Yeah I just don't think there is anything special about "art" and I don't think there is some specific definition for what art is. People create that's art. You can put different amounts of time and effort into it but I think it's just as lacking in imagination or respect for human creativity to distill this down to he worst case.

If somebody spends hours prompting various resources and curating it, is that then "slop"? I don't think it is, it's just as sustained a creative effort, regardless of the tool used. You are saying that the 10-20 minute clips that people have put together of generated vid of various series (like Star Wars) isn't art? There are entire stories told using this method. It's not art?

▲

byronturncoat a day ago | parent [-]

To summarize, this is a "you" problem. Just because YOU do not think there's anything special about art, it does not mean there isn't. Your lack of respect for art does not undermine the thing itself. You cannot have your GenAI products included with "art" simply because you want to. You aren't entitled to having your prompt outputs held in the same esteem.

> If somebody spends hours prompting various resources and curating it, is that then "slop"?

In my opinion, yes. Some people may disagree with the term "slop" in this case, but that does not step it all the way up to "art". It can still be non-slop, non-art.

▲

orangedog a day ago | parent | next [-]

I mean sounds like it's a your problem if you are saying that certain tools, no matter how they are used or the effort put into using them can't qualify as art.

You're right, I don't gatekeep art that same way. I don't lack respect for art, I lack respect for your standards which I think are artificial.

	▲	byronturncoat a day ago \| parent [-]
		GenAI only exists because it steals from a vast corpus of human creative output. It then regurgitates it back, stripping away the emotion, care, and talent that made it art. No amount of prompting will touch the amount of accumulated skill that the original work required. If you cannot understand why trying to pass off GenAI output as "art" is disrespectful and illogical, I cannot help you. Someone that pretends prompting is "effort" will always just be that, regardless of how you, personally, set your standards.

▲

ModernMech a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Your lack of respect for art does not undermine the thing itself.

Don't you see how this can be said for your feelings about AI art?

Everything you're saying about AI art, someone once said about some other emergent art form. Photography, CGI, digital illustration, synthetic music... with just as much conviction as you're displaying here. But you'd agree those other things have become artforms, yes?

To preempt the typical retort "Yeah but in those cases humans put in some extra X" okay why can't humans put in some extra X while using AI as a tool as well?

▲

byronturncoat a day ago | parent [-]

What other people have said about other, unrelated things has no bearing on what I'm saying about this particular thing. The illogical conclusions of nameless "others" are not an argument against my current conclusions. You're treating me as guilty by association.

You're also making an assumption that AI's acceptance WILL follow, just because the others were later accepted. You can't make that assumption at all.

Neither of these arguments are in good faith.

▲

orangedog a day ago | parent [-]

How are they not in good faith?

▲

ModernMech 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I pressed all the letters with my meat fingers to express my human thoughts and it's still not genuine enough. shrug

▲

byronturncoat a day ago | parent | prev [-]

They are logical fallacy and deliberately do not engage in the actual argument. It's an inauthentic engagement.

▲

ModernMech 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Right now your actual argument is just really your opinion. You can avoid actually examining it closely by claiming logical fallacies, but again we're just talking about your opinion, you're not making a logical argument.

▲

byronturncoat 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The colloquial definition of "creative" and "art" are not solely an opinion, it's a tangible thing you can explore and investigate if you're motivated to do so. The inability of LLMs to express creativity is also not an opinion. The differences between film directors and LLM prompters are also real things that we could discuss.

But a meaningful discussion requires good faith, not dismissal to disingenuous argument.

▲

ModernMech 13 hours ago | parent [-]

You're acting as though the ordinary meaning of the words settle the controversy, but that's exactly what's contested here.

Whatever definition you bring into scope will not resolve it because a colloquial definition only describes how a word is commonly used, and doesn't establish rule for every disputed case, which is what we have here.

Definitions are generally not normative, but even if we agreed on one, it would not exclude a works solely because of the tool used to produce it. But you are saying that every work produced using AI is illegitimate as art, regardless of its intention, composition, context, expressive content, or any other quality ordinarily associated with art.

What necessary property does accepted art possess that no AI-assisted work could possibly possess? Or to state it another way closer to my original question (which was not disengenuous), what additional human contribution makes photography or CGI art, and why couldn’t an AI-assisted process contain that contribution?

Until that property is identified, saying AI images cannot be art is largely just a stated conclusion.

	▲	byronturncoat 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The definition of "creative" and "art" are, indeed, contested in this discussion. Establishing a definition is, and has always been, a large part of many debates. We don't have to necessarily agree, but at least be able to state our position and discuss from there. Instead, you did not engage with this concept until now and relied on logical fallacy. When I pointed this out, you did not revise or adapt to show good faith, but decided to pivot to falsely classifying the discussion as just a matter of my opinion with no merit. Now we're finally circling back. There are a number of necessary qualities missing in AI works to qualify as "art". Let's take photography, as an example. In photography, the camera captures the images for a human, but the "art" is the unique (original), intentional depiction of the scene that captures the artist's perspective. Art conveys the artist's thoughts to others. This is true of CGI as well. It is still the artist using their skills to provide a unique perspective in a digitized world. AI works lack these qualities. It is impossible to create unique AI art - it isz at best, a collection of derivative parts. Sometimes art is intentionally derivative, yes, but that leads to the next point. AI art cannot carry intentionality that art can. It carries a distillation of intention, tokenizing and associating the intention back to its training set. It disconnects the prompt author from the output in a definitionally important way. It is randomized, not reproducible. It is an approximation of the prompter's thoughts, ideas, and emotions - not a translation. It cannot reflect the human experience in its output, just a statistical guess at them. > saying AI images cannot be art is largely just a stated conclusion. Yes, it's called a thesis. I have one, I've stated it, and I've supported it. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion