“im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt.”
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being “empty slop” because they dont use real instruments?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
There’s an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn’t made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt “real art” and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You’re actively contradicting yourself.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It’s a threat because:
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
It’s just bad?
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
What?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate
What?
Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that “I feel so clean like a money machine.”
Mud chocolate bit
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
I’m just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don’t want to put in any effort into it.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
It’s not about how easy it is, it’s about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn’t matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It’s not about it being easy, it’s that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
This is what we would call cirular reasoning. So again. What gives you the authority to declare that this is the definition of art? My definition of art includes AI art. Why do you think your definition is more valid than mine?
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
But its usually a person that decides to create AI art right? Like I can go into photoshop and decide “I want to create a cyberpunk city scene” And using little more than the generative AI in photoshop I can turn the image I have in my head into an actual image other people can look at. There is objectively intent behind it as well as creative expression, just like any other piece of art.
What is the fundamental difference between that and If I had used other digital tools in photoshop to create the same image that means one is art and one isnt? They are both “created by a machine” So there is no natural line where we cross from being art to not being art.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Like you understand computers dont just spontaneously generate AI art right? They require actual input from people. It can be a lot of input from the people are it can be a couple of keywords but its still people.
And all those programs are still made by people, often with painstaking effort. So they are still people doing things.
and artistically worthless.
Another completely bullshit term. That means nothing besides whatever you need it to in order to justify your gatekeeping. If I think modern music is “artistically worthless” then that means its not art right?
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
Im only “”“misinterpreting”“” it because im applying your logic to situations you dont want me to, because it shows the inconsistencies in your argument.
I know you types dont have educations in this type of things, but if you want to make an actual argument that AI isnt art but digital art and modern music is, then your reasons need to be internally consistent and any arguments you make about AI need to not be applicable to digital art and modern music.
And so far you havnt done that. You’ve just made baseless assertions and emotional arguments. And this is why people dont take you “AI bad!!!” types seriously.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art
First, go ahead and get the shaming of me for asking this out of the way, and after that’s over with, why not?
You said it yourself,
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
A human was involved in dreaming up a scene depicting something, and proceeded to use their tools to manifest their imagination into an image. They likely chose their tool (different models), used their preferred technique (selecting the right settings, right keywords, and probably regenerated areas that depicted 8 fingers on a hand), and the result was an image that they visualized.
Sounds like human involvement to me, it’s not like lightning struck wood and boom, there’s a big boobed anime girl with pink hair in low lightning manifest.
Again, gatekeeping whether or not it is art seems kinda silly. The proper attack vectors, IMO, are whether it’s good art, with a side of whether it’s stolen art.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
There’s an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn’t made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It’s a threat because:
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
It’s just bad?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
What?
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
What?
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that “I feel so clean like a money machine.”
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
I’m just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don’t want to put in any effort into it.
It’s not about how easy it is, it’s about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn’t matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It’s not about it being easy, it’s that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
This is what we would call cirular reasoning. So again. What gives you the authority to declare that this is the definition of art? My definition of art includes AI art. Why do you think your definition is more valid than mine?
But its usually a person that decides to create AI art right? Like I can go into photoshop and decide “I want to create a cyberpunk city scene” And using little more than the generative AI in photoshop I can turn the image I have in my head into an actual image other people can look at. There is objectively intent behind it as well as creative expression, just like any other piece of art.
What is the fundamental difference between that and If I had used other digital tools in photoshop to create the same image that means one is art and one isnt? They are both “created by a machine” So there is no natural line where we cross from being art to not being art.
Like you understand computers dont just spontaneously generate AI art right? They require actual input from people. It can be a lot of input from the people are it can be a couple of keywords but its still people.
And all those programs are still made by people, often with painstaking effort. So they are still people doing things.
Another completely bullshit term. That means nothing besides whatever you need it to in order to justify your gatekeeping. If I think modern music is “artistically worthless” then that means its not art right?
Im only “”“misinterpreting”“” it because im applying your logic to situations you dont want me to, because it shows the inconsistencies in your argument.
I know you types dont have educations in this type of things, but if you want to make an actual argument that AI isnt art but digital art and modern music is, then your reasons need to be internally consistent and any arguments you make about AI need to not be applicable to digital art and modern music.
And so far you havnt done that. You’ve just made baseless assertions and emotional arguments. And this is why people dont take you “AI bad!!!” types seriously.
Is bonsai an art? I’d say it is. In that case the difference between that and your example is humans providing artistic direction.
Does the same not happen with generative models? In the typical use case, humans provide artistic direction.
It doesn’t happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you’d have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it’s good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they’re not people.
Typing “big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation” into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
First, go ahead and get the shaming of me for asking this out of the way, and after that’s over with, why not?
You said it yourself,
A human was involved in dreaming up a scene depicting something, and proceeded to use their tools to manifest their imagination into an image. They likely chose their tool (different models), used their preferred technique (selecting the right settings, right keywords, and probably regenerated areas that depicted 8 fingers on a hand), and the result was an image that they visualized.
Sounds like human involvement to me, it’s not like lightning struck wood and boom, there’s a big boobed anime girl with pink hair in low lightning manifest.
Again, gatekeeping whether or not it is art seems kinda silly. The proper attack vectors, IMO, are whether it’s good art, with a side of whether it’s stolen art.
Get a real job, prompt engineer
Have a good one ;)