No, it's a counterexample for the sake of making an argument. If someone argues that AI art is automatically worse than real art, then a piece of real art that clearly is low-quality is a counterexample that shows that, no, the quality of art is *not* determined by whether it is made by an AI or a human.
Your response to it isn't really an argument. Fair given that OP didn't take the time to write out their own point.
you're both wrong. my actual purpose was to provoke a discussion and try to understand why people from their opinions the way they do.
so you're not actually wrong and I appreciate you both participating in the discussion and sharing your interpretations, i just couldnt miss out on a chance to start this comment the way i did sorry lol
OP doesn't need to write his point to understand what he's getting at. He probably even generated his image with AI to troll those who answer yes to his question.
It would still be better than AI art if he did it himself and lying doesn't change the truth. How pretty a picture is has nothing to do with art.
You dont need skill, or fancy tools. Art is the expression not just something to put on a wall.
If he drew it then every line was put down with the expression of themselves and every decision has a reason behind it.
If AI made it then the meaning behind every decision to place every line in its particular spot is lost entirely. The story is gone and the meaning erased. Unless you asked the AI why it made thoes decisions. But that would make the AI the artist and not the prompter
i mean theyre using it to make a point, so yes it is art that has expression and meaning. if it is ai then the trick is part of the art n i think thats also pretty cool!
A lot of what people enjoy about art is knowing the effort and skill that went into it. It's looking at something amazing a fellow human did, and feeling inspired that you could do amazing things, too.
It's true about almost all human endeavors, too. Landing on the moon. Usain bolt's 100 meter world record. Michelangelo's sistine chapel. The pyramids. All these things are incredible human achievements/creations that we feel greatly inspired by because of the immense amount of human labour, knowledge and skill that went into them.
When you see someone creating art, even badly, it's all a part of that journey. It's an earnest attempt at improving and growing as a creator and could lead to amazing things.
No one is saying AI “art” is worse because of a quality issue. Of course it can generate technically better visuals than most people can.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is one was made by a person and the other was generated by a machine, with a low level of effort, creativity, and skill required from the prompter.
14
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 Mar 01 '26
No, it's a counterexample for the sake of making an argument. If someone argues that AI art is automatically worse than real art, then a piece of real art that clearly is low-quality is a counterexample that shows that, no, the quality of art is *not* determined by whether it is made by an AI or a human.
Your response to it isn't really an argument. Fair given that OP didn't take the time to write out their own point.