“No, I didn't know about the exhibit before that day. And then I saw the Al piece and it was just—as an artist myself, it was insulting to see something of such little effort alongside all these beautiful pieces in the gallery. It shouldn't be acceptable for this "art," if you will, to be put alongside these real great pieces.”
In art one often follows impulses. Art is about expression after all.
Plus, if these were really AI creations new copies can be printed. Unless the human “co-creator” did something like paint on the work after printing, not much has been damaged.
It's just garbage in garbage out. AIs reliably induce rage and negativity in humans. Humans become angry and violent if shown AI generated data. It's just a fact at this point.
And it's not even like software engineers are special in that regard. Everyone here is quick to spot and express their opinions on use of AI in articles and everyone seem to like to have their words on rampant vibecoded pull requests.
Freedom of thought and speech means you're free to expect people to thank you for spitting on them, and also that nobody else than you would be responsible for that insanity of yours.
CW: Have you ever been in an eating contest?
GG: Yeah, a long long time ago. I did a mashed potato eating contest at a renaissance fair back in Georgia.
> Dwyer claims Granger’s act was akin to slashing someone’s tires to protest the oil industry.
Granger's protest was properly executed as you slash the tires of the oil trucks and oil execs - you strike the people peddling what you are protesting. So of course Dwyer is trying to downplay the significance.
Wouldn't it make more sense to strike OpenAI, or Midjourney, or whatever else then?
Aside from that, I don't think this "protest" will result in anything more than maybe some increased security (and maybe more arrests if he inspires others to do similar).
I don't know, on principle (and in matters of taste) I'm certainly not a fan of AI art, but I think Dwyer's work here was far from "peddling," and at least attempted to do something interesting with the format/medium:
> Shadow Searching: ChatGPT psychosis is a body of work made in collaboration with artificial intelligence which depicts a co-op between a human artist and AI that started as a thought experiment to produce a perfect partner based on one’s Jungian shadow. In the process of this goal a compounding relationship formed with the ai chat bot via recursive mirroring. The work explores identity, character narrative creation and crafting false memories of relationships in an interactive role digitally crafted before, during and after a state of AI psychosis. This highlights and embodies a growing trend that can be dangerous or unpredictable which you are not immune to.
The execution honestly doesn't impress me much--remember Loab? I would've loved to see the generic pretty girls devolve into something like that, lol--but I think AI psychosis and AI "companions" are relevant and potentially rich topics to explore. I respect it more than that "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial" piece that made a splash a few years back.
> He initially wanted to press charges because Granger’s act “violates the sanctity of the gallery,” but changed his mind
> Left: Graham Granger after his arraignment outside the court building
I was beginning to think "pressing charges" was a myth (popularised by TV shows like Law & Order) and this article didn't exactly change my mind about that.
Do US state attorneys actually give two shits about what the victim wants? Is it someone's job to read an email inbox and systematically approve/reject citizens' pressed charges? Do they even pretend to?
Ultimately there are some types of cases where if the victim does not want to cooperate, it isn't going to succeed.
Also, government attorneys can be elected officials. Spending time achieving nothing against a bunch of uncooperative screwball artists isn't going to be something to brag about on the campaign trail.
Usually the attorneys who handle this are not state level but county or city level. In general they have so many cases to handle that victims who don't want the case pursued will cause them to drop the case.
You don’t wanna leave it up to the victim all the time because that opens up for pressuring victims into dropping the charges and some victims will just drop charges because they are scared (people assaulted by their partner, mob-victims etc)
GG: I don’t really use it period. I miss the Wikipedia blurbs being at the top of webpages. If I’m looking up a simple math fact that I don’t know—like what the weight of something is—I’ll look at the AI summary, but I never, almost never, hit the expand button.
I tried reading the article but after the third time the page’s scroll state reset on its own due to all the dynamic ads/popups/notices, I had to give up.
I find that people who are the most opposed to diffusion models are usually the most ignorant about the technology. AI art doesn't begin and end with Midjourney and OpenAI. If you don't know what a controlnet, comfyui node, lcm, or lora is, then I'm not sure you really have anything valuable to lend to the conversation. There's a massive world of tools and techniques out there, and I just cannot fathom why people can't be bothered to look beyond the most readily available knowledge and be so insistent in their moral correctness.
