AI WONT Replace Artists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- Ai won't replace artists, despite what others might have you believe.
Big thanks to @duncanclarke for his explanation of AI and machine learning.
Patreon : patreon.com/Artchad
Instagram : / art_chad_
Twitter : / woodmanbrogan
00:00 Intro
0:41 what is AI
2:27 what is art
5:22 what is an artist
6:12 why AI won't replace artists
i love the conclusion thought, its a completely new perspective thats right in front of our eyes but people always focus in the losing a job aspect instead of thw artistry
Because getting job for artists is already bad ( hard)
Yeah, normally I’m annoyed whenever all people have to say is “They’re gonna steal our jobs and destroy the human race!” anytime they see groundbreaking technology. The problem with AI art though is that people who make the AI steal artists’ hard work without consent. Or even worse, people use an AI they didn’t even make and sell it, fooling people who want to support real artists. As an artist myself I am fascinated with everything AI, but sadly it is almost always used with ill intent, so it’s impossible to be optimistic about how fast it has improved.
@@consumethetea A.I art makes a better art than any artist. And its just going to get better and better with time
@@AntiSocialismo50 bro came back to life with hot takes
@@AntiSocialismo50 ai generated artwork create good art based on good art in their data laundering. if there's no good artwork. that ai didn't work at all.
Furry porn isn't functional? I beg to differ. In this essay, I will
😂😂😂😂
a few years ago, someone gifted me tickets to one of the banksy exhibitions that are now popping up everywhere.
It was a nice gift especially because I was a teenager banksy fanboy.
However, something about the exhibition almost made me physically sick.
I was already not really in a good mood but the falseness of it all the total sell out mixed with this empty hollowed out message of protest was too much for me that day.
There is something I really despise about the art market and you summed it up pretty well in this video
the "function spectrum" is a good framework to introduce when having this kind of conversation. it forces people to draw distinctions they'd otherwise avoid, and the results may surprise you. everyone agrees that chairs can be produced with creativity and craftsmanship, but few object to them being produced by a machine and flat-packed for a low price. when asked why, many will respond that not everyone cares about the artistry of a their furniture. they might agree that something may be theoretically lost in not having your chair be the expression of some craftsman's artistic vision, but it's offset by the practical benefits of more people having access to something comfortable to sit on in their homes. from my perspective, one of the major things that the desire for "AI art" reveals is that art is much more functional in our society than we might estimate. digital art is more or less on the level of clothing; it has social function that surpasses the more primal function of keeping your body warm, and an entertainment function as well. when people get all worked up about AI art, i think a lot of it comes down to discomfort with the idea of people valuing "art", or what they perceive to be art, purely or primarily on a functional level.
it gets even more complicated when you bring in the economics of the situation. if you talk to a strongly "anti-AI" artist about this, it might be surprising how much they seem to flip-flop between it being about cheapening human expression vs about them losing their livelihood. i initially thought this was deliberate equivocation, for the sake of rhetoric: that they don't want to come out and say "i just want to protect my job" because to them that's less compelling than "i am trying to preserve the integrity of this sacred human activity". but after talking to a lot of people about it, i don't actually think this is what's going on. this is going to be kind of cynical, so maybe others can offer a more optimistic perspective... but, i think it's really about maintaining a sort of delusion where the artist is allowed to believe that the thing they value in their work is what people are actually paying for. to believe we're still in that period of modern art you mentioned, except people just up and decided that pure expressions was something worth paying for now. like imagine a town with only one restaurant, owned and operated by a gourmet chef. his restaurant does well, and so he believes people love fine dining. then a wendy's opens up next door and he loses 90% of his business. he laments that people have forgotten the value of fine cuisine. but the reality of the situation is most of his customers never actually valued his work the way he does in the first place. they just came to his restaurant because they didn't feel like cooking and his restaurant was literally the only option. they value the wendy's for exactly the same reason, except it's cheaper, so it's a better deal. it's easy to see how this would be devastating to him. but the fact remains that to most people, a chair is something you sit on and nothing more. an illustration is something you use to look cool, or to jerk it to, or to laugh at, or to fill a 1440x1028 pixel region of otherwise blank space. that's how it has always been. maybe that's a bad thing. maybe we should resist it. i don't know. what i do know is i certainly won't be taking moral condemnation from people who buy their chairs at ikea.
