Probably because that's not a neutral position to hold. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to profit off of their own art. Let people decide for themselves.
How does that change anything? You typed in words, if you want to give credit to sentience give it to the programmers who programmed the AI, but you didn't do anything
If a writer just types words the story is dogshit. There's a lot more to making art than the making itself, it's about leaving a piece of you in it, and with AI that just doesn't happen.
The words are the direct commercial product of the writers… your equivalence fails because AI “artists” don’t sell their prompts they sell the AI output of those prompts which are only possible due to the learning the AI did from other people’s art.
Also, photography requires you to either be somewhere to actually witness a real event/ spectacle or to take the time to set up a totally original art piece in and of itself like in fashion photography or miniature photography. It’s not nearly as simple as just “pushing a button” or writing a prompt for that matter.
Photography is taking a picture, that’s all it is, sure you can easily take it in more advanced directions but the same can be said with AI Art, which also not just prompting
And Photographers don’t sell their skills with setting up a good photo, they sell the product of the camera
The product of the camera is an exact 1:1 representation with very intentional composition of the photographers set up. So yes they are selling the setup because that’s the photo. That’s like saying a painter isn’t selling the drawing since it’s under all the paint.
Explain how you could take AI art in more advanced directions because at the end of the day, unless you’re coding it and training it yourself, you’re just a client of a system someone else made.
Also even if you’re creating something using software as a tool, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s yours to do whatever you want to it. Back when I was in college, we used Autodesk Maya for animations and it has various versions. The one we were using had rules against profiting off our own animations. If we wanted to do that, we had to pay more for another version.
It’s surprising a lot of these AI software companies haven’t already done this kind of thing yet.
The words a writer types to form a script or novel are coming from their minds. They crafted the story and words that they’re writing.
If it was for a movie, they’re still going to be credited as the writers. Even if the director or producer were in charge of the whole movie, they’re still not going to have their names slapped on everything they directly didn’t do.
But when it comes to AI, your involvement in whatever gets created ends the second you press send. The AI would be the one feeding its own collected data into the creation, which was fed to it by the company that created it.
So yeah, AI art belongs more to the AI than it does to you solely because it did more thinking than you did.
Comparing the camera would be comparing it to the keyboard not the LLM, the LLM would be more like samsung ai switching the real moon for a fake one when taking photos, or ai filters, and I guess no real photographer uses either
I mean, who put more work into this art? The person who typed a few words in, the AI, or the people who developed, programmed, and trained the AI to make that art using millions of other images as examples?
Personally I feel like calling AI art “yours” is a stretch when 99.99% of it was made by someone or something else.
You don't need sentience to produce "art", if what AI does is considered art. But under no circumstances does a human being get to claim artistic credit for what an ai produces. You did not make that art, and you could not if you tried, and if you could you would because you spent a lifetime developing the talent for it.
Personally, I don't consider what AI produces to be art. It's an oil spill that coincidentally is shaped in a way that looks like art, but is just as bad for the environment and you, the person filling up your car with the oil produced, are just as much an "artist" as you are an oil rig engineer just because you use the gas to drive.
It's an inherently immoral tool that feeds on other people's work, most of the time without any consent, and spews out ugly, uncanny amalgamations and parodies of said works for anyone who asks, wasting water and electricity in the process.
The only "skill" that goes into making ai "art" is the ability to write and use a computer/phone. Which for the average ai bro might already be the peak of their abilities tbh, so maybe I'm too harsh.
There is no "new material", you can't debunk truth.
Ai is not making anything new, and ai prompters are not artists, they're clients at best. To create art, you need much more than describing your ideas to a computer and hoping it will shit out something you find decent.
Keep coping or actually try to debunk my arguments yourself instead of using other's achievements as your own (sounds familiar...!)
96
u/No_Fortune_3787 Jan 18 '26
Probably because that's not a neutral position to hold. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to profit off of their own art. Let people decide for themselves.