• Jojo, Lady of the West
    link
    12 months ago

    Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn’t real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren’t artists.

    That sounds like the interpretation I’m responding to. It either doesn’t follow from your premises, or it begs the question. Yes, if ai art isn’t real art, no art produced with ai is real art, but that’s a tautology. I’m trying to get at why you believe ai inherently makes something not art. Low effort was a reason you gave, but you also said no amount of effort could change it.

    Never. It’s not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill

    But providing a description to an “actual artist” is an artistic skill. If you have a particular vision in your head for a character, writing that out is art the same way any kind of writing can be, no? Writing something in a way that gives another artist a mental image that matches yours takes creativity and skill. Why doesn’t the work created by that creativity and skill count as art? It seems unnecessarily gatekeep-y.

    • @petrol_sniff_king
      link
      12 months ago

      But providing a description to an “actual artist” is an artistic skill.

      Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners. Here’s another one asked for by XanthemG—you know he asks for good stuff.

      Wait, that doesn’t happen.

      why you believe ai inherently makes something not art.

      For the same reason ChatGPT can’t make you any less lonely.

      • Jojo, Lady of the West
        link
        12 months ago

        Okay. Got it. Charitable interpretation is dead.

        Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners

        There’s a point where writing becomes art. You either agree with that, or you don’t believe any kind of literature or poetry counts as art. In the latter case, that’s a bit of an extreme take but I guess you’re welcome to your opinion. In the former case, there’s a lone somewhere between Tolkien and XanthemG where something starts being art.

        For the same reason ChatGPT can’t make you any less lonely.

        Only insofar as neither can a book. And yeah, there’s obviously a difference there, but the difference isn’t inherent to ai. Ai isn’t a person, it’s a tool. Dismissing anything made by the tool because the tool was used to make them is the position that I think is ridiculous. I’m not claiming that all of the “ai art” people are posting everywhere is definitely "real art"and needs to be taken seriously. I’m claiming that it’s possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.

        • @petrol_sniff_king
          link
          12 months ago

          There’s a line between a cup and an ocean. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

          I’m claiming that it’s possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.

          As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm. A book in a library is art. But can choosing a book from a library be art? Ah, but what if it takes a long time. Wow, philosophy is interesting.

          The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words. “Hm, you say a chair must have at least three legs and a seat, but this rock is a place people sit. Hm, what if the rock was sculpted, does it count then? Yes, yes, I am very smart”—This is boring and I don’t care.

          If the script for your movie wasn’t written by people, then I don’t care about it. It’s trash. It’s garbage. I would rather watch one made by people who care. I want people to talk to me with their art. When an AI becomes sentient enough to intend to make something meaningful, then we can revisit.

          Oh right, but you mean the technical caveat for the use of AI tools.

          Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.

          The mere presence of an AI filter in his work is not what I consider artful, though.

          • Jojo, Lady of the West
            link
            1
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm.

            Absolutely it can. Numerous artists have created work that unfolds itself into something beautiful through their planning but not through their power.

            But can choosing a book from a library be art?

            Choosing a urinal counts as art. Of course choosing a book can.

            The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words.

            Art is an inherently vague word.

            I would rather watch one made by people who care.

            This right here is the crux of my argument. What about art made by people who care, but made with ai? Is it so impossible that people might care about something and use ai to make it?

            I absolutely do not contend that using ai makes something art. I merely contend that using ai (even as a major part of a work) is not sufficient to make it not art. To whit,

            Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.

            It sounds like you agree with me on that, at least in principle.