alt Hacker News> Raines added local artists would have been "very willing to help" create a temporary mural, had they been asked.
For free? I find these arguments completely unconvincing and they completely ignore the extra work that would entail.
Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so. Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being. There is still good code and bad code but that exists separately from "was it AI generated". Judge things based on their merits, not their origins.
I look forward to a future where artists embrace AI tooling to further their work. I reject completely the idea that art must be 100% human created. For starters because it's absurd on the face of it, you might as well say no technology at all can be used and it still be called "art", and yes that includes your brushes and paints. You can see how this is an absurd idea. It's my understanding that often artists use other people to assemble their art pieces and/or fill-in painting on something like a mural. Since the artist didn't actually make it with their own hands is it no longer art?
There is just simply no logical place to draw the line on this and I'll be glad when we've moved past this distraction from progress. AI is another tool in the toolbox, avoiding it for the sake of avoiding it is silly and self-defeating.
Replies
it's not pornography, but art is a subjective thing, so you really can't argue that AI art is valid, because Art is subjective.
You can, however, argue that you like the art I guess.
> Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so.
Yes it does. Art is a form of expression, and clankers don't have sentience or intelligence to express themselves.
> Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being.
Code is a functional thing, not a form of expression. Though LLMs aren't good at that, either.
> Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so.
I think so, but I also don't feel strongly about that. I.e. I don't think there is one correct definition of the word "art", and I also don't think it matters in practice, most of the time. It's easily the most subjective word in our language, and arguments about its meaning are moot in most contexts.
In this context: AI art is, conceptually, obnoxious and offensive, like the smell of rotting garbage. Whether it's also "art" by dictionary definition is secondary, and not interesting.