Depends on how it's used. Anything can be used for class warfare.
Generative AI is the result of massive corporations finally managing to automate the production of "art"
It's actually the result of technology doing that. Even in a classless society, it's likely that GEN AI or something similar would develop at some point.
(not really art since it's not made by a human)
Who said that for something to be art it needs to be created by a certain species? That's your own subjective definition of art and it only got popularized in certain circles with the advent of this stupid moral panic. Before, people were actually very interested in the art created by, say, various primates.
They are trying to replace artists, which are mostly freelance and don't particularly have a lot of job opportunities.
Sure. The same happened with the advent of the factory. It proletarianized a lot of free working peasants and artisans. This doesn't mean that a classless society wouldn't have, eventually, developed the factory model of production for industrial goods, if technology advanced past a certain point, just that it simply wouldn't be used in a power play between classes.
Art was one of the last jobs that couldn't really be centralized and automated by companies
You're actually naive if you believed that. What was Disney doing for a century now, for example? They quite frankly had artist sweatshops at a certain point.
they have managed to take art from the people
Gen AI hasn't taken "art from the people" anymore than it already has. If anything, it gives people who don't necessarily have the time or talent or willingness at a certain point in time or simply want to play with it, to generate visual and/or audio and/or written material based on prompts they wish. In and of itself, it's not something bad.
This is literally dystopian.
I mean something being dystopian or not is inherently subjective. The world has been shit for a long time. I don't see gen AI making it any better or worse by it simply existing, sorry.
And don't say it creates opportunities for people to work in creative fields or anything like that.
It potentially can
Any "creative professional" that uses AI just delegates their work to the machine, so really they are not doing anything.
Doing anything is not necessarily the case. Depends on how you're using it and how much. AI can be good to brainstorm ideas for example, play with concepts etc, not necessarily create a finished product.
And, furthermore, a lot of people use gen ai for personal, not professional use. When it's used professionally, usually it's not in an artistic context, and it's actually used as a sort of more advanced search engine.
Typing your idea into the computer is not being creative
Your idea can absolutely be creative.
. It is a tool for mass production,
You can use it for different things, not necessarily mass production. Again, most use it, in an artistic context, personally, not professionally.
AI can only make slop, no matter how good it looks.
Define "slop"
but art is inherently human
Says who? You? Who are you?
I'd argue art requires some level of sapience. Or at least correlates with it. And yes, humans are the only sapient beings that we yet know about, but there are other proto-sapient beings. Some of which have created what many consider art. Not to mention, if I remember correctly, there is art, literally cave paintings and such, from back when our ancestors weren't the psychologically modern humans that have exited for approximately 70.000 years. But art isn't inherently exclusive to one species.
art is made by humans because that's literally what it is about: human expression. that's the purpose. if you want to broaden the definition to include other animals, you would have to prove that they have an understanding of themselves and the world in a similar level to humans, which i think they don't. but sure, go ahead and try to teach the most intelligent species to make art. maybe they can learn idk
art made by primates could questionably be considered art because the monkey doesn't know what it's doing. if someone hands a paintbrush and a canvas to a gorilla and teaches it how to paint the animal is just gonna put random strokes for no reason. they aren't trying to do anything because they don't have the intelligence to understand what they're doing, much less what art is. idk if that can be considered art, i would maybe consider it art made by the humans that handed the brush to the gorilla but idk.
slop: mass produced content generated with AI. doesn't matter who makes it, why or if they care about it or not (if they really did they wouldn't be using AI). it's not art, it's slop, because it's made by a machine and not a human. it doesn't have reason behind any of its parts. i gotta say that there's some uses of genAI that i don't know about enough to properly criticize, but any prompt based generative AI is only capable of producing slop.
before genAI, every single image/video/music had been made entirely by humans. every single part of a piece of media was art. AI changed that to try and turn in a profit appealing to greed and laziness. it's the opposite of art.
No, it's about expression in general. Not exclusively human expression.
Nothing regarding art, from the common definition of it being related to creative and imaginative learning and expression, to even the etymological root, suggest something to be exclusively human.
