4 ms·
> With AI if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as much art Imagery AI does not produce art. Not that it matters to anyone but artists and art enjoyers.
by KPGv2 1y ago
> With AI if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as much art
Imagery
AI does not produce art.
Not that it matters to anyone but artists and art enjoyers.
- bee_rider 1y agoI don’t see this as a claim that the AI is doing art. He’s just saying, that the art can be created at low incremental cost. Like, if we were in a world where only pens existed, and somebody was pitching the pencil, they could say “With a pencil if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as many edits, it's an incremental cost, you can explore ideas and make changes without throwing the whole drawing away.”
- psolidgold 1y agoStop trying to impose your narrow-minded definition of art onto other people. If you disagree, that's fine, but you've lost my respect the moment you tell someone else that their definition of art is wrong.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoArt without intention isn't art. The entire point of art is the human intention by it. The pattern on linoleum isn't art. The beautiful wood grain in my table isn't art. And shitty AI images/music aren't art.
- psolidgold 1y agoThe human intention doesn't disappear just because the execution involves algorithms instead of paintbrushes - digital or otherwise.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoIt very much does. When I commission a piece of art, I am not the artist. Art without intention, without an artist, is not art.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hansvm 1y agoIs that an argument against the quality, saying that AI cannot (or some weaker claim like that it does not usually) produce "art"? Else, is it an argument of provenance, akin to how copyright currently works, where the same visual representation is "art" if a human makes it and is not "art" if an AI makes it?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- CalRobert 1y agoWhen pedantry pays the bills this will be a helpful mindset.