So the artist is following through with pressing charges? Instead of just hitting ctrl+p and reprinting his art? Seems like an opportunity to give someone a break who might need one.
The worst part of these modern age Luddites is that they feel morally superior. I appreciate AI art so this sounds extreme. I blame the media for farming hate content and then feeding it to vulnerable people who think they're informed enough to justify violence and vandalism.
When the color printer was mass produced, you could print the Mona Lisa and artists had similar protests. Arguably, this started the entire abstract and surrealist movement where things like a urinal became art simply because you couldn't print it out.
I don't want art to be about how much someone suffered to make it. However, part of my appreciation is the artist, and AI art is lower on my appreciation than hand created paintings. I think the solution is to increase awareness of art appreciation instead of empowering ignorant and violent demonstrations.
Is AI art really a threat? Is it really like a nuclear bomb? I don't think so, and the only people benefitting from this are the gatekeepers who will inevitably sell the solution to whatever the public thinks is ethical AI.
34 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 48.1 ms ] threadWhat an impulsive fellow.
Plus, if these were really AI creations new copies can be printed. Unless the human “co-creator” did something like paint on the work after printing, not much has been damaged.
He didn't even will. Why did he encourage others to? Misguided etiquette.
And it's not even like software engineers are special in that regard. Everyone here is quick to spot and express their opinions on use of AI in articles and everyone seem to like to have their words on rampant vibecoded pull requests.
Freedom of thought and speech means you're free to expect people to thank you for spitting on them, and also that nobody else than you would be responsible for that insanity of yours.
I'd recommend him to go for oil paintings.
Granger's protest was properly executed as you slash the tires of the oil trucks and oil execs - you strike the people peddling what you are protesting. So of course Dwyer is trying to downplay the significance.
Aside from that, I don't think this "protest" will result in anything more than maybe some increased security (and maybe more arrests if he inspires others to do similar).
> Shadow Searching: ChatGPT psychosis is a body of work made in collaboration with artificial intelligence which depicts a co-op between a human artist and AI that started as a thought experiment to produce a perfect partner based on one’s Jungian shadow. In the process of this goal a compounding relationship formed with the ai chat bot via recursive mirroring. The work explores identity, character narrative creation and crafting false memories of relationships in an interactive role digitally crafted before, during and after a state of AI psychosis. This highlights and embodies a growing trend that can be dangerous or unpredictable which you are not immune to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWy4UP-ti1s
The execution honestly doesn't impress me much--remember Loab? I would've loved to see the generic pretty girls devolve into something like that, lol--but I think AI psychosis and AI "companions" are relevant and potentially rich topics to explore. I respect it more than that "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial" piece that made a splash a few years back.
> He initially wanted to press charges because Granger’s act “violates the sanctity of the gallery,” but changed his mind
> Left: Graham Granger after his arraignment outside the court building
I was beginning to think "pressing charges" was a myth (popularised by TV shows like Law & Order) and this article didn't exactly change my mind about that.
Do US state attorneys actually give two shits about what the victim wants? Is it someone's job to read an email inbox and systematically approve/reject citizens' pressed charges? Do they even pretend to?
Also, government attorneys can be elected officials. Spending time achieving nothing against a bunch of uncooperative screwball artists isn't going to be something to brag about on the campaign trail.
GG: I don’t really use it period. I miss the Wikipedia blurbs being at the top of webpages. If I’m looking up a simple math fact that I don’t know—like what the weight of something is—I’ll look at the AI summary, but I never, almost never, hit the expand button.
And the thieves sit in Davos, together with representatives of a party that wants to steal IP, Greenland, Venezuela and many other things.
And the press appeases the thieves instead of asking about the murder of Suchir Balaji.
When the color printer was mass produced, you could print the Mona Lisa and artists had similar protests. Arguably, this started the entire abstract and surrealist movement where things like a urinal became art simply because you couldn't print it out.
I don't want art to be about how much someone suffered to make it. However, part of my appreciation is the artist, and AI art is lower on my appreciation than hand created paintings. I think the solution is to increase awareness of art appreciation instead of empowering ignorant and violent demonstrations.
Is AI art really a threat? Is it really like a nuclear bomb? I don't think so, and the only people benefitting from this are the gatekeepers who will inevitably sell the solution to whatever the public thinks is ethical AI.
I'm more interested in an AI Art Exhibit eating a Student