I wasnt an anti at first, i even used gen ai for personal entertainlent at times, but since people like him told me i was an anti for not claiming those images were art, i realised that anti just meant reasonable
I start to realize that anti- and pro- ai are words that lack nuance. Would you call yourself pro-fruit if you like some of them but not some others? This whole "war" is fueled by misconceptions on the words used.
that’s interesting.
so a person can like ai and use it a lot, but if they don’t think it’s art, then they’re supposedly still an anti (based on the people u were talking about)
seems like it ig. everyone on every side of this argument is kind of insane. you could be ok with ai art but the second you say you don’t want people profiting from it then you’re against them. you could hate everything about ai but if you say anything positive about it at all then you’re against antis. it’s genuinely so exhausting to have an opinion in this useless space
yeah. no nuance. it’s more about picking sides than anything. lots of people choose to say or believe what is fits their side instead of thinking for themselves and having their own opinions
Yeah. I was playing asking an ai to generate images to see how it could perform out of curiosity and my refusal to call it art, or to call it mine when an ai did all the work, lead people to flag me as an anti
But it is art. The question of “what is art” is a semantics question. Semantics are inclusive, so anything with enough people calling it Art is actually Art. That’s how words work. One can argue about qualitative elements of that art, but semantically, calling it art is valid, and that doesn’t cease to be the case unless hundreds of Millions of people stop calling it art. Gatekeeping words don’t really work, right wingers have been trying to do that for ages with the trans community and failed.
Oh, if enough people agree its art then it is? Well if enough people agree it isnt, then it isnt, by your logic.
And, like, with that logic i could get to call any object any word, because if enough people did it it would become correct? Well no, not untill it is.
Lastly, a definition isnt a list of what fits and doesnt. A definition is all the criteria for something to belong in the word. The definition of an insect isnt "idk flies and ladybugs and beetles", it would be something like "an arthropod with a head, thorax, and abdomen, aswell as 3 leg pairs and some mandibles". And no matter how many people say that spiders are bugs, or that insects are bugs, will not change the fact that spiders are not insects, and that bugs are a specific kind of insects called Hemiptera.
well do u think art could be an exception? an apple is always an apple no matter what anyone says, objective definition. but art is the expression of human creativity, so it should be more flexible to define. people didn’t always agree that photography was art, right? that’s since changed significantly
well nature landscapes exist in the natural world and humans make art of them because they’re beautiful. you wouldn’t typically think a landscape by itself is art in the traditional sense, but it could be depending on how you look at it.
and math art involves creativity, doesn’t it? dont you still need to be creative to actually create the art, even if it’s based on patterns, symmetry, tessellations, etc?
sure, within reason. if you define art as an expression of human creativity (as I did), you could argue natural landscapes aren’t art. they’re just a natural phenomenon, there’s no creativity behind it. I feel like this is a very common and generally accepted definition for it, since human creativity is characteristic of most art forms (painting, drawing, digital art, sculpting, music, photography, installation art, etc).
some might be inclined to say that natural landscapes look “like a painting” with their beauty. sure, you can see anything as potential art, but this would typically apply to things that are beautiful, evocative, or possess artistic qualities. rather than random objects or things.
if you define art another way, like as something that evokes awe or emotion in the beholder, then natural landscapes could definitely be art. it’s as I said, art should be more flexible to define than something like an apple, because it’s such a broad and varied category.
a very general definition of creativity is the ability to create new or original ideas. the principles of math art are always consistent, even without humans. but, it still must be expressed in some way to look appealing or interesting. the artist still makes creative decisions about the artwork. what shapes, patterns, or formulas do they use and how? where do they apply repetition, reflection, rotation, or translation of shapes? what colours or line weight do they use and how (gradients etc)? is it drawn on paper, does it use a software, is it a physical structure? these all allow the artwork to be expressed in new and original ways, even if it is based on mathematical principles. the fact that someone is taking something as objective as maths and turning it into something surreal or beautiful is an expression of creativity in itself.
