@LordSupremeChess said in #42:
> AI is not alive. Therefore, it cannot create art.
Airplanes aren't alive. Therefore they can't fly.
> AI is not alive. Therefore, it cannot create art.
Airplanes aren't alive. Therefore they can't fly.
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
@kanYE24 said in #49:
> 99% of "artists" just work on small commissions, either as a hobby or a job, most of them have no creativity.
>
> I could go to an "artist" and offer them $50 to draw a medieval castle, which would take them weeks to finish, or i could go online, type some text and have ai generate the same thing but instantly and for free.
the funny thing here is that your argument is both wrong and hilarious.
-''99 of artists'' : based on what ? you have stats to prove it ?
-"they have no creativity" : the satement is so ridiculous that i don't even know where to begin.
unless you are talking about people who are doing reproductions, creativity is one of the main things that we use in art, you don't know what "art block" is ? you never talked to an artist before ? and it's kinda ironic bcs AI is the only thing that don't have creativity here.
-if you want to generate a image of an castle, do it, nobody is preventing you from doing that.
but i'll prefer to comission an artist because the piece would be mine (ai generations are not copyrighted), it would be tangible (if it's a traditional piece, thing that the ai cannot do), and i could know what the drawing will looks like before it's done, because i know the artist's style (and an ai cannot have a style)
> 99% of "artists" just work on small commissions, either as a hobby or a job, most of them have no creativity.
>
> I could go to an "artist" and offer them $50 to draw a medieval castle, which would take them weeks to finish, or i could go online, type some text and have ai generate the same thing but instantly and for free.
the funny thing here is that your argument is both wrong and hilarious.
-''99 of artists'' : based on what ? you have stats to prove it ?
-"they have no creativity" : the satement is so ridiculous that i don't even know where to begin.
unless you are talking about people who are doing reproductions, creativity is one of the main things that we use in art, you don't know what "art block" is ? you never talked to an artist before ? and it's kinda ironic bcs AI is the only thing that don't have creativity here.
-if you want to generate a image of an castle, do it, nobody is preventing you from doing that.
but i'll prefer to comission an artist because the piece would be mine (ai generations are not copyrighted), it would be tangible (if it's a traditional piece, thing that the ai cannot do), and i could know what the drawing will looks like before it's done, because i know the artist's style (and an ai cannot have a style)
@RizzingBishop said in #55:
> the funny thing here is that your argument is both wrong and hilarious.
>
> -''99 of artists'' : based on what ? you have stats to prove it ?
> -"they have no creativity" : the satement is so ridiculous that i don't even know where to begin.
> unless you are talking about people who are doing reproductions, creativity is one of the main things that we use in art, you don't know what "art block" is ? you never talked to an artist before ? and it's kinda ironic bcs AI is the only thing that don't have creativity here.
99% of them just do things that have been done before, you can't paint a landscape with trees and mountains and rivers and expect to be called creative.
Maybe a better analogy would be in writing scripts for films, and how most films just tell the same story, they might have new characters and a new settings but fundamentally it is not a new film.
> -if you want to generate a image of an castle, do it, nobody is preventing you from doing that.
> but i'll prefer to comission an artist because the piece would be mine (ai generations are not copyrighted), it would be tangible (if it's a traditional piece, thing that the ai cannot do), and i could know what the drawing will looks like before it's done, because i know the artist's style (and an ai cannot have a style)
You could print whatever the AI makes and frame it, idk why this is a problem, people have won physical art contests with printed ai paintings so it's not like they look bad.
And you can actually tell AI to make something in a specific style.
> the funny thing here is that your argument is both wrong and hilarious.
>
> -''99 of artists'' : based on what ? you have stats to prove it ?
> -"they have no creativity" : the satement is so ridiculous that i don't even know where to begin.
> unless you are talking about people who are doing reproductions, creativity is one of the main things that we use in art, you don't know what "art block" is ? you never talked to an artist before ? and it's kinda ironic bcs AI is the only thing that don't have creativity here.
99% of them just do things that have been done before, you can't paint a landscape with trees and mountains and rivers and expect to be called creative.
Maybe a better analogy would be in writing scripts for films, and how most films just tell the same story, they might have new characters and a new settings but fundamentally it is not a new film.
> -if you want to generate a image of an castle, do it, nobody is preventing you from doing that.
> but i'll prefer to comission an artist because the piece would be mine (ai generations are not copyrighted), it would be tangible (if it's a traditional piece, thing that the ai cannot do), and i could know what the drawing will looks like before it's done, because i know the artist's style (and an ai cannot have a style)
You could print whatever the AI makes and frame it, idk why this is a problem, people have won physical art contests with printed ai paintings so it's not like they look bad.
And you can actually tell AI to make something in a specific style.
@kanYE24 said in #56:
> 99% of them just do things that have been done before, you can't paint a landscape with trees and mountains and rivers and expect to be called creative.
>
> Maybe a better analogy would be in writing scripts for films, and how most films just tell the same story, they might have new characters and a new settings but fundamentally it is not a new film.
>
>
>
> You could print whatever the AI makes and frame it, idk why this is a problem, people have won physical art contests with printed ai paintings so it's not like they look bad.
>
> And you can actually tell AI to make something in a specific style.
