Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 8 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday October 28, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the bits-and-bobs dept.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/digital-art-day-auction-2/a-i-god-portrait-of-alan-turing
https://www.dw.com/en/portrait-by-robot-to-be-sold-at-sothebys-in-world-first/a-70508473

For the first time ever, a well-known auction house is selling an artwork that was painted by a robot. Sotheby's will be auctioning off the portrait of scientist Alan Turing and it could fetch as much as £150,000.

The large-scale artwork is entitled "AI God" and was " first exhibited at the United Nations in May 2024 as part of a five paneled Polyptych," Sotheby's said on its homepage.

He said the work's "muted tones and broken facial planes" seemingly suggested "the struggles Turing warned we will face when it comes to managing AI." Ai-Da's works were "ethereal and haunting" and "continue to question where the power of AI will take us, and the global race to harness its power."

What will the starving Robot AI artist do with the money? Pay the electricity bill? Eat more bits? Or will the human manager take a 100% cut?

The ultra-realistic robot is designed to resemble a human female with a face, large eyes and a brown wig. The robot works by deploying AI algorithms and has cameras in its eyes, as well as bionic hands.

Ultra-realistic? Looks more like someone got lost in the uncanny valley, or got very poor taste in women. It's apparently important to note that it is a (or resembles) human female. Not one of those disgusting manbots artistic AI fueled robots. How does female robots differ from male robots anyway? 0s or 1s ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Monday October 28, @07:29PM (2 children)

    by Frosty Piss (4971) on Monday October 28, @07:29PM (#1379115)

    Folks, it's the same art connoisseurs who would pay millions for the banana duct taped to the wall, and think drinking PBR at a gallery opening in "The Village" is the apex of hipsterism.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 28, @08:35PM

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Monday October 28, @08:35PM (#1379127)

    Let's not let them, rather.

    This is not about rich people foolishly wasting money on stupid things: the art market has nothing to do with art and everything to do with tax evasion [safehaven.com].

    I really wish those people got investigated and sued en masse over this in my lifetime. Sadly, it looks more and morel likely that it's never going to happen.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 29, @03:25AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 29, @03:25AM (#1379183)

    I agree that none of these people know a damn thing about visual art, nor do they care about it in any significant way. It's a tax dodge mostly, or an attempt to impress rich friends, or sometimes a money laundering scheme, as Adam Conover explains in 5 minutes [youtube.com].

    I'm much happier with the $15 print I bought off an artist working a booth at a street fair, and an original abstract I won in a raffle. Just like what you like, and sod those who think that the stuff allegedly worth millions is better.

    --
    Vote for Pedro