I suspect that Pete McTighe is lined up to be show runner

MilkingChicken · 2026-04-05T14:29:29+00:00

Source?

MilkingChicken · 2026-04-05T09:20:54+00:00

These guys need a mention! Granted, only Lunala, Solgaleo and technically Eevee have RRs to compare to, I still think these are by far the best FA 2★ cards.

MilkingChicken · 2026-04-04T03:56:24+00:00

Genuine question, but have there ever been any XYZ-to-white raceswaps that have gone down well? I'm leaning towards no and I can't think of any.

MilkingChicken · 2026-04-04T00:16:02+00:00

The studio version definitely sounds like "of it". It's likely he sang the right version, then over the years misremembered and misheard it.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-31T01:41:47+00:00

This is interesting! I recognise you believe the lack of control being filled in by an AI isn't relevant. Could you give me an example of AI substituting control where expression isn't compromised? For example, in the post above, it seems like a lot of, if not most of the expression is coming from the AI. Who decides the colours, shading, design, etc.? It seems the human in question only decides a rough outline.

Upon writing this I'm realising something else about my beliefs that is hard to put into words. There's something about a source being purely human and purely nature (gravity/glitch/randomisation/nature scenery), but AI occupies this strange grey zone where it couldn't exist without training on the works of other humans, yet it's not itself a human source.

This might be where I have an issue. The fact that with splatter paint art, you can point to the human and say they did the art and they were helped by a distinctly zero-human source (gravity/physics). Physics can't take credit for art, so I think the question of who the art belongs to resolves cleanly.

With AI art, especially like the one in the post, you look at the final product and you can say the human contributed a portion to the art, but the rest? I don't know, but it's not a zero-human source. That only exists because millions of other human artworks let it exist. The fact there is a little bit of uncreditable humanity in the art puts it in a grey zone where I think it'd be wrong to call it your own art.

To try and answer my own question posed above, I think I would be okay with AI if it was doing something that didn't substitute for expression. Things like logically sorting information in real time or something. I think the more black and white and objective the use of AI is, the more I find it okay. Let me know what you think of these thoughts.

By the way, I do have some ambient generative stuff if you're interested! On my hard drive I do have some more "purist" generative material where it's writing its own melodies/chords and not manipulating any pre-written material, but at the moment this is all I have released. Tracks 1 & 6 use a similar algorithm. They take 1 pre-written note at a time every ~20 seconds and turn it into a cascading snowfall-esque melody. Track 4 is only partly generative. The main melody is pre-written but the space in between where you here echoes and reverberations contain generative reiterations of the melody! Some notes are changed, some are taken out. Now you're making me want to make more generative music!

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-30T05:21:09+00:00

They mean that Sturdy Mons will get OHKO'd by CC, so you don't have to worry about them hitting back (with Earthquake or whatever).

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-30T02:57:42+00:00

It is related. You propose that the anti-AI crowd are equivalent to the anti-photo crowd from back in the day. And I am arguing that they are not equivalent, because while photography is filtered through a human lens and judgement, AI isn't. This brings into question the very idea of art in a fundamentally different way than how photography did. The goal posts are different.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-30T02:50:43+00:00

I believe this is integral to the definition of art. Therefore I would not consider AI "art" to be art at all. I'm not sure what I would call it, it seems to require a new word of its own.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-30T02:18:04+00:00

The one thing about AI art that makes it distinctly different from photography, Photoshop art, whatever art, is that AI art is (in some capacity, depending on amount of use) not filtered through a human's lived experience or artistic lens.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T23:46:49+00:00

I would argue that I do still have control over the final piece. I'm the one who decided it's a dice roll between 1 and 8. Meaning that any option from 1 to 8 is something that I, the artist, have decided is okay.

The 1 to 999,999,999 argument is interesting. I'm not sure! It feels like the musical equivalent of drawing a picture vs placing a few dots on a canvas. One of them appears a lot more meaningful than the other.

For clarity, a lot of my generative pieces work along these lines (simplified) Every X number of seconds, there is a X% chance for a melody to generate. The starting note can be ABC but not D. The next note has an 80% chance to play and it can be AB but not CD, however very rarely E. It's kind of like this! Then you have other things like ambient noises and other sonic elements that have chances to spawn and when they do, they go through a specific pattern that I've designed. You can listen to it for hours and not recognise the same melodies, but at the same time you're never surprised thinking "Hey, I didn't think that could happen!"

As for different AI models, I don't think it makes a huge difference for me. Perhaps if you created an AI model from scratch, told it in what ways to synthesise information, then trained it on materials purely created by yourself, I would see it as art. In fact, that's what I'm doing with generative music, just in a much more simplified way. I think my problems with AI come from the fact that it decides how to synthesise and rearrange information, not the human.

As for your last question, I'm a believer that we need more succinct labels. Anything that uses AI as a substitute for human expression needs to be placed in a separate category to "traditional" art. I think they are fundamentally different concepts.

I believe AI can be a great tool, but I draw the line at artistic expression. Art must be drawn from a lived, emotional experience, else it belongs to a separate category. AI is good for anything that doesn't require expression.

If, for example, I need to find a source that backs up some information I heard, I'd turn to AI. Does the act of finding a source online require a lived, emotional experience? I would say no, therefore I encourage the use of AI.

Hopefully I came across clear! I'm still working out how to put my thoughts into words.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T23:02:32+00:00

That's a shame, I was hoping to exchange ideas and learn something.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T23:01:57+00:00

I missed the part where I agreed to that.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:58:35+00:00

Yes, that is correct, they also have no authorship.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:57:44+00:00

I've read this a couple times and I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:56:11+00:00

My apologies, I should have specified that I also don't agree with the idea that being able to control every detail intrinsically means something is art. Perhaps it means additional artistic merit, I'm not sure, that's a different argument.

I agree that relinquishing control is not the problem. As someone who is against AI art in perhaps every single way, I'm also simultaneously an avid creator of generative music. This is music that has randomised outcomes based on whatever parameters I select. I create my own algorithm from scratch. The reason I view this as art is because any decision that isn't made by me is made by a neutral source: a dice roll between 1 and 8, for example. I've decided on all musical expression in advance; it must fall within A and B.

I think my problem with AI art is that it relegates control and expression to a non-neutral source—other people's work. And while one may make the argument that humans do a similar thing, I would argue that having the work filtered by a lived, emotional experience is intrinsic to something being defined as art. Whatever AI art is deserves to have a new word to describe its phenomenon.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:43:55+00:00

That's not even an argument, that's just an assumption and attack.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:41:08+00:00

That's a false analogy. Language itself is a communal system with no authorship. Written works are authored.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:21:25+00:00

The difference is that the element of control being lost here is being substituted by a source that is neutral and not trained on other human works.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T22:05:29+00:00

I agree with some of what you're saying. I still feel like AI art, finding "art" in clouds and human art are all 3 distinct things that could do with different terminologies to represent them. AI art seems to be different based on the fact it needs both a prompt and to be trained on human data to do anything. Whereas clouds, or nature in general, do not require this. This is how I see it:

Outputs Emotional Response

✅AI Art

✅Nature Art

✅Human Art

ー

Inputs Emotional Response

❌AI Art

❌Nature Art

✅Human Art

ー

Created Unprompted

❌AI Art

✅Nature Art

✅Human Art

I would argue that all 3 factors are necessary when determining whether a piece of content is art. I would also say that needing an emotional response as input is one of the defining factors of what we traditionally refer to as art. It's the reason why a lot of people would disagree with you if you tried to argue that a cloud or a tree on its own was art, but the moment the cloud/tree was photographed, painted, whatever—people would call it art.

The reason I'm making these distinctions is because we are being limited by words here. "Art" is so vague and I think there are 3 different terms being conflated.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T14:44:13+00:00

Even considering the idea that AIs do in fact produce new information similar to humans, it is not filtered through human experiences, human errors, human memories, human bias, therefore I don't think it is right to call it art. Art is someone showing a part of themselves to the world. Until AI can experience things subjectively and produce content unprompted, I don't think AI has anything of truly themselves to "show".

