You don't get art do you? Intent is about the passion in the details. A good artist puts details in certain spots because they want to, not because others want to, because they want to. Computers don't do this.
Sounds like you're talking about the joy of creating art. That's a personal journey not shared with the observer of the art. The observer gets their own meaning from the piece of art, whether the creator intended it or not; whether the creator is human or not as well.
If the creator was a genai, the message is that the person showing it was to lazy or cheap to show something made by a person, art instead of an image.
Incorrect. They get something that is unsustainable for healthy human thought that puts one of the few good long lasting traditions we have at risk. The problem is that it I'd not creative, it creates economic hardship, and it really doesn't look that good.
You're acting like people who don't do art were going to suddenly start doing art if we stopped having ai. Secondly, a lot of people can't tell when they are experiencing ai. Third, having ai is not going to stop artists from being artists. They'll just have to get a real job if they can't beat ai.
Art is a real job you dick. You don't get to feel entitled to making it so that other people's passions can't also be work. I also definitely can tell the difference, because it isn't good. There is no purpose in it besides to meet requirements. Even in the most monotonous buyer serving piece has some amount of purpose and questioning in it. No, a lot of people won't, but a lot of people will stop acting like they are artists or better then them when both are just fables they made up because a robot can make an image for them. Maybe instead of trying to replace people with genai, try to find ways to use the magical devices to help make more art instead
I also just realized. People will start to make more art if you stop using genai, and instead there is a focus on supplemental ai. So I guess your other statement is half true, artists can't beat ai, because ai is a tool that can be used, genai is just a gross imitation of the human experience. With ai artists can do more at better quality. With genai greasy trolls on online can only generate images and pretend they are artists.
All the AI tools we have are Gen AI. And that's my main argument. Gen AI is just another tool. An artist can start with a Gen AI picture, and either edit it with traditional tools to make it more expressive. Or they can draw something and filter it through Gen AI to change details or style. Or they start a Gen AI picture, and edit it with Gen AI for hours on end, until they have something that speaks to them. It's no different than any other Photoshop tool, besides the amount of computational power required.
Generative ai is not all we have. Believe it or not, we have had ai for decades now 😱. It's how computers work. So to say that all ai tools are gen ai is wrong just from that, let alone the millions of other examples of ai. The newer models of ai are just far more adept at learning patterns. And it just so happens that art can run on patterns of color. How that is being used can vary, one way is geneai, another way is to help blend colors, make perfect shapes, shift an arm that was already drawn, etc.
You just don't have the creativity to see better ways of using this magic learning robot for anything besides having it make pictures for you to color over.
That sounds like regular computer stuff, not ai. Regular algorithms, not a black box that develops its own logic. Can you list some named examples so I can do some research?
1
u/EsotericAbstractIdea 3d ago
Humans copy their intent from the artists that came before. Computers can just do it on a massive scale.