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.

I am being serious. Vampires are the aristocratic monster.

Odd that someone really into AI is also some kind of sexual puritan. Why can't porn be art? You say "typically," but these are coward's words. What are your feelings?

The new Superman was made for money. Does this invalidate it somehow?

How does the song go...

"All you read and wear or see and
Hear on tv is a product begging for your
Fat-ass dirty dollar
Shut up and buy"

(you're the one who contends that visual media made without emotion is morally deficient)

Correction! I think your lack of social awareness is morally deficient. AI is just... annoying.

What is it you people like saying? AI is just the tool? Yeah.

I await your clarification on what art is ...

I can't because you're looking for me to show you which pixels indicate something is worthy of being graced by the title. There's no such thing. That was never my problem with it.

If you were really trying to understand, I think you'd recognize I've actually explained pretty thoroughly several times already.

that's the same as use of photography.

Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn't piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

Interesting how this doesn't seem to be much of an issue here in the year 2025. I wonder if there are forces at play which prevent this mass photography/painting confusion from materializing.

do you respond differently to the brush strokes because one is a photo ...

I might. I dunno.

I'd respond very differently if I knew one of these brush strokes was just the most statistically probable in an infinite series of possible lines—kind of loses its flavor.

Why can’t porn be art? You say “typically,” but what are your feelings?

Porn can be art, but typically it isn't, and typically when it is it's called "erotica" or "erotic art". There's a distinction you apparently don't want to talk about, even though you started trying to make an argument about what constituted art.

Weird that you started off saying "you must understand what art is" but now are reluctant to talk about it, even though your conception of it obviously differs greatly from mainstream definitions.

Here's what I think. I think the vast majority of visual content we interact with is pretty emotionally empty. It's product packaging, advertising, memes, yes even superhero cinematic universe shlock written to a formula. I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything, and I think that people will always find an artistic outlet for their emotions if that's what they want. My partner paints as a hobby and I haven't heard them saying they're not going to bother because of AI.

Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn’t piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

Is your problem AI art or is it lying about art?

I might. I dunno.

Wow, you've really thought hard about this.

Porn can be art, but typically it isn't, ...

This is a very strict world view you have.

Art comes from the conscious. Porn comes from the conscious. What distinction are you talking about?

'Erotica' is either another word for the same thing, or it's the "high brow" version women can clink their wine glasses over. I don't understand what trap has been laid before me.

"you must understand what art is" but now are reluctant to talk about it, ...

What I am deliberately avoiding, The Riddler, is a stupid debate over some exact definition whereby you claim this thing doesn't count, and then I say "the word 'is' in this context means," and then you ironically call me pedantic, and we waste 14 hours intellectually jerking off.

Like, it's way easier to just say that you are one of the vampire's familiars trying to trick me with lies. Like, uh ... like a lawyer. You know.

I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything,

I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical "given up" disease. I think they call that cynicism.

I mean, I personally wouldn't lose anything; I don't watch Marvel. You don't think they're funny, though? I'm not gonna say I like them, but I've almost always laughed.

The whole reason that the steam engine took off was because they did the opposite. It's the same reason that you don't hear people complaining about the AI used to spot cancer or find stars. They changed workflow, but they didn't negatively disrupt it. They made it easier to do more.

People hate AI the same way that they hate touch screens in cars. They actively make things more difficult. Not only are car manufacturers being required by law to bring back physical controls for things like the A/C because the lack of a physical knob or dial means that you have to take your eyes off the road to change something on a screen, the last time I was buying a car I was talking to the guy at the dealership about how I was limiting the model years I wanted to look at to those before the 16+ inch screens became common, and he said that the vast majority of people coming in had similar sentiments - the screens are just generally unpopular, especially because of how big they've become. They're unwieldy, unintuitive, and require too much concentration to use when actually driving.

Google's AI has been found to be wrong 60% of the time - even frequently making up "facts" that directly contradict the works that it cites as sources. They hate that trying to find an accurate picture of a penguin or whatever has become so difficult because image search tools are filled with AI generated images that range from slightly off to completely inaccurate. They hate that refrigerators now come with an AI assistant in them. Something like 80% of users in a study either actively disliked the AI features on their phones or said they find them useless.

The current AI trend is a Dutch Tulip bubble, or more accurately, a solution to the problem of people being paid that investors and c suites want crammed into everything in order to justify the money spent.

