Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think there are interesting aspects of AI art. It takes a real artist to properly instruct an AI to create something new, different, and interesting. When I think of modern art, a lot of art snobs were dismissive of it because “it’s not art.” I think we will see the same opinions of AI art change as new, different, and interesting artwork is made.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thing is, generated art is not new or different. It’s a machine amalgamation of existing works. The only vaguely interesting bits are how it mangles body parts into some kind of Cronenberg horror.

      • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        Humans certainly don’t make new things out of nothing. They also take from different sources and combine them together to make something new, whether that’s direct inspiration or on a more abstract level through the brain.

        Learning models aren’t generating art any more than GIMP or Photoshop is. It’s the person behind the tool that makes the art, not the tool. There’s certainly an art to prompt smithing.

        I feel like a lot of people dismiss generated art simply because it’s new (and because as a byproduct is spits out dozens of junk pieces before getting anywhere good). I don’t see how it’s that different from someone using photo-editing software built with dozens of algorithms instead of a ‘pure’ drawing pad, or someone using a drawing pad instead of a pencil, or someone using a pencil instead of chalk. It’s a tool, and a great one at that in comparison to many digital tools for artists.

        • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t see how it’s that different from someone using photo-editing software built with dozens of algorithms instead of a ‘pure’ drawing pad, or someone using a drawing pad instead of a pencil, or someone using a pencil instead of chalk. It’s a tool, and a great one at that in comparison to many digital tools for artists.

          It is different because a person isn’t involved, it’s a machine outputting the information without intent whatsoever (as machines do)

          • Keith@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s not true though— extensive effort is put into prompting, parameter tweaking, etc.

    • bunnyfc@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think there already is AI art but it’s not the art that everyone is talking about, it’s not your run-of-the-mill fantasy illustration prompt but people exploring what can be made with tools like that.

      Rather than focusing on emulating traditional illustration, they invent their own processes and that is the work.