[leothetechguy]

>Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.

[sothatsit]

You can claim the use of AI is unethical, or the work as derivative, but AI being used as a tool in no way precludes something from being art. It is thought provoking and challenging, it seems like textbook art to me, and it’s clearly struck a chord here. There is no “minimum effort” required for something to be art.

I personally found the contrast with the original “They’re made out of meat” to be really interesting. I don’t care that AI was used during its creation at all.

[CapsAdmin]

It seems to me that since the advent of image generators, art has been firmly defined by artists to mean that it was made by a human. But there might be a spectrum of human involvement where the less a human is involved the less it's art.

What happens too often during these discussions is that someone who writes "make me a cool image" gets conflated with someone used ai to fixup a small rock in their natural landscape drawing. (two extreme ends)

One problem though, is that we don't really know how much the supposed human author was involved in the piece. Now that it's becoming hard to judge, people against ai art can proudly change their opinion on on a piece once they learn that it was made by ai. I've come to think this is somewhat respectable, like you see a video of some extraordinary event (before ai) and then you learn that it was fake, just for views or something.

But on top of all this, there are different ways to "consume" art. Artists may think more about who the artist is as a person and what they felt when they made the piece, while non-artists may just enjoy the piece for what it is, detached from the artist. These two perspectives clash a lot.

[DonsDiscountGas]

This whole thing is a ripoff of [they're made of meat](https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...) as stated at the top. It would've taken about ten minutes without LLMs and ten seconds with an LLM. Is ten minutes an acceptable level of effort but ten seconds isn't?

[berkes]

> AI Art isn't Art

Why?

(And who are you to dictate what art is and what isn't?)

[soerxpso]

> I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own

Then don't. Nobody asked you to. Why do you people feel the need to angrily announce every time you don't read something?

[cm2012]

When writing was invented people complained that written words weren't actually art the same way. "If they're not going to take the time to memorize it, then it's not worth my time to listen to it."

[Icko]

Good thing that is not poetry

[brainwad]

Who cares if it's art? I enjoyed the read nevertheless.

[riversflow]

Is a photograph art?

[ACCount37]

Obviously not. And neither is this newfangled "digital art" thing.

It's not real art unless you used a brush or a pencil for it, and no, "PC Paintbrush for MS-DOS" really doesn't count.

[ekianjo]

> Especially not Poetry.

You have no way to know what is written by a human these days. Apart from the super low effort outputs.

[tornikeo]

> AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art

No offense but I couldn't give less of a damn what some guy on the internet thinks. If it makes me feel good in artsy-ways, then it is art, and I don't care how it was made.

[rogual]

"Loaded dice, rolled one word at a time" is when I twigged it.