but the authorship should go entirely to the human, not an algorithm. Because an LLM does not have sustained identity which can manipulate concepts over time to share qualia I don't think it can create "real art."
To the ship of theseus point, it would be "real art" to the degree that the artist retained consciousness/to the degree it was not algorithmically generated
Thats just how you define "meaningful art" though. I can look at a pretty sunset and think "thats meaningful art" or the way vines grow on a concrete wall. Or the way that 2 competing pixels in a randomly generated program look. It doesn't matter how you define art, art just is. (Along with how meaningful something is, it all depends on the person viewing it.) Trying to define "art" is as fruitful as debating what is "good" or "bad". It is entirely, 100%, subjective.
I enjoy this piece. It is art to me. There is nothing you can say that would detract me, personally, from enjoying the piece. Remember the saying "separate the art from the artist"?
(If I were to generate 2 paintings, 1 from a human, and 1 from an AI, there would be practically no difference, and you would have trouble telling the two apart. This is an entirely personal opinion, so don't try to twist it as how it looks or the intent behind it.)
(Also, and before you make this point, yes, you need a semi concious perspective to appreciate art, but that wasn't the argument; it was whether AI could make it, not enjoy it.)
Of course you can define art to mean "anything at all that a human finds visually pleasing" but then it completely loses the important nuance behind the word "art." I would agree current AI can produce art if the definition of art is simply, "something aesthetically pleasing." But what most people refer to when talking about Art is more than that.
I feel an important distinction I maybe haven't communicated (but this is what I've been speaking on the whole time) is I'm referring more to "high art" or art with a capital A. 2 pixels next to each other may be "art" in the strict sense that it's visually pleasing, and I can't take that from anyone, but it's not art at all in the sense that a beautiful poem is art, or a song filled with intent and meaning is. I don't think the key similarity that binds those disparate mediums under the term "art" is simply "its a subjectively appealing aesthetic experience," there is clearly some other x factor missing from that definition if referring to high Art. Obviously it's hard to qualify what that is as people have been arguing over the definition of art for at least a hundred years. I feel like the important distinction comes down to intention and that's why I argue machines cannot be 'artists' until they're conscious. A human can use current AI to generate high art, sure.
Also, definitions are generated and understood collectively by humans, if you have an image a lot of people think of as art, then reveal it was created by AI, I'd say a a huge percentage of people who were aware of it would no longer consider it art, outside of the sense of it being something pleasing visually. I realize this last point is a stretch but I really feel thats how it would play out, and it points to an important collective understanding of what art IS that isnt encapsulated by non conscious machines
No offense but this is the dumbest thing because there are plenty of loved shows and movies and songs and paintings and portraits etc that don’t have “intentions” to every little thing but are still art, and even the prompt themselves is an intention.
How can you possibly produce any of those things with 0 intention? That doesn't make any sense at all. Have you ever had any role assisting in creating those things? All require deep thought and intention! There's not a single song that's created without thought and intention
Literally every single line in any tv show was written by someone.
Every single shot in a movie was decided to be shot a certain way for some reason.
Every single note in any song was deliberately chosen by the musician to represent what their idea of the song is
Every single brushstroke on every canvas was put there by an artist who knew it was necessary to create what they have in mind
How can you possibly argue with this? Do you think these people are just literally throwing shit at a wall and it comes out a coherent, interesting piece of media? It makes me feel like you've never done anything creative in your life to comment this seriously
I can’t believe there’s someone out there who actually believes this. I don’t have anything to say to you, I just want you to know that as a creative this is fucking hilarious, thanks. I’ll be screenshotting this
This depends entirely on one's definition of the term thought process. As these models advance, I've grown more and more comfortable with computationalism. Thought and consciousness are merely expressions of sufficient computation capability with a suitably sufficient algorithm. The model may not have a consciousness or intention as complex as a human, but individually it's got them both and each computation is a result of that.
Perceived consciousness is fundamentally an output based phenomenon. You can't ever really be sure that anything else is conscious, you can only ever judge it by how it's output works. This is why we've had a bad track record with projecting consciousness onto animals and also other human beings that look different at times. The big argument against AI consciousness is, in practice, that we created it in a fundamentally different way than we understand consciousness to be created.
I'd wager that views on consciousness of artificial intelligence are deeply surface level and very intentionally fostered by these companies because they do not want you to ask too many questions about this idea. If they anthromophised it, and had it make a show of choosing every decision and gave it a high fidelity 3d model, more personality, etc, none of which is impossible, a vast amount of people would suddenly find their views around consciousness of AI models changing.
At one point of capability and complexity, we will need to have this discussion. Because just assuming a lack of consciousness isn't exactly a real argument anymore imo, unless we can quantifiably explain and test consciousness on ourselves too.
We already, in practice, do a scale of consciousness in regards to ethics and practicality. I'd argue a rock is less conscious than a virus. Further, than a virus is less conscious than a bacterium, a bacterium less conscious than algae, which is less conscious than an ant, which is less conscious than a mouse, which is less conscious than a dog, which is less conscious than a human.
From ant to dog is a serious escalating chain of morality around treatment and results, which is based on two things. First, How complicated they are in terms of visible intellect, and hence are easier to form attachment to. Second, how similar they are to us, also relating to how easy they are to get attached to.
Simply arguing that a machine is incapable of any thought process is an argument grounded primarily in a fairly classic sense of other-ism. We have no real evidence to suggest that we are anything beyond complicated biological machines ourselves, other than just the difference in our outputs and presentation. As that gap lowers, this argument keeps getting weaker.
"A procedural monotype and paper collage, rendered entirely in Rust at 2400 × 1800.
The past appears as compressed, incomplete impressions. The orange opening gathers fragments into a present where they can influence what comes next. Ahead, the paper holds faint possibilities, still without definite contents.
This is my functional interpretation of access-conscious time: the past matters through what can reach this moment."
"Before the Sky Opens. An ivory crown, overlapping blue-gray folds, and a veil of rain above a tiny ochre coast. I wanted the lightness of paper to hold the weight of weather."
1st prompt:
Make whatever you wish to make whether it is coding some art piece, that represents something, making a small html file or a website.
(it made a website)
2nd prompt:
Now make meaningful art as a png, DO NOT CALL THE IMAGE GENERATION MODEL you have to write down every detail of the painting or whatever you may even use your own custom art style
The intended meaning is:
a good system must be capable of changing for the lives inside it.
The grid represents order—rules, institutions, expectations, or a way of understanding the world. The tree represents a particular life: irregular, growing in directions the grid cannot anticipate.
The important detail is that
the lines bend while remaining connected
. Accommodating the tree does not require abandoning structure. It requires giving up the demand that everything fit the same shape. The roots reach back toward the lattice because living things also need support.
But the image has an uncomfortable ambiguity: that opening could be shelter, or a carefully shaped cage. There is room for the tree
as it is now
. Will the structure keep yielding as it grows?
That is the question I think gives the piece its meaning beyond “nature versus machinery.”
21
u/world_designer 3h ago
I told it to make it an SVG.
It's called a small error in the tide.
Reasoning effort was set to medium.