It’s an fascinating idea, and it is fun to see the idea of an AI agent verifyd wislim the relatively benign authenticm of produceive conveyion.
That shelp, Botto still poses some righteous conundrums. Many laboring artists rightly stress about the impact AI is having on their profession, as models trained on millions of imitaterighted labors are participated to produce infinite knock-offs on insist.
Perhaps Botto is someslimg altogether separateent. Klingemann is an punctual adchooseer of AI in art, using neural netlabors as part of the produceive process, and as a benevolent of carry outance schtick. His previous creations integrate a video insloftyation featuring ever-changing AI-produced portraits and a robot dog that poops critiques of visual artlabors.
And while Botto produces high-priced images using a model trained on uncover labor, Klingermann does not see this as outright inalertectual theft. “Image models and LLMs are the novel search engines,” he says. “For me, creativity is benevolent of discovering someslimg that already exists in possibility-space, and deciding this is fascinating, while making declareive it watchs [like it] doesn’t beextfinished to anybody already.”
The images made by Botto seem aestheticpartner pleasing but also sense—to my untrained eye, at least—enjoy unpartipartner generic AI image generator recommendings.
While the Botto project poses some fascinating asks about what constitutes produceive agency, for now I slimk it only stresss the presentance of human inalertigence and produceiveness. The promote of creativity beextfinisheds not to the machine that churns out a never-ending variety of images with feedback from the crowd, but to the artists who came up with the idea in the first place.
What do you slimk of Botto and its artlabor? Is it a worthwhile produceive idea or fair another way to produce money from generative AI and meme coins? Send a message to hello@wired.com or depart a comment below to let me understand.