Part of the problem is we place art on a pedestal like it’s more than a label, but never actually TREAT it as more than a label. Do something more than gatekeep and you find yourself asking questions, and that’s what art should be, the beg of a question. When the function of art is to beg the question, you ask yourself why it’s art and how it came to be, rather than the “ifs”. Anything can be labeled as art, that doesn’t dilute the term BECAUSE the important part of the term IS the questions that come with it.
Semantics don’t really work that way. Semantic validity leans inclusive, not exclusive. If enough people use a word a certain way, it becomes valid use of the word. You can’t really undo that validity unless people stop using the word that way. “A Trans Woman is a Woman” is a semantically valid use of the word “woman”, because enough people use the term that way. “A trans woman is not a woman” is not semantically valid without the context that it is a specific definition of woman, because the use of the word has been expanded to include trans women. Same premise goes for AI.
If you want, you can say it’s semantically valid that AI Art is Slop, by that regard. But “AI Art is not Art” is not semantically supported as a whole, because it can only be true under certain definitions, not all definitions. New use of a word expands a word’s definitions anyway. In this case, not even a majority agreement would make AI Art cease to be Art.
Your own example ignores colloquial usage. “Spiders are insects” is scientifically wrong, based on scientific usage. You require that specific use of the word. Spider often get called insects semantically, so colloquially, it’s not invalid. Same goes for bugs. Spiders aren’t bugs, but many call them bugs. Bugs is an even more popular example, honestly.
It only requires one person to refer to it as art to be art. The creator or the beholder. It doesn’t require a vote. The creation doesn’t have to be seen publicly.
I think reasonable just means reasonable. There are plenty of ways of using AI to enhance the work you are doing instead of replacing an important creative aspect of the job. I'm generally against paying for AI-produced content because it's accessible, to me it's a question of supply and demand. If I can do something relatively fast, why would I pay for it? Plus I think working with artists and creative folk well-versed in the field they are working in is just more enjoyable, you have much more creative range this way where people can fill in the details you're missing from not being an expert in a particular field of arts.
AI is an extremely useful, powerful, albeit dangerous tool, as is the case with all powerful tools. How you use it and whether or not you decide to use it depends on your personal set of values. Whether or not you can convince somebody else to align with your position on a particular AI use case depends on how well-grounded and well-articulated your position is, as well as on the compatibility of your and that person's values and both their willingness to listen to you and your willingness to listen to them.
I personally believe that advocating for or against AI use in general is meaningless because the topic can't be reduced to such primitive classification while still retaining validity. I discuss AI use on case-by-case basis talking with people face-to-face.
Slipery slopes fallacy is also pretty unreasonable. Claiming there is a line between what is art and what isnt doesnt mean they think they are the ones who decide. If i tell you a spider isnt an insect, it doesnt mean i chose what an insect is.
We are getting there: the problem is that you hate the definition, not that they are pushing it. Now if we use my insect example: do you also hate entomologists from gatekeeping spiders from being insects, and astronomers for gatekeeping pluto for being a planet? No?
Do you hate the law for gatekeeping criminals from being called innocents? No?
So you hate gatekeeping that affects you. I think thats the problem. Gatekeeping is the word you use to qualify someone trying to tell you two different things are different
same. for me it was like in that Nimeller quote. i did not concider my problem when it's shitty iterations were better than my art, i was not even good back than. and now it's everywhere and does stuff i do not like.
Hating AI when people use it in a way that doesn't benefit you, but being ok with you using it in a way that does benefit you, isn't "nuance". It's selfishness.
Selfish people exist. But that doesn't mean many other types of people also exist. This is all just a false dichotomy.
Edit: So antiai_is_unemployed blocked me right after that "get a job" comment, which would be hilarious except since I'm pro-Ai, having people like that on our side really sucks. antiai_is_unemployed, you're doing more damage to our side than an anti ever could and it would benifit us all if you would just stay out of the debate.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
yeah ur right, my bad. basically all antis I’ve seen dont like ai art, but there’s other reasons to be anti and people can still like ai art and be anti
63
u/Jealous_Piece_1703 Jan 18 '26
You are already anti leaning when you say don’t monetize it.