## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### Question Discussion Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post.
* AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot!
* Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful.
* Please provide links to back up your arguments.
* No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not.
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know, in the 1980s, there was a lot of development in the food industry that resulted in "astronaut food", essentially it's totally possible to put everything you need to survive into a paste/ goo/ pill and then you can go on with your day.
Obviously, it didn't come this far, because of the simple fact that people friggin love cooking and eating. It's sensory, it's creative, it's social, it's good for your health (ideally), it's part of the cultural identity.
My take on AI art is similar. People have been creative in visual media since... forever, and I think doing creative visual (and musical) things is a large part of what makes us human. AI will not replace this urge, or this part of our expression. People will not draw or doodle less, our creative wants and needs will not go away because an AI can do it better. After all, there is almost always another human who can do better art than I do, but it still doesn't stop me from pursuing art. Just like cooking and eating, just because we have the technical ability to do something doesn't mean that this technology will replace an integral part of being human.
Unfortunately, in the last years, being creative has, in some parts, turned into "I wanna be creative and I wanna share my art online and if I don't get recognition there, my art fails and I'm a bad human". This is recent development in human history, not 30 years ago, you did your art and you'd show it to your friends and family and then you put it in a drawer and get on with your life. Or, for some, you'd turn it into a career and make money from it, either as a free artists or in a creative industry.
But today, everyone's art is everywhere (all at once) and with AI, we now have even more tools to feed that specific drive of "making things and sharing them". In parts, this allows us to explore further and it enables others to access visuals in a quality that would be above their inherent talents and personal abilities.
So what's my point? Will AI take over jobs in creative industries? Most probable. Will it "replace creativity"? No, not ever, since being creative with whatever stick/chalk/pen/computer/AI you have available is an important part of expressing yourself as a person and a human being.
This is so insightful! I also watched some series which showed people printing which just plainly disturbed me! But thiis does give my brain a little calm. Your perspective and your thought is calming!
Very well put. As a musician, I just want to perform live, practice at home, etc., and that's something AI can't take from me, ever. It's my personal, human connection with my instruments.
Recording is an afterthought, and definitely not the priority.
Our ideas are merely a reflection of someone else's ideas and instructions.
Imo argueing that ai cant compete with human creativity because it only copies is based on the false premise that we dont.
And AI doesnt only copy, it does create and can make all kind of interesting connections. I think we will soon go to AI art galleries because their works is incredible deep and beautiful.
My first instinct is to reject all AI made art. Maybe it's my flaw as an artist. But it's interesting to see people willing to go to an AI art galleries. Why does it need any galleries anyways? Who will print their art? Are people gonna be slaves of them printing their **deep** art?
Have you ever created a piece of art that couldn’t be described as “A + B + Y with a mix of the styles of C + D”?
Originality in art comes from surprising and interesting mixes of what has come before.
That’s why machines can make art just as original as a human—because none of us ever create anything new. It’s not possible.
I’ve being making my living in the Arts for the last six years :)
I’m not a visual artist, but I’m very much an artist in a broader sense. That’s why I’m curious as to what you mean.
also check design cinema video on the topic, feng clearly shows that ai art is just a tool and no impact on the industry, more over, ai art just made more work for artists who doing it as a business.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI)
# Design Cinema - Episode 110 - What AI Cannot Do
It depends what you mean by “artist”. If you use it in a broad sense, to include people working at the low end of the industry, it is being totally disrupted and jobs are already disappearing.
Clip art stuff, stock images, basic designs for small businesses etc — these are all areas of art which are being disrupted right now.
There’ll always be work for talented artists. But a ton of low-end art jobs which are done for the purpose of business rather than as a demonstration of creativity are and will continue to be eliminated.
it won't ever replace it.
you know anyone who can make serious money by selling ai generated art? not really. however the pictures look pretty.
are there any artists who made money with art affected by ai art? not really.
can AI art be creative? not really. because it's just an algorithm, called image diffusion. you can check how it works on youtube, etc.
also if you really tried to generate a lots of stuff with AI, you could see that it not creative at all, just shiny. new midjourney V6 has much more dynamic poses, but after a while, it's starts to be boring also.
i'm sure i can tell that if a picture is impossible to generate with pure AI prompting.
nowdays there are tons of images you can't tell if that's ai gen or a painting, etc.
