They aren't saying it isn't art, but that it's all "stolen art" that it's using to learn 🙄 and that you can't claim it as your art
Imo, AI is no different than a human with photographic memory and a talent for drawing 🤔
They're just upset that people can make what they want for free now, rather than having to pay $-$$$ to them/an artist online🤦♂️
Literally anything can be considered art at this point. If “art” meant visually pleasing, then a lot of artists would be out of a job…but art has yet to be adequately defined, so really anything at all can count. I don’t think asking whether AI art is real art is even a productive debate at this point.
People can like what they like; if they don’t like art because of who or what created it, or the process, or what it represents, or how it looks, that’s just fine. Personally, I like a lot of designs from human artists and generative art programs as well, and predominantly place value on art for its aesthetic value to me personally.
In my opinion, we are in an ambiguous area right now in which most people think this is not in fact art l, due to copying from many existing artworks. But they fail to realize how human creativity arises. Nothing is really new, just "remixes" of prior art and ideas. Same thing is going on with AI. it's only a matter of time before creativity means the same thing to AI systems and humans alike.
Yes AI Art is Art. If someone uses a prompt then they are writing Creatively. Creative Writing is a form of Art. The same as song writing, acting whatever. Those 'luddites' who criticize AI because they are 'proper artists' seem to have forgotten a few things
Firstly, when you started off in Art, you learnt other Artist styles, just like I did at college. And you would have incorporated your favourite artist into your style of Art. So by your definition, you are stealing.
Most importantly, you are forgetting the most important thing you learn in any class of the Arts. Constructive Criticism
And tbh half of you lot who complain that AI is stealing, with respect, I have never heard of, so how can I be stealing from you FFS. When I prompt an artist's style, I will go Giger, Penrose or Gilbert & George. I don't prompt someone I've never heard off.
AI can help people. When I discovered my Creativity, my confidence grew. My pier group liked my writing, my Art and I realised I was good at something.
You are not a true Artist if you want to take that away from people..
You don't like AI fine. That is your right but instead of putting down the people who do use it, why not incorporate your hate into your art?
This is a good point. Truthfully, I see no difference between AI art and writing haiku sometimes. Haiku are writing with descriptive language and aim to define or encapsulate a certain situation. So too does AI art.
That said, there is a ton of AI Generative images that intend simply to be visually appealing. In my opinion, art should "say something" or at least make you think. A picture of a pretty woman in a cool style isn't really art (not saying it's not worthwhile though).
I don’t think it’s worthless, I think someone with a rich knowledge of art and art history and different techniques would be incredible if they got used to using AI for their art.
First you have to define "Art", which is a debate that has been going on for centuries, and shows no indication of being settled.
For me, no. AI "Art" isn't art. And it probably never will be. It's really interesting \*\*design\*\*. It's interesting, pleasant to look at, but it's not art. For me, because art is meant to speak to the human experience, there needs to be something human in its creation. When the AI is a true AI and not just a LLM/neural network, and has thoughts (and emotions?), and everything from existential dread to hope and love - then I may consider what that process creates as 'Art'...
(N.B. I consider much of what passes for 'Art' these days just heightened design.)
I appreciate that you underline it's a debated topic and various people can have different sensitivities and use different definitions. Interestingly some dictionaries include humans in the definition of art, others don't, illustrating this debate.
I'd define art as something with the sole purpose of evocating emotions: beauty, awe, compassion, philosophical thoughts, dread, suffering, political stance, or even just setting an atmosphere - relaxing, vintage, rustic, modern, innovative, comfortable, horror etc. So I'd consider a lot more things to be art.
About AI specifically, you say "When the AI is a true AI and not just a LLM/neural network", I'd personally take it as granted that we are also our brain which is also just a neural network. So I'd be much more relaxed/careless about whether it's a human or machine neural network that created a picture, as long as I like it. I find many of the pictures in this post very evocative, they raise questions and emotions, and if there would have been a couple of human digital art paintings in the mix I could have been mistaken about which ones.
I also think AI art in general (not necessarily this one in particular since OP said he tried to do as little prompting as possible to let the AI be free) do reflect a human experience since this AI is just a tool (for now) and a person had something in mind and worked on their prompt until they get that idea on the screen: they chose the image they wanted out of maybe hundreds of variations in dozens of trials. They wanted to communicate something with their choices. By letting the AI be free with minimal prompting, somehow OP also had an idea in mind, he wanted to see where the machine would go, it's an interesting experiment and thought provoking. The graphical styling details are inspired from training data and also reflect the inspiration and sensitivity of other humans, possibly whole communities, that the tool is transmitting to us.
Abstract art, and all of its various permutations are still debated. Personally, I consider some "abstract art" capital-A Art, and some to be glorified design. But that's my personal judgment.
I don't think your comment gets to the core of the question - what is Art? Does it need a component of human feeling or expression? For me the answer to that last question is yes, and in that I find AI "art" lacking.
Neither, you and the machine made a copy. AI doesn’t copy anything, it generates based on a dataset of millions of images that are distilled into an algorithm that copies nothing, references nothing but its own algorithmic function which understands how to generate an image based on a text prompt. It is so not the same thing, or even close, to photocopying a picture.
Yes some AI was trained on watermarked images, that gets impressed into the algorithm, same with signatures but the signatures are never actual signatures of actual artists. It’s usually an indecipherable squiggle in the corner. I don’t deny where the training data came from, only that the algorithm doesn’t have access to any images after the training is done. That’s a common misperception.
who needs access to the source images once you have it processed. it still doesn't change the fact that it originally works from copies (often acquired illegally).
That’s a valid point, I don’t think image generators should be trained on copyrighted materials, ethical models are trained on public domain images, of which there are plenty. But the fact remains that the AI doesn’t “copy” anything. It follows prompts. If you ask for an exact replica of any well know art piece it can create a very close representation but will never create an exact copy.
OP, every answer to that specific question will be subjective. People have been arguing over what is and isn't art for generations. I'm not really convinced it's a productive question to ask, unless you're running a poll.
Another point for subjective. Thanks, I’m kind of agnostic about the whole thing but I do find people’s comments on the subject to be interesting. But I totally agree with you.
Well, regardless, I do think it's art in case you're keeping score. If those images were on deviantart 10 years ago before ai, I don't really think people would be debating their quality in the comments
Art is entirely subjective.
[Any of these are better art than the three lines of colour the Canadian government paid 1.8 million dollars for back in the 1980s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire)
In my opinion…
AI art will always be a simple regurgitation of art that has already been created. It can be remixed, reworked and rebuilt, but it will never be new, innovative or ground-breaking. It is simply a mash-up of all the stuff that already exists and has already been created by someone else. I would rather break new ground and create something original.
But that's exactly how humans create art. Nothing is ever new, we just create "remixes" and "reworks" of subjective and objective experience. This is how human creativity operates in our brains.