This is a very strict world view you have.

"Can be, but typically isn't" isn't strict in any sense. It's the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We're still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can't have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that's important.

Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it's a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it's a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.

I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical “given up” disease. I think they call that cynicism.

The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.

Something that has actual intelligence, or at least significant portion of building blocks of intelligence.
The problem, of course, is that intelligence is a complicated, complex, sprawling phenomenon, with no real ways to measure it as a whole, at least to any degree of reliability.
Learning, reasoning, critical thinking. Creativity, logic, problem solving, abstraction. Self-awareness, self-reflection, general sense of self. You need most of the elements of most of the groups (and probably more that is also important but I am missing right now) in order to even begin to talk about possibility of intelligence. Then somehow we will need to solve the philosophical zombie problem, and I don't envy the researchers who will have to do that, but that's way later down the line.
What we have right now very demonstrably doesn't have almost any of those. What we call machine learning can be called learning in a very specific and reductive way, and whatever emerged phenomenon we observe from that is it's own beast, but intelligence it is not. All the other boxes are not ticked, and some, like creativity or critical thinking, are the opposite of ticked. It might lead to something in the future (personally I doubt it, but can't rule out), it might just as likely be something else, or nothing entirely.
I am very unsecure in my speculations on it, but those who have the most robust and optimistic answers right now are actually those who want to sell you something, and most of them are salespeople with the expertise of sales and nothing more.

There is a lot of deliberation over where they should go.

If you say that, then I’ll have to believe you. My standpoint on this is more akin to your next statement,

Music is a language. People in a jam session are speaking words and phrases to each other. There are grammar rules

That means that once the piece of music turns out to be in, say G major, then there is little (I even dare say no) deliberation on whether you’re playing a G natural or a G sharp. There may be deliberation in the phrases you play or in the general direction the piece you’re playing will go. There may even be deliberation in not playing a G natural from time to time. But by default you don’t think about these things. You just play.

This is what I’m comparing to using an AI tool. One doesn’t think about every single note every single time, just like one doesn’t think about ever single filler word that’s only there for grammatical purposes in writing prose, and just like one doesn’t think about every single color channel of every single pixel when creating a digital painting. So why does using an AI tool invalidate the art? Because there is no deliberation over every single tiny aspect of the output?

If you’re using an LLM, then your jam partners aren’t speaking to you, they’re speaking to a robot.

This is just plain wrong. It’s like saying you cannot be a musician if your instrument is MIDI. Or you can’t be a singer if you’re using an artificial voicebox. The LLM still produces what its user intends it to produce. The LLM doesn’t produce output on its own. It is operated by the user. Just like a guitar is operated by its player.

The LLM still produces what its user intends it to produce.

The lot of you people always front this idea, figuratively, that the way the robot works is it connects to the user's brain and then downloads the picture they want to produce, and then simply displays it for them. The act of writing a prompt is merely the interface by which this brain-to-brain connection happens.

I don't know how else to say this: that is fucking ridiculous. It's so mind meltingly stupid, I think you're lying to me.

I have to ask: is AI not supposed to revolutionize the working world? You don't have to bother yourself with the particulars of writing a good text summary anymore, but also, you're somehow in full control of what it does? You no longer need to be a trained artist with a good understanding of color theory to produce great works—this is the great democratization of art—but also, the colors chosen were naturally the ones you would have chosen anyway; you are a big, smart boy, after all.

just like one doesn't think about ever single filler word that's only there for grammatical purposes in writing

If you had ever written anything worth talking about, you'd recognize that your filler words, or their absense, add a lot of color to your writing.

I think you let the robot write filler words for you because you don't actually know what they mean. You've never thought about them.

This is a phenomenal example because, when I write comments, this one even, I reread them 4, 5, 6, 7 times checking for syntax and grammar errors, brevity, tone, voice, whether I'm being too aggressive, whether I'm not being aggressive enough; but you imagine the filler is just busy work keeping you from jerking off a seventh time.

You seem not to understand that, if you think this filler is so beneath caring about, I'd prefer you just cut it out entirely. Speak like a caveman for all I care. Why would I want you to generate a bunch of filler words when neither you nor I have any idea what they're doing there?

I'm not even really talking about AI anymore: why are you writing filler words in your responses? Stop. Like, seriously. Cut that shit out. I'll slap you with the ruler, I swear.