[SonicSoul]

great comment!

imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your style. but it's still different than some computer model "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other peoples talent.

i get that this is cynical and does not encompass all ai art, but why not let computers develop their own style wihout ingesting human art? that's when it would actually be AI art

[wincy]

Like 99.9% of the art the common people care about is Darth Vader and Taylor Swift and other pop culture stuff like that.

These people literally don’t care what your definition of what is and isn’t art is, or how it’s made, they just want a lock screen wallpaper of themselves fighting against Thanos on top of a volcano.

The argument of “what is art” has been an academic conversation largely ignored by the people actually consuming the art for hundreds of years. Photography was just pop culture trash, comics were pop culture trash, stick figure web comics were pop culture trash. Today’s pop culture trash is the “prompt jockey”.

I make probably 5-10 pictures every day over the course of maybe 20 minutes as jokes on Teams because we have Bing Chat Enterprise. My coworkers seem to enjoy it. Nobody cares that it’s generated. I’m also not trying to be an “artist” whatever that means. It just is, and it’s fun. I wasn’t gonna hire an artist to draw me pictures to shitpost to my coworkers. It’s instead unlocked a new fun way to communicate.

[SonicSoul]

not entirely sure what your point is, but i think you are saying that art is just a commodity we use for cheap entertainment so it's ok for computers to do the same?

in the context of what i was saying the definition of what is art can be summed up as anything made by humans. i have no problem when its used in memes and being open sourced etc.. the issue i have is when a human invests real time into it and then its taken and regurgitated without their permission. do you see that distinction?

[johnnyanmac]

I mean, I don't think many care about your personal use of art. You can take copyright images and shit post and Disney won't go suing your workplace.

But many big players do want to use this commercially and that's where a lot of these lines start to form. No matter how lawsuits go you will probably still be able to find some LLM to make Thanos fighting a volcano. It's just a matter of how/if companies can profit from it.

[dartharva]

This response should be gilded

[bongodongobob]

That's a funny argument because artists lost their shit over photography too. Now anyone can make a portrait! Photography will kill art!

Art is the biggest gate kept industry there is and I detest artists who believe only they are the chosen one.

Art is human expression. We all have a right to create what we want with whatever tools we want. They can adapt or be left behind. No sympathy from me.

[Levitz]

Because that's not what happens, ever. You wouldn't ask a human to have their style of photographing when they don't know what a photograph even looks like.