THERE IS NO EXACT VERSION OF ANY WORK OF ART EVER AT ANY POINT IN ANY ARTIST'S HEAD THERE IS AN IMPULSE A DRIVE A KERNEL A SPARK THE WORK IS DISCOVERED IN THE MAKING OF THE WORK THE WORK IS CONSTANTLY REDISCOVERED IN THE READING OF THE WORK BY EVERYONE FOR EVERYONE INCLUDING THE ARTIST NOT AI
The way I think of it, AI takes inputs and reduces to common denominators, getting less interesting with every iteration. Artist brains take inputs and use them to imagine ever more complex/different outcomes making every iteration more interesting. They are polar opposites.
“Haydn and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them.”
AI idiots fundamentally know fuckin' nothing about doing anything creative and they make this obvious at every turn
Not to mention we have a word for taking a picture in your head and making it reality. It’s called making art, ie, what Van Gogh *actually* did as opposed to this ‘meticulous prompting’ bs.
I, who works in aerospace, needs so steal these lines for work (I work on systems to test aerospace, dont worry about your next flight)
Perfectly said.
If I could repost this a dozen times I would.
Also, the vision in my head is impossible for me to get down on the page. One of the joyful challenges of making.
“Meticulous prompting” is getting me. The subtle art of asking computers to make you something.