AI “art” isn’t art. It’s just a trash bag of pieces pulled from real work that was sucked up into the model to learn from without any consent from the originators of said art. It’s fun to work with if you need inspiration to actually create art from, but it’s trash otherwise. I don’t mind people showing it off, but if you think you’re a genius because you typed a handful of prompts into a tool that far smarter people than you created, you’re on par with NFT and crypto folks. They seek the shortest route to success because they don’t want to put in the work. Art is organic and rooted in the emotion and experiences of living beings. It’s grounded in reality and understands that a human hand should have 5 digits on it and why.

It’s insanely complex and I don’t condemn the tech or the smart folks that create it, but what it generates is missing all of the organic factors that give art life. It’s being harnessed by capitalists to shut the human artists out, when it should instead be used by those artists as a tool to make their work easier.

Source: I’ve used multiple generators and have built software that uses ChatGPT and DALL-E. I’m also a digital artist.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I feel like that applies to most art.
Effort and feeling rarely show in the final piece, because most people aren't good artists and even good artists don't usually produce good art. Even what's "good" here is subjective.

I tend to agree that AI art isn't art in the way that we usually mean it, but also this is turning into a big grey area because people are using AI for touchups and stuff. Mixed media and photomontage artists have a field day I'm sure.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It really shines in things like photo retouching. The fact that you can tell it to simply erase an object is mind blowing. That’s something I had to spend hours doing manually years ago. It makes filter effects when doing digital art a breeze. That’s why I say it works better as a tool the artist collaborates with, vs making entirely from scratch. That coupling has been the perfect balance.

I use GitHub Copilot on a daily basis and it makes repetitive tasks much easier to work through. I don’t want it to write my code for me; I want it to make my work easier. The same applies in other disciplines.

This article explains it well. Marx’s theory was that the advancements of technology and manufacturing should be things that the worker maintains and works alongside with, vs a replacement for the worker. That’s where capitalism chimes in and is ruining the AI movement. It wants to eliminate the human aspect, which then removes any life. Cranking out hotel room art with AI serves a far different purpose than someone making paintings to be sold in a gallery.

Art is always going to be subjective, but part of what makes art is the sentience of the beings making it. The mass-produced AI imagery we’re seeing today is just a mix of corporate-driven plagiarism.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I absolutely agree with this take.

If AI output is or isn't art isn't an important question; what we should be asking is "does AI help artists and individuals realize their intent, or does it help the shareholders/owners take an even bigger slice of the pie?"

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it’s not the subject matter itself; it’s the way that subject matter is being bastardized. I would be a total jerk to dismiss AI as a whole. I know people that have worked with it for years in the LLM space, and they are far and away more brilliant than I could ever wish to be.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)