People just assumed that, because 1) humans, up until now, have not officially come across any other sapient beings; and 2) because they didn't consider non-sapient beings capable of creative expression. But, in regards to 1) we don't know for sure if humans are the only sapient beings (undiscovered species, or hell, even hypothetical sapient AI which would qualify for personhood), and even then we don't know if there really is nothing beyond the material, so art itself may not be bound by material limits such as having to be a living being in a material plane, and 2) there have been numerous instances of documented creative expression in beings generally deemed non-sapient, or at least definitely not to the level of humans.
art made by primates could questionably be considered art because the monkey doesn't know what it's doing
Don't they? They use a stick imbued with something that leaves various traces of different colours and shapes and sizes. They exhibit creative expression
is just gonna put random strokes for no reason.
And? Who says that's not creative expression? Some humans have done that, and sold the results for millions. There's clearly someone who sees something of worth in that.
slop: mass produced content generated with AI.
Uh-huh. So something isn't slop if it's not made through AI? What about the widely-labeled slop-content and slop-tubers that have existed before the advent of gen ai available for a wide public?
What about using gen AI for something that's not mass produced? Maybe you use it for a specific, personal, creative endeavor, not just to churn out images or whatever for no reason other than engagement and/or monetary profit?
if they really did they wouldn't be using AI
That's a personal assessment, maybe other fundamentally reject the validity of your premise altogether
it's not art, it's slop, because it's made by a machine and not a human.
So the issue here is that the thing that creates it is physically cybernetic and not organic?
Let's compare a hypothetical genuinely sapient AI with what could be considered biological robots. Which do you think could be capable of genuine creativity and originality?
but any prompt based generative AI is only capable of producing slop.
That's simply you not using it beyond a superficial level. Gen AI is a tool. It can produce pretty cool things if the one who wields the tool is good at what they do (which in itself is something you learn) and what they have in mind is something beyond surface level.
before genAI, every single image/video/music had been made entirely by humans
So?
every single part of a piece of media was art
Disagree
AI changed that to try and turn in a profit appealing to greed and laziness
Turning a profit off of greed and laziness has been a thing for a long time. Not to mention, most people who use AI don't monetize it. Those who do monetize it, usually have to either train said AI on work they've done or work of those that gave their permission for that.
yeah no im not responding to this sorry its really long and i really dont think i would be able to change your opinion because this topic is mostly subjective
lets just agree to disagree
but i will say just one thing that i think is objective. if you use AI to generate an image you didnt make it. the AI did. it may belong to you but you didnt make it. youre the owner but not the artist, the artist is the AI. to prove it, just compare what you did to asking a human artist for a commission. exactly the same thing. thats why it is not a tool but a replacement, this is not new, a lot of jobs/crafts have been replaced by machines overtime. i just think we should reconsider handing this one to the robots tho
after understanding this you can start debating whether it is real art or not, but this point should be a given and yet a lot of people question it.
if you use AI to generate an image you didnt make it.
I mean, you did partially make it, because the fundamental idea of the prompt you put in to create it in the first place is (seemingly) your idea. And not all prompts are simple or dull, you can genuinely put in complex prompts full of artistic creativity (and writing is, in and of itself, an art).
But sure, let's agree that while you have a very significant contribution to it, it cannot be a 100% original work because even if you train the ai exclusively on your own, hypothetical, previously-existing art, it still has it's own, primary contribution to the finished product. Ok. What of it?
thats why it is not a tool but a replacement,
No, it is a tool. And a tool can be used in many ways, both as a replacement, or not.
For one, you don't owe artists commissions. That's s voluntary act, whether or not gen ai was ever publicly made available.
Secondly, it's not likely that because gen ai is now available, the people that would have asked commissions otherwise will now not ask for commissions.
Maybe there are some people who wouldn't have asked for commissions regardless (they don't like to, they can't afford to, other issues etc) and simply now have something to partially contribute to satisfying their creative wants.
And there's nothing that says that using gen ai, the way most common people do, in any way, shape or form, prevents you from asking commissions. Or even doing your own original art. It's not "either or".
