I'm going to say it again. It cannot be theft. Nothing is stolen. What did they have before they don't have now?

I see people disagree with me but they are too lame to try and say why, and they definitely could not explain how, when there is nothing in AI but a probability algorithm.

Seriously? They're auctioning AI generated shit? Fucking seriously?? Didn't anybody learn anything from those stupid fucking nft?

I can't buy into the theft idea. It is like describing ideas in mathmatical concepts. The ai contains nothing of the original.

Is there another word that fits better? I don't know.

On the other hand, why would anyone buy art without knowing the artist? I commision art, I buy art, but I always get to know who it is from and in most cases how they made it: watercolor, oil, pen, etc.

A lot of non creative types in this thread. We get it, guys, your mom didn't like the Valentine's card you drew her egg you were 10.

Phrases my friends would never use:

AI Art

It would be kind of funny to offer AI schlock for sale and then give the buyer a framed copy of the prompt instead of the print itself

I love the high bar of philosophy and taste being set by the discussions here about what is and isn't art, so please don't let this note distract from those.

Joints like Christie's and the stuff they sell is largely a money laundering operation. Without decrying what's coming out of the modern art scene, art collection is where a lot of the capitalists rinse their stolen wealth. There's an entire economy around this practice. Here's a company that will hook you up with the vaults, the lawyers, jewelry to swap, and travel accommodations.

So obviously generative output bots do not make art and- and- BUT ALSO nothing capitalists value is real, they only believe in their fiat. It's all always just money crime game to them. Always.

The question about if AI art is art often fixates on some weird details that I either don't care about or I think are based on fallacious reasoning. Like, I don't like AI art as a concept and I think it's going to often be bad art (I'll get into that later), but some of the arguments I see are centered in this strangely essentialist idea that AI art is worse because of an inherent lack of humanity as a central and undifferentiated concept. That it lacks an essential spark that makes it into art. I'm a materialist, I think it's totally possible for a completely inhuman machine to make something deeply stirring and beautiful- the current trends are unlikely to reliably do that, but I don't think there's something magic about humans that means they have a monopoly on beauty, creativity or art.

However, I think a lot of AI art is going to end up being bad. This is especially true of corporate art, and less so for individuals (especially those who already have an art background). Part of the problem is that AI art will always lack the intense level of intentionality that human-made art has, simply by the way it's currently constructed. A probabilistic algorithm that's correlating words to shapes will always lack the kind of intention in small detail that a human artist making the same piece has, because there's no reason for the small details other than either probabilistic weight or random element. I can look at a painting someone made and ask them why they picked the colors they did. I can ask why they chose the lighting, the angle, the individual elements. I can ask them why they decided to use certain techniques and not others, I can ask them about movements that they were trying to draw inspiration from or emotions they were trying to communicate.

The reasons are personal and build on the beauty of art as a tool for communication in a deep, emotional and intimate way. A piece of AI art using the current technology can't have that, not because of some essential nature, but just because of how it works. The lighting exists as it does because it is the most common way to light things with that prompt. The colors are the most likely colors for the prompt. The facial expressions are the most common ones for that prompt. The prompt is the only thing that really derives from human intention, the only thing you can really ask about, because asking, "Hey, why did you make the shoes in this blue? Is it about the modern movement towards dull, uninteresting colors in interior decoration, because they contrast a lot with the way the rest of the scene is set up," will only ever give you the fact that the algorithm chose that.

Sure, you can make the prompts more and more detailed to pack more and more intention in there, but there are small, individual elements of visual art that you can't dictate by writing even to a human artist. The intentionality lost means a loss of the emotional connection. It means that instead of someone speaking to you, the only thing you can reliably read from AI art is what you are like. It's only what you think.

I'm not a visual artist, but I am a writer, and I have similar problems with LLMs as writing tools because of it. When I do proper writing, I put so much effort and focus into individual word choices. The way I phrase things transforms the meaning and impact of sentences, the same information can be conveyed so many ways to completely different focus and intended mood.

A LLM prompt can't convey that level of intentionality, because if it did, you would just be writing it directly.

I don't think this makes AI art (or AI writing) inherently immoral, but I do think it means it's often going to be worse as an effective tool of deep, emotional connection.

I think AI art/writing is bad because of capitalism, which isn't an inherent factor. If we lived in fully-automated gay luxury space communism, I would have already spent years training an LLM as a next-generation oracle for tabletop-roleplaying games I like. They're great for things like that, but alas, giving them money is potentially funding the recession of arts as a profession.

Don't see a problem tbh, value is set by what someone will pay. If someone will pay for it then it is worth that.

Artists are inspired by each other.
If I draw something being inspired by e. g. Bansky, and it's not a direct copy - it's legal.

We don't live in a vacuum.