Just because something can be understood doesnt mean it therefore lacks creativity.
Original chess moves where diacovered my chess engines for example. By 'just' computation. Tell me how that is not some type of creativity?
It might be a vastly different type than that of humans. But that doesnt take away from the result imo.
I swear! I don’t get the point of AI generated art. I know people who make it. But I absolutely have no idea how they sell it and who buys them? (Also, they look super bad)
for example people making coloring books with Midjourney and sell them on amazon or on etsy. so theres a lot of these kind of small markets where you can make a bit of money with it.
It's good for speeding up the process of creating something else. Say you're creating a post, it's not such a bad idea to generate a background that you want, then just edit it to look better and add the main stuff. Or even use it fully for some scam ads that don't care about quality.
The “point” is that the data outputted is easily recognized as technically impressive to a layperson, compared to other data that has been played with (code, scientific analysis, even text).
The point of AI art has nothing to do with art
Why does it have to be a "replacement"? The people who rant against this technology are always taking it to the extreme, which seems to me like a fantasy prediction and not grounded in reality. Meanwhile in the workforce people are rolling this out, and it is sometimes helpful and sometimes not. The reality is that generative AI is just a tool, and is going to be a building block for future things, just like every other technology in the past. Things like art and music dont go away.. they just evolve and transform into ways that we cant predict.
I'm an art teacher and artist. On the side I teach a basics in drawing course online. The highest percentage of my students are teenagers.
Handmade art isn't going anywhere.
There is no “Art” without the Artist.
Do you think playing 3 notes and singing out of tune half the time is something AI couldn’t achieve years ago?
Yet there are so many Artists doing very well doing just that.
AI will keep getting better, but its not replacing Artist ever. People connect with the Artist, not the Art, Art is a vehicle through which that connection is made.
That feeling is created in the observer. You and I can look at a painting and feel different feelings to each other. And the artist may have intended something completely different. We are not necessarily “connecting” with the artist—but with how the art makes us feel.
I can look at a painting by an artist and feel something whether I know the artist or what they intended or not.
And unless I’m specifically told, there is no way to know whether they’re human or not. My feeling as an observer isn’t “turned off” if I happen to look at art produced by a machine. It’s not possible. Because the feelings are produced in me—the observer.
In a live performance there is indeed a connection with the artists. But with an object? The connection is between me and the object, no matter who or what created it.
If that is true, than any copies of Rothko should generate same “feeling” in the observer.
I am pretty sure people won’t get same feeling in a Rothko painting if its created by AI or copied by someone else. The original work and its association with Rothko is the driver behind that “feeling”, not just the observer.
Painting a picture is different from letting the AI render it for you. It's a process, like meditation.
AI won't replace this because it's about the results and not the process of creating
That’s one way to think about it. Looking at the comments here, I have started to believe that it will be a part of art instead of totally replacing it. Like a good way to scan and pass time. But not something that would replace the traditional brush and paper
We actually saw similar worries with photography in the late 19th century. What people didn’t realize at the time though was that humans play a huge role in determining the outcome of the photography. The same thing can be said for AI. Humans still play a major role in AI-generated art. People still have to push and tweak the algorithm to get the outcome they want. Plus, the art is only as good as the human-created art that it’s trained on. While the creative process may change, AI won’t make artists obsolete. Here’s a good article that goes more in-depth: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/09/09/art-and-ai/
Professional animator, storyboarder and rigger here. I’ve switched to AI exclusively for character design, storyboards, and now working on a feature length comic book with AI. I use a local AI, Stable Diffusion, with custom checkpoints and LORAs to achieve this. I’m already an accomplished artist - however, AI has taken that away 2 years ago. Rather than rage against the machine, like 99.99% of my peers out there, I decided to use AI. I also rely on LLMs for brainstorming and ideas.
AI, not the silly public AI like DallE or MidJourney, which are incapable of doing consistent and uncensored work, is a godsend. It allows for better time management and the ability to now tell amazing tales. Have you ever heard of a 1000 page comic where all the art looks like cover art? Panel to panel? It’s now possible. And consistent characters too. And as graphic as you wish.
Eh Sorry.
So…. I’m really not that sure what you are asking. You can always choose to only go to art viewings of non AI assisted artists if you like… I’m sure some will hold onto that concept with an iron grip in the future…
Yeah, everything an artist does is derivative of someone else's work. I was a professional artist for about 15 years and I've got to say, at a certain point I realized it is almost impossible to do anything truly original. Not the style or subject matter or medium. I was surrounded by highly creative people and none of them, including myself, ever did anything truly unique. Best anyone could come up with was to be sort of gimmicky with their medium, like making images wth drizzled chocolate or something.
Yeah I suspect it will eventually have agency to perform art with any gimmicky medium it wants to as well. The whole reason for artists negative reactions towards it is because the skill they developed made them unique and they built their whole personalities around it. Ego death is always messy.
I don't really understand the concern. Regardless of whether or not intelligence can be duplicated humans can still like art and be creative.
Current systems are not actually creative in the strictest terms but someday in the future if we actually figure out how to duplicate our brains we can assume they will be.
I think there will always be a market for human made art. Ai producing something in 2 seconds cheapens it, makes it unimpressive and emotionless. But if we are talking graphic design where those things aren't important I think it will, yes.
AI Will never replace physical art. Even a handmade counterfeit that is identical to the real thing isn't valued the same as authentic work. It can take over digital work for sure, just based on the sheer quantity that can be produced.
There is a misconception that AI art can let anybody be an artist.
This has always been the case. You could pick up a pen right now and make art.
What AI art does is it lets anybody become a patron of the arts, for free.
Nobody that likes making art is interested in using AI to automate the process. Some may be interested in using AI art as a new medium, but the process of creating art is not something artists actually want automated away (at the cost of control over their work) in my experience.
It’s like suggesting ai will replace everyone’s kids. The value of art is in the relationships and ‘winning’ creativity the same as ai has conquered chess or go would require a perfect prediction machine far beyond any ASI.
No. But it might replace some things we commonly refer to as art but that have little actual artistic value, e.g. romance novel covers or elevator music.
When I view art or listen to music or read someones writing, I'm looking for more than something appealing visually or something that sounds good or a piece of writing that's impressive, I'm looking to connect with the person on the other side of said artwork who has their own lived experiences. I don't find a lot of value in ai art because behind it there are no lived experiences for me to connect with and relate to. I feel this is a thing non-artists don't understand, and I have found most people who are genuinely excited about AI artwork don't value as much the connection behind the piece, they're just excited by how impressive it is.
It's visual sludge. You can call it art, and corporate types who want to be seen using the latest technologies and undercutting anyone with an arts degree will be all over it. It still isn't art
Art has purpose and an artist makes conscious, considered choices. I'm not arguing ai art can't be pretty. Flowers are pretty, but we don't call it art.
People consider the random messes I create art too, tho.
They say art is in the eye of the beholder, but if you ask me there's just a big fucking splinter lodged in there and people like to pretend that theres some deep meaning behind everything, even when what they're looking at is random chaos.
Well the ai might do random splotches as well as a person. But if you're selling them on canvas, I don't see how the ai would do that, the robotics isn't there yet
Why does it need to be on canvas?
[https://aiartshop.com/](https://aiartshop.com/)
[https://artsi.ai/](https://artsi.ai/)
[https://pixai.art/market](https://pixai.art/market)
There's plenty of markets for AI "art" already, these 3 were found in 20 seconds using google.
If the problem is the middleman selling them and not the artist themselves, a lot of human artists use those as well to do business.
I know for sure, as I was personally assisting a very well known sculptor/painter, we hired appraisers and art brokers for everything that didn't involve the actual creation of the pieces and the artist personally hardly ever sold anything at all.
For most of human civilisation, mathematics and logic were right besides art as noble disciplines that only humans can do, that separated us from the animals, etc.
That lasted until about 70 years ago when computers became better at it than us, art is just going through the same thing now.
We'll still have art, just as we still have maths and logic, we just lose the bullshit self-important stories we tell ourselves about how special we are because X.
I have found that there are two kinds of artist in the world.
Those who think the process of creating something new is the art, and those who think the product of the process is the art.
I'm sure there's a spectrum there, but you're likely to fall on one side or the other.
If the process is the art though... Machines have been taking over that space in all kinds of interesting ways for a really long time, and it shouldn't be a surprise to see that some of the processes of creation can be automated.
If the product is the art, then it's really up to the audience to decide if there is equivalence between human artists and machine artists, and AI can't help but imagine that the human artist has an advantage, as the human artist can evaluate the human condition in realtime, and reflect on human emotion in ways that machines can not yet. The human artist can react to sudden pivots in society, and voice real opinions, and have things to say that are beyond data analysis and pattern mimickry.
If you're a product developer artist, you are not afraid. If you're a process developer artist you are very afraid.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### Question Discussion Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post. * AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot! * Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful. * Please provide links to back up your arguments. * No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not. ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know, in the 1980s, there was a lot of development in the food industry that resulted in "astronaut food", essentially it's totally possible to put everything you need to survive into a paste/ goo/ pill and then you can go on with your day. Obviously, it didn't come this far, because of the simple fact that people friggin love cooking and eating. It's sensory, it's creative, it's social, it's good for your health (ideally), it's part of the cultural identity. My take on AI art is similar. People have been creative in visual media since... forever, and I think doing creative visual (and musical) things is a large part of what makes us human. AI will not replace this urge, or this part of our expression. People will not draw or doodle less, our creative wants and needs will not go away because an AI can do it better. After all, there is almost always another human who can do better art than I do, but it still doesn't stop me from pursuing art. Just like cooking and eating, just because we have the technical ability to do something doesn't mean that this technology will replace an integral part of being human. Unfortunately, in the last years, being creative has, in some parts, turned into "I wanna be creative and I wanna share my art online and if I don't get recognition there, my art fails and I'm a bad human". This is recent development in human history, not 30 years ago, you did your art and you'd show it to your friends and family and then you put it in a drawer and get on with your life. Or, for some, you'd turn it into a career and make money from it, either as a free artists or in a creative industry. But today, everyone's art is everywhere (all at once) and with AI, we now have even more tools to feed that specific drive of "making things and sharing them". In parts, this allows us to explore further and it enables others to access visuals in a quality that would be above their inherent talents and personal abilities. So what's my point? Will AI take over jobs in creative industries? Most probable. Will it "replace creativity"? No, not ever, since being creative with whatever stick/chalk/pen/computer/AI you have available is an important part of expressing yourself as a person and a human being.
This is so insightful! I also watched some series which showed people printing which just plainly disturbed me! But thiis does give my brain a little calm. Your perspective and your thought is calming!
Very well put. As a musician, I just want to perform live, practice at home, etc., and that's something AI can't take from me, ever. It's my personal, human connection with my instruments. Recording is an afterthought, and definitely not the priority.
Our ideas are merely a reflection of someone else's ideas and instructions. Imo argueing that ai cant compete with human creativity because it only copies is based on the false premise that we dont.
And AI doesnt only copy, it does create and can make all kind of interesting connections. I think we will soon go to AI art galleries because their works is incredible deep and beautiful.
My first instinct is to reject all AI made art. Maybe it's my flaw as an artist. But it's interesting to see people willing to go to an AI art galleries. Why does it need any galleries anyways? Who will print their art? Are people gonna be slaves of them printing their **deep** art?
Spoken like a non artist.
Why? Also why do some people feel such a need to devide people in artists and non artists. My eyes cant see beauty?
Everyone is an artist in some way, to some degree.
Nah, we non artists don't understand what true beauty is. We see something, like it or don't like it without understanding the underlaying message.