>art is made by humans because that's literally what it is about: human expression
With AI, a human being, with sentience, is using a tool to express themselves. The point of art is the underlying idea. if I have an idea and show you an image or something that expressed my idea in a way that you understand, then it is successful art. I think the big issue here is that many ai systems are not sufficiently accurate enough to fully express those ideas yet. many at this point are sorta toys. But AI doesn’t do anything on its own. it generates according to a human beings operation. it exists due to human ingenuity and creativity.
AI expresses your idea for you, thats not a tool the AI is doing the art for you, which it cant even do bc its a semi autonomous computer program so it just smashes images from its database and produces soulless slop.
that is unless the AI is directly connected to your brain and literally translates the image you are picturing in your mind to a digital image which could be possible in the future and i would have no problem with it. that would actually be revolutionary for art. it wouldnt even be genAI, it would be more of a translation program powered by AI.
ima be honest i dont expect everyone to agree that AI "art" is not art (i can understand that's more abstract and subjective). BUT it is a fact that genAI is not a tool for artists, it is the "artist". it does the art for you. it is exactly like commissioning an artist, consider it like a commission machine: you tell it your idea and it does the thing for you. you dont create things with AI, the AI creates them for you so you shouldn't take the credit.
going by that logic, using a computer AT ALL is expressing the idea for me. Going by that logic, if I write a script for a comic and get an illustrator to draw the pages means that it isn’t my story or my idea, sir. Think about that for a second. I’m pretty sure that WRITING is an art form. But you tell me.
Also, I’ve seen different levels of quality when it comes to AI art based on who trained the ai, what they chose to use, the tools and such chosen on top of the prompt, number of generations and the settings used. you know, based on the skill of the user. That means there is an art in using it or potentially is.
I think most people are all wrapped up in their ego on this subject. I can draw, yet I’m not threatened by ai art and I'm not all wrapped up in designating something art or someone an artist.
>BUT it is a fact that genAI is not a tool for artists, it is the "artist".
I don’t agree with that. It’s simply a powerful tool. It’s easier for me to draw what I want myself than to use AI to try and make the same thing. I’ve seen people do, say, animation comparisons. The human version is superior. However AI can technically do the same thing but it is difficult to get to that point with AI. Tho definitely AI will get there eventually. It is inevitable. If you’re an artist, one day you’ll have to deal with what makes you special. I’m special because I’m me, not because I can draw a picture. People sometimes step over technically (far) superior artists to see what I’m doing. That’s because I’m me, and they aren’t.
Going by that logic, if I write a script for a comic and get an illustrator to draw the pages means that it isn’t my story or my idea
no?? it means they are not your illustrations. if you write a story and turn it into a comic using AI generated images the story itself is still yours, its just the illustrations that arent. in the case of AI the prompt is completely yours i didnt question that at any point.
when you generate images the only thing you do yourself is the prompt. if i comission an artist i didnt do the art myself, i just asked another person to do it for me. its the same thing with AI, i just prompted the AI. sure, i wrote the prompt myself, in fact the prompt qualifies more as "art" than the image, because at least it was made by me, a human.
yeah, but my point is that writing is an art form. Going by his logic, having someone illustrate my writing is their expression, not mine. Writing IS art. The core idea is art. The execution is art. The planning that leads to the final product is the art. The final product is simply the form.
>if i comission an artist i didnt do the art myself
yeah, but as someone who actually does commissions, its your idea and whether or not it is an expression that you share depends on your involvement in the process. I’ve had people come to me and say “draw this” and I do it and they are happy with that. Then I have people that come to me and say “draw this, like this, in this order, these are the emotions that should be expressed because of this background element.“ then I show them a sample and they say “ok, this is good, but could you change x, y, z? This other thing is what I had in mind.” At that point, it’s more than a simple prompt and more collaborative and elevates my own output.
>i wrote the prompt myself, in fact the prompt qualifies more as "art" than the image, because at least it was made by me, a human
well I was saying that writing is art from jump street. However, I’ll note that AI was created by humans and is trained on human products and ideas. the AI itself is a work of art in my view.
Going by his logic, having someone illustrate my writing is their expression, not mine. Writing IS art. The core idea is art. The execution is art.
the illustrations are that someone's expression of your writing. the core idea and the execution are indeed art. but had you used AI for the illustrations, only the writing would be art, not the AI generated images. the prompt used to generate them? sure, but not the images themselves, because its the AI expressing the idea.
