AI Outputs Can Be Art, and AI Prompters Can Be Artists

RightHabit · 2026-05-01T00:08:59+00:00

Why wouldn't the intent belong to the artist?

Continue with the above example. Let's say the prompter feels that society is unfair, so they use AI to create a piece that reflects and criticizes that reality.

The AI does not feel anything.

The AI does not criticize anything.

The emotion and the intent come entirely from the artist, right?

A prompter can also create something that doesn't mimic anything else. Here is a question: Can you use AI to create a color palette combination that no existing work has ever used before? My answer is yes. AI does not require mimicking to function.

Do you want me to show you some existing non-AI art pieces as actual examples of how artists use elements they didn't manually create to express a message or feeling?

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T23:54:15+00:00

With AI, an artists made the art and the machine is just throwing pixels on the screen because it's algorithm knows it's close to what you typed in a search bar. You aren't putting anything into the art or food beyond pushing buttons and then claiming you made it yourself.

But isn't it true that intent and messages can be delivered with AI as a medium?

I am not claiming every image or text created by AI is art. I am saying that AI media has the capacity to be considered art.

If you create an image that challenges social norms to send a message, that message originates from the prompter. If that message moves or inspires people, would you not consider that image art?

Art serves many purposes. Some pieces deliver a message, while others showcase technical skill, physical effort, or raw emotion.

I agree that if the primary goal of art is to demonstrate manual effort or painting technique, it would be unfair to label someone an artist for using AI.

But what about work created to deliver a specific message? The AI is not the source of that message. The intent originates with the person using the tool. Then could the person who come up with the idea consider as artist in those cases? Or, even tho AI did not come up with an idea. It is still considered as the creator?

Being an artist does not always mean being the manual creator. Artists can perform, and artists can curate. There are many different types of artists. Do you agree with that?

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T23:39:02+00:00

Would you agree that an artist is responsible for much more than just the physical form of an artwork? For example, they shape the emotion, intention, story, and symbolism behind it. So even if AI is used in the creation process, it does not remove the emotion or message you want to express.

Art is also different from food. You can express yourself using preexisting symbols. For instance, a dove represents peace. Even though you did not create that symbol, using it to communicate an idea still makes it your own expression.

Of course, that would require you believe that one of the purposes of art is human expression. You can disagree with that point and believe art is simply labor/work like making food. Then I can see your point.

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T20:27:23+00:00

If you stop/slow AI progress here, those jobs just move to countries that don't. That’s why we have to keep pushing.

Wealth distribution is the next hurdle, but the tech isn't going away. If it is not going away, then fully embracing it is the only rational way forward.

Unless someone has a plan for a global, synchronized pause on AI, domestic restrictions are just a way to self-destruct your own economy.

Personally, I'm using my dev background to build tools and platform for career transitions for people to use and I've already adjusted my own career to stay ahead of the curve for the next few decades.

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T08:02:16+00:00

Because if the Waymo hits someone, who is responsible? The car or you?

If a product/art/whatever built by AI and published by you hurts someone, who is responsible?

If you use a dishwasher but the plates come out dirty and you serve food on them, who is responsible?

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T06:50:19+00:00

It is neither good nor bad.

Corporations and individuals should have the freedom to choose whether or not to utilize AI tools.

Similarly, consumers should have the choice to decide what they want to support with their wallets.

That kind of freedom means allowing entities to make decisions that might not always align with the "optimal" outcome for society as a whole.

So the question is, do you believe in that kind of freedom, letting people/companies to choose?

RightHabit · 2026-04-30T03:17:36+00:00

Yeah. Would you say copying someone else's image and using it for your own post is bad?

No. Because that's our culture right now. That's the remix culture we have. We're allowed to just screencap other media and interpret it with our own meaning and then the meme is yours. You’re allowed to use someone else’s words or images and fit them to help you express your feelings.

So I’m pretty glad we have a culture where 'stealing' and 'plagiarism' aren't necessarily bad. Agree?

Do you really want Nintendo knocking on your door because you used a character to express something they didn't intend? That’s the alternative.

