Agreed. As with any new tool, there will be an adjustment period before the Overton Window catches up.

This is the current era's version of these hit classics:

   - "If you use autotune,you aren't a real singer!"
   - "Programming a drum machine isn't really writing percussion!"
   - "If you use Photoshop, you can't be a real artist."
   - "No real artist would use duct tape as a medium."
   - "Video games can't be art."
   - "Sampling is just ripping off other people's music."

Etc. The general public believed each of those things for a few years before accepting, each time, the simple truth.

Art is simply a conversation between the artist and the audience.

The medium, tools, subject, content, or even size of the audience are all just metadata which accompany the art. It will happen with these tools also.

▲ slopinthebag 15 hours ago | parent [-]

But at the same time, we've had people commissioning art for centuries and we still don't consider the commissioner to be an artist.

Using AI as part of your workflow? Possibly art. Using it as your entire workflow? Slop, not art.

	▲	4chandaily 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think that is generally fair. My thought is if you are using AI like a metaphorical slot machine to generate things whole cloth...there is a very good chance what you are creating will be seen as slop by most. I think I would carve an exception here for those that are incredibly elaborate and detailed with their prompting to the point that the AI is essentially deterministic. It really all comes down to the effort and intent of the artist. I use AI tools in the creation of my art, but it would never occur to me to pass off something entirely generated as "my art". The AI tool is just another brush, instrument, or typeface in an assortment of tools I reach for when creating. The AI by itself has no intent. You need a human for that (at least currently). without the human? Yeah, slop like the videos in the OP.