zlacker

AI didn't kill creativity nor intuition. It much rather lack's those things completely. Artists can make use of AI but they can't make themselves obsolete just yet.

>>ttyyzz+(OP)
> AI didn't kill creativity nor intuition. It much rather lack's those things completely

Quite the opposite, I'd say that it's what it has most. What are "hallucinations" if not just a display of immense creativity and intuition? "Here, I'll make up this API call that's I haven't read about anywhere but sounds right".

>>ttyyzz+(OP)
With AI anyone can be an artist, and this is a good thing.

>>throw3+u9
I disagree. AI is good at pattern recognition, but still struggles to grasp causual relationships. These Made-up api calls are just a pattern in the large data set. Dont confuse it with creativity.

>>ttyyzz+ng
I would definitely confuse that with "intuition"- which I would describe it as seeing and using weak, unstated relationships, aka patterns. That's my intuition, at least.

As to creativity, that's something I know too little about to define it, but it seems reasonable that it's even more "fuzzy" than intuition. On the opposite, causal relationships are closer to hard logic, which is what LLMs struggle with- as humans do, too.

>>rvnx+5a
AI can’t make anyone a painter. It can generate a digital painting for you but it can’t give you the skills to transfer an image from your mind into the real world.

AI currently can’t reliably make 3d objects so AI can’t make you a sculptor.

>>ttyyzz+ng
A lot of art is about pattern recognition. We represent or infer objects or ideas through some indirection or abstraction. The viewer or listener's brain (depending on their level of sophistication) fills in the gaps, and the greater the level of indirection (or complexity of pattern recognition required) the greater the emotional payoff. This also applies to humour.

>>hmcq6+Rj
We now have wall printers based on UV paint.

3D models can be generated quite well already. Good enough for a sculpture.

>>rvnx+5a
Using AI makes you an artist about as much as commissioning someone else to make art for you does. Sure, you provided the description of what needed to be done, and likely gave some input along the way, but the real work was done by someone else. There are faster iteration times with AI, but you are still not the one making the art. That is what differentiates generative models from other kinds of tools.

>>rvnx+5a
Prompting Midjourney or ChatGPT to make an image does not make you an artist.

>>python+741
Imagine when the commissioned artist uses AI themselves but this goes deep down the rabbit hole of who gets the spread on potential attribution of said "work".