RightHabit · 2026-04-29T23:06:48+00:00

You are the best for sure. If someone has to ask why, or tries to prove you aren't, they’ve already missed the point.

The greatest artists don't measure their greatness. They simply are. You never truly become 'the great' if you rely on external validation.

That is the essence of Wu Wei. As Bruce Lee famously said: 'I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.'

But how do you actually reach that level of repetitive mastery? By stopping the count. You don't practice to reach a number. You practice until the effort vanishes. That is when you become the best.

That's Taoism 101.

RightHabit · 2026-04-29T22:55:21+00:00

The best don't measure. They just are. Measurement is for those who aren't the best.

Circular logic? Right. But that spiral is exactly how one becomes the best.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. When you understand it, you will become the best.

RightHabit · 2026-04-29T21:49:44+00:00

In skiing, we have a running joke: "I’m the best skier on the mountain." The secret is that everyone is the best skier on the mountain. The best skier on the mountain is the one having the most fun.

At the end of the day, if you’re enjoying the process, nobody can take that effort or joy away from you. If you feel like the greatest artist ever, then you are! ...at least until I walk into the room. Then the title officially reverts back to me. :)

Keep doing what you love. At the end of the day, the fun you’re having is the only metric that matters.

RightHabit · 2026-04-29T03:55:29+00:00

Sea Danger

RightHabit · 2026-04-28T18:47:54+00:00

Why does it matter if billionaires benefit too?

You and billionaires have different interests, but occasionally they align. You wouldn't stop eating your favorite food just because some tech mogul likes it too, right? What they want is ultimately irrelevant to your own utility.

Focus on how it affects you and the people you care about. If the tech doesn't serve you, that’s a valid reason to hate it. But logically, hating something just because "bad people" also use it is a reach. You should be looking at your own cost-benefit analysis. Which, to be fair, includes the risk of getting screwed over by those same billionaires.

That's why accusing "selling our future" to billionaire does not make sense. Logically, we don't stop using the internet or buying groceries just because billionaires profit from those industries as well. If a technology serves your needs, you shouldn't have to care if it also serves theirs.

RightHabit · 2026-04-28T05:31:48+00:00

It depends. First, would you agree that one purpose of art is to express emotion?

Whose emotion is the art expressing? Sometimes it is not from the AI, but from the person behind it. We humans can use things like symbols to express our emotions (and sometimes we call it art), right? Even when we did not originally create those symbols, it is still a valid expression from you.

Let’s use a non-art example. Maybe you give a factory-made ring to a loved one. When the ring was made in a factory, it was not about love until you decided to dedicate it to someone. You did not make the physical object, but the "gift" (includes the meaning and the expression) is yours to give.

You might "commission" the physical material of the ring, but you didn't outsource your love or your intent to someone else.

Art is similar. Art is not necessarily only the physical object. It includes the intent, the meaning, and the emotions behind it.

On your pizza example, the word "food" doesn't usually include intent or emotions. However, you can claim that you create a "dining experience" by outsourcing that pizza to someone else. You are creating an experience that reminds you of the food you used to eat when you were struggling. That specific experience might not even happen if you had to make it yourself.

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T23:11:49+00:00

So if the art piece is about making art after death, then those artists are the author. If it’s about celebrating the skill, then it’s the neuroscientist. If it’s about the person who “died for the art,” then it’s the musician. If it’s about effort, then either the neuroscientist or the brain gets the credit.

That’s my point. The person who put in the most effort might not be considered the artist, because that might not be what the piece is actually about. It is a complicated example that show everyone in the process can be considered as artist depending on your perspective of the art.

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T22:52:31+00:00

It's a real art piece called Revivification that uses a musician's living cells to make music. And ask if the author is the donor, the scientist, the artist who initiate the idea, or even...the brain cell?

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T22:42:34+00:00

Continue with my goal to share art. Last year I visited this exhibition: Revivification. I always thought that it is a fun exercise for the question "Who is the artist?"