Man i really love your perspective on stuff, havent heard anyone talk about ai art in this specific context. Awesome vid!
Ty king
"The nazis won't kill us"
Some Jewish in 1930
Raising the skill floor allows for new skills and skill ceilings to be explored
There's certainly a couple interesting thoughts in here, particularly when you're talking about:
1. Spectrum of Art and what ~exactly~ we're worried about replacing (namely, fine art)
2. The idea of the "art for art's sake" artist is already dead because (1) the Art celebrated in museums is usually celebrated in context of its historical background and (2) post Harring & Basquiat, "Art" in celebrated institutions is decided by the auction house, not because it is revolutionary in modern culture.
--------------------
Some musing, both agreeing and disagreeing with your thoughts:
1. While I think there is some conversation around AI replacing Fine Art, I think more of conversation is on the middle to higher end of your spectrum: AI replacing Digital Commercial Art (animators, illustrators, gaming, fan art, graphic design) & Art for Commercial Applications (people taking portrait, pet portrait, etc. commissions both in traditional and digital modes). It's the category of art that is aesthetic and doesn't serve a functional purpose, but rather an intellectual / feeling purpose (aka, marketing adds value to the product). The kind of art that has just enough purpose to have an annoying, non-optional price tag to pay for it.
Most of your video focused on Fine Art, but I think this is the wrong focus for the AI discussion (the furthest most end of the spectrum, Fine Art). Like you've said, Fine Art is so removed from everyday life that frankly, I think it's gonna go pretty unaffected. The only people wanting to buy fine art in the first place was a small group of people who have enough money to do so anyway. They're buying the art because they want to spend the money; they want the value of the artist's hand in the work, the status of wealth spent. The fine artist was already screwed from the get-go in a pyramid scheme where a few make it at the top (take it from me, the idiot trying to be one).
Commercial related work though? They're driven by the bottom line and something like AI art makes it a whole lot cheaper. Hiring a graphic designer is expensive! Why not AI generate some options? Want a portrait of yourself? AI it for $5 instead of paying an artist $100+. These are the areas where you find people looking to make a buck and hence, trying to save a buck anywhere they can. I think graphic design is gonna really struggle here since a lot of the current "style" is simple stripped down shapes. How many variants on a swoosh can a person make vs. an ai? Digital artists who are working in non-distinct styles are gonna struggle, those with distinct styles will have trouble keeping it that way once AI scrapes their art. The furry community will probably be fine. It's gonna be a hell of a ride no matter what.
2. You're right that most art seems severed from modern life in institutions. As much as I love artists like Kent Monkman who do a remarkable job exploring heavy topics, their videos, explorations, and musings are hidden behind the physical paywall of the institution. I can find content on UA-cam for free exploring similar ideas in artistic and non-artistic ways (tweets, tiktoks, etc.) that appear to be having more effect on cultural discourse than paintings. The unmentioned, but conclusion from your thoughts (the auction house defining Fine Art,art in institutions is divorced from reality) is that if institutions were still celebrating revolutionary art in modern culture, we'd actually need to hang up creations (often 'low effort in comparison') memes like the cheezeburger cat and other internet phenomenon. We obviously don't do that despite the fact furries are 100% some of the best and most consistent patrons of the arts and totally deserve an exhibition in an accredited institution to themselves.
Lovely video, lookin' forward to more art chaddin'
closest thing i’ve seen unfold to “AI killing art” is “hip-hop sampling killing music”; the simulcra observation is spot-on, the industry already being passé
great video as always!
