Just people too lazy to learn a skill who want to flip the narrative.
A bit like when you copy/paste a command grabbed online in a linux terminal and then feel like "a programmer" when the system do the thing it was built to.

Is there actually a point talking to Ai bros about Ai? Its their entire grift after all. Same with Religion, Flat Earth.

Yes. You're not leaving their bullshit standing out in the wild for itself and offer other readers who are not yet drifted into total madness a counterpoint.

It's never about the person you argue with, it's about the audience.

Then there would be the same argument displayed in two different ways and not two different arguments displayed.

So we have to combat confront them wherever we can?

Yes. However, please remember that "wherever we can" does not mean "wherever someone publicly makes a statement that necessitates a rebuttal" but rather "wherever someone publicly makes a statement that necessitates a rebuttal and one has the time and energy to spare for an appropriate dispute"

It be like that all the time. Instead of embracing chance people attack change. Until the wake up call happens and they realize that all art is AI. Every single piece of Art created was done by AI. The government has been keeping this a secret for centuries. The computer chips in our heads tell us what art to make and how to make it.

This is why I have an old school medieval helmet I wear everywhere. Except the airport, I won’t make that mistake a fifth time.

Finally someone that understands

::: spoiler what art is about.

Gatekeeping, ofc.

:::

AI artists don't exist, the AI is the "artist". You're the proverbial "ideas guy" that can't do anything themself and can't even come up with a style that doesn't exist already so the AI can copy it. You're heating up a factory-made frozen pizza and calling yourself a chef.

Oh, I'm sure that you write those prompts super artistically. I wasn't intending to gatekeep.

This. Especially important these days, where people can literally throw money at even this social problem to buy an armada of LLMs to manipulate public opinion. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. are dead platforms for that reason, there's no reason to engage in any debate or really anything anymore. Best to just state the facts when public people say bullshit again and then go on, muting any reply.

There is a tool called ComfyUI, which is THE tool for audio/video/image generation, and it looks just like the node editor for creating shaders. So there is some kind of skill and artistic choice involved for sure.

They're about as much of an artist as the dude that operates the wave machine at the water park is Poseidon.

I don't. I'm no artist.
I've seen very intricate ComfyUI setups that get pretty wild results run locally, though, which does make me wonder about merit.

After reading the first sentence I wasn't sure if you were anti-AI "too lazy to learn how to paint" or pro-AI "too lazy to learn prompt engineering"

As for your actual comment, while I'm also generally against AI, I feel like a shift in perspective is inevitable and has already happened to an extent.

I think it makes sense to compare image genAI to photography. It also made it far easier for people without "artistic talent" to produce images. Same as with AI, it is technically a purely mechanical process, a machine designed to make images. Also similar to AI, most of those images were kind of trash. However, it soon became its own separate art form, with its own language and a set of rules for "what makes a picture good". Would you say that photographers are not artists because they use a mechanical (or, nowadays, electronic) contraption for their art?

I feel like something similar is happening with AI. There are be certain kinds of AI-generated images that people like, and it will take increasing amounts of effort and skill to generate new, interesting ones. As time goes on and the hype wears off a bit, there will be a relatively small community of hardcore AI prompt engineers making something novel and interesting, while most people just use AI for practical purposes or just fun, similar to photography.

The main differences between photography and genAI are the insane amount of energy required for generating batches of images, and the fact that it steals from human artists to produce its results. This is the reason I'm opposed to the current AI hype, not just because it's mechanical.

art requires some form of effort, AI "art" does not have that

I think it makes sense to compare image genAI to photography.

As a photographer, nope.

Legit, I'm not even reading the rest of what you said. This photography point is so mind numbingly boring at this point.

To put it simply. I do use AI and I do prompt, but I don't consider any of it art.
About Prompting, i think that's more like learning to speak a couple of words in Chinese to order some fancy food in a foreign restaurant. You (may) get a more complex and peculiar food of many others, but that doesn't make you a cook.

Now explain that to people who brainstorm for hours on a prompt to put into AI to create something lol. Both parties make an effort wether it's physical or mental to create something /s although without AI the range in art is quite limitless and you don't have any boundaries so it's more preferred and logical. I never used AI but I could make up why people would use it for, because you need to have a serious talent and experience to turn it into perfection but i do agree that, ai should not count as art or such

sure thing ill do.

typing a few prompts is no effort. you literally just type what you want, then just slightly adjust your prompt. it doesn't even take me 5 minutes to achieve a satisfactory result, and not even 10 to get exactly what i want. you may generate to your hearts content but dont call it art. and especially dont call it "my art".