you keep saying morals; I’m pretty sure you don’t know what that means.

that’s not the point… the point is that AI doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing.

I know. that’s not a tool.

again, there are instances, like resampling, depending on the algorithm, where “AI” (misnomer) can be used as a tool.

what people generally mean when they say “AI art” is not that.

because if you teach me to pronounce some japanese words without teaching me what it means, i may say them perfectly, and even trick some people who don’t see my face into thinking I’m speaking native japanese, even though i don’t know what the fuck I’m saying. the fact that i tricked some people into thinking otherwise does not make me a japanese person.

so people ask this question and they get engagement

there’s a difference between not having a unique style and physically being unable to have a style because you have next to no input in the process.

i didn’t say knowing the intent is needed. i believe in death of the author, so that isn’t relevant.

the intent to create art is, however, needed. the fountain is art, but before it became the fountain, the urinal itself wasn’t.

that’s like me intending for it to rain and when it eventually would, claiming i made it rain because i intended for it.

it’s not a product in the sense that its value does not come from its function, otherwise it would not lose value when it would be revealed to be of a different origin, but otherwise exactly the same. i spoke of the monetary value just because it’s quantifiable; it’s not otherwise relevant.

if Mona Lisa was free and digital it would be as valuable as a digital Mona Lisa could be. being free and digital doesn’t make it pointless, without agency or intent like AI art is.

the AI itself doesn’t know what it’s doing, neither are you. the fact that you’re putting in words to change the outcome until the dice fall somewhat close to where you want them to fall doesn’t make it yours. you can’t add your own style to it, because you’re not doing it.

the “people” you’re talking about were talking about tools. I’m talking about intent. Just because you compare two arguments that use similar words doesn’t mean the arguments are similar.

there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.

and yes, the value does go. because we care about origin and intent. that’s the whole point.

if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.

cameras do not make random images. you know exactly what you’re getting with a photograph. the reason you take multiples is mostly for timing and lighting. also, rolling a hundred dice is not the same as painting something 100 times and picking the best one, nor is it like photographing it. the fact that you’re even making this comparison is insane.

yes because there is no intelligence. AI is a misnomer. intent needs intelligence.

comes with having a brain and knowing what intent means.

I’m so sick of this. there are scenarios in which so-called “AI” can be used as a tool. for example, resampling. it’s dodgy, but whatever, let’s say the tech is perfected and it truly analyzes data to give a good result rather than stealing other art to match.

but a tool is something that does exactly what you intend for it to do. you can’t say 100 dice are collectively “a tool that outputs 600” because you can sit there and roll them for as long as it takes for all of them to turn up sixes, technically. and if you do call it that, that’s still a shitty tool, and you did nothing worth crediting to get 600. a robot can do it. and it does. and that makes it not art.

of all the things you could say after “car park cool”, this has to be the most ridiculous.

people inside:

🎶🎷💃🕺🎺🎵

smokable, like how plastic is edible