-a basic piece containing a landscape and trees is just an nature study (so... a reproduction ?) and most of artists did that once in their life, thanks for proving again that you don't know what you are talking abt
-i was talking about copyright and authenticity in this part, i don't see what the contest topic is doing here (and you can print any traditional art piece if you want)
- your last sentence is basically a self own : to do an drawing in a "specific style", the a.i will exploit drawings already made by an HUMAN in this style, soo... are you saying that the AI is the one without creativity here ?
and please don't come with the "but artists use reference too", it was debunked more times than you can imagine
> 99% of them just do things that have been done before, you can't paint a landscape with trees and mountains and rivers and expect to be called creative.
>
> Maybe a better analogy would be in writing scripts for films, and how most films just tell the same story, they might have new characters and a new settings but fundamentally it is not a new film.
>
>
>
> You could print whatever the AI makes and frame it, idk why this is a problem, people have won physical art contests with printed ai paintings so it's not like they look bad.
>
> And you can actually tell AI to make something in a specific style.
-a basic piece containing a landscape and trees is just an nature study (so... a reproduction ?) and most of artists did that once in their life, thanks for proving again that you don't know what you are talking abt
-i was talking about copyright and authenticity in this part, i don't see what the contest topic is doing here (and you can print any traditional art piece if you want)
- your last sentence is basically a self own : to do an drawing in a "specific style", the a.i will exploit drawings already made by an HUMAN in this style, soo... are you saying that the AI is the one without creativity here ?
and please don't come with the "but artists use reference too", it was debunked more times than you can imagine
@RizzingBishop said in #57:
> - your last sentence is basically a self own : to do an drawing in a "specific style", the a.i will exploit drawings already made by an HUMAN in this style, soo... are you saying that the AI is the one without creativity here ?
Yes both AI and 99% of people who try their hand at art lack creativity, why is this so hard to understand.
AI simply replaces people who have some skill in creative fields, but who don't have creativity or a passion for art.
And this isn't just true for painting, music, acting, writing are all 90% untalented and uncreative people who just want the fame or money that might come with being those things.
> - your last sentence is basically a self own : to do an drawing in a "specific style", the a.i will exploit drawings already made by an HUMAN in this style, soo... are you saying that the AI is the one without creativity here ?
Yes both AI and 99% of people who try their hand at art lack creativity, why is this so hard to understand.
AI simply replaces people who have some skill in creative fields, but who don't have creativity or a passion for art.
And this isn't just true for painting, music, acting, writing are all 90% untalented and uncreative people who just want the fame or money that might come with being those things.
@kanYE24 said in #58:
> Yes both AI and 99% of people who try their hand at art lack creativity, why is this so hard to understand.
honestly, you don't have the credibility to say that an artist is creative or not when you use a vast painting idea to demonstrate it ("an landscape with trees and a river"), they are more than one way to make a study of a landscape (and here, we are talking of reproduction)
btw i notice that you never showed me stats or proof of your "99% of them" : you just made it up.
> AI simply replaces people who have some skill in creative fields, but who don't have creativity or a passion for art.
bro, an ai cannot replace an artist, because it DEPENDS on him, and when it use the drawings of artists (without consent but it's another debate) it doesn't make a diffrence between the categories that you invented.
> And this isn't just true for painting, music, acting, writing are all 90% untalented and uncreative people who just want the fame or money that might come with being those things.
or... all the people who are saying that the AI make better art are just coping because they want things instantly without even understanding the thing in question (you see, i can argument that way too)
> untalented people
in drawing, "talent" doesn't exist and most artists will tell you that (but again, i imagine that you don't that topic well enough), it's a matter of skill and practice. some people are ambidextrous / can learn fast, but at the end of the day all of them will need to practice regularly to have a good level and a confident style.
and after those years of practice, people cannot tell them to not make money with those skills (or fame if they are good enough), especially people who just taped some words in a imput bar to have an image instantly.
it's ok to not understand something, just don't think that you know better than the concerned people.
> Yes both AI and 99% of people who try their hand at art lack creativity, why is this so hard to understand.
honestly, you don't have the credibility to say that an artist is creative or not when you use a vast painting idea to demonstrate it ("an landscape with trees and a river"), they are more than one way to make a study of a landscape (and here, we are talking of reproduction)
btw i notice that you never showed me stats or proof of your "99% of them" : you just made it up.
> AI simply replaces people who have some skill in creative fields, but who don't have creativity or a passion for art.
bro, an ai cannot replace an artist, because it DEPENDS on him, and when it use the drawings of artists (without consent but it's another debate) it doesn't make a diffrence between the categories that you invented.
> And this isn't just true for painting, music, acting, writing are all 90% untalented and uncreative people who just want the fame or money that might come with being those things.
or... all the people who are saying that the AI make better art are just coping because they want things instantly without even understanding the thing in question (you see, i can argument that way too)
> untalented people
in drawing, "talent" doesn't exist and most artists will tell you that (but again, i imagine that you don't that topic well enough), it's a matter of skill and practice. some people are ambidextrous / can learn fast, but at the end of the day all of them will need to practice regularly to have a good level and a confident style.
and after those years of practice, people cannot tell them to not make money with those skills (or fame if they are good enough), especially people who just taped some words in a imput bar to have an image instantly.
it's ok to not understand something, just don't think that you know better than the concerned people.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.