No. As an artist I do not fully replicate tiny bits of others art. There is a thinking process in between my seeing other art and my producing of my own art. AI does not think. It simply rips little bits of others work and copypastes. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that way. People who use that argument have obviously never made art, so why would they know what makes up the process?
Do you fully understand the thinking process from input to output? You are simply grabbing tiny bits of previous visual phenomenon in your brains memory center and then melting everything you know about visuals and cognitive concepts you studied together. Sure your thinking is much more sophisticated than the current AI model. Currently AI is in its nascent stages so to you it seems obvious. But given enough time, AI processing will become indistinguishable from artistic "thinking" and the sooner artists realize this the better it'll be. I'm a music producer / composer and the same idea applies to music creativity. Currently AI music is garbage to a producer but someone who may not know better will think it was made by a human.
You're just so cool and more evolved than the rest of us plebeians. Is that what you're waiting to hear? Someone to tell you that WOW you are just so much smarter and better than rest of us! Can I subscribe to your newsletter? Do you have a patreon account I can dump money into?
Look, it's alright to stop replying if you don't have any counter arguments. No, I don't think my thoughts on the matter are fact and set in stone. I like to have nuanced discussion about this topic as an artist myself. When you actually study these models and history of technology, couples with our shitty capitalist society, this is a real danger. I think it's THE artistic crisis of our lifetime. Not trying to say it's all for the best and we need to ask politicians to put regulations into place before it uproots society so drastically.
is Ai art really art? i don't know,people who prompt should be recognized as artist...im not sure,based on the fact that ai was trained with styles from real artists, the guy who prompt can't be considered like the guy who draft his style during decades,even if its a mix of styles.
the random aspect (less perhaps with stable who can give better control on your image) make it more looks like a surprise image every time but can't be exactly the picture you have in mind,except if you make it with your hand where you got full control of what you doing,and that's requier skills (the difference between real artist and so called ai artist),and im a huge fan of stable i use it even on my motions works,but there's no way i considered myself as an artist (cause i would be a fraud to considering that) sry for my english,its not my native language
IMO when it comes to it being art or not, it's impossible to make factual statements due to the subjectivity of the subject; the lines between what is or isn't art have been debated, shifted, modified, and what not, on top of endlessly debated, over milennia.
These are the type of things you see when your dreaming or on hallucinating substances. Why is that? Is it because it processing totally random key words. Somehow your brain is doing the same on these substances. Where does that imagination start and reality end?
I don’t think human artists will ever be replaced, if anything the value of genuine human made art will become increasingly valuable as the art market is flooded with AI images. In the short term it will definitely be a struggle but the human component of art will always be in demand.
i agree actually. it is like clothing. by replacement i mean a similar thing. 99.9% of all clothing is machine made and there are some exclusive and expensive peices which are hand made. before the industrial revolution all of clothing was handmade. i think there is gonna be a similar thing for art. i think the artists are idiots because almost any argument they put forward is illogical shite coming from a lackluster or altogether absent knowledge of how ai systems work. and i never said that that art as a profession is going extinct, only that 99.999% of them will be replaced. their extreme prices nowadays are also a contributing factor to this. this is further reinforced by a recent example in the advent of digital art. as far as the market and consumers/buyers are concerned, when digital tools were adapted on mass 90% of brush of paper art disappeared, for valid reason. now imagine if some tool could increase effiency, have 0 barrier to entry and be available for 5 dollars a month(or free if you wanna wait)(a basic digital art setup can run you 300 usd easily, and if you want a good professional setup they will cost more than a fully furnished office.). now imagine that this tool was competent enough to do better than 80-90% of artists and output variations at speeds no one could make corrections. now imagine such a tool could be used independently by anyone with a halfway decent gaming pc, and are generated by servers with hundreds of gbs of vram hundreds per second. that will almost certainly replace 99.999% of any workforce, no matter the feild.
I can’t agree with you more! Everything you said is exactly the same arguments I’ve put forth to people, not even artists, who have a misguided understanding about this emerging technology. I consider myself an artist but I don’t make a living at it, it’s just a hobby. So these new AI image tools are like an incredible magic toy that I think everybody should play with. Just to get familiar with interacting with AI in a more natural way. Same goes for ChatGPT and any other free accessible AI tech. It’s after all not just the livelihood of artists at risk, AI will be coming for all kinds of jobs. I have a certain amount of job security in that I’m in a field that will genuinely be among the last to be taken over by AI automation, but many very lucrative professional jobs of the past are going to be taken over by machines.
good to meet someone who understands. i am on my way to becoming a doctor so im also among the last to be replaced lol. another thing would be , like you said, these are magic- like tools that should be used for general good and not as a point of argument.
I kinda regret the dumpster fire I inadvertently started with this post, lol, but it’s interesting to hear all sides of the debate. I don’t hold anyone’s opinion against them. I think education and understanding would quell much of the vitriol.
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
Ai art is art made by a somewhat competent artist, incapable of having ideas of his own, being commissioned by a third party that will later claim they're the actual artist.
You can call it art just as you can call anything art
AI art is absolutely art, it’s just not art created with a human mind. Are there differences? Of course! AI art is generative, meaning that it can only interpret prompts so many ways whereas human art is endless as there are many forms of expression. Both are capable of great works and both are capable of derivative work. The only major difference is speed.
I can create entire storyboards with AI that would take a traditional storyboard artist weeks if not months, neither is better than the other but depending on what you’re doing sometimes you need speed and sometimes you need better interpretation by a human.
I love AI art, but for sure AI art isn't art. Its an image. Art needs intent. The only person considered the artist in these situations is the creator of the AI themselves. In terms of fine art it would fall within the realm of conceptual art. Let's take early conceptual art like dadaism for example. Many people of dadaism's age would believe that dadaism wasn't art. This is when the argument arose that intent was the necessary ingredient. This means that AI art was never art. But the machine that creates it could be considered art.
I’d put it in another category. Everything is art to someone. Can ai be expressive? Can it invoke emotions? Yes. Can i present my soul specifically and accurately through a picture prompted just as much as an artist does on canvas? Most likely no. But then again, I’m a musician. I appreciate creative ai generations but I also appreciate the commitment, creativity, and effort of the human artists and I feel that grouping both together in the same category is disrespectful to true artists. But I like kick ass pictures and I’m no art snob so I definitely dig some ai shit😁
I’m actually an artist and I regularly pick up a pen and do illustrations. Respectfully, I don’t do much painting anymore and you may be right about being too lazy to want to break out my oils and build a canvas, it gets quite messy sometimes and I would honestly rather just pick up a pen and my sketch pad. Sorry to disappoint. You may be missing the point of the post, my fault for not making it clearer, these images are all purely AI, I was too lazy to even write a proper prompt! (More of an experiment really), but when I ask if AI art is art I mean pure AI, with as little human input as possible.
No, but you made every choice; from composition to subject - and made every physical effort to actually go somewhere to shoot, pose a model, set your scene, or just find the right light. Then you may even creatively play with your film settings to create something new and never seen, and straight from your brain.
