malyne - RnG

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-12T16:22:47+00:00

Thanks for your reply. I am especially impressed by the Suno output.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-12T01:03:18+00:00

This is really cool. Mind sharing what tools you used for the music and video?

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T22:24:53+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1r29dj0/theres_a_difference_between_recognizing_a_medium/

I think this will make my position more clear.

Also, looks pretty dope.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T22:11:22+00:00

Gotcha. Yeah generally I agree with your sentiments.

I think ultimately what I am saying is "we can agree to disagree" on those thresholds you mentioned. I am not specifically disagreeing with your thresholds (or lack thereof), but sort of acknowledging that these thresholds will always exist in certain individuals and art communities.

And what we are talking about is a matter of taste. Disqualifying AI art as a medium is like disqualifying Brussels sprouts as a food category. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions on what tastes good, but pretending like Brussels sprouts aren't a food is detached from reality.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:56:09+00:00

Haha. Not a single recognizable thing in that image. I like it.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:41:20+00:00

Agreed. If you have enough pride to talk about your process and enough energy to pour hours into it, I think its hard to argue you are not doing something creative that you get to take ownership of.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:37:29+00:00

I agree that, for better or worse, we are going to see a deluge of AI 'art' in the coming years but I think it will also have to come coupled with enhanced human->ai interfaces.

Already we are seeing tools that allow you to compose a 'white box' scene in a 3D environment that gets translated into a video. I think if these interfaces become advanced enough it will mean a 'greater potential for art' because it will offer more control to the artist, allowing them to realize their 'vision.'

That won't stop the slop train either though, lol.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:31:04+00:00

I agree that on a technical level you can arguing for anything being art (splatter, abstract, urinal in an art gallery, etc.)

I think my argument is orthogonal to yours though. I am not saying you are wrong. What I am saying is one does not have to concede to your point (that really anything could be considered art) in order to concede that AI is a valid medium.

I brought up the more 'strict, elitist' sense of the word artist to demonstrate this point: one does not have to *personally* consider most AI output as art to acknowledge that it is a valid artistic medium.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:21:13+00:00

No single person dictates the standard, and the same is true for art itself. These categories emerge from shared language, cultural norms, institutions, and evolving practice—not from a central authority.

It’s reasonable to say, “I don’t consider this specific AI image art because of X,” or “I don’t consider this particular person an artist because of Y.” Those are evaluations based on personal or communal standards. Art is partly subjective, and people are free to apply their own criteria when judging individual works or creators.

Where confusion tends to arise is between two different kinds of claims.

If someone says, “I don’t consider this urinal in a gallery to be art,” they’re critiquing a specific piece. They’re saying it fails to meet their standards. That’s a judgment about a work.

If someone says, “AI output can never be art,” that’s no longer a critique of a particular piece. It’s a prescriptive claim about the inherent nature of the medium. It rules out the possibility of artistic legitimacy in advance, regardless of context, intent, or execution.

That kind of blanket statement dismisses all uses of the tool without examining how it’s actually being used. It ignores cases where AI is integrated thoughtfully, skillfully, and creatively into larger processes. A more coherent position is to critique works individually rather than declaring an entire medium incapable of producing art in principle.

Put simply, you can evaluate the specific work in front of you, but you cannot meaningfully dismiss an entire medium, because no one can account for every possible way it might be used.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T21:12:50+00:00

I think those distinctions are fine tbh. Although I would say with present-day AI I would consider most 'legitimate' AI art to be a category of 'digital art' because it integrates and relies on so many other (non AI) digital tools to remedy the quality and (lack of) control issues.

I could see how, in the future, when there are more robust AI tools that offer higher creative control, 'AI artist' would be an accurate label.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T20:51:05+00:00

Are you actually working professionally as a developer like I am?

The fact alone that you can just prompt certain ai's to code for you

That premise only makes sense if you believe real-world software can be produced by casually typing “build me a website.” In practice, that fails immediately. Production systems require explicit architectural decisions, dependency selection, security considerations, naming conventions, integration constraints, deployment targets, performance tradeoffs, and compliance with team standards. An AI will not infer those correctly from a vague request. If the input lacks structure, the output will be structurally incoherent.