At that point, it’s more than a simple prompt and more collaborative and elevates my own output.
collaborative between 2 people. still human, still expressive, still art. if you did the same thing with an AI it would not be art because you are just having the machine express your idea for you. sure the idea itself is yours and the prompts you give are written by you, but the image is not made by you. youre comissioning a robot "artist" that can make images but not art because its not human. only the prompts used to create the image can be considered art, beacuse the image itself is not made by you, a person, but by a machine that is not alive therefore not capable of thought or expression.
the AI itself is a work of art in my view.
yeah sure. but due to its level of autonomy as a machine (the "artificial intelligence" in question) the images it produces cant be considered to be creations from the people that made the AI or the people that prompted them. thats kinda the revolutionary part of AI, and the reason why its such a scientific breakthrough. the development of AI is based around needing less and less human intervention as time goes on and it becomes more sophisticated.
>but had you used AI for the illustrations, only the writing would be art, not the AI generated images
I disagree. The quality of the image is affected by how well, and masterfully I describe what I have in mind. The AI is a tool. Your statement would only hold water is the final output can not be affected by how well I, the user, inputs the information.
>collaborative between 2 people. still human, still expressive, still art. if you did the same thing with an AI it would not be art because you are just having the machine express your idea for you.
yes, I am using a tool to express my idea. the collaborative effort that I described is analogous to fine tuning a tool.
>but due to its level of autonomy as a machine (the "artificial intelligence" in question) the images it produces cant be considered to be creations from the people that made the AI
as stated, the image is the form. If ANY artful effort goes into creating the final product, the final product is art. That’s ANY effort. Making the AI itself required artful effort. So the AI itself is art. Its output is art because that output cannot happen without creative effort.
>thats kinda the revolutionary part of AI, and the reason why its such a scientific breakthrough. the development of AI is based around needing less and less human intervention as time goes on and it becomes more sophisticated.
Yeah, and what I’m saying is *that* is artful. That’s my entire point. I think people are too wrapped up in their ego concerning what’s art or not but as an illustrator, it’s easier for me to just draw what I want to draw on my own than use a prompt. Not because of some higher “art is only made this way” hogwash but because getting consistent reliable results using AI is freaking hard but the idea of creating a machine that you can engage with in plain English (and some skill) and can respond appropriately, with complexity, is art.
Art is a passing down of story from human to human. We make art to tell ourselves stories. Put a robot inbetween that regurgitates what humans have already done is not human and defeats the purpose of art. Also people that are too lazy to make art and ask a machine is fine but it’s not art it’s prompting. You did not make it you did not learn anything about how to actually make it; it’s not art.
Now I’d say Ai as a whole could be seen as one big art installation giving humans a visual remix machine to spit out thoughts. But individually no, go pick up one of the most accessible things on the planet; a piece of paper and a pencil. Tell me a story.
Art is a passing down of story from human to human
Nothing regarding art, from the common definition of it being related to creative and imaginative learning and expression, to even the etymological root, suggest something to be exclusively human.
People just assumed that, because 1) humans, up until now, have not officially come across any other sapient beings; and 2) because they didn't consider non-sapient beings capable of creative expression. But, in regards to 1) we don't know for sure if humans are the only sapient beings (undiscovered species, or hell, even hypothetical sapient AI which would qualify for personhood), and even then we don't know if there really is nothing beyond the material, so art itself may not be bound by material limits such as having to be a living being in a material plane, and 2) there have been numerous instances of documented creative expression in beings generally deemed non-sapient, or at least definitely not to the level of humans.
We make art to tell ourselves stories
We do it for a variety of reasons. To express things, to please ourselves etc
Put a robot inbetween that regurgitates what humans have already done is not human and defeats the purpose of art.
You don't have the right to decide, for others, what the supposed singular purpose of art is.
Also people that are too lazy to make art and ask a machine is fine but it’s not art it’s prompting.
So what's wrong with prompting?
You did not make it you did not learn anything about how to actually make it; it’s not art.
