Rage Against The Machine: A Roundtable on an Arts Community’s Reactions Toward AI Art
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This is a community engagement session, with its own Zoom information: please join this link instead of the conference track - https://ubc.zoom.us/j/64078424986?pwd=5Ha5O8RQaloVCQaMIDn76P3TmeZDzE.1 Meeting ID: 640 7842 4986 Passcode: 177432 On February 1st, 2024, a non-profit DIY music and art space in Vancouver, BC, Red Gate Arts Society, posted on Instagram a poster of an upcoming show of “an evening of improvisation and remediated digital sound” by a group called Seethruzoo. This poster, immediately after it was uploaded, exploded with outraged commentary. The background image of the poster was distinctively AI generated and the arts community around this beloved venue reacted in disgust and anger— “ew ai art??? Really?” “AI ‘art’ is art theft.” “Surely one of you can source an artist to make a poster for you. There’s a large pool of talent to draw from, and folks need illustration/design gigs. AI generated images mostly look like crap anyway but that’s not the heart of the issue.” “What does this say that art again becomes the most devalued aspect of an arts society?” Some replies to these comments included a defense of the venue stating that the poster was not designed by the venue, but the artists of the event themselves, a call for a more constructive discussion space, and the society co-founder expressing her willingness to review their booking policies. The topic of this proposed roundtable is the controversy around this poster—which was made by one of the members of Seethruzoo who is a professional designer. In dialogue with the audience, the panelists of this roundtable will illuminate different aspects of AI use for artistic expressions. Questions addressed in this roundtable include: (1) Why is it that AI generated arts provoke such visceral, aversive, and moralizing responses? (2) What would be constructive ways to talk about and deal with AI innovations among the arts community? (3) What kinds of practices and policies around the use of AI would actually benefit artists? Through addressing these questions, the panelists discuss the creativity involved in generating AI images, the recognition of algorithmic Other, the differences in the intertextuality exercised by human consciousness and artificial intelligence, and so forth. As it was suggested on the comment section of the Instagram post, if ELO organizers permit us to do so, we would like to have this roundtable as an “open access” public forum and ask the Red Gate Arts Society to invite their community members to participate in the discussion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».