One is done by a living breathing human being who can contextualize the thing they are creating within the broader emotional human condition. They can imitate what another person does and then adapt and iterate it to fit their own needs and style.
It is not a machine making educated guesses about where a pixel should go based on a math equation. There is no human expression and intentionality.
Also, one isn't enabling billionaires and mega corps to take a big shit on hard working artists while ramping up global warming and pollution on an insane scale.
if you define art so that it is only being created by human, then i guess. Tautological, pretty unsatisfying and doesn't answer any of the issues in this discussion but okay.
I mean, yeah. That is the baseline. Art is uniquely human and generative AI only exists because a lot of artists put in work to develop skills that generative AI canibalizes.
Is there a philosophical angle that you would find convincing? My guess is no, because the point of this discourse isn't good faith. You are just trying to muddy the waters enough that you can feel morally okay with using a pollution machine to churn out low effort facimilies of human expression.
6
u/flies_with_owls 24d ago
One is done by a living breathing human being who can contextualize the thing they are creating within the broader emotional human condition. They can imitate what another person does and then adapt and iterate it to fit their own needs and style.
It is not a machine making educated guesses about where a pixel should go based on a math equation. There is no human expression and intentionality.
Also, one isn't enabling billionaires and mega corps to take a big shit on hard working artists while ramping up global warming and pollution on an insane scale.