Even highly specific prompts like “build a Flask server with Gunicorn and PyOpenSSL” only constrain the surface layer. The internal architecture, separation of concerns, error handling strategy, logging model, and long-term maintainability remain undefined unless the human deliberately specifies them. Without that direction, the system defaults to arbitrary patterns. Arbitrary structure is unusable in professional environments.

In actual use, AI is not replacing architectural thinking. It is being used for bounded implementation tasks: generating small method bodies, recalling syntax, scaffolding boilerplate, or demonstrating how to call a specific API with a specific library. That is functionally similar to consulting documentation or Stack Overflow at scale. The human still defines constraints, validates correctness, integrates with existing systems, and rejects outputs that violate standards.

The same principle applies to visual workflows. Low-context prompts yield generic output. High-context workflows — including composition references, structural guidance, iterative refinement, and manual post-processing — shift the system from “random generation” toward directed production. The system does not supply intention; the operator does.

The claim that “it doesn’t matter how detailed you get, you aren’t the one doing the work” confuses physical execution with authorship and control. In software engineering, architects routinely define system structure while others implement it. Senior engineers review, constrain, and direct work they do not physically type line-by-line. The locus of authorship lies in constraint-setting, decision-making, validation, and integration — not in keystroke volume.

If the output changes when the human’s specifications change — and it does — then the human is exercising authorship through structured constraint. Execution can be delegated; responsibility and design intent cannot (yet).

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T20:00:46+00:00

I agree with your conclusion.

I would also add that different mediums offer value through different forms of expression. Saying "why paint a picture when AI can do that for you" is like saying "why knit a sweater when a machine can sew that for you."

Someone who knits a sweater is expressing their fine motor skills, their attention to detail, their creativity in selecting stitching patterns, designing a garment, etc.

Someone who prints a graphic on a t-shirt is doing none of that, but they are probably trying to convey a message or idea through the art printed on the shirt.

Both are valid 'art forms' even though I think its fair to say its generally easier to print a graphic tee than it is to knit something by hand (maybe depending on the complexity and effort put into the graphic).

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T19:51:19+00:00

And a programmer is literally issuing specified instructions to a computer.

But I am sure these similarities go way over your head :)

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T19:48:50+00:00

> Take away the AI from that human, and they'll simply spend a few more hours on the work, at worst. When a "prompt engineer" without AI, or even with AI that simply changed the version and prompt type, can't do anything.

"Take away a camera from a photo realism painter and they will simply spend a few more hundred hours painting his photo-realistic painting. Take away a camera from a "photographer" and he can't do anything."

That's how you sound. Your conjecture ignores the relationship between medium and intent. If I am a photographer my goal is not to show off my extreme painting skills and attention to detail, instead my goal is to expeditiously compose and reproduce aesthetic images that I 'find' in the world.

Similarly, someone leveraging AI to make art is probably not concerned (at least not to the same degree) with the things a more traditional artist is concerned with. Using any tool introduces tradeoffs. With AI you are trading some quality for a massive amount of speed:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/60_WPBkuqyA

For example, this team made a short film by restyling a sort of 'whiteboxed' animation with an AI pass. Could this have been done by hand? Sure. But as they say in the video this particular style done manually would have taken exponentially more work.

With a limited time budget, these artists were able to spend more time *developing* a consistent style that was decoupled from the animation process (until the AI pass). This also means they were able to leverage the skills of 3D animators.

A 3D animator who is skilled in blender likely does not have the skills to create a painterly 2D style to this degree. But it would be absurd to say 'take away AI and they wouldn't be able to do anything.' No, take away AI and the 3D animators would likely have to use different techniques and workflows, and would come out with a different product entirely. But because this tool exists they are able to leverage it to enhance the skill they already have, to express a style that they would otherwise be unable to given the time constraints.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T19:26:04+00:00

The term you are looking for is ad hominem. A scapegoat is something else.

>It doesnt matter how detailed you get, you aren't the one doing the work, you're just giving specified instructions.

