the "people" you're talking about were talking about tools. I'm talking about intent. Just because you compare two arguments that use similar words doesn't mean the arguments are similar.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Intent is not needed for the art, else all the art in history where we can't say what author wanted to express or the ones misunderstood wouldn't be considered art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Note that one of the first regulations of AI art that is always proposed is that AI art be clearly labeled as such, because whomever propose it do know the above.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

i didn't say knowing the intent is needed. i believe in death of the author, so that isn't relevant.

the intent to create art is, however, needed. the fountain is art, but before it became the fountain, the urinal itself wasn't.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I get you but it's really not necessary. In case of (somewhat) realist art you can still recognize AI artifacts, but abstract art is already unrecognizable (and this is the precise reason they want AI art to be marked, so they won't embarrass themselves with peans over something churned out by computer in few seconds), not to mention there is also art created by animals, and it is considered art but it's not created with intent, except maybe the intent of people dipping dog's paw in paint. Thus we again just get to the distinction that art needs to be created just by living things? It's meaningless.

Anyway, i guess next few years will make this even more muddled and the art scene will get transformed permanently. Hell recently i've encountered some AI power metal music which is basically completely indistinguishable from normal, but in this case it mostly serve to show how uninspired and generic entire genre is.