[Shaggy2000]

Artists gaslight non-artists and say their work has soul and gatekeep "art" saying it can't be replicated. However this is not soul it is egoism and pointless toil. In reality the end product is just paint on a canvas that has specific patterns and style applied to it and this can be replicated and improved upon by an ai artist.

[imiric]

Sure, but I'm not endorsing gatekeeping. I don't see these works as inferior, just different. Once we have ways to distinguish them, they will become a different category of art we can also enjoy.

The problem is when images can be produced effortlessly by anyone to resemble anything else, which current AI tools allow. This makes them capable of posing as something that traditionally took a lot of skill and effort to generate. We need to be able to distinguish between these two, so that we can determine their relative value (both emotional and monetary). Art is tricky in that sense, since it's mostly based on personal enjoyment, but I think we can agree that things like NFTs are scams posing as high value art, while traditional paintings should be valued much more highly in every way.

[i_am_jl]

>We need to be able to distinguish between these two, so that we can determine their relative value (both emotional and monetary).

Why?

Why should the nature of a work of art's creator have any bearing on its emotional impact? If the emotional impact is the same, why should the nature of the creator have any bearing on a piece's monetary value?

I suppose you can argue that part of what you feel when you look at artwork is empathy with the artist, and that empathizing with a human feels better than empathizing with software. I think that argument sucks.

I think if you felt something looking at these photos (fauxtos?) when you thought they were taken by a human, and now they make you feel something different because you know that's not true, that's not a judgement of the artwork, that's a reflection of you. I'd also argue that it's art on that merit alone.