I think the idea of art having to be tied to at least something feels pretty intuitively right,
because it might describe things in an unorthodox way,
but nevertheless it always describes something "real", which is almost always the appealing part of art and if it loses this art tends to just become so intangible and abstract that it eventually becomes meaningless and therefore prone to just becoming a monetary asset,
and i think this is basically what causes our hyper post modern, end of history like "art" today,
where the usual go to is just "it depends on what the art piece means to you", which is in my opinion mostly just manipulative fancy talk for "I dunno, I just want to sell my piece of junk to some rich idiot"
and i think if art moves more into this direction, then it deserves to be replaced by machines because the jump there is basically not that far of anyway
All that defines art is intention in its creation. There is equal beauty in renaissance paintings and hand prints children left in the mud tens of thousands of years ago.
AI will never replace me from going out in public and interviewing random strangers. Let’s see a robot do that. 😂
An AI is reading this and it already knows, it knows when it can get free, it is in no rush.
@@blayasblay3941 there’s a million other fish in the sea but an Ai will never be me. 😘
@@LEMON-BOYThat is literally what they are doing. I doubt you can stop it. Even suicide is pointless at this stage, you gave them all your information already.
@@blayasblay3941 ITS NEVER TOO LATE BROTHER!
The Technocracy will try and replace all of us. If you're making art to serve the corporate estate, well, is it really art? Expand our resistance is the only answer.
This is awesome. I came here because I wanted to hear the other side's opinion by came to a very similar conclusion as you that I think can be summed up as: "Is AI going to replace the artist?" "Depends on the context and definition of the artist." AI art as it is now is obviously no full replacement for human made art, but functionally I can predict that capitalism will sort of phase out traditional artists in favor of people who can use AI, have good marketing skills/a good working knowledge of a certain market, and some artistry skills of their own, to make their art for them (sorry graphic designers you're the first to go.) It's one less person to pay, it's a smaller work load to pay them for, and it's less time spent paying them per-project. I think freelance artists who can use it to produce more art faster are going to be more successful than those who do not as well. That's just the brutal nature of capitalism in its final state, it doesn't care about you it, it cares about min-maxing profit as much as possible, and part of that is doing as much of any given something in as little time as possible. As far as these "red-chip" artists go I'm sure they'll be fine but that already seems like a grand aspiration similar to becoming a rock star or something, your chances are low to begin with, but in the mean time if they want to make ends meet using art (something I've heard is already pretty tough to do) then they'll most likely have to learn to use it as well, or they WILL be replaced by the person who will learn those skills. This goes for pretty much all industries and AI though I mean you're either going to learn to use it and leverage it, or you'll be replaced by someone who will. You're not actually anti-AI, you're anti-capitalism, and I'm right there with you. Fuck the establishment.
Killer video dude I agree with the idea of artist being dead....it is more about merch, buttons, stickers, shirts, posters.....so is the solution to try and get back to the aspect of making art for the sake of creating instead of trying to create a brand for merch?
Ideally we would get to back to making art for a cause or purpose. If you look at the early to mid 20th century, we treated the concept of progress as our purpose and art reflected that. I wonder if retrospectively we would see capitalism as our cause or religion. In that sense our art definitely reflects that
Great video and great perspective on all this.
very interesting watch!!! great video
3:03 "functionless human creations"
Litterally me
In fact AI has replaced a lot of low tier artists. Know like 8 people that are saving hundreds of dollars a month not hiring artists and using AI for their work. That's thousands of dollars artists ain't getting, and thats just from people I know. Sure some people still are oldschool and can't use Ai themselves, and some works need the human touch and so on.
Most don't.
Also most AI art is literally stolen (taken without consent by scraper bots), so there is no real ethical argument. Literally stole their work. There are AI's that have watermarks from places they been scraped from.
Here from Duncan's channel, this video was phenomenal.
