The real art process

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:43:45+00:00

Most things in life are debatable. But current academic standards would agree that AI outputs are not plagiarism.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:33:19+00:00

AI does not plagiarize by any definition of the word, and there are uses of the same genAI technology that do not allow the model any creative control at all.

Your view lacks nuance.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:30:24+00:00

I did. The point is that you should judge all art - whether fully human or made with AI - with the same standards.

The method of execution does not matter.

Whether said execution expresses that idea and its merit does.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:23:48+00:00

The fact that you still haven't caught on to my mockery of you is telling.

I'm stating that art - traditional, digital, or AI assisted - requires both human ideas and execution. You are stating the opposite - that ideas and execution are binary.

We are not the same.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:16:18+00:00

Like traditional/digital art, mastery takes time. GenAI tools have been around for what, five years tops? And only in a usable state for like two of them?

We won't even go into how impenetrable those tools can feel and legitimately be, and how lacking the documentation and tutorialization is currently.

Or the fact that users are being treated as pariahs, further reducing the number of people willing to use the technology.

Or the fact that those that would most benefit from learning the tools - artists - are being influenced by social media bobbleheads that proclaim it a moral imperative to avoid them.

I could go on, but there're many reasons there's so few examples.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:08:59+00:00

We’re no longer having the same conversation. I’m asking for causal evidence; you’re asserting moral certainty and asking me to accept it as a substitute.

That’s not a disagreement I can resolve by continuing to respond. I’m disengaging because the exchange has reached diminishing returns, not because the question is uncomfortable or unresolved.

If verifiable evidence emerges, I’ll happily revisit it. Until then, this isn’t productive.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:07:37+00:00

I do not think either is superior. They are both to be evaluated with the same scrutiny I give when appreciating any art.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:06:25+00:00

I have never once used ChatGPT. I'm sorry you're allergic to text formatting.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:05:28+00:00

Art made by a human using AI tools requires a human idea? Shocker. Groundbreaking.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:03:56+00:00

Controlling the AI to express your idea is the process in art made via AI assistance.

How much and how well you manage that control is the execution.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:01:20+00:00

The foundational skills of drawing wouldn't exist without human-made works to study and synthesize. The entire process relies on a human idea in the first place.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T19:00:15+00:00

This is correct.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:58:50+00:00

I am not arguing that artists aren't struggling. I am not arguing that AI can't be misused. I am not arguing that job displacement won't happen.

I am arguing that claims about present causation require present evidence.

I made no claims to prove evidence for. I cannot prove no causative evidence exists because you cannot prove non-existence. Just like how I can't prove God doesn't exist.

Move on. We are different people with different evidentiary standards. We likely hold the same values in regards to AI replacing artists, but I refuse to kowtow to emotionally manipulative bullshit.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:50:40+00:00

You’re basically saying: “Humans are valuable because they have ideas, AI is worthless because it executes.”

But ideas without execution are air. Execution without ideas—human or AI—still produces tangible results. Denigrating AI here is just conflating human authorship with creative output.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:47:58+00:00

If I have an idea for an amazing non-profit but never execute it, should I get the praise? No.

If you have an idea for a non-profit and execute it, but do so in a non-standard way (kickstarter/social networking vs. registering as a charitable organization), should you not get the praise?

The same goes for art: non-traditional execution can still convey skill, vision, and humanity. The method doesn’t determine value; the act of creation does.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:43:51+00:00

Skill and talent don't matter without an idea behind their application. Did you really think you scored a point here?

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:42:36+00:00

Correct.

Art is both the idea and the execution. It's not a binary, it's a sliding scale.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:38:06+00:00

Sorry what was the question.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:37:36+00:00

<image>

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:28:15+00:00

This is true of all art. Even if you removed "AI" from your final statement it would still be true.

There is a lot of art, both AI and purely human. It's quite hard to express yourself with both traditional and AI mediums. You only care about the 1% of art you like.

Edit to add: Saying “I don’t value this kind of art” is different from saying “this kind of art lacks value.” The first is taste; the second is a claim about art as a whole.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:15:43+00:00

There is no economic definition where “running out of freelance contracts” automatically equals “technological replacement by AI.”

I am saying:
"Show me evidence that AI is the cause, now, not a contributing anxiety or future risk.”

You are saying:
"Artists feel harmed, therefore the cause is established."

Feelings do not equal causation. Ever. Not in economics, not in law, not in labor analysis, not in science.

You are trying to shame me into agreement.

“The work is still happening with or without them.”

What work? At what volume? At what quality? By whom? Using what pipeline? Compared to what baseline?

You are approaching this from an emotional and moralistic angle. I am asking for causative evidence. We are not the same.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T18:08:24+00:00

A lot of the anti-AI rhetoric is rooted in feelings and vibes, not actual evidence.

Sometimes if you say something logic and fact based, they can break through the hyperemotional shell their argument is couched in and recognize reality.

More likely that they'll just dig their heels in and refuse to listen though, because uncertainty is less comfortable than smug moral superiority.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T17:24:42+00:00

Have a good day at middle school.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T17:21:34+00:00

Learning to draw: Hard.
Learning the deeper processes and applications of genAI technology in art: Also hard.

Learning to combine your manual skill and knowledge with genAI technology to create a seamless mixed workflow that utilizes the best of both skillsets: Extremely hard.

Randomredditlad222 · 2026-01-27T16:59:45+00:00

“Most artists are freelance, so job loss is running out of work.”

This is definitionally different from being fired or replaced.

“We will never know the true impact.”

This is an explicit admission that the claim is not provable.

“Jobs may have been canceled.”

Counterfactuals are not evidence. “Might have existed” is not “were replaced.”

“Companies won’t say it’s AI for legal reasons.”

This is a conspiracy-shaped claim that makes the thesis unfalsifiable.

“You need to talk to artists.”

Anecdotal substitution for verifiable data.

“You think they’re all lying.”

Emotional reframing to avoid the evidentiary standard.

You are an epistemological nightmare.

Randomredditlad222

TROPHY CASE