Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
I just need to press a button and my DSLR will automatically upload the picture I took. Is photography art? Different people get different things from art. If you want to see something that took a human a hundred hours of consideration, that’s fine. But I don’t care what the artist was thinking most of the time. I care how it makes me feel. What inspiration it sparks in my mind. I’ve been moved and inspired by AI art. Admittedly I could also probably have been moved by inkblots. But people hang inkblot prints in their house because it does something for them. Art is subjective, meaning it’s more about the subject viewing it than the artist.
I’m sorry my opinion upsets you, but it’s not art. Period. You’re not changing my mind. If a robot isn’t an athlete for throwing a football, or a computer isn’t a musician for generating preprogrammed beats….
Punching info into a computer program made by other people…. Isn’t art.
I’m not arguing this with you.
You caused me no distress, I was just inspired by your comment to share my perspective.
If a machine isn’t an athlete for throwing a football, there are no athletes. If a computer can’t be a musician, there are no musicians. The line you’re drawing where a computer is worthy of being called an artist, is whether or not it was created by evolution. But there’s no technical differences between the two. Or at least there won’t be soon.
I understand you’re under a different opinion and I thank you for it. I have no need to change it.
Thanks. Sorry for being aggressive. Just so used to being attacked for my opinion.