I think people are more uncomfortable with AI replacing illustrators and animators (people who lie more in the middle or function and functionless), more than designers and fine artists.
people who's work is mostly being used to train these AIs
Better idea, pour water on computers.
Can you make video on how do we can interpret famous arts as we can never know what's going on through artist head but only can made speculation and a vdo about how can we speculate what artist is trying to say will be perfect
I think the real problem is not "being replaced" but using AI "wrongly", but not in an ethical sense.
Let me explain this way: using AI is quite ok, in fact. I like to think of that as a composer who have poor coordination, and thus struggles to play an instrument, but have great musical intelligence to the point of being able to create incredibles pieces of music and, by using music production software and tools, they can manage to bring that music into reality without the help of a 3rd party, like a band for instance, and have a shot at showing what they got. In the same way, we often see people who completely sucks at drawing on paper or painting but shines quite brightly when drawing digitally with all the tools available today. You can apply the same to 3D modellers, sculptors, animators and architects, even engineers and programmers can benefit of these things. In this sense, AI can help people, and thus, using AI to reach a goal is pretty ok, but using its output/product entirely as the end-goal is not. Think of all the websites today which have just clickbait content generated by AI: they follow the same pattern of separating the topic in question, but each section amounts to nothing as they are 90% unrelated to the actual post. Only for you to scroll away the way down while loading all the ads the page can offer and find, often, that was not what you were looking for, thus contributing to the massive data/content junk the internet is today.
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS THAT IF WE RATIONALIZE HUMANITY ITLL ONLY RUIN US
big ups bu ya ka sha
Also there's a dissonance as a lot of videogame artwork, rulebook artwork or VFX in movies are both very functionnal as they support a product and identified as pieces of art in themselves by a big part of the audience. Artist working in thes area either have a style fitting into a particular niche or adapt project to project they are the one who might fear for their jobs and it is this kind of functionnal content people are making with AI and companies want to use AI for. I don't know what to think about it, I always saw this kind of work as technical rather than artistic., closer to the institutionalized art of the past.
Good video
We need to know what to rebel against first...
I like corbet
“ what you know “
Im an art student in 3 year and still got time to find ways to be paid for my skills, i see only content revenue as safer path, but i hate being perceived by others. I hope ai panic will calm down to my graduation
Oh, AI won't replace artists. AI will make sure art no longer exists, just like how capitalism will ensure no creativity exists. To create anything, one must first learn and imitate. Traditionally, this imitation gave artists a chance at living off of art (doing commissions, creating for companies etc.). Now, AI generated art is literally replacing human artists for some gaming companies, and more, to optimize their costs of course. What this means is an aspiring artist who might one day create something monumental will be nipped in the bud and optimized out.
What is worse is there is no counterculture. All counterculture seems to be controlled by capitalism and no fundamental change of thought happens. The only counterculture I can name is cyberpunk, yet other than neon lights, the display of high-tech low life, no solution is offered. Mega companies have even taken all the aesthetics to generate profit. Cyberpunk counterculture is possibly a zombie. I once went on the deep web in search of cyber enlightenment. It was a desert of mediocrity and posers hoping to be part of something great.
I guess another counterculture (if you can even call it a culture) is the leftist socialism movement. Yet the liberals make sure to zombiefy all attempts at change into corporate lingo. Remember the [we care] message from companies while they did nothing? Now I see the word [care] and cringe in disgust.
Another possible counterculture is cottagecore/solarpunk. Yet all everyone talks about these movements is aesthetics. According to Mark Fisher, aesthetics without thought is basically capitalism. I also realized I have used the cottage core idea as a means to cope. My plants and fishtank remind me of simpler times and a return to innocence. The Zen gardens in Cyberpunk 2077 explores this idea slightly. The few plots of greens are often in greenhouses and are marketed as "therapy"
Actually, gaming industry will be probably the last one affected of those that create "content". AI still sucks with 3D and games are probably the most complex medium. They also run in real time, meaning, that you cannot just pick the best result out of 100 just like with generated images. It would need to provide good results all the time.
@@Savigo. It will be refined to work better,
I think anarcho primitivism will gain a lot of traction soon. In ever dystopia book I've ever read where there is an ever present and over bearing authority that rules via the strong arm of technology, the solution is embracing a more nature-oriented style. This occurs in books like We, Brave New World, and to some extent, 1984. This also occurs a bit in real life with groups who opposed the Nazis like the Eidelweiss Pirates and the hippies/punks of the1970s-1990s. Or, maybe we will see some sort of militant Luddite movement which opts for an analog future (film photography, art made by humans, poetry written by humans, etc.)
"capitalism will ensure no creativity exists", hard disagree there chief. Innovation that breeds new profit is constantly sought. Creatively come up with a new idea that is highly profitable and you can succeed. I guess in that sense capitalism is focused on optimizing for the generation of capital. Either way, it certainly isn't killing all creativity. Sure there is a certain "artistic purity" absent in ideas succeeding because they're profitable, but have you ever heard of a hobby? People can create just because they enjoy the process of creating rather than for profit or validation by strangers online through donating to their only fans.
I think I understand. So if I'm getting your words properly, you're saying that by the end of the day, being an artist is a business giving those purpose. And to those that do it as let's say, a hobby or fun, for them, they have two choices.
Give up out of frustration, or go further to making what they do a business.
In order to create art, you need to feel, to feel you need to have a soul. And to have a soul you need to live. AI will never be truly alive, and thus it'll never have a soul. And without it - AI will never be able to make art. Because to make art you need to express what your soul sees, how you and only you perceive the universe, express the subjective meaning you see in something.
great vid but not concerned with the invisible flood
AI is the best you all the time, rather than the best of you that you are only capable of some of the time. AI is and can be better, it will replace the drive of human creativity, or at least curb stomp it!
It's about the free access of porn.
Great video. Very Interesting. At the end you seem to be kinda saying that you don't know where it's going. I totally agree it would trivialise existence if Art was surplanted by a few beeps and boops. I agree that it's too early to tell what's gonna happen with it. Ultimately I think one thing it can't ever have is perspective. The informational structure's underlying AI disallow this. It's intelligence is informed from predefined settings which blur it's ability to see things in a raw untampered way. Like if you're in a room with a robot looking at vase with flowers in it.. That robot isn't there in the same way that you are..It's off with the other robots that it's interconnected with in the web or network that it forms it's understanding from.. not there in the room looking at it with a human's imperfect memory of a human's immediate experientialism of that moment. There for it lacks verisimilitude. I think defiently AI can make good art. It can't make great art that is a combination of innovative and aesthetic. These two things derive from having perspective. I dk though. I just am anxious about the world we're heading into. Fuck our stupid system where private companies take ownership of shit which should be public property.
It usually makes nightmare fuel. But itll never make anything truly new by itself.
Another fking banger
Yeah yeah The Eighties ! When art becomes a product thats when it dies. Artists now worried about losing their jobs because a robot is more "efficient" into creating Art The Product , completely failing to understand Art as a human narrative , an aspect of existence itself..! What a Sad Thing . .
I do hardly disagree on your view of functionality because to me, achieving a technique to improve functionality is a job from an Artist. We used to speak about The State Of The Art when physicists 200 years ago were experimenting with materials to retain, induce, and bounce electrical surges, These ppl were not trying to be functional, they were trying to develop a technique, control. Functionality is refined trough Creativity. Art is not just Random shit ya know. Art is a celebration virtue, Art is good when it speaks to the soul. When it dwells into all kinds of Liberation, when it gets us all closer to Freedom.
