6.80
#...
·
 |
|---|
Greg Meyer MD: The problem is that these "photos" aren't photos at all...they're just generated art. Whether we like these expressions (or not ) is not the question. The real question is: "shouldn't these works of art be clearly labeled as such?". This isn't space, nor is it science. It is interesting and deserves a place, but not one that can be mixed / confused by the uneducated. While I know there's 50% of our community that thinks every photon gathered is just art, there *is* a difference between these two things (whether the "artists" want to admit it or not). So what's preventing us from finding a proper name for this type of expression? How about a clear "space art" label or some other clear designator? It's the confusion factor that I think bothers those of us in science "outreach" capacities. This confusion is what needs to be avoided....not the artistic expression. Let's just be clear about how it's presented to those who might not know better. I don't think anyone wants deception to be the end goal.... |
2.97
#...
·
|
|---|
Michael Lorenz: Do you mean "(a)esthetically" or do they really just fill you with joy? |
8.77
#...
·
|
|---|
Doug Summers:Greg Meyer MD: I agree, but would take it even further. They're not photos or science, and they're definitely not art. Art is the very human activity of making a large number of decisions; to create a novel, a symphony, a film, a painting--in each case the artist is making thousands or tens of thousands of creative decisions. The whole point of doing art is in the pleasure, joy, meaning and challenge of making these decisions. And here's the other issue: When a composer, filmmaker or painter is making the myriad of decisions about how to develop a work, these decisions are made not just intellectually, but emotionally, aesthetically, sensually. Subjectivity and desire are key motivators in why an artist makes the creative decisions that eventually culminates in the form the art takes in the first place. AI cannot know desire because AI doesn't feel anything. AI doesn't appreciate the difference between beauty and ugliness. AI doesn't have sentience, self-awareness or living consciousness, therefore in reality, it can't do art. At least not the way I understand what art is. I think AI has tremendous potential to do good--in medicine, in scientific work and in other areas. But art? It's like asking AI to enjoy a piece of dark chocolate, or to make love with another sentient being. It's not in the realm of possibility. Maybe if we humans could appreciate more the profound gift that life really is, what a miracle it is to be human and alive--maybe we would stop pretending our machine intelligence is going to be our equal. AI has tremendous potential for good, and is also tremendously dangerous and capable of giving expression to the worst in human nature, including our fears, biases, selfishness and our propensity for deception, violence and idiocy. All of the above does not mean an artist might not utilize AI as an artistic tool, just as artists have embraced computers as a creative tool. But the creative tool doesn't make creative decisions, it only aids in carrying out the decisions that the human makes. The medium is not the message. The medium influences and conveys what the artist has to say--if the artist actually has anything real to say in the first place. |
7.61
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Sticking with AI, but straying from the real vs art debate, why not use trained neural network software for autoguiding? Seems like that would be a less contentious use, but with significant potential benefits. Cheers, Scott |
4.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Scott Badger: https://mgen-autoguider.com/en/ https://staraid.ai/ These are not software but they use AI. |
