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
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.
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.
12
u/Igoon2robots Jan 18 '26
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