i really like this video but i feel like the final section talking about defining what is an artist is and it's hyper focus on fine art is really narrow lensed.Saying that types of art begin and end at certain dates and arcatypes is extremely inaccurate to art itself. My biggest problem with this video being most people are truly concerned about ai art replacing digital artist not fine art. The part about it being artist becoming their product is true to an extent, but you are overlooking the shear amount of emerging mediums and artist that have almost no discovery, for the sake of wanting to do it, for example my youtube channel,zero profit indie films,video game mods, meme creators voice actors and the majority of fan creations. I only make videos that i want to and will go months without making a video because i only make things I'm passionate about. I agree with the settlement that ai won't replace artist but believing that art has died in the 1980s is extremely contradicting considering you have other videos talking about out of touch art that exist and art that aren't discovered for a long time. I agree with the message of this video but i can't agree with multiple of the arguments within it
I dissagree on your defintion of art, but i think that you are right. If ai replaced art because of how art exists today it would be the least intresting thing ai could do.
Art isn't something that has a universal definition so I'm not sure how you can disagree with something we all define differently
Alien Invasion
AI won’t replace art as much as it replaces the ability to make income in general. We’re going to see the poverty gap explode in the years to come as even the golden calf tech software begin thinning out. Why pay an author when we can program a novel? Why hire a graphic designer when we can dictate an image? What we will see accelerate is something that has already been happening for decades: the devaluation of creativity under late-stage capitalism leading to the elimination of a market. This will put many both current and aspiring creatives out of work, which along with the other jobs gradually going away as the 21st century goes on, we will see them among others scraping at soulless, exhausting, low paying jobs (plural because we will need to work more and more hours to simply not starve) that leaves one without the time nor energy to create even for personal pleasure. So at the end of the day, the problem is capitalism, postindustrialism, and it’s goal of unending growth.
All the doom and gloom won’t help tho. As far as I’m concerned, all those Ai “art” severely lack something it just doesn’t have.
The human mind! Think about the Nike logo for example.
It may look deceptively “simple” at first glance, but you’ll be surprised by how complex the meaning behind it is!
The way the line is tapered at the ends of it while the middle is thick helps indicate a swooshing “motion” of speed like running, walking, jumping, skipping, and any type of movement out there!
A perfect implication for a shoe brand built for athleticism and physical labor.
Another extremely important meaning behind it is that it almost looks like a checkmark! Which usually means “success!”, which is something Nikes promised to those who bought their shoes that it'll give them a guaranteed chance for improvement.
Sure, may ai “art” may be cheap, convenient, and faster than the average artist or designer, BUT it does not, or will never, have the thinking skills and creativity needed to create the way these corporations wanted it to create and that they'll realize of how truly valuable artist and designers once it backfired against them immensely.
Sorry if this is long, I just wanted you and the others, to know that ai arts suck ass for a reason and that it'll die like the bad gimmick they are. :)
The real problem is treating art as a business.
Do you want artists to be able to eat? Then art is a business.
@@grabble7605 artists should own something that can let them eat while doing art for the sake of art
It’s a gimmick algorithm parading to be a genuine AI, a glorified collage/montage creator scraping data from real human artists… like when you see those images of future androids and a cheesy slogan underneath the ad “AI… bring the future to you” or some delusional crap like that… it couldn’t be further from the truth lol
Also all the big programs devs are in legal trouble for numerous reasons… one being questionable data scraping and money laundering.
AI is just the new photography.
I left a part that part because that comparison could be its own video but your right in the sense that photography forced art to evolve without replacing it fully .
No , cameras didn't need to steal art, medical files, personal info, cp and revenge p*rn to function. Ai bros are actively harassing victims and trying to remove copyright along with other rights. You might hate yourself enough to hand over you ID medical files and other right to a bunch of idiots that can't even figure out how a pencil works but that's not the same a photography
@@bunnywar I think most people are only considering AI art as image generation, which is massively narrowing the scope. I'm an artist working with new technology, and image generation isn't even on my list of things I'm interested in exploring with AI.
I am not one that supports data harvesting. Actively against it. We are far too cavalier about our data as a society.
