Haven't seen this on here yet - humans don't require computers to create art... Art is inherent in us.

Haven't seen this on here yet
I've seen it 3 times already.

Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.
- dra... dragonessi....dragoness..es

Comments here are a shit show.
- Here as in... They internet?

This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
- Archaeologists:
- Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
  
  Around the 2000's a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.
  
  Wanking: The Ritual
  New on Steam!
- arouse

I've always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it's trying to say.
I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art... presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you'll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.
I don't think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don't think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it'll be for different reasons and in different scales than I'm... eh... moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I'm impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.
- The thing is, an AI 'artist' isn't making art. They are generating images with no real meaning or effort put into them.
  
  That depends on what they're doing. If they're entering a prompt and rolling with what they get out of it, then sure.
  If they're inputting a prompt and refining it with solely AI tools then meeeh, that starts to fade a little. I'd ask why someone is spending hours going back and forth with an AI instead of doing some of it manually, but it's hard to tell one way or the other from the final output.
  If they're inputting a prompt, refining it with AI tools and heavily editing what comes out in image editing software that's approaching some strange digital mixed media weirdness I don't think we have particularly good intuitions for.
  If they're inputting a prompt and using the output as some building block like a texture on a 3D model or for a content aware fill in photo editing or for a brush or a stamp I genuinely have no mental model for what impact that has in my assessment of the "meaning" or "effort" going into a piece, if I'm being perfectly honest.
  Reductionism isn't serving us particularly well on this one. Makes the pushback feel poorly informed and excessively dogmatic.
- I think the argument is that an AI "artist" is incapable of creating art. Their "tool" does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.
- Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
  Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
  
  I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren't trying to replace humans with programs, weren't causing huge environmental impact, and weren't trained on stolen content. It's the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
  
  I don't understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it's just a tool.
  If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more. A good gen AI artist would also be a good prompt engineer, which would also mean an expanded skillset. Game developers, architects, engineers, could also speed up their work to hit the ground running instead of doing a bunch of repetitive stuff.
  Everybody has to adapt to AI. Adapt or die, it's quite simple.
- This pretty well encapsulates my feelings, except for the issue of training the models. AI is cool tech, but the fact remains that people are making money off of scraped content. Not to mention the environmental aspect.
  Honestly I find it difficult to reconcile.
  In a perfect world, we would have open source models trained on public domain and properly licensed content.
  I don’t think AI is going to replace artists any time soon. On the personal side, people create for the joy of it, whatever that means to them. On the professional side, people have a hard enough time communicating what they want to an actual person, much less a computer.
  As someone that likely has moderate aphantasia, I really struggle with describing what I want. Being able to tell an image gen to make so many variations of X, and then commission a friend to take inspiration from Y and Z to make something original is really freeing for both sides, imo.
  I’ve never gotten exactly what I’m looking for, but it almost always gives me something to point to, without doing a bunch of test drafts. I suppose that’s technically taking work away from the artist, but so does having an ‘undo’ button in procreate.
  Idk, it’s a more complex issue than many make it out to be. I’m still further on the fuck ai side than not, just due to its current implementations.
  End rant.
  
  I mean Adobe firefly addresses the properly licensed dataset issue and afaik it's all viewable (though I'd much prefer something anyone could use offline locally). Environmental impact will always be an issue unless we see some evidence of mitigation either from direct green energy use or at least creating additional green energy generation from any organization doing the base model training.

Furries: "I would like to purchase this rock."
- *Scalies

It has but it is always good to see.
Also Source.

The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin...

Supreme Court: that's not art that's pornography. I cant exactly define pornography, but "you know it when you see it."
:P
- Also, if you stick a stamp on it and mail it… straight to jail.
  
  that generally criminalize the involvement of the United States Postal Service, […] in conveying obscene matter,[1] crime-inciting matter, or certain abortion-related matter
  How specific. We know who perpetrated this law.

BEEEG DRAGOM TTS

- There has to be an understanding artists put effort over time into their work, developing skill sets, at the very least that are not inherent.
  That is the point actually. Having an artistic skill set is relevant to being an artist, not the tools themselves, because creating art is a whole process.
  AI tech bros are equating typing a prompt into an AI generator, which is basically like using a search engine to find existing art from a creative perspective, and creating art.
  
