Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stonehead" data-source="post: 9580558" data-attributes="member: 7047885">Ban overall is good in my opinion. We ban steroids in the Olympics because they're a contest of human athletic ability. In a contest of human artistic ability, the same standards should apply. Steroids are still a useful medicine for people with certain health conditions. But they're not allowed in a competition. Maybe this is pushing the metaphor too far, but if you're on a Basketball team, and one of your teammates uses steroids, the whole team loses its medal. [HR][/HR]On the thread-crapping tangent topic: a few people wrote something to the effect of "photography counts as art, so ai 'artists' should too". I think that's a bad comparison for two reasons. First, I think is a misunderstanding of how photography works. A lot of work goes into professional photography from simple stuff like lighting and framing to more advanced topics like exposure time and color grading. Professional photography is not "Step 1: find something that looks good. Step 2: take a picture of it. Step 3: done." To make a more philosophical point, The Grand Canyon isn't eligible to win a photography contest. Photographs (taken by humans) are.The second point I would make is that ai image generation isn't even like the simple process of pointing your phone at something cool and pressing a button. It's like telling someone else to do that. A good rule of thumb is to imagine a different human being doing all the work the ai does and then ask yourself if you would still be considered an artist. Great bestselling authors still have editors to catch typos and propose grammar fixes, but we still call the author an artist. So things like spellcheck probably don't stop you from being an artist. Lots of famous traditional artists have assistants to help with filling in flat colors, or inking over sketches. So simple tools like image editing software had ~5 years ago probably shouldn't stop you from being considered an artist.If someone describes a painting really well using short phrases, separated by commas, and then hands that off to their assistant who does everything else, we probably wouldn't call the first person the "artist" who created the painting.If someone uses ai to create a base, and copies that image on their own, it's an edge case in a gray area. But tracing has been a frowned upon gray area for artists long before generative ai came around.This doesn't have that much to do with the Ennies though, who are well within their right to define their own rules. Speed painting contests didn't let their contestants use assistants either way.</blockquote>

Verification