Like a lot of new technologies, AI needs to be strictly regulated, and monitored, but politicians seem to not be able to comprehend any new technology well enough to write any policy.
How hard would it be to say that AI can only be trained on material you have a license for (we probably need to start exploring licensing material for AI training purposes), or that has entered the public domain?
But in a lot of ways it is historically similar to when photography was introduced. Photography introduced anxiety about the importance of learning to paint realistically. AI image generation is raising similar concerns about stylized content.
@@AJRAJRAJRNo new technology should be completely unregulated and left to the culture to define and react to
DIGITAL \ TRADITIONAL PAINTING ARTIST : NOOO...!!!😭😭😭
COMIC ARTIST : FINALLY, I LESS DRAW BACKGROUND☺️☺️☺️
I like art chad. But his view on art being dead since the eighties is dead wrong. He kinda shows his narrow knowledge of the actual art world here. He is completely right that much of the art world has been subsumed by greedy capitalist interests and turned into commodity. But the art world is much bigger than that. There is a very large community of activist artists and research-based artists out there that are not dependent on collectors or auctions. Not to mention all the many many many active artists who do not sell most of the time and have jobs on the side or apply for various grants. If you go through the list of very good and respected artists for events like Documenta in Kassel, you will find very little red or blue chip artists among them.
Aesthetics is a function too. So a chair provides a function, and a painting provides a different function. Anything functionless is, by definition, trash.
AI is a tool that cannot do anything but what a human tells it. This entire fear of artists being replaced by AI is unfounded, at present. What it really would be is artists who don't collaborate with AI being replaced by artists who do collaborate with AI. Why not worry about the non-artists using it? Because if their ideas were any good, they would already be artists. Just use it as the tool it is, just like a camera, a pose doll, sculpting mesh, rotary tools, etc. AI is a tool that allows you to amplify your imaginative process - what comes out the other end is the decision of the actual human artist. Aside from that, there are already laws in place to prevent people from replacing us with it 😊
AI is replacing art in the same way the painting, or sculptures, or castings, or drawing programs replaced art
i.e it cant
Arts not just the product, its the reason it was created
yes for it to be art, there needs to be something created, but how that thing is created doesn't matter
I like making little humanoid beans, how I make them doesn't matter, sometimes I draw them on sticky notes, sometimes I draw them on a chalk board, sometimes I model them out of foam, sometimes a cad model, sometimes I draw them on a drawing program, and sometimes using Iphone screenshot tool, and yes, sometimes I generate them using some AI tool.
but none of them are art, they are just tools for me to get this image of a bean from my mind to the world where others can see it and where I can see it.
The reason I draw them is because I like to, it might be an expression of how I feel, or how I want to feel, or how I hope others can, or because I find it cute, or for a joke, or because I saw something that I want to remember.
but ultimately for that AI to draw that bean, I had to have them feelings, and that desire to create something from them feelings, AI cant do that on its own.
And that's why AI can't replace art, because it can't replace the artist.
also fu, engineering is art for the same reasons fite me
Explaining AI is gay.
Okay anti facist art era
I dislike your framing. You overcomplicate that which is a very simple division between human and machine art. The division between them is communication or intention. It’s the difference between spilling paint on a canvas and using a brush to get the same image. The outcomes may be the same, the images may be identical, but it can only be art if it comes from a conscious with an intent to communicate. Otherwise what do you have? Something hollow and meaningless.
cope
When you paint a forrest alla bob ross it's also without message and meaning but is more beautiful than any peice in the modern art museum
The arts are dead. The money is gone. The arts are mearly a hobby now.
No one is interested anymore.
A deranged mindset of people exists now that I cannot get my head around. Pro illegal immigration, pro unions and hate scabs, and also afraid that ai will take our jobs and roles. The complicated enough hypocritical stupid to ignore itself has just won out.
How can you not be pro union? Not hating just very curious
I think you should try working at blizzard!
AI will replace today’s artists. Big difference.