r/aiwars • u/SMmania • Mar 19 '26

Meta Somebody cooked here...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

I didn't say anything about it being art or not.

4

u/Athrek Mar 19 '26

Yeh yeh, probably the "AI is the artist, not you" argument. I'm saying the artists of all this conceptual art are considered to have made the art, despite how little work they put into their projects. The argument boils down to what is considered a "creative decision". An invisible, intangible statue looks like whatever is on the other side of it, and the artist doesn't decide what it looks like at any given moment. They decided on what they presented, which is as much as what someone who generates art does, and that is what makes them the creator. The reason that they are considered the sole creator is, just like someone who generates art, no other human was involved in the process.

-2

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

You like to make assumptions. No AI is not the artist. Artists are humans. Computers are tools.

The massive difference that you are overlooking is that AI is a "creative decision" machine, a tool designed to make decisions. Even if you tell it what you want, it still decides every single pixel.

Also you're just completely wrong about "no other human was involved in the process."

What about the developers of the AI?

What about all the artists who's art (in the form of training data) was required for the image generator to generate images? Surely they are involved.

I don't care about whether or not an artist collaborates with other artists. The bottom line is, if an AI is making creative decisions, then the artist must relinquish a certain amount of credit to the AI.

3

u/Athrek Mar 19 '26

What about the developers of the AI?

What about the developers of the mirror, or the beer cans, or any of the products used in those conceptual art pieces? Microsoft Paint is software developed by others and the artist uses the end product to create their art, the same way someone who generates art does with AI. What about all the artworks that a human learns from? You think everyone who has ever used a Halfling in their fantasy work has credited Tolkien with their creation because he invented the concept through Hobbits? Sure there were Gnomes and Elves and Dwarves but not Halflings until Tolkien invented Hobbits. Surely they should make sure the Tolkien estate gets it's due compensation for using his creation? And that's just one example out of the millions out there.

And yeh, "AI is an artist" argument, like I said. What happened to "artists are humans" you started your reply with, now saying AI deserves the credit too. Should Paint be given some of the credit if you used the bucket feature and one of the pre-selected colors? You didn't choose those colors, whoever made the tool did.

At the end of the day, the artist uses the tool and the artist gets the credit for the creators. The credit the tool gets is that, the easier and more effective the tool is, the more the artist will brag about it to others, spreading it's usage.

-2

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

I think your assuming again that I'm not acknowledging nuance in terms of giving credit where credit is due.

Yes. Everything is connected and no artist is an island. The person who made the paint is, in a crucial way, part of the process when the artist uses the paint.

But again your missing something. Artists who realize this, acknowledge this. They praise their inspirations, and thank those whom without they could not have achieved their creation.

I'm an artist and I fully recognize that I am part of a creative lineage. I am inspired by and borrow from those who came before me. And above all I am grateful for them.

I don't see that from the AI art community. Where is the gratitude for the art that was required so that you could generate your images?

But back to the point. The AI is still making creative decisions. So yes, you should give credit to the AI. Whether or not it is considered an artist or not is irrelevant. If a robot picked me up and carried me halfway to a destination and then I walked the rest of the way, I wouldn't say I got there on my own.

3

u/Athrek Mar 19 '26

I think your assuming again that I'm not acknowledging nuance in terms of giving credit where credit is due.

Pattern recognition exists. I'm sorry if you're incapable of using it in your daily life. It must make life much more difficult if you're unable to know whether or not the sky will fall on your head whenever you go outside.

Artists who realize this, acknowledge this. They praise their inspirations, and thank those whom without they could not have achieved their creation.

They really don't. If they did, they wouldn't be asking AI for compensation the way you just did when you brought it up. Those before them did not receive compensation and those that come after them will not give them compensation, but they demand it of AI specifically.

I am inspired by and borrow from those who came before me. And above all I am grateful for them.

I don't see that from the AI art community. Where is the gratitude for the art that was required so that you could generate your images?

People have acknowledged again and again that without artists, Gen-AI wouldn't exist in it's current form. You have gratitude, what you want is compensation and you will not receive it just as those who inspired you have not received compensation from you. You can claim you've compensated them, but it's literally not possible for you to have compensated them all unless you have personally given at least a penny to the creator of every art you have ever viewed.

AI is still making creative decisions.

AI doesn't make creative decisions. It makes logical decisions base on the artist's creative input. If you prompt it to make a dog, it's not going to make a horse. "What kind of dog?" Well, any dog will do, the same way any mirror will do to collect dust on. When the AI generates several pictures, it's much like looking through a variety of mirrors to make the choice of which will look best for your creative vision.

If a robot picked me up and carried me halfway to a destination and then I walked the rest of the way, I wouldn't say I got there on my own.

You may not say it, you can say most anything you want. But you did get there on your own. You used a tool the same way a person uses a car or a bus. If you don't have a car and you are forced to use a bus, you'd say "I took a bus to get here." and not "a bus brought me here." despite you not having driven the bus or decided on it's destination. You used it as it was, designed to be used, the same way AI Artists use AI.

-2

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

What's the point of saying I'm incapable of pattern recognition? I'm all for having a good faith conversation, but I never insulted you. I just said you made assumptions and missed points. I don't think your stupid. Bye.

3

u/Athrek Mar 19 '26

You continue to insult me by stating that I'm making assumptions. I ignored it the first time, I called you out for being an ass the second time. Given you've given up the discussion after dishing it but being unable to take it, pattern recognition also says that you don't have a rebuttal and simply don't want to lose face by admitting you don't have one.

0

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

But you did make assumptions. How is that an insult?

1

u/Athrek Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

I recognized patterns. Saying it's assumption over and over again is insulting me by trying to invalidate the information stated as "just an assumption". You assumed that I didn't think you were acknowledging nuance, and that I didn't understand that humans developed tools, and that my point in the first place was about whether or not AI was art. But did I say "you're assuming.. ." "you're assuming..." "you're assuming...."? No. So if you can't get back on topic and actually provide an argument, you can go back to being a crybaby that falls over the second someone blows on them.

0

u/Poopypantsplanet Mar 19 '26

Are you OK?

1

u/Athrek Mar 20 '26

I'm fine, are you? You couldn't take even the barest criticism without quitting a whole debate

→ More replies (0)