[chrisvenum]

While I like using AI for assisting with repetitive programming, I can’t help but feel sorry for my producer and illustrator friends who are now having to compete with generated tools.

Is it snobby of me to look down upon art that is created using these tools as lesser because the human did not make every tiny decision going into a peice? That a persons taste and talent is no longer fully used to produce something and for someone reason to me what is what makes the art impressive and meaningful?

Something about art with imperfections still feels exciting, maybe even more so than if I see something that is perfect but if I see an AI gen picture with 6 fingers, I just write it all off as slop.

I am happy to allow my generated code to come from “training data” but I see the use of AI in art, writing and music as using stolen artists hard work.

I feel like as time goes on, I feel even more conflicted about it all.

[jjangkke]

Applying your logic, did you feel bad for seamstresses when industrial revolution took off? did you feel bad for hardware manufacturers in America when they were outsourced to China? Art is also a form of labor and whoever can produce quality at quantity wins. Idealizing art in some sort of religious idolation is just plain silly. We haven't had the Picassos or Mozarts or Oscar Peterson for quite some time now yet the world is just fine. People play playlists in front of millions of live crowd and get accolade for it vs real instruments. Times change, technology change and art changes.

You either adapt or go hungry just like everybody else and art shouldn't be exempt from the mechanics of supply and demand.

[chrisvenum]

I almost agree with you that this is about quality, but I still feel that the context in which art comes from influences how I perceive it.

Take, for example, a track by Fontaines D.C., a band from Ireland that writes extensively about the lived social and political experience. Knowing where they are from and the general themes of their work makes their tracks feel authentic, and you can appreciate the worldview they have and the time spent producing the art, even if it does not align with your own tastes.

Trying to create something of the same themes and quality from a prompt of “make me an Irish pop rock track about growing up in the country” suddenly misses any authenticity.

Maybe this is what I am trying to get at, but like I said, I feel some conflict about this, as I personally value these tools for productivity

[chrisvenum]

Saying that, maybe a DAW experience makes what can be created more personal

[a456463]

I hear this but this is not the industrial revolution buddy.

[nh23423fefe]

You as a human chose to write this very common opinion and even include writing errors like the following

> That a persons taste and talent is no longer fully used to produce something and for someone reason to me what is what makes the art impressive and meaningful?

Human output isn't sacred. yes this is snobbery, a useless feeling of superiority.

[cowboylowrez]

absolutely, why should I go outside and touch grass when suno can do it for me?

[frozenseven]

Nothing is being "stolen". It never was. Copyright law grants you rights over specific works. It doesn't protect styles, genres, general ideas, methods, or concepts. And it most certainly doesn't protect anyone from competition or the unyielding march of progress. Nothing can protect you from that.

[acureau]

I feel the same, including code. I cannot justify it. I can easily counter my own arguments. Still, the further we automate human thought and creativity the worse it makes me feel. I am disappointed that so many are content with mediocre imitation.

[raincole]

> Is it snobby of me

Yes. But aesthetic taste and snobbery usually go hand in hand.