Talk:Artificial intelligence art

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 7 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arearic, Josephinebradley24, Rayhan Noufal Arayilakath, Asupt, Lukeg10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wangjx0, Naguila.

— Assignment last updated by Naguila (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Eric Millikin early AI work

A paragraph about Eric Millikin has been added to the section on Early AI work. However his early work was web comics not AI. The cited AI work is much later and not part of the story of the rest of this section. Is there any survey of art history that includes this artist in this period? no. So it should be removed from this section but Ohnoitsjamie keeps reverting the fix. Please discuss the choice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.142.161 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources in that paragraph mention that he was doing AI works during that time period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

For example this comprehensive history doesn't mention him: https://timeline.lerandom.art/#/chapter-7 They mention no specific work because there isn't one. Why base a big paragraph on one offhand and unspecific comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.142.161 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The source isn't specific about his work in the 80s, but is specific about a piece in 2009, which still falls within the scope of that section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph has bogus claims like "In 2009, Millikin won the Pulitzer Prize along with several other awards for his artificial intelligence art that was critical of government corruption". He did not. The prize was won by these guys: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/detroit-free-press-staff-and-notably-jim-schaefer-and-ml-elrick Where is this artwork? Is it really important enough to list here? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.142.161 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see the Eric Millikin article; his artwork was "part of the portfolio" of the Detroit Free Press coverage of the corruption in Lansing. In any case, I've removed the sentence about the Pulitzer because it's not relevant in this context. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still wrong to include this artist in this section of history. What scholar includes it? Please provide a reference. In addition to the lerandom website above, here's a typical computer art history book: https://archive.org/details/gca-book/mode/2up Millikin is not included but the others from this section are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.142.161 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Social Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2024 and 9 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RaniaTabbara (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rucha23.

— Assignment last updated by Ken2628 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 October 2024 and 23 October 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jnellso (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Doromano1 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of section on AI-generated music etc

Asparagusstar (talk · contribs) removed the section on AI-generated music as well as a set of useful examples. Music is a major type of Artificial intelligence art and there definitely should be at least a small section on it here. Then you write [the examples are] unnecessary, has no reliable source, and/or is off-topic in this visual art history article. They are not unnecessary because they illustrate how AI art looks like and what its applications are. Image examples in this article and in other articles don't have reliable sources, no idea where you take that from. The content and the examples are all about AI art and this article is called "Artificial intelligence art", it's clearly on-topic. Lastly, you seem to have a misconception of what this article is about. It's not (only) a visual art history article, it's about artificial intelligence art. But if it was a visual art history article that wouldn't be a reason to remove the content either. So I'd like to readd it. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You added at least ten files that you created to an encyclopedia article. This is not your personal social media account where you just post your own files. I think you are overestimating the usefulness of your files to the rest of the world who want to read an encyclopedia article about notable things. And, yes, many of your files were also completely inappropriate sound files that aren't necessary in an article that explains in its very first sentence that it is about "visual artwork." Asparagusstar (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well better examples could be added if they exist. The current ones aren't useful, are insufficient and entirely misrepresent AI art and do not sufficiently inform about it.
No, I didn't create ten of these, that is false. I created three of the music audios and there aren't that many AI music files on Commons so there aren't many to choose from and I added more music files from other people. How they are displayed could be changed, they could also be in a horizontal panel.
I don't add them because 'I want to share my stuff' – see WP:AGF – but because the selected ones are useful in this article and illustrate certain things, e.g. how AI art looks like while also showing how it can be useful. The uses illustrated are notable. Good catch, the lead needs to be changed, will do that now. One more note: I removed this file because it didn't seem useful while its license was set to CCBY despite that in the file description it just said it was a screencap from the video but it's published under CCBY by the mentioned artist and despite not being very illustrative it may be good to readd it. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There are already over a dozen images in the article that show "how AI art looks." Your images you attempted to add do not add any encyclopedic information. And I will restore the "visual artwork" to the lead sentence. There is already an article on Music and artificial intelligence. You shouldn't change the entire scope of this article without discussion and agreement with collaborators. Asparagusstar (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

1. This is an article about (in part) images so that it would include relatively many images is to be expected and useful. It contains 11 AI images of which one is about prior algorithmic fractal art. Of the 10 remaining images only one actual use-cases is illustrated via the Pope & Trump images: comedic Internet images. The rest is fairly low quality and not illustrating any use-case whatsoever. This is very biased and the added images are useful and add encyclopedic information. I could put them into a horizontal gallery.
2. If this article is called "Artificial intelligence art" the scope should be "Artificial intelligence art", not "Artificial intelligence visual art" so if you think the latter should be the case you need to find consensus for renaming the article. The article long contains info on nonvisual art in section "Other forms of art", I don't know who put "visual" into the lead. You didn't even remove the references when you changed the scope of it to only be visual art. Music and artificial intelligence is overlapping in scope with AI art: only some AI art is music and AI-generated music is only one subject of "Music and artificial intelligence". I intend to change it back so the lead matches the scope of the article title. Article contents are expected to match the article title.

Prototyperspective (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't "need to find consensus" in order to support the current consensus. If you want to build consensus to change the scope of the article to something other than its current scope, that's on you. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just explained that the current scope is not just limited to visual art. I will check who when added the "visual" part to the lead in contradiction to both the rest of the article contents and the article title. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Elspea756 changed it from Artificial intelligence art is any artwork, particularly images and musical compositions, created through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs, such as text-to-image models and musical generators to Artificial intelligence art is any visual artwork created through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs on 2 August 2023 with rationale Removing "music" from the lead. The rest of the article is all about visual art, and the lead should summarize the rest of the article. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Your multiple attempts at an explanation remain unconvincing. Your showing that this has been the consensus since 2 August 2023 shows that there is strong consensus for "art" to typically mean "visual art" across many editors over a long period of time. This is common knowledge, such as how no one going to an "art museum" is surprised to find it filled with visual art and not music. You are correct that "The rest of the article is all about visual art." Other forms of performing arts, musical arts, literary arts, etc. can be very briefly mentioned in the "Other forms of art" and "See also" sections and then linked to their respective articles, as they currently are. No, this does not require your placing multiple non-notable sound files you created into the article. You can try to promote your music elsewhere. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not have to convince you. However, I'm not concerned about you not being convinced there but about you not addressing my points. I think it's convincing. There is not strong consensus for it to only be about visual art, instead it was put into lead by one editor merely because the lead should reflect the article and the article only contained content about visual art. That has already changed with the mentioned section and was changed with my edit that added a music section. It had WP:RS and art is broader than visual art where in the title it says "art" so I think that case is closed. I'm not promoting my music, again you ignore all I said and should look into WP:AGF as well as try to argue more constructively. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)