  I mean there is an art form where you just take cut up elements of art (photos of eyes, face portions, etc.) and carefully paste them together into a piece of art. And that's still art. Because an artist actually thought about these elements, took them, pasted them, all for specific effect. (And like all arts there's good exemplars and bad ones.) Someone doing the same thing with random pieces kinda/sorta thrown together isn't making art, however.
  AI picture generators are like the latter one: just taking random pieces of shit, and sticking them together. It is not making them for specific effect because it doesn't know what specific effect even MEANS. It pairs certain collections of picture elements with certain words, randomly throws them together without any regard for the whole, and slops that onto the screen.
  Which is why you get bizarre incoherences like belts not continuing when a strand of hair crosses over top, say, or buttons that button nothing in random locations, or the infamous cthonic fingers of doom. There's no comprehension.

If all it takes to be a "real artist" is drawing proficiently, then every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist and every performance or installation artist who can't draw is not an artist.
I don't like AI slop, but this argument against it just doesn't make sense.
- If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently
  I think you are miss-understanding the argument.
  Pro-AI folk say that being anti-AI, as a digital artist, is hypocrisy because you also used a computer. Here it is shown that, despite not using a computer, the artist is still able to create their art, because there is more to the visual arts than the tools you have to make it. This puts rest to the idea that using digital art tools is somehow hypocritical with being against AIGen.
  The argumentor is not saying that not knowing how to draw proficiently excludes being an artist. They are just saying that real artist do not need a computer program to create their arts, much like performances or installation artists you mentioned.
- It isn't saying that drawing is the only art form, just that having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist. Drawing was an example, performance art, music, and other forms of art are also criteria for being an artist.
  Hell, you don't even have to be proficient if you are able to create art that conveys something.
  every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist
  Yes, they are an artist if they are able to create art although the label only matters in reference to the things they create. It doesn't mean everything they do is art.
  Using AI prompts is like using a web search to find art someone else created, it isn't creating art. Does writing down an idea for a book make someone an author? No, it does not.
  
  the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
  What is "scratch"?
  That's the whole argument against AI art.
  Did you make spaghetti with pre-made noodles?
  Did you make your own noodles?
  Did you grind up your own wheat?
  Did you make easy mac in the microwave?
  Which one is a true chef?
  Maybe
  Probably
  Definitely
  Probably not
  Does the AI make the "art" or does the artist use AI as a tool.
  The chef creates the easy mac. A person cooks the easy mac.
  Having AI create the "easy mac", then trying to claim cooking the "easy mac" makes you a chef is what's wrong
  But if you get the AI to create the noodles, sauce, meat ball seasoning, etc. And you put it all together well. Then you can claim you're somewhat of a chef.
  
  ~~You realize you just said photographers aren't artists, right?~~
  Edit: Someone already pointed this out. Ignore this comment. I don't delete it because Lemmy is weird about deleting comments.
  
  having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
  This implies photographers aren't artists though. They rely on a specific tool - the camera - and utilize it to create art. This ranges from "just" taking pictures to setting up elaborate scenes.
  Another example - for which I have forgotten the name - is art utilizing computers. Not in the sense of anything digital but rather electronic calculating machines built to beep, boop and blink. I've been to an exhibition which featured this type of art by one artist. Some were interactive, some weren't, some were (partially) broken after decades of age and some were still functioning. Most were built during the 60s to 90s by the way. I believe the artist never did created any other art, at least publicly. He was an artist nonetheless.
  I'd say AI art is art. Any definition of artistry which attempts to exclude AI art must also exclude other unconventional art forms.
  The question shouldn't be what art is or isn't anyways. Such questions often lead to gatekeeping or nazis. Rather, it should be about the meaning of art. And most of AI art has the sole meaning of looking decent. AI art cannot ever replace more meaningful art as it alone lacks much meaning. It may at most supplement it, with some artists perhaps using AI deliberately as part of a work.
  
  having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist.
  But in that case all AI artists are artists because all humans can create art from scratch. Everyone draws in the dirt.
  I'm happy considering all humans artists - I do think that - but again that means that burning a stick and drawing on a rock is just not a valid metric for being an artist.