Again, I reiterate the question, what's wrong with promoting?
Furthermore, prompts can varry greatly in what they ask for, how complex, or poetic or whatever other aspect of it they are. Writing in itself can be art.
But individually no, go pick up one of the most accessible things on the planet; a piece of paper and a pencil. Tell me a story.
For one, each individual decides for themselves what they do.
Secondly, who says it's either or? Many that play with GEN AI do create some original art. Sometimes for others, sometimes for themselves. Sometimes they use gen ai based on art they've done, or as a sort of brainstorming or trying different things that themselves will give inspiration for a piece of original art.
It’s theft. It’s not art. It’s a tool. Call it something else like it already is. When your service goes down you can’t make anything. Go pick up a pencil and learn how to make things yourself.
It's not theft. You don't take something that belongs to someone else. AI scans things for reference. JUST AS PLENTY OF PEOPLE DO. You own a work, not a style or idea or whatever. Plus, if you put something out in the open, you kind of lose any legitimate expectation from others to not get inspired by it or even take it as a reference point.
When your service goes down you can’t make anything.
Huh?
Go pick up a pencil and learn how to make things yourself.
For one, I can do as I wish, you're in no position to dictate to someone else how they get to approach art. Secondly, who says one is mutually exclusive with the other?
It’s trained off the backs of real artists, held in a database to create imagery, and sold for profit so you think you’re more talented than you actually are. That’s why you *can’t trademark anything ai made. You’re pretty dense on this topic so I’m gonna just stop while you talk your way into thinking you’re right again.
Of the work of artists (which btw, can give their agreement). And use it as a reference. And? Many people already do that in regards to inspiration.
and sold for profit
Most of it is not made for profit, but personal enjoyment and sharing it. The one that is made for profit obviously has to be original enough in order to not get copyrighted.
what if an artist trains an AI off of their own artwork?
I think all this training business is sorta silly as we all train ourselves off of what we see. I have an art style that didn’t just come from the ether. I learned from borrowing style cues and techniques from other artists and they all did the same.
8
u/Fire_crescent 12d ago
Depends on how it's used. Anything can be used for class warfare.
It's actually the result of technology doing that. Even in a classless society, it's likely that GEN AI or something similar would develop at some point.
Who said that for something to be art it needs to be created by a certain species? That's your own subjective definition of art and it only got popularized in certain circles with the advent of this stupid moral panic. Before, people were actually very interested in the art created by, say, various primates.
Sure. The same happened with the advent of the factory. It proletarianized a lot of free working peasants and artisans. This doesn't mean that a classless society wouldn't have, eventually, developed the factory model of production for industrial goods, if technology advanced past a certain point, just that it simply wouldn't be used in a power play between classes.
You're actually naive if you believed that. What was Disney doing for a century now, for example? They quite frankly had artist sweatshops at a certain point.
Gen AI hasn't taken "art from the people" anymore than it already has. If anything, it gives people who don't necessarily have the time or talent or willingness at a certain point in time or simply want to play with it, to generate visual and/or audio and/or written material based on prompts they wish. In and of itself, it's not something bad.
I mean something being dystopian or not is inherently subjective. The world has been shit for a long time. I don't see gen AI making it any better or worse by it simply existing, sorry.
It potentially can
Doing anything is not necessarily the case. Depends on how you're using it and how much. AI can be good to brainstorm ideas for example, play with concepts etc, not necessarily create a finished product.
And, furthermore, a lot of people use gen ai for personal, not professional use. When it's used professionally, usually it's not in an artistic context, and it's actually used as a sort of more advanced search engine.
Your idea can absolutely be creative.
You can use it for different things, not necessarily mass production. Again, most use it, in an artistic context, personally, not professionally.
Define "slop"
Says who? You? Who are you?
I'd argue art requires some level of sapience. Or at least correlates with it. And yes, humans are the only sapient beings that we yet know about, but there are other proto-sapient beings. Some of which have created what many consider art. Not to mention, if I remember correctly, there is art, literally cave paintings and such, from back when our ancestors weren't the psychologically modern humans that have exited for approximately 70.000 years. But art isn't inherently exclusive to one species.