Technology

59569 readers

3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

377

Redditors Vent and Complain When People Mock Their "AI Art" (futurism.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

266 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The issue with your categorical "no nuance" stance is that there is nuance in the world.

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.