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.
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.