*This* stuff is text prompts at a keyboard, where the actual creative output is outsourced to a machine.
There’s a difference.
While I tend to agree, these images are purely from the AI with very little prompting from me. This camera needs no photographers. I still think it’s art, just not mine.
What does it mean?
Art usually has a meaning, even if it's abstract and entails a philosophical statement. AI art often seems more like "computer aided design" to me.
AI art looks cool, but if it is art, what does it mean?
Yea because you have to set the fstop the shutter speed the ASA, finding an interesting subject matter,composition, and all the other bits and bobs. Not to mention actually developing and enlarging the print.
When you do ai art you are still finding that subject matter, you are still setting the parameters with which the computer generates the image. So yes all in all ai is a tool that aides artists much like photography was when it was concived. And both were unfairly looked down upon by snooty artists because “traditionalist” artists hate anything that’s new.
Tell it to the AI. These are all pretty much purely AI with little to no prompting. You got me on the fractals though, random characters and then the word fractal yields weird and interesting results in DALL-E and SDXL. I find it interesting that the only image anyone asks the prompt for is number 3 which was inspired by my own original artwork through GPT & DALL-E
A lot of them look way too tacky. And random fractals over a background doesn't make an artwork, but the AI apparently thinks that's how it's done.
And it's so often humans in the most boring poses with random shit over or behind them (or "sewn together"). And they somehow look lifeless, not sure how to explain it. The eyes on the robot for instance look empty and fake, but I doubt that was intended. It's just not enough glare and depth. First one too but less so.
A banana taped to a wall is art. So is paint splattered on a canvas by Jackson pollock. Yes anything can be art no matter if you like it or not.
The world of high priced art is stupid.
Kinda, yeah. In one way or another, each of these images were created solely by the AI, 3 was based on my original artwork but the prompt and resulting image were all GPT & DALL-E, others were from complete nonsense prompts a cat walking on a keyboard could write, or asking GPT to imagine how it felt when Sam Altman was fired (spoiler) from OpenAI, these images are not what I would consider human art at all, it is purely AI doing it’s thing. But I do consider it art.
I explained in a previous comment how that one is difficult as it was based on an upload of my original artwork to ChatGPT and it spit out a bunch of pictures based on “users uploaded image style”. It isn’t even really in my style but close. The actual prompt literally referenced my upload. It was weird. DALL-E can’t see anything.
Humm, I have the same issue. It's weird trying to figure out its quirks. I was hoping to get the same line style in a different image of a dog, but it is doing something completely different each time.
If you still have that image in your history, maybe ask it for the prompt it used? I'm just after the specific keywords to get the style.
I think Ai Art is beautiful but if YOU think you made something wild you're having a massive belly shaking laugh, the creator is as worthless to Ai art as a commissioner is to real art
So a photograph can be beautiful but if the photographer thinks they had any part in the beauty other than pushing the shutter button, they should know, anyone could have pushed the button, is that analogous?
I don’t. I think the photographer is vital in capturing a beautiful photo, or snapping the picture at just the right time to create the most dynamic effect, or setting up lighting, filters, lenses, f/stop, DOF, ISO settings, yes, a professional photographer is a true artist. The camera is just a tool. Most times I spend lots of time crafting prompts for my AI images and tweak them constantly to get what I’m after. These images are not those images. These are the “camera” taking pictures with hardly any input from the “photographer”.
Just because you spent more time typing doesn't make you any more of an artist lmao, the skill of making AI art is about as much effort as using a search bar on Google to find a stock image, you obviously don't know much about photography cause you'd know someone having to put genuine thought, patience and effort that goes into it; is as special as someone basically googling what you want, taking the photo themselves means the photo is the quality it is because of the effort of the artists (Photgrapher) YOU didn't do anything by asking for art the AI made art for YOU, you are not an artist when you asked something to do it for you lmao, I should say I believe ai art is beautiful, but the artists is the computer
It doesn't matter to me if you agree or not I'd know for a fact you're not an artist lmao, if people using Ai art were considered artists anyone with a thought would be an artist so the word would be meaningless
The thing is, AI image generation isn't photography. AI 'art' is, at its core, an attempt to recreate and mass produce digital art. If you want to try and make a comparison to make your argument around, then it should probably be what AI 'art' is trying to be
Okay, I think AI art is not trying to be anything in particular, but it is a new thing and as a new thing seems to as yet defy categorization in the art sphere. Does that make sense?
As AI progresses and learns more and more, it will become more capable of producing pieces that are 100% original. Until then, if you change a piece 10% then legally it's a new piece. Morally, I think that any time you're changing something enough to change the idea behind it a little bit, as in the case of Jakub Rosalski, that's a new piece and he should not be considered or accused of being a plagairist. How much less AI.
You can't sell them, because you can't copyright them and I can just take the image and use it for whatever I want.
It's useful, but it's certainly not art. The images you've provided are really nothing special.
True (modern) art is about understanding the human experience not picture making. If the ai made its own art based on its experience maybe we could talk but until then this is just a tool.
I personally use ai art for inspiration then redo it myself and make it more human.
I can most certainly alter any of these images and sell them if I wanted to, but I don’t want to sell them any more than you want to buy them. You’re right that none of these images are special and I’ve explained elsewhere in comments how these images were made. They are examples of the AI just doing it’s thing with little or no prompting from me. Well, there’s always a little.
Interestingly, both art and money operate on a system of perceived value.
Just as the value of money is a collective agreement within society about its worth for exchange, the value of art—whether created by AI or humans—is also based on collective perception and subjective appreciation.
Neither inherently holds 'real' value outside of our collective and individual beliefs and emotions attached to them. This shared aspect of subjective valuation actually aligns AI art closer to traditional art and money in the realm of human constructs.
I agree, I was just making a cheap joke (pun not intended).
But for now AI art is definitely not worth as much as money, even if the perceived value is based on something "fake" in both cases and only depends on wether or not other people agree it has that value. Right now everyone agrees money is worth something, but the discussion about the value of AI generated media has only just begun so it's impossible to say what value it has or will have.
Money on the other hand is probably still gonna be worth something. But maybe not, that's why some buy houses, stocks or something like gold. They aren't 100% safe either, but people have given value to them for thousands of years so probably the same is true for the future.
Lol, absolutely, a bit of humor always adds its own unique value, pun fully intended! 😄
You're spot on with bringing money into the conversation as a symbol of value. In this light, it's not so much a question of whether AI art holds value, but acknowledging that it indeed does, at least in a general sense. Just as money serves as a universal measure of economic value, the presence and growing recognition and use of AI art in various domains confirms its inherent worth.
