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

[Morrus]

Rude.

Because I acknowledged what you said?

 

[FrogReaver]

Because I acknowledged what you said?

No.

 

[Mecheon]

Yes, and posts have context. The context of my post was first and foremost comparing LLM 'art' with similar people created art. As such only the digital definition needs to be applied.

So? It was a poor definition that does not match how the word is used. The context is irrelevant, you're used a word with a definition and then attempted to re-define it in such a way to exclude things that people unequivocally call art, all to try to prove a point about AI.

I can describe food as something between two slices of bread, but that not only isn't right due to the overwhelming evidence of other food items, it also doesn't mean if I stick a brick between two slices of bread, its suddenly food. You can't just redefine common terms that hard.

For the kinds of art my definition is meant to apply to, it is very useful and absolutely correct. Insisting that one must always use a more universal definition when talking specific subsets in a specific context is not logical.

You didn't say 'kinds of art'. You said 'art' in its entirety. And its not useful, nor is it correct. Me slapping keys on a keyboard is creating pixels on the screen, but I wouldn't say the majority of my forum posting is art, even if I occasionally come up with some bangers in Discord.

Likewise myself going into Minecraft and painstakingly using my gathered supplies to create a castle easily could be said to be art, but I'm not creating any pixels at all in that process. If you're arguing that Minecraft builds aren't art, I've got questions

And heck, I haven't even gotten into music. "Creating pixels" would mean that music isn't art by this definition.

Its a terrible definition that doesn't fit any description of art, that you're trying to hammer down to prove a point about AI.

 

[FrogReaver]

The context is irrelevant,

The context is always relevant.

you're used a word with a definition and then attempted to re-define it in such a way to exclude things that people unequivocally call art, all to try to prove a point about AI.

No I didn't. I defined what digital art is, the only thing LLM's can actually produce, which is the key context of this whole discussion.

Like why the heck does it matter if art is also painting a physical paint brush on a physical canvas? Why does that have anything to do with the topic of whether a human can use a LLM as a tool to output art (oh wait, not art, digital art, I wouldn't want to be accused of redefining a word)

I can describe food as something between two slices of bread, but that not only isn't right due to the overwhelming evidence of other food items, it also doesn't mean if I stick a brick between two slices of bread, its suddenly food. You can't just redefine common terms that hard.

My definition wasn't incorrect for digital art though.

You didn't say 'kinds of art'. You said 'art' in its entirety.

Okay. Can you accept that I thought the context should have made the implication and limitations apparent? If so, can you see why I think it fine to use the broader term art in place of the digital art subset given the context?

Likewise myself going into Minecraft and painstakingly using my gathered supplies to create a castle easily could be said to be art, but I'm not creating any pixels at all in that process. If you're arguing that Minecraft builds aren't art, I've got questions

Wasn't my definition creative intent alongside pixels being produced makes art? It's hard for me to understand why you think that wouldn't apply to minecraft? But in my opinion that would be art, sorry digitial art, and that clearly falls under the definition.

By the way, why did you call it art here instead of digital art? Are you redefining the word now?

And heck, I haven't even gotten into music. "Creating pixels" would mean that music isn't art by this definition.

Its a terrible definition that doesn't fit any description of art, that you're trying to hammer down to prove a point about AI.

Okay music isn't included in this definition. You got me But, so what? (nevermind that this whole discussion context has thus far been about LLM digital images).

I don't understand why instead of discussing my point where it does apply, that you are trying to point out places where it doesn't? What's the purpose there?

Like assume for a moment that my definition isn't broad enough and the context isn't clear enough. Does that really matter so long as it is accurate for some subset of art? The meat and potatoes is whether it's accurate for some subset of art not whether it should be broader or is accurate of all subsets of art. That is, unless it's not accurate for every subset of art, then it would still show how LLM's can be used by a human to produce art in at least one subset of art.