> With AI if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as much art

Imagery

AI does not produce art.

Not that it matters to anyone but artists and art enjoyers.

Is that an argument against the quality, saying that AI cannot (or some weaker claim like that it does not usually) produce "art"? Else, is it an argument of provenance, akin to how copyright currently works, where the same visual representation is "art" if a human makes it and is not "art" if an AI makes it?

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

CalRobert 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When pedantry pays the bills this will be a helpful mindset.

▲

psolidgold 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Stop trying to impose your narrow-minded definition of art onto other people. If you disagree, that's fine, but you've lost my respect the moment you tell someone else that their definition of art is wrong.

▲

_DeadFred_ 2 days ago | parent [-]

Art without intention isn't art. The entire point of art is the human intention by it. The pattern on linoleum isn't art. The beautiful wood grain in my table isn't art. And shitty AI images/music aren't art.

▲

psolidgold 2 days ago | parent [-]

The human intention doesn't disappear just because the execution involves algorithms instead of paintbrushes - digital or otherwise.

	▲	_DeadFred_ 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It very much does. When I commission a piece of art, I am not the artist. Art without intention, without an artist, is not art.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

bee_rider 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t see this as a claim that the AI is doing art. He’s just saying, that the art can be created at low incremental cost.

Like, if we were in a world where only pens existed, and somebody was pitching the pencil, they could say “With a pencil if you want 2x or 5x or 10x as many edits, it's an incremental cost, you can explore ideas and make changes without throwing the whole drawing away.”