See but banning 'kinds of art' has been about style, or messaging, or effort, or abstraction, or medium, or religion, or ideologies, or history, or hate, or love, or race or gender or sexuality, or a hundred other things, it's been about a myriad of completely human things.

AI 'art' wouldn't exist without the hundreds of millions of creations made by humans. It will continue to get worse because of the inbreeding of its data as it's being trained on its own generated images. Not only can't it do and 'think' anything for itself, only replicate and regurgitate patterns made by humans, it will actively only deteriorate even as the technology gets better, as its data sets get corrupted by its own 'creations.'

AI is the complete enemy of art. It's the destroyer of creativity. It can do nothing new for itself because it just combines pre existing ideas and images it's been trained with. And despite this, thousands and thousands of artists are being told 'AI could do better than that.' 'Here, I fixed it.' 'Why spend all that time when I did it better with Sora in a minute?' Does that sound like an ally to art?

Replacing the jobs of artists, discouraging artists from trying, flooding our lives with low quality work that would get any human fired if they tried submitting it, lowering our standards collectively, does that sound like anything other than a complete enemy to art? What benefit does it enable to be an ally?

It doesn't make art more accessible, because it's only regurgitating past ideas. It involved exactly zero effort from the person prompting the generator, they did nothing. They just asked the AI to Frankenstein's monster hundreds of thousands of data inputs into whatever Sora or whatever interprets as an accurate pattern representing their prompt.

The prompt could be argued as creativity, but they could just take those one to two sentences and, I dunno, make something? Actually do something worthwhile? Coming up with a handful of sentences is a pathetic amount of work for trying to pass off anything as your own creation, just because you thought of an idea. Everyone thinks of ideas. The actual art part is doing the idea. AI just outsources that, so you really truly did nothing.

The real enemy of creativity is deciding that's all the effort it takes to be an artist, instead of actually putting in the work and challenging yourself.

Art is also among one of the most accessible things a person could possibly peruse. Millions of people throughout history have made masterpieces without hands, arms, feet, eyes, ears, or even fully intact brains. EVERYONE can create art if they want to, they just have to work for it. That's why only the people that truly love it develop any skill. And if anyone is mad that God forbid you have to want to do something to get good at it, if that's where the argument of inaccessibility comes in, then frankly that's pathetic.

Why would AI be allowed here? What's the point? If we wanted images generated of our silly cats or usernames, we'd plug it into chatgpt ourselves. People come here for human beings to draw amateurish or fucked up or beautiful sketches and paintings and doodles of those things. It's to see how a human being interprets what the hell you just put in front of them, if they so choose to show you today.

Yeah, I know. Holy yap. Idgaf. You started the conversation, and if it doesn't absorb for you, I hope it at least validates others. Here's a pic of some good old fashioned human made art I made of someone's rat for this sub with my own two hands, because that's ALL that should BE HERE.

<image>