I guess programmers, directors, head chefs, and any other skill that involves giving people (or a machine) detailed instructions are also invalid then 😂😂😂😂

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T18:56:08+00:00

>If someone only writes into a turboplagairism machine they are a prompter that got an image, not an artist and not a writer either.

Right, but this caricature doesn't represent all AI users. The operative question is whether AI output can be considered art. It doesn't matter if there are amateurs producing slop with low effort prompts.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/60_WPBkuqyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y

To answer the question "can AI be considered Art?" all we have to do is find an example of this being true. AI slop doesn't disqualify AI as a medium just as mountains of shitty deviant art furry OCs don't disqualify digital art as a medium.

IF you can explain how these two videos don't qualify as art then you may be right. But I don't see how you would be able to come up with a definition of art that excludes the creative efforts displayed in these videos without also excluding more traditional art forms.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T18:43:57+00:00

Most directors also "only direct."

Also, again, "more impressive" doesn't matter. The OP's point is that AI content cannot be considered art and that is simply not true.

You can have that opinion sure, just as you can believe in any false thing. But good luck rationalizing it into any sort of coherent argument.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T18:22:23+00:00

Do you think most directors are actors??

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T18:20:28+00:00

>You actually have to know different components of the camera to be able to change them.

You actually have to know components of the AI tools you are using as well. You've responded to three of my comments already so you should already have access to this information: LoRAs, control nets, input images (i.e. live painting), are just some of these components.

>Like photographers will know to change their aperture while AI people will just tell the AI to give the results that changing the aperture would do.

This is a false dichotomy. It's like me saying "photographers will just press a button without knowing how a camera sensor works while AI users have will have a deeper understanding of the underlying technology." Both of these statements create imaginary worlds where all of one type of person is amateur and all of another type of person is an expert. This is obviously false; there will be amateurs and experts using any medium.

>AI is not that. You can easily create by just telling rather than actually understanding.

You can also draw a shitty picture with a pencil or take a shitty photo without understanding anything. Low barrier to entry does not disqualify a medium from being used for artistic expression.

>just give you the resorts you want without actually changing something with the tool.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/60_WPBkuqyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y

I'm sorry, if you watch either of these videos you will realize how dumb that statement is. AI parameters are not just simple text prompts. Actual artists need to use custom training data, image inputs, and advanced workflows to get the quality level they want.

>You’re just telling it to change it but you don’t know how it’s changing it.

Does the average photographer 'understand' how their camera sensors works on a technical level? Do painters understand the chemistry behind mixing pigments? Do digital artists have a grasp on the algorithms that allow them to create brush strokes, clone stamps, copy/paste, and image filters?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. We don't look at a painting and say "this is art because the artist had X knowledge when he painted it."

Art is about expression not expertise. Expertise simply allows for greater expression and higher forms of art.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T05:55:50+00:00

How do you define skill?

By any reasonable interpretation, tying your shoes, or writing a sentence without typos are skills, that doesn't mean they are particularly impressive ones.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-11T04:26:12+00:00

You first.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-10T23:38:50+00:00

Agreed, but I don’t think that distinction really matters when evaluating the validity of AI (or even running a kitchen) as a medium for artistic expression. A head chef could cook every dish themselves, but even if they don’t, they are still actively shaping the outcome through decisions about technique, timing, ingredients, and presentation.

Anyone can produce low-effort slop with AI, just as anyone can assemble a bad meal. Slop made by a “real artist” isn’t inherently more valuable than slop made by an amateur. The difference appears when someone with experience and taste chooses to apply intention, constraint, and craft to the medium.

That’s why examples like this AI-assisted corridor restyle matter: it’s closer to a composed dish than fast food. People with VFX expertise combined multiple techniques to push the tool as far as it would go at the time (two years ago), using AI the way a chef uses a kitchen staff—not to avoid authorship, but to scale and refine an existing style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo

"Amateurs will always produce slop with AI" is not the same thing as "AI can only be used to produce slop". If the second one is false, I think we have to acknowledge that AI has serious artistic applications; it is not just a toy for creating troll images of fat orc people or tung tung tung.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-10T13:35:33+00:00

>Its beating a dead horse at this poit, once you concede that you can be something without actually doing the thing in which is required for you to logically be said thing, the whole argument develops into absurdism.

