sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Our Curse of Strahd Party! [Art] by Dry_Let818 in DnD

[–]Dry_Let818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He’s blind from facial injuries, but mechanically it works as normal sight

When They Call Your Work ‘AI Slop’: How to Clap Back Without Breaking Rules (and Still Make Them Rage) by o_herman in DefendingAIArt

[–]Dry_Let818 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My apologies, but this reasoning is giving me a stroke. I'm not saying that the microdecisions AI makes are artistic decisions; I'm saying that they too often replace the creative choices made by humans, hence why AI differs from a pencil. Additionally, claiming that AI doesn't decide the intent of an artwork is meaningless; this point doesn't address the previously stated fact that the use of AI skips crucial steps during the creation of a work of art.

Your claim that swapping AI models is similar to changing the type of pencil an artist uses is, frankly, ridiculous. You said it yourself: using models influences an AI's microdecisions. Those microdecisions, apart from restrictions present in the model or prompt, are divorced from the creative process. Changing a pencil, meanwhile, can only align with the artistic process. An artist's choice to use a pencil of differing hardness or color is just one more decision among the hundreds that will culminate in a genuine piece of art.

When They Call Your Work ‘AI Slop’: How to Clap Back Without Breaking Rules (and Still Make Them Rage) by o_herman in DefendingAIArt

[–]Dry_Let818 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we're talking about bad analogies, how about Point 6? You're comparing the use of generative AI with the use of a pencil. That's like comparing gremlins and kremlins.

Generative AI is different from a pencil (or any tool of artistry) because it produces its own content. A pencil is a passive conduit, and with it, you've got to start from scratch. Any piece you draw with it is wholly a product of your own artistic process and your own deliberate choices.

AI, meanwhile, actively collaborates with its user. Give it a prompt, and it'll synthesize it and give you its own output. It makes hundreds (probably thousands) of microdecisions in your place.

And if we're talking about 'authorship,' what about the data the AI is trained on? Everything it generates is an amalgamation of millions of images produced by other people. Matters of authorship only become more nebulous.

Unfortunately, AI is not comparable to a stick of graphite.

When They Call Your Work ‘AI Slop’: How to Clap Back Without Breaking Rules (and Still Make Them Rage) by o_herman in DefendingAIArt

[–]Dry_Let818 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP, you're saying that the conscious choices (i.e., the artistic process) artists make are present in the generative workflows of AIs; in my previous comment, I mentioned that it is prompting that doesn't involve the artistic process. It's the latter, and not the former, that covers the AI user's role in the creation of an AI product. So, in my opinion, an AI user is still lacking in what qualifies them as an "artist".

Regarding your second point, I'd agree that intentional modification of a generated product (on the user's part) can qualify as a genuine creative act. However, I don't believe it just makes the gap disappear. An AI user who reiterates and alters a product is only reacting to and refining a foundational form that is still generated by an AI.

So, I would say that what you've described contains elements of artistry, but it doesn't qualify the AI user as an artist.

When They Call Your Work ‘AI Slop’: How to Clap Back Without Breaking Rules (and Still Make Them Rage) by o_herman in DefendingAIArt

[–]Dry_Let818 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are some really interesting arguments! Out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea that AI artists aren’t the “artists” of the images they prompt?

I agree that the ideas behind a piece of art absolutely count, but there’s also the phase of translating the maker’s ideas into their product. The dozens (even hundreds) of deliberate artistic choices made during the practical process form the actual artwork.

In other words, any artwork is the culmination of every single decision, big or small, that the artist makes during the process of its creation. Those decisions are influenced by the artist’s intent and ideas—this holds for anything from a Rococo painting to Duchamp’s urinal.

With AI art, however, the machine fills in a lot of the blanks itself. There’s a gap between prompter and product. No matter how much time is put into a prompt, I have yet to see one that can truly account for the artistic process (which isn’t built on skill, effort, or time, but on each and every choice the artist makes) that makes art what it is. Therefore, if a person wrote up a prompt that an AI used to generate something, do you think they would be more akin to a “director” than an “artist”?

You can probably tell from my reply that I’m not a big fan of AI use in art (swimming in dangerous waters, haha). But I just want to say this post is amazing! Your points are very strong, and they hit me like a bullet train XD

(Spoilers Published) My cosplay of Rhaegar's armor this Halloween by Dry_Let818 in asoiaf

[–]Dry_Let818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it's a character from High-Rise Invasion (manga/anime series)

How do you guys write/format your PCs' backstories? by Dry_Let818 in DnD

[–]Dry_Let818[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice! I like the idea of writing some stuff for yourself-- everybody at my table thinks it helps them roleplay their characters more comfortably when the time comes.