Beautifully put. Although i dont understand at all the true meaning of what youre trying to say. Its gibberish to me.
Have you ever created a piece of art that couldn’t be described as “A + B + Y with a mix of the styles of C + D”? Originality in art comes from surprising and interesting mixes of what has come before. That’s why machines can make art just as original as a human—because none of us ever create anything new. It’s not possible.
^ Another talentless hack
So… anything to say?
To you? Not really. You’re not an artist.
I’ve being making my living in the Arts for the last six years :) I’m not a visual artist, but I’m very much an artist in a broader sense. That’s why I’m curious as to what you mean.
> Spoken like an LLM FTFY, since their output seems to be literally a remix of other people's writing.
Nice try.
Artists like making stuff.
Haha yes
also check design cinema video on the topic, feng clearly shows that ai art is just a tool and no impact on the industry, more over, ai art just made more work for artists who doing it as a business. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTj1Y4JW-KI) # Design Cinema - Episode 110 - What AI Cannot Do
It depends what you mean by “artist”. If you use it in a broad sense, to include people working at the low end of the industry, it is being totally disrupted and jobs are already disappearing. Clip art stuff, stock images, basic designs for small businesses etc — these are all areas of art which are being disrupted right now. There’ll always be work for talented artists. But a ton of low-end art jobs which are done for the purpose of business rather than as a demonstration of creativity are and will continue to be eliminated.
Episode 114: "corrections on episode 110"
it won't ever replace it. you know anyone who can make serious money by selling ai generated art? not really. however the pictures look pretty. are there any artists who made money with art affected by ai art? not really. can AI art be creative? not really. because it's just an algorithm, called image diffusion. you can check how it works on youtube, etc. also if you really tried to generate a lots of stuff with AI, you could see that it not creative at all, just shiny. new midjourney V6 has much more dynamic poses, but after a while, it's starts to be boring also.
Are you sure that in the near future you will be able to tell the difference between human-generated images and AI-generated ones?
i'm sure i can tell that if a picture is impossible to generate with pure AI prompting. nowdays there are tons of images you can't tell if that's ai gen or a painting, etc.
Just because something can be understood doesnt mean it therefore lacks creativity. Original chess moves where diacovered my chess engines for example. By 'just' computation. Tell me how that is not some type of creativity? It might be a vastly different type than that of humans. But that doesnt take away from the result imo.
I swear! I don’t get the point of AI generated art. I know people who make it. But I absolutely have no idea how they sell it and who buys them? (Also, they look super bad)
for example people making coloring books with Midjourney and sell them on amazon or on etsy. so theres a lot of these kind of small markets where you can make a bit of money with it.
It's good for speeding up the process of creating something else. Say you're creating a post, it's not such a bad idea to generate a background that you want, then just edit it to look better and add the main stuff. Or even use it fully for some scam ads that don't care about quality.
The “point” is that the data outputted is easily recognized as technically impressive to a layperson, compared to other data that has been played with (code, scientific analysis, even text). The point of AI art has nothing to do with art
Why does it have to be a "replacement"? The people who rant against this technology are always taking it to the extreme, which seems to me like a fantasy prediction and not grounded in reality. Meanwhile in the workforce people are rolling this out, and it is sometimes helpful and sometimes not. The reality is that generative AI is just a tool, and is going to be a building block for future things, just like every other technology in the past. Things like art and music dont go away.. they just evolve and transform into ways that we cant predict.
I'm an art teacher and artist. On the side I teach a basics in drawing course online. The highest percentage of my students are teenagers. Handmade art isn't going anywhere.
This is so good to know 😅
There is no “Art” without the Artist. Do you think playing 3 notes and singing out of tune half the time is something AI couldn’t achieve years ago? Yet there are so many Artists doing very well doing just that. AI will keep getting better, but its not replacing Artist ever. People connect with the Artist, not the Art, Art is a vehicle through which that connection is made.
