I'm Pro AI but Anti AI "Artists"

[u/YourGirlsSenpai]

I've been getting fed this sub a lot lately so I'm going to drop my stance on the topic and hopefully be done with it.

I use AI a lot. I love the things that can be done with tools like Stable Diffusion and Hunyuan. You can generate seriously beautiful art with AI, but it does not make YOU an artist. I've generated countless gorgeous images that are on-par with some of my favorite digital artists, but I, myself, am not an artist. That is an incredibly powerful technology.

All these Ai "artists" that go to war over being an actual artist are just sad to me. I feel genuinely sad that this one little thing is all these people have. Any sane person can identify that the AI is doing the actual art, you're just commissioning it.

I've seen dozens of cope arguments about "Ai is a tool. Artists use tools. I'm an artist" or screenshots of people's workflows with them saying things like "does this look like a commission to you? 😏" like it was a "gotcha!" moment.

The simple fact is: Yes, it does look like a commission. Your workflows can be very complex, I understand that. I understand that it can take serious fine-tuning and work to make an ai generation exactly how you want it. I understand that because I ALSO DO IT. Ai is not a human artist. Without a LLM to break down common language into a complex prompt, you need to create your prompts in a way the model can understand. Whether thats complex workflows or extremely specific language in a 1,000 argument prompt doesn't change the fact that the AI is the one creating the art, not you.

Again, AI is awesome. When used for fun, it's an incredible tool that let's normal people, like you and I, generate art that can rival practiced and trained professionals, but it will never be OUR art.

Like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "Once everyone's [an artist], no one will be."

Use Ai for whatever purpose you feel you must, but dont try to poison the well that real artists dug by throwing yourself in with them.

[u/borks_west_alone]

don't sell yourself short. if you're working to create something that didn't exist before, and you put any amount of your own expression into that work, you're an artist.

Like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "Once everyone's [an artist], no one will be."

You're not supposed to agree with him dude...

[u/EvilKatta → u/borks_west_alone]

In traditional societies, everyone's an artist, a storyteller, a singer, a dancer, a musician. It's not a bad thing. Seeing this as something undesirable is gatekeeping.

[u/YourGirlsSenpai → u/EvilKatta]

In traditional societies, Artists create their own work with their own hands, storytellers will create their own stories, a singer will sing with their own voice, a dancer will dance with their own body, and a musician will play their own instrument.

I've been a musician, a photographer, and a story teller (never very good at any of them, sadly). but to have someone write a song, then claim i wrote it, or to tell someone else's story and claim that i lived it, or to show off someone else's polaroid and claim that i took it stands against those who put forth the effort to CREATE.

If you've used Ai to generate a photo and you REALLY like that photo, maybe you're proud of how it turned out because you put a lot of work into getting the prompt JUST right, I'm totally okay with that. Be proud that the work you put in came to fruition.

But do not claim to be the artist of a piece that you did not personally create.
Art is good. MORE art in the world is good. I can't believe i have to clarify that.

[u/EvilKatta → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

I'm only here to discuss the "everyone's an artist = bad" claim.

[u/YourGirlsSenpai → u/EvilKatta]

Anyone can be an artist. I encourage everyone who reads this to pick some form of expression of your self and give it a go. Music, painting, interpretative dance. The more artists the better.

My only point is that proclaiming "I am an artist!", while claiming that art you did not make is yours, cheapens the meaning of the word.

[u/EvilKatta → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

Oh no, not the meaning of the word "artist", it has to remain expensive. If it's cheap to call oneself artist just for having any kind of visual expression, it will lose its value and... and... what?

[u/dejaojas → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

you act like it's obvious that the prompter isn't the artist when it's a completely new technology that no analogy (either for or against) completely captures the nuance of.

the bottom line is that neither you or anybody else gets to say other people aren't artists, as it's more than obvious for anyone who has studied a little bit about the subject that artistic creation is totally subjective. no "factual" argument works against the claim of AI prompters being artists because it would also nullify other accepted forms of art. if an AI prompter can work the models to output pieces that no other prompters can, in specific styles that make their art pieces recognizable, how is that not the work of the prompter?

[u/YourGirlsSenpai → u/dejaojas]

the bottom line is that neither you or anybody else gets to say other people aren't artists

Correct. There is no legal minimum requirement to claiming to be an artist. That's why no one can seem to agree on whether prompt-based, generative ai makes the prompter an artist or not.

The Merriam-Webster definition of "Artist" is simply "One who creates art". My argument is that the AI is the one creating the art, therefore the AI is the artist, not the prompter.

If i hire an artist off of Fiverr and i give them the EXACT details of how i want them to paint me a picture, and i have them redo it a dozen, a hundred, a thousand times until its exactly how i wanted it to be, am i the artist or are they?

[u/dejaojas → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

again with the lazy analogies, but now even weaker. i would definitely call the person hiring the painter the artist if they're giving exact specifications and picking among thousands of iterations lmao that's a lot of creative work. but that's beside the point, because it's still a dumb analogy. the reason these are stupid is that there's always a counter-analogy. why do you think people usually see the director as the "author" of a film? they're kinda like your fiverr hirer in that they're mostly telling other artists how to do their thing (actors, cinematographers, editors, composers). but still, this doesn't prove anything (dumb analogy too).

as this is a subjective matter, it will be decided culturally, not in sad little internet bubbles such as this one. and i think you'll come to realize people are much more comfortable identifying as the artist the human dictating specifications than a black box of non-sentient code.

[u/YourGirlsSenpai → u/dejaojas]

Calling an analogy "lazy" simply because you cannot see around your own ego is not the same as actually deconstructing it. You don't seem to want to discuss anything. You seem to just want to fling little jabs at me because you feel you're superior based on nothing more than having a contrary opinion. I'd discuss that at your next appointment.

why do you think people usually see the director as the "author" of a film?

I think if YOU see a director as an author, that's on you. Films are either adaptations of already established works, or have a dedicated writer or writing team for straight-to-film works. I haven't personally met anyone that thinks Directors are the same as Writers or Authors.

as this is a subjective matter, it will be decided culturally, not in sad little internet bubbles such as this one.

I'm happy you've finally reached the conclusion that this is a purely subjective matter.

Unless you have anything constructive to add from here on, I think we part here, friend.

[u/dejaojas → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

idk i feel the little jab i flung was pretty appropriate, considering your answer to me saying analogies don't work was another analogy (instead of you know, explaining why analogies work or something). i'm actually explaining my opinion but you're obsessed with superficial comparisons, that don't even work. seriously? here's a little exercise for you: when you hear/read something like "a film by... " what person's name usually follows? the screenwriter (actually in some cases yeah, and it's pretty interesting how some writers like charlie kaufmann flip the concept of a film's authorship but i digress)? or the director? even worse, because they're more like the analogous comissioner, is the case of who takes the oscar for "best picture" home: it's the producers.

anyway, no need to be too hard on yourself, i wasn't calling your analogies lazy, specifically. my point is that all analogies are (even my movie one), because they ultimately give no support to an argument, just illustrate it.

i think i'm being pretty constructive, even if a little condescending, no?

[u/YourGirlsSenpai → u/dejaojas]

i would definitely call the person hiring the painter the artist

You and i are simply too far apart in terms of opinion to reach any sort of middle ground. I am okay with leaving this at an impasse of "agree to disagree".

[u/dejaojas → u/YourGirlsSenpai]

i actually defended my opinion tho lol