I used to use the #AIArt hashtag for the art I post on social media that was machine generated. But no longer ...

The current systems are not intelligent — they are just statistical predictive systems.

I now use the hashtag #GenerativeArt for my machine learning generated art. I think that might be a better description? I don't know that for sure, but it certainly feels better than continuing to use the #AIArt tag 😛

@f Funny, I stopped using #AIArt for every such image I shared because I don't think that most of them are art. @WeavingWithAI suggested #aiimage.

Of course, you are very right: the systems are not what one expected some years ago when talking about artificial **intelligence**.

#GenerativeArt is a tag that I use for sharing artworks that were generated by code, so mixing it with AI images (though technically correct) might confuse things.

@boringold I'm curious, but how do you define images generated by code? As in, aren’t images generated using machine learning models, also generated via code, though perhaps not always code written by you?

Not trying to be argumentative, but genuinely curious 🙂 Is this like possibly generating SVG images? Or just putting together basic primitives (circles, rectangles etc.) to create an image?

Would you happen to have any links to samples of your work that you consider #GenerativeArt that I can take a look at?

I’m curious and fascinated …

@f I don't create #generativeart myself, but you can search for #generativeart here to find examples by others, and there are awesome artworks on artblocks, fxhash and other platforms.

https://tender.art curates an awesome list of the most remarkable projects, and I put some that I collected in galleries (for example https://deca.art/boringoldguy/grailish).

Have fun exploring, it's a fascinating genre!

@f generative art used to label 'coding art' though ...

@boringold @f i agree, it's confusing. At least to oldtimers like us 😜

@WeavingWithAI @f And it gets even more confusing when we start to include not only code OGs like Molnár, Nees or Franke, but also physical art like Le Wit's wall drawing instructions, John Baldessari's performance photography, and possible dozen others who played with fixed procedures and random variations through multiple passes.

@boringold @WeavingWithAI @f I use the tag just because it is the most common. I also have not in mind to flag my images as "art" but using this tag might be the best for people to mute or also to follow. Keywords like generativeAI, genai, aiimage or so make no sense I think. What about gentrash or aipunk? ;)

@morph @WeavingWithAI @f I can see your point; niche tags fragment the space.

But IMO an uncritical use of the AIart tag isn't helping either. It lumps together meaningless experiments with actual art. There are amazing artworks created with AI, so I try to be more specific.

But I know I'm special in that regard.😬

@boringold No, you're right with that. But the problem exists in the non artificial art aka real art as well. Absolute junk can be titled art.
A solution for publishing via activitypub could be to tag an entire profile and use this one just for posting that kind what fits to the tag.
@WeavingWithAI @f

@morph @WeavingWithAI @f Thanks for the idea! I'm afraid I have no plan what activitypub is…🫣

@morph The issue here probably is that “art” can mean different things to different people 🙂 When I say “art”, I mean it as in “an image”, I am not making a statement about the quality of the drawing/image.

But others seem to think that if something is called “art” then it has to be high-quality, fit to be hung in a gallery etc.

Also, even if we are talking about the quality of the work when we say “art”, what’s “art” to you might not be “art” to me 😛

So I’m not sure we’re going to please everybody no matter what term we use since somebody will have an objection in some form.

@boringold @WeavingWithAI

@f @morph @WeavingWithAI Oh yeah, that's a tough topic!

I make it easy for myself: if the person who created something thinks that it is art, it probably is. And if there is no statement as to that, I consider things to be art that were created to express something on a level beyond the obvious. That's more debatable, but in the end, it comes down to intent for me.

@f @boringold Not only should it (ideally) be code written by yourself, it is code that generates images based on rules that you designed, making use of little to no external data.

Generative art is certainly NOT images that you have generated by an algorithm developped by someone else, running on someone else's cluster of computers, trained on billions of artworks made by someone else.

@f If the images you post are produced by any type of deep learning model trained on other's artworks, please continue using #aiart.

Generative artists are a small community. Using #generativeart for AI output only adds to the confusion, and hurts that community for absolutely no reason.

I'd like to continue being able to see works from people designing complex mathematical systems that produce interesting images while filtering out the flood of bland computer generated babes.

Thank you

@maxx To be quite honest, telling other people what they should or should not do is a bit rude, don’t you think?

Telling me that I *should* continue to use #AIArt presupposes that that’s a rule.

Also, saying “bland computer generate babes” is both a bit insulting and again presumption on your part since I do not generate images with people at all — except accdentally.

Sure, asking somebody to not do something politely is one thing. But saying “you should do this” or “you shouldn’t do this” is not OK.

If this was meant to be a request, you really should change your phrasing perhaps?