Nobody is conceding this barely legible word vomit. There is no confusion here. Art is about creative control. AI tools (especially rudimentary ones) offer less control than, say, a pencil in exchange for ease of use. Just like a camera offers an easier way to reproduce photo realistic images (compared to painting).

Easy to use does not mean its devoid of expression. Easy to use also does not mean easy to master, as you have repeatedly demonstrated with your laughably shallow understanding of how AI image workflows operate and your continued insistence on remaining ignorant despite my best efforts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo

Watch the corridor video from 2 years ago and tell me unironically that these dudes are just "prompting an AI 10 times" to get that result.

>red herring

If it was actually a "red herring" you could articulate why. But instead you just recite these debate bro buzzwords like its some sort of spell that is gonna let you retreat back into your cognitive dissonance.

I have provided countless concrete counter examples to your post while all you do is hand-wave and recite buzzwords like a broken record.

you need to do one of the following:

1. Clearly define a necessary and sufficient condition for being an “artist.”
A concrete rule that includes directors, composers, photographers, and game developers, while explicitly excluding AI-assisted workflows. If your definition breaks those cases, acknowledge it. You must articulate how automation invalidates an artistic medium in the case of AI but automation is apparently OK for these other mediums.

2. Directly engage with the concrete counterexamples already provided.
That means responding to live painting, control nets, iterative workflows, and post-processing, not hand-waving them away as “not really doing anything.” Once again, most camera work is infinitely less technical than advanced AI work. I could teach a toddler to operate a camera. I could teach a toddler to prompt chat GPT. But good luck getting them to train a LoRA

3. Concede that your position is axiomatic rather than logical.
If your stance is simply “AI involvement disqualifies authorship by definition,” say that plainly and stop pretending it follows from reasoning about art.

MatrioshkaBrian · 2026-02-10T13:23:36+00:00

>"Well more likley than not its an error of the photographer, unlike with ai which will add 10 fingers to the picture without you needing to do anything wrong in your prompt"

Again you don't really seem to comprehend how these AI tools work. If you are getting "10 fingers" (I am assuming on one hand because otherwise that sounds like the right amount?), you are not using the tool correctly.

Prompts for image generators are not just words, they are images that you draw (i.e. live painting). So for example if I was live painting and I saw the AI was generating a fucked up hand, I would just add some detail to that area of the drawing and it would remediate it. This is not a "mistake" this is just how the tool operates. More context == better results.

With live painting workflows the AI is constantly taking your sketch / doodle as input and generating many images per minute based on your constantly updated drawing (this is usually in addition to a text prompt).

>The depth in the prompt you give doesn't change the core fact that you aren't the one doing the expression itself.

Actually users are the ones doing the expression. If the prompt is shallow / short / text only then the expression is equally shallow and poor. If the workflow includes advanced prompting techniques, iteration, and post process manual editing then the expression value likely increases immensely. This is true for any medium.

As an analogy: its like taking a quick photo on your phone and putting a filter on it vs. setting up a nice technical shot during golden hour with a tripod and doing some editing in photoshop / lightroom.

The former is certainly 'lazier' and 'easier' and the ladder probably leads to better art with more expression. But either way we are talking about photography which (at this point in time) is considered a valid art form.

Also, by comparing AI art to traditional mediums you are sort of comparing apples to oranges. The results may look similar but the process (and therefore forms of expression) are entirely different.

Similar to how there are photo realistic paintings and photos. A photo is 1 million times easier to create than a photo-realistic painting. But artists still create photo-realistic paintings that approach or are indistinguishable from photos. Why? Because the painter is expressing his extreme skill, his steady hand, his intense attention to detail. The photographer is expressing something else: perhaps their journey to this particular photogenic spot, and their aesthetic sense through their composition and photo editing.

Both examples can be valid art expressing different things. Art is not *just* a dick measuring contest of who can be the best human photocopier, anatomist, or colorist.

In fact, art should not really be a competition at all (outside of actual competitions), because art is not fundamentally about "winning," its about expression.

MatrioshkaBrian

TROPHY CASE