AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Bill Zebub]

AI art will never be good because it will never be art. It will have no soul or creative expression. It will only ever be a 'will this do?' copy and paste.

Huh.

That raises interesting questions about definitions.

I frequently find nature, both here on earth and in the sky, to be not just beautiful but thought-provoking. And, yet, I can also believe (do believe) that they were created without "soul" or "creative expression".


So maybe they are beautiful and inspiring but not "art"? I could accept that, or accept that we define "art" in such a way that this is true.

In which case I would also be ok with the statement: "AI is capable of generating beautiful and inspiring things, but it's still not art."

EDIT: Another example would be the Mandelbrot set. A friend of mine in college....this is in the late 80s...did a senior project of Mandelbrot images but the art department told him it "wasn't art".

 

[soviet]

Huh.

That raises interesting questions about definitions.

I frequently find nature, both here on earth and in the sky, to be not just beautiful but thought-provoking. And, yet, I can also believe (do believe) that they were created without "soul" or "creative expression".


So maybe they are beautiful and inspiring but not "art"? I could accept that, or accept that we define "art" in such a way that this is true.

In which case I would also be ok with the statement: "AI is capable of generating beautiful and inspiring things, but it's still not art."

EDIT: Another example would be the Mandelbrot set. A friend of mine in college....this is in the late 80s...did a senior project of Mandelbrot images but the art department told him it "wasn't art".

Well, much of nature is alive, so I'm not sure about soul. I also don't believe in a divine creator. But the process that creates birds, rivers, flowers, and sunsets is incredibly complex and multi-layered. It can be beautiful and soulful without having to have had a designer.

But 'Lol copypaste an average of hundreds of pictures, but with 10% more boobs' is not capable of creating art, beauty, or genuine inspiration, only perhaps a semblance of it for people who have no sophistication or soul themselves.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, much of nature is alive, so I'm not sure about soul. I also don't believe in a divine creator. But the process that creates birds, rivers, flowers, and sunsets is incredibly complex and multi-layered. It can be beautiful and soulful without having to have had a designer.

But 'Lol copypaste an average of hundreds of pictures, but with 10% more boobs' is not capable of creating art, beauty, or genuine inspiration, only perhaps a semblance of it for people who have no sophistication or soul themselves.

Well, I hope you are able to take solace in your superiority when the world goes in the direction you seem to be hoping it won't.

 

[Morrus]

Well, I hope you are able to take solace in your superiority when the world goes in the direction you seem to be hoping it won't.

This is getting a bit spiky, folks. Dial it back, please!

 

[Bill Zebub]

But 'Lol copypaste an average of hundreds of pictures, but with 10% more boobs' is not capable of creating art, beauty, or genuine inspiration, only perhaps a semblance of it for people who have no sophistication or soul themselves.

...the other thing I find interesting about these sorts of statements, which seem to be quite common, is that if it's true that the world is full of uncultured troglodytes who can't tell AI slop from legitimate art, then doesn't it make more sense for us to replace artists with AI? Why pay for good art if it's only the artists themselves some people who really appreciate it? Have we been overcharged all this time for "art" when something less would have sufficed?

It reminds me of the story (perhaps apocryphal, too lazy to go verify) of Henry Ford sending an underling to go investigate junk yards and find out which parts of his cars were in the best shape. The answer: axles. So Ford figured he was paying for overbuilt axles and found a cheaper alternative.

Not that I agree with the initial premise, mind you. Just pointing out what I find to be a strange argument.

 

[pawsplay]

Vocabulary check: generative AI doesn't produce art, it produces pictures and illustrations and text. Art requires some kind of human motivation. Even if it's just curating random AI slop and saying something through organization.

 

[soviet]

...the other thing I find interesting about these sorts of statements, which seem to be quite common, is that if it's true that the world is full of uncultured troglodytes who can't tell AI slop from legitimate art, then doesn't it make more sense for us to replace artists with AI? Why pay for good art if it's only the artists themselves who really appreciate it?

I guess it might make sense if your one and only imperative is commercial, but it represents exactly the kind of race to the bottom that most people abhor.

You also made quite the leap to go from 'not everyone appreciates it' to 'only artists appreciate it'.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Minor quibble, but after doing some reading on this it seems like it's not "still" but "once again"...

LOL. I guess that's technically true. But I'm ooooold so it just feels like still (At least since the mid-80s).

 

[Bill Zebub]

LOL. I guess that's technically true. But I'm ooooold so it just feels like still (At least since the mid-80s).

Ha! Not that old. I meant that, from it's heydey before the rise of modern medicine it fell out of favor for a century, and then came back in the period you're talking about.

Not that I rattle stuff off from memory. I had looked it up before making the post you're referring to.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess it might make sense if your one and only imperative is commercial, but it represents exactly the kind of race to the bottom that most people abhor.

But a LOT of creative work is purely commercial. If I'm creating a powerpoint presentation and I want an image of a particular something, and in my judgment some generative AI, even with obvious flaws, still serves the purpose particularly well, then isn't it overpaying to have an artist do it?

I do see how this sentence:

Have we been overcharged all this time for "art" when something less would have sufficed?

Could have been interpreted to mean all art in all situations, when I really meant in some indeterminate number of cases.

You also made quite the leap to go from 'not everyone appreciates it' to 'only artists appreciate it'.

Lol. Ok, fine, I changed the post. It doesn't really change the meaning.