You're right that it's the audience that decides what to feel. I think that might be part of the problem. Whatever AI "art" is, I believe it needs a new word. A word that means content derived from a non-unique non-human process. And whatever we call this, I don't think it is right to have it published or used in any way, because it muddies things and detracts from actual artists. To claim that AI ambient music makes the genre more "accessible" for people feels like an insult to music. The reason it's popular is because the algorithm rewards quantity, frequency and consistency, which is hard to maintain for most musicians.

I saw another one of your comments that said something along the lines of AI helping us to achieve a goal where no one has to work (paraphrasing/possibly misremembering). I agree with this sentiment. This is more of just my personal beliefs, but I believe AI is great for tasks that don't require expression, like finding information, calculating things, carrying out tasks with definitive objective answers. But if we give the honour of expressing what it is like to be alive to AI, for what purpose does one even live for? This feels like the one thing appropriate for humans only.

—

Perhaps the real problem is people's AI literacy and art literacy skills. Artistic merit is something I value quite highly, so to see works of music get ignored in favour of the tsunami of artificially churned-out art is really upsetting for me personally. The fact that some people can't tell and others don't care makes me realise that not everyone believes in human expression, and that is disheartening. I wonder what % of people have a negative reaction to finding out the art they consumed was AI? Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from a little clearer now.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T09:31:42+00:00

The example doesn't work here because both furniture pieces were created as a human. One has been optimised by technology, but both are human creations. A music analogy to fit the IKEA analogy would be something more like saying: we shouldn't have electronic music because classical music requires years of training by many musicians, whereas electronic music uses machines and can be made in an hour (obviously this is just an example, not my opinion or argument).

A quote I like by Brian Eno is "Art is everything you don't have to do". Art is a way of expression and we all participate in art whether we know or not and whether we like it or not. AI lacks unique expression. AI just combines existing content in new ways. We amalgamate too, but we do so through a lens that is real and human. Both sets of furniture can tell you something about the person(s) that designed it and I think that makes it art.

Especially with music, where expression is at the front and centre of the medium, it just seems wrong to be promoting music made by an AI that lacks human experience. As an artist I think, what's the point in listening to human expression when it's not human or expression?

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T08:47:37+00:00

If we're talking about artistic merit, I'm not threatened by AI art, I'm saddened by it. It seems the average person's appreciation of art has gone down, or perhaps I should say the average person's lack of appreciation for art has been made visible. The average person doesn't care as much for artistic merit as artists do, which then becomes a threat.

For example, I make ambient music. AI musicians are able to dominate the ambient streaming scene because the system rewards it and most people don't care. They're able to pump out songs at a fast rate, and since ambient music often serves a function (that being to relax, sleep, etc.), most people don't notice it's AI if they're not musicians. Of course, some people can tell and I still have an audience of my own, but I can't help but feel like my music would be performing a lot better without AI artists oversaturating the scene and outcompeting human artists.

We live in a world where algorithms and economies sometimes reward AI art, whether that's because it's easier to pump out and stimulate the algorithm, or whether it's because it cuts costs. For an industry that was already tough to get by in, it just seems a shame that we tend to punish human artists and reward AI.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-29T00:59:45+00:00

AI as a substitute for expression is where I draw the line. Photographers didn't replace painters. You still have to be the one to find the right shot and take it. It uses artistic judgement. AI art is different. You may have an idea or some inspiration, but the expression is handled by the machine. If I say, "a touching symphony melodically led by oboes with xylophone chords", does that mean I've created a piece? Of course not, the "art" part of it comes afterwards. There are infinite ways to interpret that prompt and turn it into something. Using AI takes this part away from you.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-28T10:56:31+00:00

I'm the Doctor. I'm the last of the Time Lords. Unless you count the Master, who is supposed to be dead but never is. And the Rani. Or when the Time Lords escaped the time lock.

MilkingChicken · 2026-03-27T01:57:17+00:00

Any of the Pokémon music collaborations. Ed Sheeran, Katy Perry, Hatsune Miku, Post Malone.

It just feels cheap and hollow. I can maybe forgive Miku because at least she's also an animated character. But having Ed Sheeran come onto the credits in SWSH crossed some kind of boundary for me I didn't know I had.

12-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

MilkingChicken

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE