This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
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.
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No one needs to continually "address your points" when you are continually wasting other editors time with your multi-day argument about how an encyclopedia article devoted to notable examples of visual art history instead needs a section devoted to hosting multiple examples of your own amateur work. No one reading an encyclopedia article wants to wade through all that. Stop wasting time. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is for example the point that the article is not "devoted to notable examples of visual art history" but is about AI devoted to notable examples ofvisual art history. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained this to you. "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." There is no world in which people reading an encyclopedia article are going to be interested in your collection of your own amateur images and sound files. This is not your personal social media account where you just post your own files. Stop wasting time. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentation is circular and ignoring what has been said so this will be my last reply to you.
There is not strong consensus just because one editor changed something
The editor who changed that even specified that this was merely because the article has no content on music not because the article scope in principle is different (that time no good-quality AI music did exist so all notable AI art there was was visual art)
A section about music was added so this was changed
The article already long contains a section about non-visual art so that part of the lead should have been changed earlier already
In the title it says "art", not "visual art" and the contents & scope should match the title
The WP:RS clearly show it's not just about visual art but also other forms of art, mainly also music
This is regarding the scope, for your other WP:AGF allegations see my points above; also: many of the current files were also created by the person putting them there and it's the same for other articles; one could replace them with better files if they exist; I didn't create many of the files I added; all of the files are useful and they're helpful to the reader and improve the currently very biased article that misrepresents AI art and does not exemplify sufficiently how it's being used etc.
The article is about the subject that is in the title which is "Artificial intelligence art". AI-generated music is new which is why there was little info earlier and also because no article is perfect. There already was content about nonvisual art. Music and artificial intelligence is broader and also about using AI for things like transitions between tracks and for track selection, not just AI art. Text-to-image generation is specific to visual art. I will report you at the admin's noticeboard if you do that. There is no consensus for what you do and you shouldn't have reverted neither mine nor the other user's edit. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know and that's far from what is called AI-generated music or the high-quality AI music, people make a distinction between algorithmic compositions / algorithmic art and the novel AI art and most studies and reports discuss the former only as some background to the latter but otherwise separately. Maybe info on that was already missing earlier, I'm not saying that it wasn't. The article is not just about visual art, if you want it to be so make a rename request to call it "Artificial intelligence visual art", see Help:Rename. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was already there before. See what Elspea756 explained in their edit summary and the section currently called "Other forms of art" which has been there for over a year. Article content should match article title. Music and artificial intelligence is much broader than AI-generated music as I just explained. I did not change the scope of the article which is defined by its title and contents which both along with WP:RS show that this is not limited to visual art. Moreover, another user agreed with me and also tried to add in the same so it's now only this user who claims that nonvisual art for some strange reason is not part of the scope despite that e.g. Music and artificial intelligence is in Category:Artificial intelligence art. I did not change the scope of the article, Asparagusstar, did. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that it's unrelated is false. The user added This includes visual art, music, literature, and other creative expressions generated or assisted by AI technologies. I'm not sure if you actually looked into either of the diffs. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get support for the edit you are trying to make, here on the talk page. You cannot point at some other drive-by edit someone made and use it as a basis to claim consensus. I looked at all the diffs. Sometimes people are going to be fully informed and still disagree with you. MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying otherwise. But that's when people think when you make a false claim like That's an unrelated edit. It's obviously related and that is a plain objective fact (only maybe not related in some specific way). Why can the user claim there is consensus for something when there isn't, the article title, the article contents, good-quality sources, the article category, and the former article lead all suggesting to the contrary? The discussion here yielded no result, my points were ignored and it was just me and the other user discussing so the discussion was stale. I did not claim consensus, that's another false thing you said. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly substantially different from what you are doing with the article. Kindly do not accuse me of making false claims. You wrote above There is no consensus for what you do and you shouldn't have reverted neither mine nor the other user's edit. <--- that is clearly claiming consensus for your 'side'. But this is all semantics. The key point is that you are the one trying to make changes, so you are the one who must secure agreement from others. Here, on the talk page. Finding someone who maybe made a sort of compatible edit in the history is not that. MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be substantially different but still related. It is related because the subject is whether or not nonvisual art is part of this article's scope. That user added content This includes visual art, music, literature, and other creative expressions generated or assisted by AI technologies. Please do not claim it to be unrelated when it clearly is related, thanks.
that is clearly claiming consensus for your 'side' No, it is not. I did not claim that. The other user is claiming there is consensus for their view, I did not do so but listed several points.
The key point is that you are the one trying to make changes the article title, the article contents, good-quality sources, the article category, and the former article lead all show or imply that nonvisual art is part of this article's scope. The only user who participated here to at last ignore my points was the user with whom I have the dispute with.
Fine with that. There is no consensus either way. There are however the article title, the article contents, one other user, good-quality sources, the article category, and the former article lead all supporting my side. This is why I think that my edit is due despite or because there is no consensus either way. (It would be a new thing to Wikipedia that everything about an article first gained consensus on the talk page just in case that is what you'd support.) Prototyperspective (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'No consensus either way' means we stick with the status quo. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know this - you do not reverse the burden of proof onto others by claiming they need consensus to revert a change.
Also, you are reading things into the article title and such that are not there. 'Art' in isolation is commonly understood to be visual art. If I were to walk into an art museum I would not expect to find a band playing and nothing hung on the walls. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many museums are there where it's mainly about listening to music? Being about visual things is the nature of museums with few exceptions. Art refers not only to visual art and this can also be seen in the other language versions of this article, dictionaries, as well as for example c:Category:Art or Category:Art. It is not commonly understood that way either and there is a separate article about text-2-image.
Nonvisual forms were mentioned in the lead for quite some time and this was only removed because there wasn't much content in the article about them. However, the status quo per article content (not lead) is that nonvisual artforms are within scope since it contains content also on literature and cooking. It was removed from the lead only because the content was a bit short and maybe overseen and neglected so far. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to add is that both art classes and art museums are some quite specific subjects, this article here is about the broad genre/type. It's quite similar to computer art which also includes "sound" and performance art. Context matters, and this is about a broad type of art. From here: Artificial intelligence art (AI art) is any form of art that has been created or enhanced with AI tools. Although commonly associated with visual art, such as images or videos, the term AI art also applies to music, writing and other creative forms.. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to restore the content removed by this edit, to remove the WP:CITEOVERKILL in the lead and try to keep only secondary sources about music. And also to keep the section relatively brief, adding the "Main article" template pointing to Music and artificial intelligence in the "Music" section. Since it does not contain any file created by Prototyperspective, the 2nd argument does not apply here, and the section is intended to remain relatively short due to the link to the main article.
As for the debate about whether art is just visual art, I strongly believe that art is a broader term. The article should ideally cover all forms of AI art, with due proportions regarding their notability. In my opinion, this should also include a (relatively small) section or subsection about literature.
No, this article about Artificial intelligence art should not have an entire section about music. Or dance. Or theatre. Or poetry. Or cooking. This is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, such as Category:Artists being "for articles about artists who work or have worked in the visual arts (not musicians, writers, etc.)." History of Asian art is "about the history of visual arts in Asia." Art school is "an educational institution with a primary focus on practice and related theory in the visual arts and design." Art theft is "is the stealing of paintings, sculptures, or other forms of visual art." etc. etc. etc. This is common knowledge and the common use of the word "art." I agree with what Mr. Ollie above, "If I sign up for an art class I would not expect someone to try to teach me to play the guitar." Asparagusstar (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, our article art discusses art broadly, whereas we have visual art for the visual arts specifically. And while I don't have access to the full text of the third paper, the first and second cited for the definition Artificial intelligence art is visual artwork created or enhanced through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs both in fact are treating the broader topic of art, not only visual art. The Epstein et al. paper begins A new class of tools, colloquially called generative AI, can produce high-quality artistic media for visual arts, concept art, music, fiction, literature, video, and animation, and the Millet et al. paper begins We argue that recent advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of art (e.g., music, painting) pose a profound ontological threat to anthropocentric worldviews. If the cited sources treat AI art broadly as encompassing music as well as the visual arts, then Wikipedia should follow them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
adding the "Main article" template pointing to Music and artificial intelligence in the "Music" section That's also how many other articles handle things, like Effects of climate change also includes information about Effects of climate change on human health but includes a Main wikilink. However, it shouldn't be a Main link here as that article is much broader than AI-generated music and currently mainly about other things, like the prior historic lowquality algorithmic compositions or other applications of AI in music like auto-DJs that queue tracks and make them seamless etc.
I strongly believe that art is a broader term very much agree and the sources I cited all back this up, including thisArtificial intelligence art (AI art) is any form of art that has been created or enhanced with AI tools. Although commonly associated with visual art, such as images or videos, the term AI art also applies to music, writing and other creative forms. while there is no source other than Asparagusstar' personal opinion that it refers to only visual artwork. The reader coming to the article would expect it to be about AI art in general, just like the title says, not the article semicensoring or marginalizing other artforms.
In my opinion, this should also include a (relatively small) section or subsection about literature. It already does at the bottom for over a year but the user rerenamed it to "Other forms of art" and it could do well with some further info.
I hope we can agree on this, but otherwise I don't think the user will accept anything other than their strict personal view that it's only visual art, no matter how many good arguments and reliable sources are pointed to. Maybe more people will come here and consensus doesn't mean all users need to agree. One other user also tried to add nonvisual art to the lead so I think that user would agree so if considering that it's now 3 users Pro art referring to art vs 1 user Pro art referring to visual art, it would be better if more users commented.
-
This is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia Making it also about nonvisual art would be consistent with Art (and also Category:Art) which is the main thing to consider. Other than that, this isn't a good argument for making this article about visual art only but rather for discussing these categories & articles. It's good that this issue is unearthed, it seems like music and nonvisual art forms are often neglected in articles History of art is also about music but contains far more info about visual art. Art school and art theft are quite specific terms but "art" is not and AI art / this article is about the broad genre/type. It's quite similar to computer art which also includes "sound" and performance art and New media art which also includes nonvisual art like music. MrOllie explained your apparent reasoning and I addressed it. You need to consider context, yes in some specific uses of the word it refers to only visual art, especially when there is little or no nonvisual art that may be relevant like in Art theft. This is not "common knowledge", it's common knowledge that it can sometimes refer to only visual art, not that it's always the case or also the case when the subject is AI art which is a type of art that can also be literature or music. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And note that the spammed references that have been added to the lead sentence are cherry-picked and out of context, in an apparent attempt to try to prove a point that does not have consensus either here on wikipedia or in the rest of the world. For example, "Art and the science of generative AI" is about Generative artificial intelligence broadly, not this topic of AI art specifically. I will remove these cherry-picked, out of context references. Instead, note for example that The Los Angeles Times article "How AI-generated art is changing the concept of art itself" is entirely about visual art. Similarly, Kieran Browne of Australian National University's "Who (or What) is an AI Artist?" is entirely about visual art. This editor wanting to have a month-long conversation to redefine the scope of this article so they can try to add their amateur song files to an encyclopedia article about art history is a waste of our time that is looking like trolling. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of one source (the LA Times piece) which discusses only visual art does not mean that we should restrict the article to only that aspect of the topic if other sources discuss it more broadly. When the reliable sources contradict the article, the solution is not to remove the sources you don't like. (And there's a certain level of irony in using the phrase "cherry-picked" to justify that removal!)
If you are not familiar with sound art, its history is from visual artists working with sound. It is not a type of music. See for example [1] This is similar to performance art whose history is again from visual artists, not the performing arts. Those of you weighing in here, how familiar are you with art and other arts at all? This seems like a very basic-level conversation. Asparagusstar (talk) Asparagusstar (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the Sound Art article, in particular the very first sentence, Sound art is an artistic activity in which sound is utilized as a primary medium or material; emphasis mine. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Art long has a subcategory for visual arts. The category description is outdated. It also contains lots of subcategories and pages that are not or not about visual art. The art article is more important anyway and it's not a good argument to begin with that doesn't refute any of the points I made and I said the same with Category:Artificial intelligence art which contains many articles about nonvisual art like Music and artificial intelligence which you often bring up.
It is your personal opinion that artificial intelligence art refers to only visual art. You don't just maintain that sometimes art is a term used when only meaning visual art to be precise, but that this applies always and in this specific case.
The references are not "spammed" but all support that AI art also refers to other forms of art. I have no issue with them being removed but when many reliable sources claim one thing I think they weigh more than your opinion and should be what the article goes by.
for example that The Los Angeles Times article "How AI-generated art is changing the concept of art itself" is entirely about visual art because that is or was the most advanced and what the article happens to focus on, not because AI art is just visual art. It was written 2022 where the topic of the day was text-2-image visual art, not music. At that time nobody expected AI music to be this advanced in such a short time and Suno didn't even exist.
redefine the scope of this article It used to be about all kinds of art until Elspea756 changed the lead 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 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 and even afterwards it was still also about nonvisual art as well via the bottom section.
Interesting that you dismiss my rational valid more or less ignored points as a waste of our time that is looking like trolling
I am not sure why you are posting these long screeds in response to me. Your amateur music and images are inappropriate for this encyclopedia article. You said on 21 November that you were making your last reply to me. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not sure why this editor is posting these long screeds in response to me. Their amateur music and images are inappropriate for this encyclopedia article. They said on 21 November that they were making their last reply to me. If anyone else has any questions, let me know. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refocusing on "amateur music and images" does not address Prototyperspective's points and could be perceived as a kind of personal attack. Besides that, you have both made valid points about "art" sometimes meaning "visual arts" and sometimes having a broader meaning. Alenoach (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clear opinion about up to which point it's ok to add arbitrary AI-generated images or music. It can sometimes be relevant to illustrate current AI capabilities. But Prototyperspective does not seem to be insisting to include back this content. Prototyperspective edited the article to add it, saw that you reverted it, and didn't insist. That's good behavior, nothing to blame. And it aligns with the guideline WP:BEBOLD. I think the core of this discussion is more about this revert.
Plus, with AI art, there is not that much expertise involved, and "amateurish" content can be very good. And by the way, the main image about the cow being abducted should probably be replaced by something more modern and high-resolution. Alenoach (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked through the page history and it was Scapulus (talk· contribs) who added "musical compositions" to the lead which already had music in it which was added by Munmula (talk· contribs). More recently, Rayhan Noufal Arayilakath (talk· contribs) added This includes visual art, music, literature, and other creative expressions generated or assisted by AI technologies. to the lead. Scapulus, Munmula, Rayhan you still think AI art also refers to nonvisual artforms like music? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you two, Prototyperspective and Asparagusstar, don't spend too much of your time on this discussion in the next few days, and wait to see if newcomers have something to say. Then, in a few days, if there is still no clear consensus, perhaps we could ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION and hope this will lead to a decision being made. I primarily suggest a third opinion instead of a RFC because RFCs are more time-consuming for other editors.
For people that just arrive and don't have the time to read, most of the debate is about whether the article should cover only visual arts, or also things like music or literature. So far, Asparagusstar and MrOllie have argued for only visual arts, whereas Prototyperspective, me and Caeciliusinhorto-public have argued for a broader coverage including notably music. Alenoach (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I may be afk. As for this third opinion request page, I don't think it's optimal to get people to decide things who are not familiar with a subject. People deciding something should I think be knowledgable to some degree about it so I think of it more as a last resort and hope if there is a request people decide based on reasoning and WP:RS, not what their gut feeling tells them on a first glance or what they wish to be true. I got the impression that MrOllie only intended to explain Asparagusstar' thinking, @MrOllie: are you actually arguing that AI art refers to only about visual art despite of the sources that say the contrary, my points (including these & my replies to you)? Web users who want to know about AI art across media-types would come to this article, it's where they would expect the info to be and I think it needs very solid reasoning to make a Wikipedia article scope different than the RS about the term. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was that you are drawing inferences from items like the title of the article that do not really support the changes you are trying to make in the article, and that keeping content about music at Music and artificial intelligence is a fine way to organize the articles. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is one of the arguments. Okay, it makes sense that art does not necessarily have to refer to art broadly including nonvisual art. You are right on that. However, it's usually the case when the subject is a type or cross-medium genre of art or when art is meant in a broad sense like in article Art which is also the case here; or when being technically precise vs colloquial language; or in this specific case (see e.g. the sources). It may be fine in principle to organize the content this way, yes; but it's not fine here for the reasons I explained which include reliable sources – which we shouldn't override with our opinions what should be the case so easily – and because it marginalizes nonvisual art by pushing it out of sight from the article where users expect the info to be to some article they don't go to that is both more specific (to music) and broader in scope (not just AI-generated music but anything AI that is music-related). Again, the same reason the article Effects of climate change has some info on Effects of climate change on human health instead of claiming in the lead the effects are only the natural physical and environmental changes. It's fine to have an article about only the visual art but then the page should be renamed and it already exists at text-to-image generation. So Alenoach, to me it doesn't seem like MrOllie wants it to be about visual art only or about art in a broad sense (like the article currently is except for the lead) but meant to refute some point of mine and explain Asparagusstar' thinking. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't cover the same ground as text-to-image generation. It rightly covers systems such as AARON, which are considered AI but which are not text to image programs. Sets of articles such as climate change which agree with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE are a good model - in which articles link out to more specific articles. But it is important to note that this article is not the 'top level' article of this summary set - Digital art is. If music is underrepresented you ought to be focusing your effort there. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if it will help you get out of a vote counting mindset: let me be clear: I do not support your edits, I oppose them. Everyone involved ought to look for some sort of compromise rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over. MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are supposed not to vote but to consider and eventually address arguments. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesWikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The structure per RS and current category structure is Digital art -> AI art -> AI visual art -> text-2-image generation. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New media art or Computer art may be above AI art. Both are also about nonvisual art. Regarding the points I made please see WP:DEMOCRACY that links to a page with A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.; as well as Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. at WP:CIRCULAR and Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. at WP:OR. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short description
Currently, it's "Machine application of knowledge of human aesthetic expressions"
This confuses me far more than the article title. Granted, shortdescs are hard to write, but I feel we could do better. Maybe 'visual media created with AI'? JayCubby23:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The modified short description is an improvement, but my personal opinion is that it may be even better to leave the short description empty, as the title seems sufficiently explicit by itself (WP:SDNONE). Although that may depend on whether the article ends up focusing exclusively on visual media, in which case having in the short description the information that it's about visual media may be useful. Alenoach (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see with not having a short description is the potential to interpret the title as art depicting artificial intelligence, rather than art created by artificial intelligence.
I think it would be good to change the short description but "Machine application of knowledge of human aesthetic expressions" is fairly accurate and informative and I oppose changing it to "visual media created with AI" since it's not only about visual art but as the title says any art. the potential to interpret the title as art depicting artificial intelligence is not the case as the title is not Artificial intelligence in art. One could change it to "Machine application of training on human artistic expressions" (it's not "knowledge") or to "Art made by or using artificial intelligence" or something similar. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too negative?
In May 2024, someone added the template "Unbalanced", with this edit summary "Unbalanced, basically no information regarding its "positive" reception. Lead seems devoid of examples?". I removed the template to make the article cleaner, and opened this discussion instead.
Democratizing and facilitating artistic creation seems like a mostly positive thing, whereas the article looks indeed mostly critical of AI art, particularly the "Impact" section. So I suggest adding some positive aspects or adjusting the tone to balance things out. Alenoach (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with you. I think the article fails WP:NPOV and this is also because its examples are not good, they are neither illustrating high-quality AI art nor use-cases. I tried to correct this in my first edit that Asparagusstar reverted by adding some other examples and explaining use-cases enabled or widely prevalent with the use of AI art. For now, I'm focusing on getting the article in line with reliable sources and the broad public understanding of the term "Artificial intelligence art" which refers to any kind of (especially sophisticated) AI art, which includes music. Further improvements would be needed I think but adding positive examples of AI art usage like vitalization of small genres & art movements and making artmaking capability available to many people was adding some positive aspects. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Prototyperspective making clear they are going to continue to insist on including their multiple self-generated files into this article. This is biased, self-promotional, conflict of interest editing. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The files currently in the article were also generated by the user who added them (and it's the same for similar articles). It's not self-promotional and there's no conflict of interest (there is no link or any other interest I have with these), I welcome replacing them with better files if there are some like it that also illustrate the positive use-cases. Lastly, I didn't only add files I created but also many other ones. The artricle is currently biased and does not really inform about positive or somewhat unique/novel/widespread use cases of AI art tools. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Not here and evidently not elsewhere including AI-unrelated articles. Furthermore, Commons users even often recommend generating images on-demand. As said, the files currently in the article are biased and were to a large part added by the user who generated them. it should be fixed with sourced prose Agree (that should be done as well). I also added some text but hadn't finished and/or the issue was not fixed with my edit, just mitigated a bit. When the article is about art and the examples are not illustrating the art well but entirely misrepresent it, then that's is biased. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
This article was 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, Skakkar4.
