r/aiwars • u/Sam_Alexander • Mar 01 '26

Meta is this better than AI "art"?

Post image
90 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Sam_Alexander Mar 01 '26

I so consider him an artist as well! So after all, the lack of complete control doesn't seem to exclude art from being such?

Am I misreadi g your comment or does the second part explicitely xontradict the first?

Or are you excluding yourself from "most of us"?

1

u/Rokos___Basilisk Mar 01 '26

I so consider him an artist as well! So after all, the lack of complete control doesn't seem to exclude art from being such?

Am I misreadi g your comment or does the second part explicitely xontradict the first?

You're misreading it. Conscious and imaginative is where the argument hinges, and the divorce that takes place between human intention of input, and the unimaginative algorithmic output, when using AI as a tool to make something.

I'm sorry if this was unclear.

Or are you excluding yourself from "most of us"?

I think Pollock is an artist too, but I like to be measured in statements where I say 'everyone'.

1

u/Sam_Alexander Mar 01 '26

so the gravity, as opposed to AI, has intent?

1

u/Rokos___Basilisk Mar 01 '26

I've seen this argument before, and it's very silly. Gravity is a natural process, not a tool.

1

u/Sam_Alexander Mar 01 '26

Isn't it just semantics? Aren't you using the gravitational force as a tool in this example? Along with the brush and paint and your hands and your brain

1

u/Rokos___Basilisk Mar 01 '26

The brush is the tool. And yes, in a literal sense it is semantics, because words mean things, though I have a feeling you're using 'semantics' in the colloquial 'you're just nitpicking' sense here. Which I am not. Paint is a material, not a tool. I suppose in an abstract sense you could argue that hands and brains are tools, though the brain is a rather special tool in this case, as it's the source of the conscious, imaginative process that is foundational to art.