It’s an interesting idea, and fun to see exploring the idea of an AI agent in a relatively benign realm of artistic expression.
That said, Botto still raises some ethical quandaries. many working artists It’s fair to worry about the impact of AI Working at its profession, as models trained on millions of copyrighted works are used to generate infinite knock-offs on demand.
Perhaps Botto is a completely different thing. is a clingman Early adopter of AI in artUsing neural networks as part of the artistic process and as a type of performance schtick. His previous works include a video installation feature Ever-changing AI-generated portraits And he’s a robot dog Criticism of visual artefacts,
And while Boto generates high-priced images using models trained on public work, Klingerman doesn’t see it as outright plagiarism. “Image models and LLMs are the new search engines,” he says. “For me, creativity is finding something that already exists in the possibility-space, and deciding it’s interesting, while making sure it looks [like it] “Already nobody’s.”
The images created by Botto look aesthetically pleasing, but to my untrained eye at least, feel like a fairly generic AI image generator offering.
While the Botto project raises some interesting questions about what constitutes artistic agency, at the moment I think it simply emphasizes the importance of human intelligence and inventiveness. The spark of creativity does not belong to the machine that churns out a never-ending variety of images with crowd reaction, but to the artists who first came up with the idea.
What do you think of Botto and his artwork? Is this a worthwhile artistic idea or just another way to make money with generative AI and meme coins? send message to hello@wired.com Or leave a comment below to let me know.