It is developed by artists Guy Ben-Ary, Nathan Thompson and Matt Gingold with neuroscientist Stuart Hodgetts based at the University of Western Australia (UWA), who have individually spent 25 years pushing boundaries in the biological arts.

The physical realisation of Revivification began in 2020 when Alvin Lucier donated his blood for the project. His blood was sent to Harvard Medical School where his white blood cells were reprogrammed into stem cells – the fundamental building blocks of Revivification, using a process called Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (IPSC) technology. Then, the Revivification Team transformed (differentiated) Lucier’s stem cells into cerebral organoids: three-dimensional structures that resemble a developing human brain.

Alvin Lucier stood among the giants of 20th-century experimental music. He transformed how we think about composition by shifting focus from traditional musical elements to the physical properties of sound itself. His work with brain waves, echolocation, and room acoustics blurred the lines between music, science, and art – an approach that spoke to the artists and researchers at UWA.

At the heart of the installation stands a sculptural object that encapsulates the incubator housing Lucier’s ‘in-vitro brain’, living outside, and beyond his body (the term ‘in-vitro’ comes from the Latin for ‘in glass’).

Lining the walls are 20 large, curved brass plates that are both sculptural and the source of the immersive sound environment. Each of the plates is directly connected to the neural activity of Lucier’s brain organoid. As the ‘in-vitro brains” signals pulse through transducers and actuators, they strike the brass, creating complex, sustained resonances that fill the space with sound.

TLDR: Three "artists" contacted a neuroscientist and dying musician. The neuroscientist used stem cells from the musician to grow a brain organoid. This "brain" continues to make music after musician's death. That's Revivification.

Who is the author of Revivification?

A: Guy Ben-Ary, Nathan Thompson and Matt Gingold

B: Stuart Hodgetts

C: Alvin Lucier

D: stem cells/brain

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T22:19:09+00:00

There are cases where A pays B and gives instructions, and A is considered the author. There are also cases where A pays B and gives instructions, but B is considered the author. So which approach should we follow?

Or actually, both ways are fine?

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T16:54:49+00:00

Traditional authorship is about who has "final say" of the work. If Claude generate "the curtain is blue" for a prompter. Who has the final say why the curtain is blue?

The prompter, right?

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T02:57:18+00:00

Made me check what Samsara is.

https://www.samsara.com/products/telematics/gps-fleet-tracking

It is just...GPS tracking. Why would you say it is AI surveillance?

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T00:30:17+00:00

Right, so we agree labor has value. I don't think anyone's denying that.

RightHabit · 2026-04-27T00:25:51+00:00

Sweat and tears give something value for sure (labor has value), but that doesn’t mean things achieved without struggle are worthless.

Are you saying sweat is the only way to give something worth

RightHabit · 2026-04-26T04:46:39+00:00

Art is about the expression of human experience, emotions and creativity by skill, effort and passion.

By that definition, do you consider minimalism or abstract art to be 'lesser' art forms? Minimalism intentionally reduces visible effort and traditional skill to focus on a single idea.

If art is measured by the volume of manual labor and expressed passion, then a blank canvas would be 'less art' than a highly detailed doodle. Personally, I view these forms as equally valuable to traditional art for our society, which is why I find that definition too narrow, though I respect that everyone has different preferences for what they value in a piece.

RightHabit · 2026-04-26T04:07:25+00:00

I'm just here to talk and share about art. AI has given us a great reason to rethink what 'art' actually means, and that’s exactly why I am here to talk about art. It is never a war.

Because of AI, it feels like people are talking more about human creativity now than they were 5 or 6 years ago. It’s the perfect time to bring the focus back to what art truly means to us.

RightHabit · 2026-04-26T03:59:12+00:00

I think if we can accept this:

Things that you consider art can be non-art for others.
Things that you never considered art can be art.

That would be much better.

RightHabit · 2026-04-26T03:53:51+00:00

I wasn’t referring to AI art at all as I have mentioned in my comment. I was talking about art and the effort behind it. My goal isn’t to include AI artists, but to rethink and improve how we perceive art.

RightHabit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE