> A.I. art is not art. It isn't human-generated art. It would also be difficult to really label the generating process as a process that generates "art". I'd

> A.I. art is not art. It isn't human-generated art. It would also be difficult to really label the generating process as a process that generates "art". I'd rather only label the end result as "art" for people that think it qualifies. It's the same as not considering photography as art. How many photographers actively contribute to camera technology? Or how many people that have worked on camera tech can profess to be actual photographers? Very, very few for either case. It's similar for prompting for an image. It's a "skill", the same way photography is a "skill". You'd be hard-pressed 20 years ago to take pictures of a quality consistent with a high-end DSLR today. Yet are people today "better" photographers just because they own better cameras? Or is an "AI Artist" a "better" AI artist because image generation got better, and / or he got a much better model (seeing how the quality of diffusion-based image generation wholly depends upon the model being used, and not so much upon prompt tuning)? > I will give you a simple example: Who will be the creator of the famous David sculpture? Michelangelo or the rich patron who gave the description of the task? According to the definition of A.I. "art" the patron is the artist. Yes, and I hope that changes, but it won't as long as there is monetary incentive for companies to shell out models. Genuine human contribution to the models will also decrease exponentially, because everything that could be mined has already been. They can make small gains with labelling but the rest is a hard ceiling. Attribution is very finicky right now because there's some effort involved in generating those images. If it was completely effortless (with a UI that labeled it as such) and gave sources / similar images, you could stop calling it "art", and instead just plain old machine-based image generation.