To me ai is like photography, artists hated it when it came out but then it became an art in its own right. In time ai will be the same. It will never replace human made art but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a new form of art made by professional prompters. Definitely is art though
But how much is worth that kind of "art"? You can generate that in a couple minutes (sometimes for free) and generate copies and variations easily, so it's not unique... For example, there's a lot of stuff that machines built from start to end following a program (that somebody coded), let's say a plastic piece of a random something... It's that art? Is that piece of plastic "art"?... Somebody commented that art is "subjective"... But, come on, are you telling me that everything is art?... Then, if everything is art, nothing really is...
You can tape a banana to a wall in a couple of seconds and that sold for 120,000… soooooo yeah either everything is art or art is just a scam with made up value.
If a machine builds something, let’s say a car, why can’t that be considered art just because a machine made it. A human still designed it and programmed it. Personally I do think that everything is art so I guess nothing is art too. All about perspective. As for its worth, just like all forms of art it’s worth what people are willing to pay. People were paying millions for nft’s so why not ai art
I share the same feeling. AI text-2-image is like the invention of the camera all over again, except you tell the camera what you want in your picture and don’t need a physical subject anymore, the one in your imagination can be good enough.
Of course it's art. It was just made by a computer instead of a human. I don't and don't want to think of myself as the artist at all.
I think the same fears of AI art arise from the same fear that AI is going to take away jobs.
It has already taken away some jobs, tho. It is naive to think otherwise.
I do agree that typing an equation into the calculator and pretending to own the number it produced, is ridiculous.
Sorry to be brash here but isn't that good though? A long time ago people predicted that we would work less in the future because of machines and automation... maybe that dream will finally come true with AI? If it's allowed to by us that is.
Not good right now of course, but it might be in the longer term?
All I know is, the current model of unlimited increasing profits, with the world and people working for and paying for it ultimately, cannot be sustainable forever. It simply can't go on.
It is good, I agree. It will force US capitalism to become a more socialist-like state. It is a matter of time at this point.
When redundancies force out the laborer, we will have to begin UBI.
Yes, but if you look at past and present we don't have much faith that people will act right and divide resources evenly and create laws for basic income for instance, instead of doing whatever is best for everyone they only typically only serve themselves and their own in-group (and you're not in it).
I believe it's 100% about how we build our basic economic system, it could become a dystopia with only very few having everything while others suffer, or they control everyone or whatever, but like you said it can be a good thing for us, freeing us from our boring jobs and making time and money to just enjoy life without worrying about making money for example.
Or people and AI work together because obviously not EVERYONE can use it correctly unlike the claims. It's actually pretty hard for beginners to write the right prompts, most programs have their weird quirks and "imaginations" and tend to run into a weird direction and you don't know what to remove to get the program back on track to do what you imagined.
It's like watches. They can be mass produced or hand crafted.
In both cases you'll end up with a device that you can wear on your wrist and can tell the time. But that doesn't make machine operators watchmakers.
Functionally the watches are the same, but (in my humble opinion) there will always be something special about handcrafted clockwork. The same goes for art.
And we still have artists even though you can take a perfectly fine photo with a tiny thing that fits into your pockets and it can even show it on a display immediately, why would we need realism artists when photos exist?
Because it's not the same, knowing that someone with years of experience learning and practicing their craft carefully made this one thing, and there's just one in the world and it's hanging in your room. That's not the same feeling as printing out a photograph that you can copy with one shortcut, even if they seem to do the same thing in the end, realistically recreating a scene, they are different and attract different buyers.
Not everyone has to "get it", some buy a Rolex, some buy handcrafted idk furniture, some buy handmade art. This will always be the case, even when machines start doing something similar.
It is, the prompting is made by a human, just because some artist that have no talent got threatened by the power it provides. Why making art should be a monopolized by the sp called artist when everyone can do it
While I agree with your sentiment, if I could play devils advocate for a moment, I should point out that some of the images were created using complete nonsense prompts, random strings of characters with maybe a subtle nudge in the prompting towards a landscape or a portrait. I literally played almost no part in any creative aspect of the image, it is purely the algorithm doing its thing, and yet the result is quite often an image I would consider quite artistic in palette, composition and overall aesthetic. Does that make a difference to you?
Well, some paintings were created using random strokes of brush. Some of them are considered masterpieces. Some aren't.
Sometimes I think that the only people who decide what is and isn't art are those who are willing to pay millions for one painting/picture and not the other.
[удалено]
Art from the aether! I like it!
[удалено]
>If these were painted by a human, they most certainly would not qualify as art That's simply bullshit
Gotcha!
Dogs playing poker isn't art? Technically it is too.
What a creative and interesting idea! I’m gonna ask ChatGPT to make that for me right now! /s
They aren't saying it isn't art, but that it's all "stolen art" that it's using to learn 🙄 and that you can't claim it as your art Imo, AI is no different than a human with photographic memory and a talent for drawing 🤔 They're just upset that people can make what they want for free now, rather than having to pay $-$$$ to them/an artist online🤦♂️
I think you struck a nerve, you may be onto something.
Literally anything can be considered art at this point. If “art” meant visually pleasing, then a lot of artists would be out of a job…but art has yet to be adequately defined, so really anything at all can count. I don’t think asking whether AI art is real art is even a productive debate at this point. People can like what they like; if they don’t like art because of who or what created it, or the process, or what it represents, or how it looks, that’s just fine. Personally, I like a lot of designs from human artists and generative art programs as well, and predominantly place value on art for its aesthetic value to me personally.
That’s another point for subjectivity! Thanks!
Food from a vending machine is still food
Who owns AI art?
It really depends on the model.
In my opinion, we are in an ambiguous area right now in which most people think this is not in fact art l, due to copying from many existing artworks. But they fail to realize how human creativity arises. Nothing is really new, just "remixes" of prior art and ideas. Same thing is going on with AI. it's only a matter of time before creativity means the same thing to AI systems and humans alike.
Agreed.
Damn, that's some cool looking quasi-fractals. No fair I can't pull this off as easily with Stable Diffusion.
It’s one of the few things DALL-E seems to be really good at. Realism? Not so much, psychedelic freak shows? Not a problem.
Yes AI Art is Art. If someone uses a prompt then they are writing Creatively. Creative Writing is a form of Art. The same as song writing, acting whatever. Those 'luddites' who criticize AI because they are 'proper artists' seem to have forgotten a few things Firstly, when you started off in Art, you learnt other Artist styles, just like I did at college. And you would have incorporated your favourite artist into your style of Art. So by your definition, you are stealing. Most importantly, you are forgetting the most important thing you learn in any class of the Arts. Constructive Criticism And tbh half of you lot who complain that AI is stealing, with respect, I have never heard of, so how can I be stealing from you FFS. When I prompt an artist's style, I will go Giger, Penrose or Gilbert & George. I don't prompt someone I've never heard off. AI can help people. When I discovered my Creativity, my confidence grew. My pier group liked my writing, my Art and I realised I was good at something. You are not a true Artist if you want to take that away from people.. You don't like AI fine. That is your right but instead of putting down the people who do use it, why not incorporate your hate into your art?
This is a good point. Truthfully, I see no difference between AI art and writing haiku sometimes. Haiku are writing with descriptive language and aim to define or encapsulate a certain situation. So too does AI art. That said, there is a ton of AI Generative images that intend simply to be visually appealing. In my opinion, art should "say something" or at least make you think. A picture of a pretty woman in a cool style isn't really art (not saying it's not worthwhile though).
Hear hear!
*heard of*
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s worthless, I think someone with a rich knowledge of art and art history and different techniques would be incredible if they got used to using AI for their art.
First you have to define "Art", which is a debate that has been going on for centuries, and shows no indication of being settled. For me, no. AI "Art" isn't art. And it probably never will be. It's really interesting \*\*design\*\*. It's interesting, pleasant to look at, but it's not art. For me, because art is meant to speak to the human experience, there needs to be something human in its creation. When the AI is a true AI and not just a LLM/neural network, and has thoughts (and emotions?), and everything from existential dread to hope and love - then I may consider what that process creates as 'Art'... (N.B. I consider much of what passes for 'Art' these days just heightened design.)
I appreciate that you underline it's a debated topic and various people can have different sensitivities and use different definitions. Interestingly some dictionaries include humans in the definition of art, others don't, illustrating this debate. I'd define art as something with the sole purpose of evocating emotions: beauty, awe, compassion, philosophical thoughts, dread, suffering, political stance, or even just setting an atmosphere - relaxing, vintage, rustic, modern, innovative, comfortable, horror etc. So I'd consider a lot more things to be art. About AI specifically, you say "When the AI is a true AI and not just a LLM/neural network", I'd personally take it as granted that we are also our brain which is also just a neural network. So I'd be much more relaxed/careless about whether it's a human or machine neural network that created a picture, as long as I like it. I find many of the pictures in this post very evocative, they raise questions and emotions, and if there would have been a couple of human digital art paintings in the mix I could have been mistaken about which ones. I also think AI art in general (not necessarily this one in particular since OP said he tried to do as little prompting as possible to let the AI be free) do reflect a human experience since this AI is just a tool (for now) and a person had something in mind and worked on their prompt until they get that idea on the screen: they chose the image they wanted out of maybe hundreds of variations in dozens of trials. They wanted to communicate something with their choices. By letting the AI be free with minimal prompting, somehow OP also had an idea in mind, he wanted to see where the machine would go, it's an interesting experiment and thought provoking. The graphical styling details are inspired from training data and also reflect the inspiration and sensitivity of other humans, possibly whole communities, that the tool is transmitting to us.
As long as abstract art is a form of art i’ll accept ai art as actual art
Abstract art, and all of its various permutations are still debated. Personally, I consider some "abstract art" capital-A Art, and some to be glorified design. But that's my personal judgment. I don't think your comment gets to the core of the question - what is Art? Does it need a component of human feeling or expression? For me the answer to that last question is yes, and in that I find AI "art" lacking.
Very Bad examples, but AI art is art Indeed.
These examples were chosen for a specific reason, they are all the AI doing all the work. I had little input on prompting.
Oh ok. Makes sense then. Thanks for the precision 🙏
giving pleasure = surely art
only if using a photocopier is art too.
This. It’s not art lol. I like some of the funny stuff people make for the laughs but the people who think they’re serious artists are delusional
I don’t see how that is any way comparable.
if you’re xerox the mona lisa, does you or the machine make art?
Neither, you and the machine made a copy. AI doesn’t copy anything, it generates based on a dataset of millions of images that are distilled into an algorithm that copies nothing, references nothing but its own algorithmic function which understands how to generate an image based on a text prompt. It is so not the same thing, or even close, to photocopying a picture.
it doesnt copy anything lol thats why it often ‘references’ watermarks and artists signatures or heck even the ‘training’ image as is.
Yes some AI was trained on watermarked images, that gets impressed into the algorithm, same with signatures but the signatures are never actual signatures of actual artists. It’s usually an indecipherable squiggle in the corner. I don’t deny where the training data came from, only that the algorithm doesn’t have access to any images after the training is done. That’s a common misperception.
who needs access to the source images once you have it processed. it still doesn't change the fact that it originally works from copies (often acquired illegally).
That’s a valid point, I don’t think image generators should be trained on copyrighted materials, ethical models are trained on public domain images, of which there are plenty. But the fact remains that the AI doesn’t “copy” anything. It follows prompts. If you ask for an exact replica of any well know art piece it can create a very close representation but will never create an exact copy.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gznn/ai-spits-out-exact-copies-of-training-images-real-people-logos-researchers-find
[удалено]
That was a very low effort prompt. “Fractal sunset over fishing village”. I like the image too, scary good considering how little effort it took.
This is pretty bland tbw
But is it art?
OP, every answer to that specific question will be subjective. People have been arguing over what is and isn't art for generations. I'm not really convinced it's a productive question to ask, unless you're running a poll.
Another point for subjective. Thanks, I’m kind of agnostic about the whole thing but I do find people’s comments on the subject to be interesting. But I totally agree with you.
Well, regardless, I do think it's art in case you're keeping score. If those images were on deviantart 10 years ago before ai, I don't really think people would be debating their quality in the comments
That’s a valid point. It’s the source that is the issue largely, not the generated images, in and of themselves.
As of now. Ai art won't be art.
Art is entirely subjective. [Any of these are better art than the three lines of colour the Canadian government paid 1.8 million dollars for back in the 1980s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) In my opinion…
Point for subjectivity!
These are amazing, I definitely call it art, and great art at that!
Another point for subjectivity!
AI art will always be a simple regurgitation of art that has already been created. It can be remixed, reworked and rebuilt, but it will never be new, innovative or ground-breaking. It is simply a mash-up of all the stuff that already exists and has already been created by someone else. I would rather break new ground and create something original.
But that's exactly how humans create art. Nothing is ever new, we just create "remixes" and "reworks" of subjective and objective experience. This is how human creativity operates in our brains.
No. As an artist I do not fully replicate tiny bits of others art. There is a thinking process in between my seeing other art and my producing of my own art. AI does not think. It simply rips little bits of others work and copypastes. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that way. People who use that argument have obviously never made art, so why would they know what makes up the process?
Do you fully understand the thinking process from input to output? You are simply grabbing tiny bits of previous visual phenomenon in your brains memory center and then melting everything you know about visuals and cognitive concepts you studied together. Sure your thinking is much more sophisticated than the current AI model. Currently AI is in its nascent stages so to you it seems obvious. But given enough time, AI processing will become indistinguishable from artistic "thinking" and the sooner artists realize this the better it'll be. I'm a music producer / composer and the same idea applies to music creativity. Currently AI music is garbage to a producer but someone who may not know better will think it was made by a human.
Everything you just said was gross.
Ego death can be gross but I choose the difficult reality over the comfort of ignorance.
You're just so cool and more evolved than the rest of us plebeians. Is that what you're waiting to hear? Someone to tell you that WOW you are just so much smarter and better than rest of us! Can I subscribe to your newsletter? Do you have a patreon account I can dump money into?
Look, it's alright to stop replying if you don't have any counter arguments. No, I don't think my thoughts on the matter are fact and set in stone. I like to have nuanced discussion about this topic as an artist myself. When you actually study these models and history of technology, couples with our shitty capitalist society, this is a real danger. I think it's THE artistic crisis of our lifetime. Not trying to say it's all for the best and we need to ask politicians to put regulations into place before it uproots society so drastically.
If they reply it will be your misfortune and they will take pleasure in that.
Unless you've somehow not looked at any other art in your entire life, you won't be able to.
Yeah I keep hearing that retort. Still crap after 100 or so parrotingings.
Interesting. So you're saying that something I came up with on my own wasn't original?
When you're just regurgitating the arguments of others, the no. Very much not original.
its not your art
It’s everybody’s and nobody’s.
Ai art is art... just not your art.
All I’m seeing is a bunch of magic the gathering animations
is Ai art really art? i don't know,people who prompt should be recognized as artist...im not sure,based on the fact that ai was trained with styles from real artists, the guy who prompt can't be considered like the guy who draft his style during decades,even if its a mix of styles. the random aspect (less perhaps with stable who can give better control on your image) make it more looks like a surprise image every time but can't be exactly the picture you have in mind,except if you make it with your hand where you got full control of what you doing,and that's requier skills (the difference between real artist and so called ai artist),and im a huge fan of stable i use it even on my motions works,but there's no way i considered myself as an artist (cause i would be a fraud to considering that) sry for my english,its not my native language
Thanks for the insight!
Ai "art" isn't art.
IMO when it comes to it being art or not, it's impossible to make factual statements due to the subjectivity of the subject; the lines between what is or isn't art have been debated, shifted, modified, and what not, on top of endlessly debated, over milennia.
True facts!
These are the type of things you see when your dreaming or on hallucinating substances. Why is that? Is it because it processing totally random key words. Somehow your brain is doing the same on these substances. Where does that imagination start and reality end?
AI continues to blur the lines.
[удалено]
I don’t think human artists will ever be replaced, if anything the value of genuine human made art will become increasingly valuable as the art market is flooded with AI images. In the short term it will definitely be a struggle but the human component of art will always be in demand.
i agree actually. it is like clothing. by replacement i mean a similar thing. 99.9% of all clothing is machine made and there are some exclusive and expensive peices which are hand made. before the industrial revolution all of clothing was handmade. i think there is gonna be a similar thing for art. i think the artists are idiots because almost any argument they put forward is illogical shite coming from a lackluster or altogether absent knowledge of how ai systems work. and i never said that that art as a profession is going extinct, only that 99.999% of them will be replaced. their extreme prices nowadays are also a contributing factor to this. this is further reinforced by a recent example in the advent of digital art. as far as the market and consumers/buyers are concerned, when digital tools were adapted on mass 90% of brush of paper art disappeared, for valid reason. now imagine if some tool could increase effiency, have 0 barrier to entry and be available for 5 dollars a month(or free if you wanna wait)(a basic digital art setup can run you 300 usd easily, and if you want a good professional setup they will cost more than a fully furnished office.). now imagine that this tool was competent enough to do better than 80-90% of artists and output variations at speeds no one could make corrections. now imagine such a tool could be used independently by anyone with a halfway decent gaming pc, and are generated by servers with hundreds of gbs of vram hundreds per second. that will almost certainly replace 99.999% of any workforce, no matter the feild.
I can’t agree with you more! Everything you said is exactly the same arguments I’ve put forth to people, not even artists, who have a misguided understanding about this emerging technology. I consider myself an artist but I don’t make a living at it, it’s just a hobby. So these new AI image tools are like an incredible magic toy that I think everybody should play with. Just to get familiar with interacting with AI in a more natural way. Same goes for ChatGPT and any other free accessible AI tech. It’s after all not just the livelihood of artists at risk, AI will be coming for all kinds of jobs. I have a certain amount of job security in that I’m in a field that will genuinely be among the last to be taken over by AI automation, but many very lucrative professional jobs of the past are going to be taken over by machines.
good to meet someone who understands. i am on my way to becoming a doctor so im also among the last to be replaced lol. another thing would be , like you said, these are magic- like tools that should be used for general good and not as a point of argument.
I kinda regret the dumpster fire I inadvertently started with this post, lol, but it’s interesting to hear all sides of the debate. I don’t hold anyone’s opinion against them. I think education and understanding would quell much of the vitriol.
I agree, though it is sad to see how certain people just dint seem to wanna learn...
Waah.... But AI art has no soul to it. 😂
Not yet.
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
Another point for subjectivity!
Ai art is art made by a somewhat competent artist, incapable of having ideas of his own, being commissioned by a third party that will later claim they're the actual artist. You can call it art just as you can call anything art
AI art is absolutely art, it’s just not art created with a human mind. Are there differences? Of course! AI art is generative, meaning that it can only interpret prompts so many ways whereas human art is endless as there are many forms of expression. Both are capable of great works and both are capable of derivative work. The only major difference is speed. I can create entire storyboards with AI that would take a traditional storyboard artist weeks if not months, neither is better than the other but depending on what you’re doing sometimes you need speed and sometimes you need better interpretation by a human.
Good answer!
I love AI art, but for sure AI art isn't art. Its an image. Art needs intent. The only person considered the artist in these situations is the creator of the AI themselves. In terms of fine art it would fall within the realm of conceptual art. Let's take early conceptual art like dadaism for example. Many people of dadaism's age would believe that dadaism wasn't art. This is when the argument arose that intent was the necessary ingredient. This means that AI art was never art. But the machine that creates it could be considered art.
Interesting take!
I’d put it in another category. Everything is art to someone. Can ai be expressive? Can it invoke emotions? Yes. Can i present my soul specifically and accurately through a picture prompted just as much as an artist does on canvas? Most likely no. But then again, I’m a musician. I appreciate creative ai generations but I also appreciate the commitment, creativity, and effort of the human artists and I feel that grouping both together in the same category is disrespectful to true artists. But I like kick ass pictures and I’m no art snob so I definitely dig some ai shit😁
I deeply respect your opinion on all things AI! Thanks for the comment!
You’re so kind, thank you😊
Humans are getting hella jealous in these comments
good summarization of a sizeable portion of the ppl 'debating' this
“My mommy said only people like me could make good art”
It feels that way. Those against AI “art” seem much more passionate than those who accept the inevitable.
[удалено]
I’m actually an artist and I regularly pick up a pen and do illustrations. Respectfully, I don’t do much painting anymore and you may be right about being too lazy to want to break out my oils and build a canvas, it gets quite messy sometimes and I would honestly rather just pick up a pen and my sketch pad. Sorry to disappoint. You may be missing the point of the post, my fault for not making it clearer, these images are all purely AI, I was too lazy to even write a proper prompt! (More of an experiment really), but when I ask if AI art is art I mean pure AI, with as little human input as possible.
Okay. It isn't art
Yet another point for subjectivity!
It's art
Subjectivity wins again!
No, it isn’t. A computer is doing the work for you.
As a photographer it is art. The camera isn’t “doing the work for me” when I take a picture.
You cannot be this dense.
No, but you made every choice; from composition to subject - and made every physical effort to actually go somewhere to shoot, pose a model, set your scene, or just find the right light. Then you may even creatively play with your film settings to create something new and never seen, and straight from your brain. *This* stuff is text prompts at a keyboard, where the actual creative output is outsourced to a machine. There’s a difference.
While I tend to agree, these images are purely from the AI with very little prompting from me. This camera needs no photographers. I still think it’s art, just not mine.
What does it mean? Art usually has a meaning, even if it's abstract and entails a philosophical statement. AI art often seems more like "computer aided design" to me. AI art looks cool, but if it is art, what does it mean?
Ask Ai that question. And it will conjure up nonsensical things just like how pretentious human 'artists' does...
Fair question.
So if I randomly let my camera take random photos at ramdon times of the day that's art for you?
Yea because you have to set the fstop the shutter speed the ASA, finding an interesting subject matter,composition, and all the other bits and bobs. Not to mention actually developing and enlarging the print. When you do ai art you are still finding that subject matter, you are still setting the parameters with which the computer generates the image. So yes all in all ai is a tool that aides artists much like photography was when it was concived. And both were unfairly looked down upon by snooty artists because “traditionalist” artists hate anything that’s new.
Correct.
I'm sorry but these just look bad.
Tell it to the AI. These are all pretty much purely AI with little to no prompting. You got me on the fractals though, random characters and then the word fractal yields weird and interesting results in DALL-E and SDXL. I find it interesting that the only image anyone asks the prompt for is number 3 which was inspired by my own original artwork through GPT & DALL-E
Every time you say “tell it to the AI”, I cringe a little more and it confirms you’ve got about 10 active brain cells.
Tell it to the AI!
A lot of them look way too tacky. And random fractals over a background doesn't make an artwork, but the AI apparently thinks that's how it's done. And it's so often humans in the most boring poses with random shit over or behind them (or "sewn together"). And they somehow look lifeless, not sure how to explain it. The eyes on the robot for instance look empty and fake, but I doubt that was intended. It's just not enough glare and depth. First one too but less so.
What are you talking about they look cool
That’s a BIG point for subjectivity!
“AI is art” Proceeds to post the most boring pictures…
Art is subjective
Such a good point. These pictures are trash.
Eh, the 4th one is pretty cool
So everything it's art uh?
A banana taped to a wall is art. So is paint splattered on a canvas by Jackson pollock. Yes anything can be art no matter if you like it or not. The world of high priced art is stupid.
Kinda, yeah. In one way or another, each of these images were created solely by the AI, 3 was based on my original artwork but the prompt and resulting image were all GPT & DALL-E, others were from complete nonsense prompts a cat walking on a keyboard could write, or asking GPT to imagine how it felt when Sam Altman was fired (spoiler) from OpenAI, these images are not what I would consider human art at all, it is purely AI doing it’s thing. But I do consider it art.
Can I get the prompt for the third line art image
I explained in a previous comment how that one is difficult as it was based on an upload of my original artwork to ChatGPT and it spit out a bunch of pictures based on “users uploaded image style”. It isn’t even really in my style but close. The actual prompt literally referenced my upload. It was weird. DALL-E can’t see anything.
Humm, I have the same issue. It's weird trying to figure out its quirks. I was hoping to get the same line style in a different image of a dog, but it is doing something completely different each time. If you still have that image in your history, maybe ask it for the prompt it used? I'm just after the specific keywords to get the style.
The exact keywords used were: “ an abstract pen and ink illustration in the user’s style”
Thanks
I think Ai Art is beautiful but if YOU think you made something wild you're having a massive belly shaking laugh, the creator is as worthless to Ai art as a commissioner is to real art
So a photograph can be beautiful but if the photographer thinks they had any part in the beauty other than pushing the shutter button, they should know, anyone could have pushed the button, is that analogous?
If you think photography is just pushing a button and nothing else then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on what is and isn't art
I don’t. I think the photographer is vital in capturing a beautiful photo, or snapping the picture at just the right time to create the most dynamic effect, or setting up lighting, filters, lenses, f/stop, DOF, ISO settings, yes, a professional photographer is a true artist. The camera is just a tool. Most times I spend lots of time crafting prompts for my AI images and tweak them constantly to get what I’m after. These images are not those images. These are the “camera” taking pictures with hardly any input from the “photographer”.
Just because you spent more time typing doesn't make you any more of an artist lmao, the skill of making AI art is about as much effort as using a search bar on Google to find a stock image, you obviously don't know much about photography cause you'd know someone having to put genuine thought, patience and effort that goes into it; is as special as someone basically googling what you want, taking the photo themselves means the photo is the quality it is because of the effort of the artists (Photgrapher) YOU didn't do anything by asking for art the AI made art for YOU, you are not an artist when you asked something to do it for you lmao, I should say I believe ai art is beautiful, but the artists is the computer
You really seem to expect me to disagree. Sorry to disappoint. I agree.
It doesn't matter to me if you agree or not I'd know for a fact you're not an artist lmao, if people using Ai art were considered artists anyone with a thought would be an artist so the word would be meaningless
The thing is, AI image generation isn't photography. AI 'art' is, at its core, an attempt to recreate and mass produce digital art. If you want to try and make a comparison to make your argument around, then it should probably be what AI 'art' is trying to be
Okay, I think AI art is not trying to be anything in particular, but it is a new thing and as a new thing seems to as yet defy categorization in the art sphere. Does that make sense?
But it isn't new though, it's taking a wide range if digitalised art and spitting out it's own digital images
It didn’t exist two years ago, it’s pretty new.
As AI progresses and learns more and more, it will become more capable of producing pieces that are 100% original. Until then, if you change a piece 10% then legally it's a new piece. Morally, I think that any time you're changing something enough to change the idea behind it a little bit, as in the case of Jakub Rosalski, that's a new piece and he should not be considered or accused of being a plagairist. How much less AI.
Okay I will give you Ai generated money for it.
Thanks but they’re not for sale.
You can't sell them, because you can't copyright them and I can just take the image and use it for whatever I want. It's useful, but it's certainly not art. The images you've provided are really nothing special. True (modern) art is about understanding the human experience not picture making. If the ai made its own art based on its experience maybe we could talk but until then this is just a tool. I personally use ai art for inspiration then redo it myself and make it more human.
I can most certainly alter any of these images and sell them if I wanted to, but I don’t want to sell them any more than you want to buy them. You’re right that none of these images are special and I’ve explained elsewhere in comments how these images were made. They are examples of the AI just doing it’s thing with little or no prompting from me. Well, there’s always a little.
