383
I'm a digital chef, I prompt the dish I want into doordash and it shows up in my home in 45 minutes.
Hey, you forgot to say "using AI"
If you aren't using more water to process the transaction then you are to grow the food, then can you even call yourself a modern food delivery company?
Being good at prompting AI to generate art is like being good at using a search engine to find a specific picture.
~~Search engine~~ AI artists!
It's a lot like commissioning something from an artist. You have to describe what you want, with the style, details and mood you want to see, then maybe go back and forth a few times until it's just right. Doing that well is a skill, so are things like art direction. But replacing the humans executing on the direction with a machine doesn't suddenly make the directing human an artist.
You’re being facetious but searching is a skill too. A simple skill but still a skill.
Nobody said it wasn't a skill, just that it isn't the same thing as creating art. You know, the thing that artists do.
load more comments
(5 replies)
By coincidence, a friend just posted this elsewhere:
"Nothing will stop real artists from making art."
I think this is kinda an empty sentiment. Nobody is trying to stop artists from making art. They're just trying to stop paying a lot of them for their art.
They didn’t claim anyone was trying to stop them from making art. In the context of the rest of the post, that is about how a lack of a specific tool or software won’t stop artists from creating art.
You’re spot on about them trying to stop paying people for art, though.
If you take away an artist's brushes, they can't make art without making new brushes.
All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.
I don't like AI art, but I don't think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.
There are a ton of other types of art than those using brushes. Hell, the example is using something other than a brush.
As a digital artist his brush is a stylus pen, but he can put that down and use a whittled burnt charcoal pencil, because they're both largely brush-like objects. A prompt-wrangler can't go into their backyard and whip up a midjourney-like object to use in the same way.
But I don't think complexity of tools makes a real artist.
If the argument is that digital artists have learnt the skill of drawing and therefore count as real artists, well some percentage of prompt-wranglers can draw, and some percentage of conceptual, 'outsider' and other artists can't draw.
Almost all professionally trained artists can draw, but I hope we can agree that professionally trained doesn't = real artist either.
I think "plagiarists aren't real artists" is a much sounder argument than this, but mostly I don't think there's much sense in policing who or what is a real artist. Even about stuff I don't like.
If the argument is that digital artists have learnt the skill of drawing and therefore count as real artists, well some percentage of prompt-wranglers can draw
If I'm a chef, and have the ability to make gourmet meals, but I doordash a burger from Applebees, I still haven't cooked the burger. Similarly, if you can draw and you ask an AI to make an image for you, you haven't drawn the image. You've commissioned the image. Your skill in drawing may allow you to prompt for more specific changes, but it does not mean you drew it.
Plenty of artists don't make their art in that way. Most of the grand masters of the past had underlings who did most of the painting, and since Duchamp found objects have been considered valid art.
I wouldn't consider someone who didn't do the painting themselves to be the artist of a painting either. You could call them the art director or something, but they are at most a coauthor of the art. They are not making all of the artistic decisions. That's pretty similar to AI art.
Found objects have about the same artistic value as well-made AI art too, yeah. You're going through a selection process to find something that appears pleasing. I think AI art is more similar to directing, but found art isn't far off.
In the OP their entire medium and tool set was taken away and they still made art. Not sure how that’s not demonstrating perfectly that an artist can make art no matter what they have on hand.
piss in the snow
Finger paint in blood (your own ideally)
Those "caveman" hand prints in caves aren't ancient art?
Cave art artist are definitely real artists, for sure.
As I said I don't see any need to police who counts as an artist.
If you really understand what your tools do (not how tools do it), you are a true professional (in this case, an artist). You use some tools to achieve a certain effect and you know what it will be like. AI "artists" don't know what AI will do for them in the next moment. At least something like that.
This rocks
It's the one rock actually
Among other criticisms, "using technology" does not mean something is "digital". The example on the rock seems to be analog from everything in the post above.
They weren’t saying that the rock art was digital art.
They’re saying that as an artist whose medium of choice is digital, they can still make art in other mediums and that any artist will be able to do the same, no matter their medium.
load more comments
(4 replies)
They used their digits to make it!
Talks about real art being unique and then goes and draws the most generic, cliched furry shit that looks exactly like a million others.
They didnt say it was unique. They said "AI artists" claim to be artists like digital artists because they both use technology, then went on to show that a real artist can make art with anything and that these "AI artists" need their prompts or they can't do it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ahem, that is scalie shit tyvm.
And yet, not being an artist, I couldn't possibly draw that.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You could absolutely use AI to make art. Almost all AI content you find online isn't that though
There was a neat video where a math youtuber alternated the goal prompt for an AI image generator between two different sentences, while rearranging the pieces of the image, to generate images that were jigsaw puzzles that could be put together one way to make the image for the first prompt and a different way to make the image for the second. I think it was on Numberphile
As much as I like this post, it ain't true for digital 3d artists. While you can lay down some objects and stuff, it's still extremely limited.
I could be wrong but my impression has been a lot of 3D artists often have sculpting backgrounds or parallel interests because they carry a lot of the same general compositional principles.
Even a 3D artist who has never used clay before is going to be able to make something from it that looks good, just because so many of the same artistic principles and methods of thinking about how to modify what you’re working on to get the result you want still apply.
Give an AI ‘artist’ anything other than a plagiarism machine and suddenly they can’t do anything, because they don’t want to actually put in the time and effort to understand art beyond ‘this one looks good and this one doesn’t’.
What are the limitations? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering what’s on your mind that couldn’t be made in diorama form
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
383 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
1629 readers
92 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS