AI Art.
-
I can get an AI to generate some code for me. Now I'm a programmer despite never having done code in my life, nor do I understand the first thing about what goes into coding.
Oh, or how about I get it to generate law stuff for me and I call myself a lawyer?
Generating papers on medical or psychology stuff and now I'm practically a doctor or a psychologist.
The way I see it, AI can be a useful tool that can help optimizing processes, but to use them as a replacement of real work and effort is a mistake at best and incredibly lazy and delusional at worst.
-
sure thing ill do.
typing a few prompts is no effort. you literally just type what you want, then just slightly adjust your prompt. it doesn't even take me 5 minutes to achieve a satisfactory result, and not even 10 to get exactly what i want. you may generate to your hearts content but dont call it art. and especially dont call it "my art".
It was a sarcasm, I thought people would get it because of the “lol” — my bad. All I was trying to say is, to me, using AI without putting in real effort, time, or actual skill doesn’t feel like art. If anyone can just type a few words and get results instantly, then it loses meaning. That’s not creativity, that’s convenience. And yeah, I get that it can still look good — but calling it “your art do also just doesn’t sit right with me too.
-
It was a sarcasm, I thought people would get it because of the “lol” — my bad. All I was trying to say is, to me, using AI without putting in real effort, time, or actual skill doesn’t feel like art. If anyone can just type a few words and get results instantly, then it loses meaning. That’s not creativity, that’s convenience. And yeah, I get that it can still look good — but calling it “your art do also just doesn’t sit right with me too.
my fault chief, i think i have been scrolling too much tiktok lately and forgot that some people are actually capable of joking.
-
my fault chief, i think i have been scrolling too much tiktok lately and forgot that some people are actually capable of joking.
Yeah no problem
-
I don't think that's quite the right analogy. You're not talking to humans to get your images. You are using a tool that's designed to generate images from written language.
A better analogy would be an invention of a mechanical cook. While it will sometimes make edible food if you just give it regular language instructions, to get something truly tasty and interesting out of it you need to learn how it works and even understand its inner functioning. And while doing that may or may not make you "a cook", it does give you the ability to produce new interesting food and share it with others, which is useful&cool in its own right.
Given how vague most definitions of "art" are, I feel like we can call some AI-generated stuff a form of art (but that's not a strong opinion of mine). I don't think we should gatekeep what "art" is - if it allows you to express your emotions and feelings and share it with others, I say why not call it "art"? It's definitely not the same as painting or drawing or photography, but it can produce interesting and/or aesthetically pleasing results, and the results improve with skill.
And yet, you just feed it instruction. All his "ingredients" are taken from others "plates". Nothing truly new can come out of it.
The most "original" think i've ever saw from the ai models was the messy dream-like pictures of their first generations. Since then everything has turn into a beautiful, clean, monotonous remix of something else.
