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.
I’d welcome you to offer a rigorous definition of this supposedly well-known distinction. Computers don’t generate anything spontaneously. They always require some level of direction.
Are the outputs of VSTs not “computer generated”? You can fumble around on a keyboard just moving up and down until you find the pitch you want, and the software will output an orchestral swell of dozens of instruments that take years and years to master, with none of that effort expended by the one mashing the keyboard.
Is that sound computer-assisted or computer-generated in your estimation? Much the same with AI images. It’s not fundamentally different from any other computerized tool.
That’s pretty reductive and bad comparison. Your example boils down to saying that you could argue guitarist is a machine assisted.
Again, ASSISTED ≠ CREATED. I don’t know how this is difficult for you.
Assisted requires foreknowledge of skill/talent. Like a guitarist using an effect pedal to enhance his sound.
Created leans entirely on the hardware/software combo to do the heavy lifting.
It take ZERO skill to type a sentence into a computer to generate an image. Period. And of argument. I’m sorry this others you; but this is how I see it.
I said in my original post that just typing a prompt isn’t an example of skill. I stated that there are people who use both AI and non-AI tools in complex workflows that include a ton of manual work, and in those cases it’s disingenuous to write off the process as not being creative.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing against, but it isn’t the position I took. Seems like a reading comprehension issue.
My point is that AI generated pictures aren’t art. Period.
I’m not arguing nuance. My opinion is across the board- no nuance. No argument… it’s not art.
Would you call a person that creates paintings by cutting images from magazines an artist?
What if the person cuts the images from AI generated content?
I would. Because they came up with the idea in their brain and did the skilled work it took to create it. They didn’t have a computer do it for them.
You’re not going to make a point here. Because ag the end of the day, no matter what example you use, it’ll always be that SOMEONE is actually doing the creative heavy lifting instead of a computer doing it for someone that takes the credit.
AI images aren’t art. And if it absolutely HAS to be called such, than at the bare minimum, the PC used to create it takes ALL the credit for it- not the hack that typed in a descriptive sentence.
The issue with your categorical “no nuance” stance is that there is nuance in the world.
Not all things are nuanced. Sometimes some things just are what they are, or aren’t what we want them to be.
AI imagery isn’t art and those that make it aren’t artists.