I'm sure this has been posted here before, but it's too good not to repost.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

196 comments

Care to explain? I think your analogy gives the credit of art creation to someone who didn't create art, and thus is flawed.
- I mean i think i explained myself quite well already, and not to be insulting to you, but i dont think you're willing to accept any argument i would make that goes against what you already beleive, since your argument against it simply you asserting your own beliefs (that AI art isnt art) as an immutable fact
  
  Oh, I'm not saying AI art isn't art. It is. I'm just saying that the person writing the prompt didn't create it, or do anything remotely skilled or artistic to get the result.
  
  Okay, but if theyre the one writing the prompt, changing parameters and pressing the button to generate it how are they not the one creating it?
  And i do think photography is pretty analogous here. Anyone can point a phone camera st something, hit one button and generate something. It takes no skill or artistic talent to do so and the phone is whats doing all the work, but its still creating art. And just like AI, people can put more effort into it, coming up with a creative subject, fine tuning different setting to get the effects they want, or even using different devices/models to get different images, and retaking it multiple times to get something theyre happy with, then touching it up in editing software.
  
  Okay, but if theyre the one writing the prompt, changing parameters and pressing the button to generate it how are they not the one creating it?
  Again, the same can be said about hiring a person on fiverr with revisions. You write out what you want, adjust parameters with revisions, and click the "send message" button, but someone else is actually making the art. Just because, in this instance, the "other person" is a computer, doesn't change the fact that the requester isn't making art.
  As for the camera analogy, sure, it is similar, but again I think it's missing an important part that makes the photographer the artist. For one, the photographer HAS to have the thing they are taking a picture of directly in front of them. The have to pick an angle and framing for the shot. The picture taken consists of their perspective in that moment, without outside influence. When someone writes a prompt for image generation, they don't really have a direct effect on the output. Sure, you can say that you want a blue flower with six petals, but the chances that you get that out aren't guarenteed. You can say you want it in the style of Van Gogh, or to have the look of a specific camera, or to have specific elements blurred, etc, but ultimately what's returned isn't up to you. Every time I've ever generated AI art, it is never exactly what I went into it wanting. Sure, it gets close, but there will be details off. I've had to accept compromise with the AI. AI art will always only work without exact expectations. People interacting with the AI will only have the option of "close enough." That means fundamentally the prompter isn't in control of the actual artwork, and thus isn't actually the one creating art.
  
  Why are they not making it? Where is the line? I assume we both agree that a digital artist is making their art right? But when you boil it down they are still just sending a computer insteuctions and its making it for them. Or if its about getting exactly what you want out it, what about artists that create art algorithmically or with a paint can on a string? Or what about people who just arent very skilled at art? For example when i draw, i have to settle for "close enough" and also in photography i usually cant get the exact shot i want with the camera and will have to edit it to get close.
  
  Sure, digital artists are making their art. But if they are using procedural elements, which are common in many 3d modeling and texturing softwares (to be clear, not powered by AI) I would argue they didn't really "make" that art, it was generated for them. If they add those generated elements to a piece, i would say they created the art piece as a whole, but they didn't create the generated part. If they are manually placing pieces, shaping models, and painting textures, then I still would consider them having created art.
  I think where to draw the line is pretty clear. Did you do more than ask something/someone to make an art piece for you? Then you did art. Say you get an image generated for you. You didn't create it. If you then make meaningful changes to it (If you want to know my definition of meaningful change, just check the legal definition of transformative changes to media, I pretty much align with what the courts have decided) I would argue that you made the art piece as a whole, but you still didn't make the generated part.
  As for the paint can on a string, I would argue they still created it. They actively tossed the paint can, cut the holes for the paint to come out, etc. If instead they had a machine that poked the holes randomly and randomly picked a direction/force to use, I wouldn't say they made the work.
  When it comes to editing a photo you took, I think that it still counts as you making the art, unless you are having someone/something edit the picture for you. In that case, it's as if you were the original artist, and the editor is the one having made the transformative changes, making the new output the art of the editor, while the original art is still yours.

196 comments