Anonymous #1 3d

yes

44

Anonymous #3 2d

But I am

42

Anonymous #3 2d

Yk photoshop exists right

28

Anonymous OP 2d

but this isn’t photoshop

5

Anonymous #3 2d

how do yk

7

Anonymous #2 2d

They don’t everyone is just assuming that things are AI now cause they are scared for whatever reason 😂

7

Anonymous #3 2d

So called “artists/creators” when tools come out that reduce the barriers for people to create/make art:

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Typing in a prompt isn’t “creating art”

1

Anonymous hovercraft 2d

Is this?

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Yes

3

Anonymous #6 2d

Instantly recognizable and had a clear cultural impact

-1

Anonymous hovercraft 2d

Are those the two conditions for you to consider something art? Then would you consider AI Charlie Kirk stuff art? Instantly recognizable and definitely had a clear cultural impact too!

5

Anonymous #6 2d

Art must be a result of human creativity

4

Anonymous hovercraft 2d

There must be an artist to create art.

2

Anonymous hovercraft 2d

So there’s now the added condition of human creativity that is required for art. Is the person who used AI to create AI Kirk not being creative? IMO it definitely takes human creativity to use AI to create something like that.

2

Anonymous #6 2d

If I commission someone to paint me a picture according to a set of specifications, who is the artist?

2

Anonymous hovercraft 1d

That’s a question for you to answer. A more apt question is if an artist asks a robot to tape a banana to the wall, is the robot the artists or the person? By your previous conditions it is the person who asks.

-1

Anonymous #6 1d

That is not a more apt question at all. The answer is very simple the person who creates the art is the artist. Here’s another question. If I use a prompt on a primitive ai model and it gives me a shitty picture am I a shitty artist? Like wise if I use an advanced model and it gives me a complex picture am I a good artist? Doesn’t make much sense does it

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Neither. There’s no art. Don’t be dumb.

5

Anonymous hovercraft 1d

Exactly the same can be said if you use a shitty paintbrush vs if you use the finest. Every argument you have against AI can be made for some equivalent aspect in traditional art.

3

Anonymous #6 1d

Ai art has no soul, art without soul is not art

8

Anonymous #1 1d

Now this is a metaphysical argument that cannot be proved or disproved. Do you think a toddler who mindlessly scribbles on a paper makes art?

-1

Anonymous #6 1d

lol of course it is. A toddler is a human using a medium to create. This disproves nothing I’ve said. Also my argument has nothing to do with metaphysics.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

So you actually think you can be a good or bad artist depending on what ai model you choose? This has to be ragebait at this point

1

Anonymous hovercraft 1d

You can be a good artist with a shitty paintbrush too if you know how to use it. Does using a better paintbrush suddenly make you a better artist? Also I was responding to the other guy about art needing a “soul”. And “human using a medium to create” is what you said right? Are there any restrictions on what this “medium” might be?

-2

Anonymous #6 1d

Art has to be intentional

1

Anonymous hovercraft 1d

Still matches AI “art”. No one unintentionally creates it.

-1

Anonymous #6 1d

Again, there has to be a human involved in the creation. Not just the prompt

2

Anonymous hovercraft 1d

Who wrote the prompt? That’s even assuming a one shot output. Does it become more legit if the human iterates?

0

Anonymous #6 1d

Again, that begs my question about commissioning a piece of art from an artist. Describing what you want him to paint doesn’t make you the artist.

1