You can do all kinds of mental gymnastics you want but there’s no difference between an artist looking at Frank Frazetta’s art and basing their style off of it and an AI doing the same thing. You might not like it, but it’s the truth.
Do I think the art has the same value? Not necessarily. But I also never thought that all art has the same value. There has always been trash production line art and good art.
But also I have to say that I’ve already seen some people use AI as a tool for art and make some really cool stuff that I don’t think any other artist would have made and it’s more unique than most of the stuff out there. You can use it as the tool it is or complain and cry about it to no avail.
The chef example is especially good since most chefs are just following recipes and altering simply a few things here and there. AI essentially does the same thing. Honestly like no one has come up with a good argument to change my mind that the way AI operates is exactly how humans learn and create new things. If you’ve engaged in art you know that you are always imitating and taking from the art you consume to make your own.
I want you to paint me picture of a cow in a field.
Did I do that,?
Nope. I commissioned you to.
Now if you the commissioned guy used a. I to make the item , how much credit should you get?
None. … describing what you want to a machine is a child’s play game.
Humans adults create. Machines mimic.
Humans who think a. I is art are liars and con men afraid of being caught.
What you are describing has nothing to do with the tool. It’s dishonesty which is different.
The idea is that instead of commissioning the cow on the field, you go to the AI and ask it for that and it gives you a cow in the field. If you claim you made it, you are lying but that would be true even if you paid an artist and then claimed the same.
So with AI made art you’ll say “this art was made by an Ai” and no one will be confused as to who takes the credit, because it belongs to the algorithm.
Have you ever made art in your life? Because a big part of art is mimicking. Like 98% of it is mimicking. I draw, write and have dabbled in making music and playing instruments. You can’t learn these skills without mimicking. And most artists don’t ever do anything truly original, that’s a rarity and even when it happens you can trace the influences to other artists if you know how to look.
You could argue that AI has not developed its own style yet but that’s bullshit too imo because everyone knows the default AI art style when they see it, so that means that AI has a distinctive style. Is it unique? Maybe not, but neither is the art style of most artists or writers or even musicians.
Art has no rules my man.
You can do all kinds of mental gymnastics you want but there’s no difference between an artist looking at Frank Frazetta’s art and basing their style off of it and an AI doing the same thing. You might not like it, but it’s the truth.
Do I think the art has the same value? Not necessarily. But I also never thought that all art has the same value. There has always been trash production line art and good art.
But also I have to say that I’ve already seen some people use AI as a tool for art and make some really cool stuff that I don’t think any other artist would have made and it’s more unique than most of the stuff out there. You can use it as the tool it is or complain and cry about it to no avail.
The chef example is especially good since most chefs are just following recipes and altering simply a few things here and there. AI essentially does the same thing. Honestly like no one has come up with a good argument to change my mind that the way AI operates is exactly how humans learn and create new things. If you’ve engaged in art you know that you are always imitating and taking from the art you consume to make your own.
Fuck that. I’ll prove you wrong right now.
I want you to paint me picture of a cow in a field.
Did I do that,?
Nope. I commissioned you to.
Now if you the commissioned guy used a. I to make the item , how much credit should you get? None. … describing what you want to a machine is a child’s play game.
Humans adults create. Machines mimic.
Humans who think a. I is art are liars and con men afraid of being caught.
What you are describing has nothing to do with the tool. It’s dishonesty which is different.
The idea is that instead of commissioning the cow on the field, you go to the AI and ask it for that and it gives you a cow in the field. If you claim you made it, you are lying but that would be true even if you paid an artist and then claimed the same.
So with AI made art you’ll say “this art was made by an Ai” and no one will be confused as to who takes the credit, because it belongs to the algorithm.
Have you ever made art in your life? Because a big part of art is mimicking. Like 98% of it is mimicking. I draw, write and have dabbled in making music and playing instruments. You can’t learn these skills without mimicking. And most artists don’t ever do anything truly original, that’s a rarity and even when it happens you can trace the influences to other artists if you know how to look.
You could argue that AI has not developed its own style yet but that’s bullshit too imo because everyone knows the default AI art style when they see it, so that means that AI has a distinctive style. Is it unique? Maybe not, but neither is the art style of most artists or writers or even musicians.
Nope. Dishonesty is what is happening when I One conflates fine tuning an a. I prompt with art.
A.i is not art.
It’s not. At all. It’s tracing. Fine as a learning tool. Not art.