3 ms·

>? Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome. That is not my objection to AI art at all. The value

>? Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome. That is not my objection to AI art at all. The value of art for me is that somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me. That's totally absent from AI-generated material. I'm not categorically opposed to AI, but my interest in automatically generated content tailored to indulge my personal taste is absolutely zero.

falcor84 26d ago
> somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me I don't see why that would exclude GenAI - you have an idea, you write a prompt, you get something that's sort of but not quite what you were going for, so you iterate a bit until it's good enough to communicate what you wanted.
- cc81 25d ago
  In my experience the AI still does a lot of heavy lifting of thinking for the person. Just like if I tell an artist can you draw a painting of a deer in the forest, but make it ominous and tense. I could have a vague idea of what that would mean for me but the professional artist will make correct decision in composition, light etc. to create that. Just my sentence is nothing but the image can evoke feelings if done right.
  - falcor84 25d ago
    Yes, but that sounds to me exactly the process vs. outcome distinction that the parent made, rather than a difference in the intent to communicate.
    - beedeebeedee 25d ago
      I think those two arguments converge into one- you can’t get the intent unless you have the process
      - madrox 25d ago
        The difference for most people against AI is that there is no world where someone with intent and skill can engage with AI to make anything approaching art. If your process includes AI, it is impossible to be an artist. Even engaging with the nuance is beyond the pale.
LoganDark 25d ago
It sounds like the problem you have with AI art is that instead of an artist iterating over parts of the image to get what they want, someone iterates over entire images to get what they want. (Or... they still iterate over parts of the image, but with a generative model instead of manual brush strokes.) Somehow that process distinction makes the difference for you.
- Fraterkes 25d ago
  Before AI it was possible to "express" yourself to someone else by recommending them a piece of art you liked. There's a lot of art in the world, expressing many different things, so you could actually get across something very specific by being a good curator / recommender. But nobody would seriously claim that they were actually creating, painting with a broader brush at a "book level" instead of a "word level" when they were just curating good novels.
  - LoganDark 25d ago
    They didn't create the works they recommend, but they did create the recommendations. AI art is kinda like that, even if you didn't create the work in the dataset. Unfortunately it's also like if the recommendations tried to pass off as original work instead, and didn't actually cite the original work, which I think is a huge reason why people dislike it. I still think it's possible to create art with generative AI, but it takes more than just a prompt, if that makes sense. I express myself with AI all the time, I just can't share it with anyone because it's banned from all the platforms where I'd care to do so. I don't really write stories without AI anymore, so probably people won't see expressions like that from me again. Maybe you could call that "AI hurts artists", dunno.

falcor84 26d ago

> somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me I don't see why that would exclude GenAI - you have an idea, you write a prompt, you get something that's sort of but not quite what you were going for, so you iterate a bit until it's good enough to communicate what you wanted.

cc81 25d ago
In my experience the AI still does a lot of heavy lifting of thinking for the person. Just like if I tell an artist can you draw a painting of a deer in the forest, but make it ominous and tense. I could have a vague idea of what that would mean for me but the professional artist will make correct decision in composition, light etc. to create that. Just my sentence is nothing but the image can evoke feelings if done right.
- falcor84 25d ago
  Yes, but that sounds to me exactly the process vs. outcome distinction that the parent made, rather than a difference in the intent to communicate.
  - beedeebeedee 25d ago
    I think those two arguments converge into one- you can’t get the intent unless you have the process
    - madrox 25d ago
      The difference for most people against AI is that there is no world where someone with intent and skill can engage with AI to make anything approaching art. If your process includes AI, it is impossible to be an artist. Even engaging with the nuance is beyond the pale.

LoganDark 25d ago

It sounds like the problem you have with AI art is that instead of an artist iterating over parts of the image to get what they want, someone iterates over entire images to get what they want. (Or... they still iterate over parts of the image, but with a generative model instead of manual brush strokes.) Somehow that process distinction makes the difference for you.

Fraterkes 25d ago
Before AI it was possible to "express" yourself to someone else by recommending them a piece of art you liked. There's a lot of art in the world, expressing many different things, so you could actually get across something very specific by being a good curator / recommender. But nobody would seriously claim that they were actually creating, painting with a broader brush at a "book level" instead of a "word level" when they were just curating good novels.
- LoganDark 25d ago
  They didn't create the works they recommend, but they did create the recommendations. AI art is kinda like that, even if you didn't create the work in the dataset. Unfortunately it's also like if the recommendations tried to pass off as original work instead, and didn't actually cite the original work, which I think is a huge reason why people dislike it. I still think it's possible to create art with generative AI, but it takes more than just a prompt, if that makes sense. I express myself with AI all the time, I just can't share it with anyone because it's banned from all the platforms where I'd care to do so. I don't really write stories without AI anymore, so probably people won't see expressions like that from me again. Maybe you could call that "AI hurts artists", dunno.