I laugh because they are ai generated,not because they are funny (most of the time, thry are not)

I mean, they can do that, but this is on the level of showing me a cool anime they saw.

How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?

I've seen plenty.

Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music?

Are you... being serious?

Look, I've been a musician longer than I've been any other kind of artist, and yes, I pick all of my notes. That's the fun part, actually. There is a lot of deliberation over where they should go.

This is what I mean about you people not understanding the artistic process. Music is a language. People in a jam session are speaking words and phrases to each other. There are grammar rules to this language that work one way but in way another not.

If you're using an LLM, then your jam partners aren't speaking to you, they're speaking to a robot. You may as well not even be there. And uh... I dunno, that just seems really fucking lonely.

It seems like you’re shifting away from the point of discussion, which was whether AI output can be art

Okay, this was 15 hours ago, so I don't remember who did what exactly, but I do know I was soapboxing, so yeah, we're gonna cover a lot of bases.

The actual question of whether it's art is simple: It's not. It can be used in art, but unto itself, it's just novel spectacle. Art comes from the conscious.

If it were art, it still wouldn't be your art. It would be the robot's art.

It also seems like this discussion is taking a toll on you.

I did have a nap, thanks.

This is just demon tech. Like the demons in Frieren. They say words like "hello" and "thank you" in my holy tongue to manipulate, but they know not what any of my words mean. The words "I love you" serve no purpose other than to stop me from ending its life with the power button.

This proposition is refuted by hyperrealistic paintings

And these are... common? These are clogging up google search results with their hyperrealistic spam? You realize that photography is the loser in this exchange, right? Hyperrealistic paintings are so much cooler than a machine that takes hyperrealistic photos.

much better. still not funny because the joke itself is ass but this punchline at least makes sense for the premise.

Photography didn't replace painted art.

Digital art didn't replace traditional art.

3d art didn't replace hand drawn art.

Why is AI going to replace anything?

I think that idea is based on a proposition "AI generated images will replace all other type of images" which is not true.

It's just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won't, some people will use as a mixed media utility.

The existence of one thing doesn't invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.

I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don't discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn't replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn't replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there's more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.

every time i see someone arguing in favor of ai art, my lymhonodes get a little more swollen

I really don't care about AI usage when its memes and shitposts.

That's both not what an article is about, and not what I was agreeing with.

My opposition is to demon tech produced by vampires.

I'm not going to take you seriously if you don't discuss this seriously.

Yes. Why would you even ask me this.

Depraved tentacle porn is art. —Why are you trying to like debate trick me into recoiling in disgust at what some people spend their time on?

Because you've made a distinction between art and visual media that isn't art without clarifying it at all - and that's still the case. Typically pornography is not classified as art. Both these cases describe visual content made (often) not as an emotional expression of the creator, but as a means of making money or sexual gratification. I'm not saying either is evil or disgusting (you're the one who contends that visual media made without emotion is morally deficient).

I await your clarification on what art is and whether AI images are still immoral if they only displace stuff produced for some other reason than emotional expression.

there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.

There certainly can be - check out people producing photorealistic art today, or the extremely realistic portraits produced before the advent of photography. Photography can be used in the process without being evident in the final image, too.

The fact is that most AI images today can be detected as such by anyone familiar with them. That may not be true forever, and the signs can be covered up by someone with the will, but then, that's the same as use of photography.

I can’t appreciate someone’s brush strokes if there is no way of knowing a brush was struck.

When I look at brush strokes I'm appreciating it visually because they look nice. If you view two pieces of art on a computer screen (so that you can't see the 3D aspect) do you respond differently to the brush strokes because one is a photo of an actual oil painting, whereas the other is a piece of digital art made in Krita where the brush strokes are simulated?

AI is significantly different from the other things you mention. With the others a human is still involved, and in fact indispensible, in the process of creating art.

Not so with AI (except of course for all the human art illegally used to train it). It is also capable of pumping out its creations at a speed no human can match. You search for examples in history of similar things happening, but the fact of the matter is that nothing in human history is equivalent to this. So using history as some sort of guiding light is quite the fool's errand. We can only judge by what is happening, and the reasons for those things happening, and extrapolate from there.

And judging from those facts then it does become obvious that automated content will very soon drown out all human made creativity, just from the sheer volume of automated content being created at exponentially larger rates.

It’s like watching people get angry at the first steam engines that appeared.

It is nothing of the sort. Steam engines served mostly useful purposes. AI mostly does not (at least not in an open world environment, it has excellent purposes in closed environments like medicine and science). The fact that it is indeed unstoppable does not make the outrage of its infestation of everything on the internet less, quite contrary.

I genuinely worry about their mental health over the next few years

I guess someone with their head in the sand, their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs like you, will have an excellent mental health.

It’ll settle down eventually into just being a part of normal life.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests that will be the outcome. Your conclusion rests on a very fallacious use of history.

Your strawman has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The fact that you resort to this obfuscation instead of actually facing the problem, suggests that perhaps your personal conviction is not so rational as you initially thought.

Human input is still needed.
As far as I know there's not a skynet level AI doing things by itself.

Human interaction is indispensable in AI creation. And it can be far more involved that other forms of art. A person can take more time and effort producing an AI image than in making something quickly in Photoshop/Gimp.

Speed argument is invalidated by photography which can produce images faster than AI so... A photography can be taken in fractions of a second, AI usually takes more time. The difference on time between a oil portrait and a photography is far greater than whatever we have now with AI, and people still have hand made portraits. I have one of myself.

Anyway, I suppose you are subduing your opinion to that prediction. Then I just hope that if the prediction proves false, and if in the future AI have not destroyed other forms of art then your opinion will change and you will recognize you were wrong. I obviously accept the same proposal if in the future AI art have destroyed other forms of art then I'll had to admit I was wrong.

You are trying to analyze a joke my dude. Refer to the other, more serious, comment you replied a few minutes ago if you want real conversation.

are ai jokes like reverse captchas

AI is replacing every form of art you just described

Not it's not.
All the artists I follow keep doing art as usual.

Same as I said other user. If that's your concern, live by it. If in X number or years other forms of art keep existing and AI have not taken over everything promise yourself that you will change your mind and admit that your were wrong. Think about the people that told you that was going to happen and stop trusting them.

I have promised myself that if in 5-10 hears AI have taken over art and all traditional art is dead and all art is bad I would do the same.

Because learning from our mistakes is the only way to move forward.

Here you are making a big assumption "AI will take over". Just promise yourself that that assumption being correct or incorrect will have moral consequences for your future self.

I say this because I'm very certain that that prediction will not occur. But sadly people who made that prediction and bullied all over the place anyone liking AI will keep being the same once proven wrong.

Tell me. In which year I will be unable to read a book written by a person, read a comic made with digital painting, look at a oil handmade painting or look at a composite photography?

I've seen ai make jokes that were clever, original, and context aware. Very interesting. There's a theory of mind (or several - I dunno - I do my own philosophizing) that says that valence and emotions in general stem from the social need. My personal theory is that the world, including inanimate objects, can be nice or mean to you from a human perspective. Anyways, what is language, if not an exchange of conveying social needs? I don't see llm's as some blank jigsaw puzzle of words, but a derivation and a case study. Notice: I believe it's a potentially valuable tool for very particular studies, not some magic catch-all for reasoning that can do anything worth a shit. More akin to a sociopath manipulating you.