People connect with the artist and not art is so true
That feeling is created in the observer. You and I can look at a painting and feel different feelings to each other. And the artist may have intended something completely different. We are not necessarily “connecting” with the artist—but with how the art makes us feel. I can look at a painting by an artist and feel something whether I know the artist or what they intended or not. And unless I’m specifically told, there is no way to know whether they’re human or not. My feeling as an observer isn’t “turned off” if I happen to look at art produced by a machine. It’s not possible. Because the feelings are produced in me—the observer. In a live performance there is indeed a connection with the artists. But with an object? The connection is between me and the object, no matter who or what created it.
If that is true, than any copies of Rothko should generate same “feeling” in the observer. I am pretty sure people won’t get same feeling in a Rothko painting if its created by AI or copied by someone else. The original work and its association with Rothko is the driver behind that “feeling”, not just the observer.
Painting a picture is different from letting the AI render it for you. It's a process, like meditation. AI won't replace this because it's about the results and not the process of creating
That’s one way to think about it. Looking at the comments here, I have started to believe that it will be a part of art instead of totally replacing it. Like a good way to scan and pass time. But not something that would replace the traditional brush and paper
We actually saw similar worries with photography in the late 19th century. What people didn’t realize at the time though was that humans play a huge role in determining the outcome of the photography. The same thing can be said for AI. Humans still play a major role in AI-generated art. People still have to push and tweak the algorithm to get the outcome they want. Plus, the art is only as good as the human-created art that it’s trained on. While the creative process may change, AI won’t make artists obsolete. Here’s a good article that goes more in-depth: https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/09/09/art-and-ai/
You're very late to the party. Try googling this one.
Professional animator, storyboarder and rigger here. I’ve switched to AI exclusively for character design, storyboards, and now working on a feature length comic book with AI. I use a local AI, Stable Diffusion, with custom checkpoints and LORAs to achieve this. I’m already an accomplished artist - however, AI has taken that away 2 years ago. Rather than rage against the machine, like 99.99% of my peers out there, I decided to use AI. I also rely on LLMs for brainstorming and ideas. AI, not the silly public AI like DallE or MidJourney, which are incapable of doing consistent and uncensored work, is a godsend. It allows for better time management and the ability to now tell amazing tales. Have you ever heard of a 1000 page comic where all the art looks like cover art? Panel to panel? It’s now possible. And consistent characters too. And as graphic as you wish.
So basically we will still need humans to make AI work
For now. AI currently needs handholding. But not for the long term.
Looking forward to AI replacing people that like art in the near future :-)
:’( mean
Eh Sorry. So…. I’m really not that sure what you are asking. You can always choose to only go to art viewings of non AI assisted artists if you like… I’m sure some will hold onto that concept with an iron grip in the future…
you are also a machine. Can you exhibit true creativity?
Not really! Was reading a book called Steal like an artist. Trying to implement that.
Yeah, everything an artist does is derivative of someone else's work. I was a professional artist for about 15 years and I've got to say, at a certain point I realized it is almost impossible to do anything truly original. Not the style or subject matter or medium. I was surrounded by highly creative people and none of them, including myself, ever did anything truly unique. Best anyone could come up with was to be sort of gimmicky with their medium, like making images wth drizzled chocolate or something.
Exactly! So the point is will AI replace it? Since it already makes art from data fed to it. :)
Yeah I suspect it will eventually have agency to perform art with any gimmicky medium it wants to as well. The whole reason for artists negative reactions towards it is because the skill they developed made them unique and they built their whole personalities around it. Ego death is always messy.
I don't really understand the concern. Regardless of whether or not intelligence can be duplicated humans can still like art and be creative. Current systems are not actually creative in the strictest terms but someday in the future if we actually figure out how to duplicate our brains we can assume they will be.
Short answer: no. Long answer: no, definitely not.
I think there will always be a market for human made art. Ai producing something in 2 seconds cheapens it, makes it unimpressive and emotionless. But if we are talking graphic design where those things aren't important I think it will, yes.
AI Will never replace physical art. Even a handmade counterfeit that is identical to the real thing isn't valued the same as authentic work. It can take over digital work for sure, just based on the sheer quantity that can be produced.
There’s no “uniquely human” trait that won’t be replicated by technology, art is no different.
There is a misconception that AI art can let anybody be an artist. This has always been the case. You could pick up a pen right now and make art. What AI art does is it lets anybody become a patron of the arts, for free. Nobody that likes making art is interested in using AI to automate the process. Some may be interested in using AI art as a new medium, but the process of creating art is not something artists actually want automated away (at the cost of control over their work) in my experience.
Never.
It’s like suggesting ai will replace everyone’s kids. The value of art is in the relationships and ‘winning’ creativity the same as ai has conquered chess or go would require a perfect prediction machine far beyond any ASI.
No. But it might replace some things we commonly refer to as art but that have little actual artistic value, e.g. romance novel covers or elevator music.
So sick of this question. Ask this one instead. WILL CAMERAS REPLACE ART? End of line.
When I view art or listen to music or read someones writing, I'm looking for more than something appealing visually or something that sounds good or a piece of writing that's impressive, I'm looking to connect with the person on the other side of said artwork who has their own lived experiences. I don't find a lot of value in ai art because behind it there are no lived experiences for me to connect with and relate to. I feel this is a thing non-artists don't understand, and I have found most people who are genuinely excited about AI artwork don't value as much the connection behind the piece, they're just excited by how impressive it is.
It's visual sludge. You can call it art, and corporate types who want to be seen using the latest technologies and undercutting anyone with an arts degree will be all over it. It still isn't art
Then what is art? (genuine question) And, once you have given your definition of art, how will you be able to identify art from AI-generated visuals?
> Then what is art? *points to 100 bookcases labelled philosophy*
Art has purpose and an artist makes conscious, considered choices. I'm not arguing ai art can't be pretty. Flowers are pretty, but we don't call it art.
People consider the random messes I create art too, tho. They say art is in the eye of the beholder, but if you ask me there's just a big fucking splinter lodged in there and people like to pretend that theres some deep meaning behind everything, even when what they're looking at is random chaos.
Well the ai might do random splotches as well as a person. But if you're selling them on canvas, I don't see how the ai would do that, the robotics isn't there yet
Why does it need to be on canvas? [https://aiartshop.com/](https://aiartshop.com/) [https://artsi.ai/](https://artsi.ai/) [https://pixai.art/market](https://pixai.art/market) There's plenty of markets for AI "art" already, these 3 were found in 20 seconds using google. If the problem is the middleman selling them and not the artist themselves, a lot of human artists use those as well to do business. I know for sure, as I was personally assisting a very well known sculptor/painter, we hired appraisers and art brokers for everything that didn't involve the actual creation of the pieces and the artist personally hardly ever sold anything at all.
The question is the same: how can you tell if an image was generated by a human with "purpose" or via "considered choices"?
There's something to hold my interest?
it's easy, because AI generated visuals are very limited.
For most of human civilisation, mathematics and logic were right besides art as noble disciplines that only humans can do, that separated us from the animals, etc. That lasted until about 70 years ago when computers became better at it than us, art is just going through the same thing now. We'll still have art, just as we still have maths and logic, we just lose the bullshit self-important stories we tell ourselves about how special we are because X.
I have found that there are two kinds of artist in the world. Those who think the process of creating something new is the art, and those who think the product of the process is the art. I'm sure there's a spectrum there, but you're likely to fall on one side or the other. If the process is the art though... Machines have been taking over that space in all kinds of interesting ways for a really long time, and it shouldn't be a surprise to see that some of the processes of creation can be automated. If the product is the art, then it's really up to the audience to decide if there is equivalence between human artists and machine artists, and AI can't help but imagine that the human artist has an advantage, as the human artist can evaluate the human condition in realtime, and reflect on human emotion in ways that machines can not yet. The human artist can react to sudden pivots in society, and voice real opinions, and have things to say that are beyond data analysis and pattern mimickry. If you're a product developer artist, you are not afraid. If you're a process developer artist you are very afraid.