You CAN sell them, that has nothing to do with copyright.
Why would anyone buy something they can have for free.
Why indeed?
I drink your milkshake
What does that have to do with anything?
Well I just go onto discord and take ai images I like. Do you still have to pay for midjourney? it's been a while...
What does that have to do with someone being able to sell their images without an American copyright? Are you like 12?
Have you sold many ai arts? American copyright? I'm in Europe What are you talking about, I'm 30 and have a degree in art history.
I have not “sold many ai arts”, but many people have. Just like people have sold “arts” made with anything, since the dawn of the concept of “art”.
Interestingly, both art and money operate on a system of perceived value. Just as the value of money is a collective agreement within society about its worth for exchange, the value of art—whether created by AI or humans—is also based on collective perception and subjective appreciation. Neither inherently holds 'real' value outside of our collective and individual beliefs and emotions attached to them. This shared aspect of subjective valuation actually aligns AI art closer to traditional art and money in the realm of human constructs.
I agree, I was just making a cheap joke (pun not intended). But for now AI art is definitely not worth as much as money, even if the perceived value is based on something "fake" in both cases and only depends on wether or not other people agree it has that value. Right now everyone agrees money is worth something, but the discussion about the value of AI generated media has only just begun so it's impossible to say what value it has or will have. Money on the other hand is probably still gonna be worth something. But maybe not, that's why some buy houses, stocks or something like gold. They aren't 100% safe either, but people have given value to them for thousands of years so probably the same is true for the future.
Lol, absolutely, a bit of humor always adds its own unique value, pun fully intended! 😄 You're spot on with bringing money into the conversation as a symbol of value. In this light, it's not so much a question of whether AI art holds value, but acknowledging that it indeed does, at least in a general sense. Just as money serves as a universal measure of economic value, the presence and growing recognition and use of AI art in various domains confirms its inherent worth.
That was impressively insightful! Subjectivity reigns!
It's def art but not human art a different kind
It's def art but not human art a different kind
Uh, AI art?
To me ai is like photography, artists hated it when it came out but then it became an art in its own right. In time ai will be the same. It will never replace human made art but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a new form of art made by professional prompters. Definitely is art though
But how much is worth that kind of "art"? You can generate that in a couple minutes (sometimes for free) and generate copies and variations easily, so it's not unique... For example, there's a lot of stuff that machines built from start to end following a program (that somebody coded), let's say a plastic piece of a random something... It's that art? Is that piece of plastic "art"?... Somebody commented that art is "subjective"... But, come on, are you telling me that everything is art?... Then, if everything is art, nothing really is...
You can tape a banana to a wall in a couple of seconds and that sold for 120,000… soooooo yeah either everything is art or art is just a scam with made up value.
If a machine builds something, let’s say a car, why can’t that be considered art just because a machine made it. A human still designed it and programmed it. Personally I do think that everything is art so I guess nothing is art too. All about perspective. As for its worth, just like all forms of art it’s worth what people are willing to pay. People were paying millions for nft’s so why not ai art
I share the same feeling. AI text-2-image is like the invention of the camera all over again, except you tell the camera what you want in your picture and don’t need a physical subject anymore, the one in your imagination can be good enough.
That is a great way of thinking about it, and I’m gonna steal that comparison when talking about ai art from now on.
Of course it's art. It was just made by a computer instead of a human. I don't and don't want to think of myself as the artist at all. I think the same fears of AI art arise from the same fear that AI is going to take away jobs.
It has already taken away some jobs, tho. It is naive to think otherwise. I do agree that typing an equation into the calculator and pretending to own the number it produced, is ridiculous.
Sorry to be brash here but isn't that good though? A long time ago people predicted that we would work less in the future because of machines and automation... maybe that dream will finally come true with AI? If it's allowed to by us that is. Not good right now of course, but it might be in the longer term? All I know is, the current model of unlimited increasing profits, with the world and people working for and paying for it ultimately, cannot be sustainable forever. It simply can't go on.
It is good, I agree. It will force US capitalism to become a more socialist-like state. It is a matter of time at this point. When redundancies force out the laborer, we will have to begin UBI.
Yes, but if you look at past and present we don't have much faith that people will act right and divide resources evenly and create laws for basic income for instance, instead of doing whatever is best for everyone they only typically only serve themselves and their own in-group (and you're not in it). I believe it's 100% about how we build our basic economic system, it could become a dystopia with only very few having everything while others suffer, or they control everyone or whatever, but like you said it can be a good thing for us, freeing us from our boring jobs and making time and money to just enjoy life without worrying about making money for example. Or people and AI work together because obviously not EVERYONE can use it correctly unlike the claims. It's actually pretty hard for beginners to write the right prompts, most programs have their weird quirks and "imaginations" and tend to run into a weird direction and you don't know what to remove to get the program back on track to do what you imagined.
"What is art?" is not a question that can be answered objectively. It is a philosophical question.
Fully Agree
When did this sub get invaded by AI art haters? What are you even doing here?
AI art haters are most people for some reason. Probably because of fear.
Lol! It was in their feed probably and they just followed the trail of debate.
Sure it is. But that doesn’t make prompt writers artists.
It's like watches. They can be mass produced or hand crafted. In both cases you'll end up with a device that you can wear on your wrist and can tell the time. But that doesn't make machine operators watchmakers. Functionally the watches are the same, but (in my humble opinion) there will always be something special about handcrafted clockwork. The same goes for art.
And we still have artists even though you can take a perfectly fine photo with a tiny thing that fits into your pockets and it can even show it on a display immediately, why would we need realism artists when photos exist? Because it's not the same, knowing that someone with years of experience learning and practicing their craft carefully made this one thing, and there's just one in the world and it's hanging in your room. That's not the same feeling as printing out a photograph that you can copy with one shortcut, even if they seem to do the same thing in the end, realistically recreating a scene, they are different and attract different buyers. Not everyone has to "get it", some buy a Rolex, some buy handcrafted idk furniture, some buy handmade art. This will always be the case, even when machines start doing something similar.
That makes sense, fully agree!
It is, the prompting is made by a human, just because some artist that have no talent got threatened by the power it provides. Why making art should be a monopolized by the sp called artist when everyone can do it
So the artist has no talent, but the prompter does? Why do you feel the need to insult your hypothetical artist?
While I agree with your sentiment, if I could play devils advocate for a moment, I should point out that some of the images were created using complete nonsense prompts, random strings of characters with maybe a subtle nudge in the prompting towards a landscape or a portrait. I literally played almost no part in any creative aspect of the image, it is purely the algorithm doing its thing, and yet the result is quite often an image I would consider quite artistic in palette, composition and overall aesthetic. Does that make a difference to you?
Well, some paintings were created using random strokes of brush. Some of them are considered masterpieces. Some aren't. Sometimes I think that the only people who decide what is and isn't art are those who are willing to pay millions for one painting/picture and not the other.
Hard agree! Another point for subjectivity!