Oh the Ai art generator has no "soul" and it's soy and reddit? This precious art form (illustrating things that other people pay you to, a medium dominated almost entirely by furries, porn, and furry porn) is being destroyed by the evil AI? I'm sorry that the democratization of art creation is so upsetting to you. I've brought dozens of ideas to life by typing words into a prompt and I didn't have to pay someone $300 to do so.
Not everybody has the talent to make art that's worth looking at
then you work at it, it's a skill like any other
I don't get this, 'AI art shouldn't exist because people should have to work harder to create things' is what you're saying?
more like AI art is implicitly less interesting because it doesn't have human skill, it doesn't have inspiration, and it doesn't have meaning
it's literally a machine taking an input (stolen art) and giving an output based on some words
this isn't democratizing art, it's making idea guys think they're artists
Thank you, exactly what I was talking about in the OP.
no, that isn't what i'm saying at all
I'm sorry, but I have trouble interpreting it as anything other than a 'pull yourself by your bootstrap'. Is that really the main argument against AI, that it facilitates labour?
i'm not engaging with this bad faith bullshit
I'm not trying to be unfaithful, I just don't get what else your comment is supposed to mean, I'm sorry...
I think it's more that they think you should value the process of creating art, of which you will gain little to no understanding from typing into the DALL-E hole, but you will when you engage in your classical field of choice. imo the main argument against it is that, as a tool of automation under capital, it is built using the work of the proletariat but used to concentrate power & wealth by the bougeoisie. really not too different from the automatic loom or w/e, not ontologically evil but currently being turned against those who made it possible in the first place
deleted by creator
Let me just magic all the time in the world plus talent because "work hard" literally does not work for everyone just because I think it'd be kinda funny to see an image of Gandalf boxing with Shrek and don't wanna pay someone out of the money I don't have to see it
okay so AI art is consumerist bullshit that you don't want to pay for, got it
okay so AI art bad because literally every single human being is a nascent artist with the talent to make its pursuit worthwhile and has all the time in the world to devote to improvement, got it
no, it's bad because it takes other people's art without permission and constructs something new from it with zero inspiration
roboracist thinking machines can't be inspired 🙄
software developer that knows "machine learning" is just a name for something that takes input and lumps it together with other input
don't talk to me or my pale mechanical son :data-outdoor-cat:
deleted by creator
I make shitty art, that doesn't mean I feel entitled to someone using it in like some D&D campaign with players going :awooga: "wow looks so good!" and I'm not naive enough to think that "just keep practicing" definitively equates to the development of skill for every single person on the planet
deleted by creator
dawg,
literally comments above this
Sorry youve been banned from art
Google outsider art
i don't need to google something i make
Then I don't understand why you feel art is only worth creating or viewing unless it fits conventional, subjective ideas
I don't know how to play guitar but there's entire genres of music that people listen to that don't fit the mold of what is "good"
because depending on the context of the art, i.e. whether it's some sort of therapeutic self expression (the art I do), or someone trying to make something aesthetically appealing to another person, it literally does matter how it looks
everyone can technically put ink on paper and say they did an art, but now with AI art someone with no technical skill, training, or ability (whether artistic ability or the literal physical ability to make art, i.e. someone with Parkinson's) can direct the computer to make something that actually looks pretty decent, which might not matter to you but if someone wants to have some art to go with a book they're writing or an album cover or their Dungeons and Dragons campaign or whatever they're now able to do so (without shelling out what might be an unfeasible amount of money to pay an Actual Artist)
all art is worth looking at! make garbage! beauty is a prison!
i make garbage art myself
nice, same here! keep it up
I think, though, that what you have is a separate more abstract conversation about what "art" is and what makes it "worth looking at" that I don't think necessarily correlates with this discussion about AI.
Like, there are many people in the world physically capable of holding a paintbrush; and you probably wouldn't consider every action perpetrated via paintbrush to be art. If my plain white picket fence is aesthetically pleasing and "worth looking at," and was painted with a brush, is that art? So what separates my fence from a child's hand-painting of their family? Everyone has some capacity to communicate abstracted ideas and emotions through some sort of expressive medium, be it physical or otherwise, and deciding whether or not it's "worth looking at" is a pretty subjective bar to be using.
While I don't agree that algorithmic image generation is "democratizing art" it certainly provides a possibility for an art medium that's more accessible depending on how it is integrated. It may take a long time for new technology like this to be integrated in what we would call a healthy way but the way I see it is this is a new medium we haven't adjusted to yet, and until we do it will be used to create content.
Yes. All this is, IMO, is another tool. I've mentioned it in a previous thread but Pixar made a stink about motion capture tech back in the aughts. Looking back, that's silly - of course mocap doesn't make art lesser. Neither does using photoshop, or digital animation, or cameras...
Precisely, see also the music scene in like the early 2000's when people were having strokes over music being made out of math equations.
deleted by creator
What I am referring to isn't the viability of Musician as an occupation, but the merits of a proposed artistic medium (electronic music via mathematical equation.)
I don't necessarilly disagree with you, it's just a different conversation.
Making art is a process people do for their own personal enjoyment, it doesn't matter if it's worth looking at in the end