[frozenseven]

>skill

>too lazy

Again, I wholly reject the idea that there's a line between 'tech people' and 'art people'. You can have an interest in both art and tech. You can do both 'traditional art' and AI art. I also reject the idea that AI tools require no skill, that's clearly not the case.

>nature

This can so easily be thrown back at you.

>why should anyone want to hear what "you" (ie: the machine) have to say?

So why are we having this discussion in the first place? Right, hundreds of millions are interested in exploring and creating with AI. You are not fighting against a small contingent who are trying to covet the meaning of "artist" or whatever. No, it's a mass movement of people being creative in a way that you don't like.

[tummler]

• I didn't say there's a line between "tech people" and "art people". Why would there be?

• We're having this discussion because people are trying to equate an auto-amalgamation/auto-generation machine with the artistic process, and in doing so, redefining what "art" means.

• Yes, you can "be creative" with AI, but don't fool yourself-- you're not creating art. I don't call myself a chef because I heated up a microwave dinner.

[frozenseven]

• The other guy certainly did. And your subsequent reply was an endorsement of his style of gatekeeping, so. I mean, just talk to some of the the more active people in AI art. Many of them have been involved in art for decades.

• If throwing paint at a canvas is art (sure, why not?) then so is typing a few words into a 'machine'. Of course many people spend a considerable amount more effort than that. No different than learning Ableton Live or Blender.

• See previous points.

[codedokode]

> I don't call myself a chef because I heated up a microwave dinner.

A better analogy would be "I don't call myself a chef when ordering from Uber Eats".

[_DeadFred_]

I'm not the artist just because I commissioned the painting and sent them a picture of my dog.