[waltbosz]

I'm on the fence about calling myself an "AI artist". I think a better term is "muse to an AI"

I couldn't possibly create the images that I get out of Stable Diffusion, so I consider it the real artist. But it can't possibly come up with the ideas of what to draw, so I am the muse.

What's more, I feel that the ideas that I come up with are uniquely my own. By which I mean, it is unlikely for another human to have the same idea.

For me, the point at which it becomes art is when it expresses something. It has to evokes thought in the viewer.

[dagw]

Maybe you shouldn't consider Stable Diffusion the "artist" but actually the "work of art". Several artist have been experimenting with 'machines' that can make art for a long time, but it is always the machine that is considered "work of art" not its output.

One such artist is Jean Tinguely. You can go to the Jean Tinguely museum and make a free "painting" using one of his machines, and that picture has no value and isn't very good. The machine itself however is very valuable and is what is everybody (including Tinguely) considers the actual work of art.

The main differences now is that now the machine can produce aesthetically pleasing results.

[lm28469]

I'm not a muse to a CPU, I'm a code monkey and I don't pretend to have 1% of the skills of the people who actually put in the work to make it possible.

Same with AI "art", you're an input and a filter, at most. Everybody has ideas of what to type in a prompt and everybody has an idea about what looks visually appealing to them

[cookie_monsta]

Why not just call yourself a programmer? You tell it what to do, it does the work. I'm not sure there's a difference

[bobcostas55]

Sing, O prompt engineer, of the artstation anime waifus