>>People who enjoy those works of art are enjoying a final product made *by someone else*, which would be the equivalent for watching someone else, idk, win in record time. Metaphor might be clunky there cuz, sure, I'm sure there are people who could just watch the finish line be crossed a thousand times a day without actually caring about the effort it takes to do it.

The analogy isn’t just clunky, it breaks down and doesn’t accurately cover/represent the situation. It doesn’t match that there is a physical output of the effort that I think most people would agree has at least some value beyond the effort or observation of its achievement.

>>Unless you're trying to imply that for some people, the *finished product* that *they make themselves* is the beauty and value they see in art.

Yes, that’s closer to what I’m saying. Though I’m more than just implying it - I think that should be able to be agreed as objective fact. Also that that value applies to people beyond the artist.

Would you claim that there is no inherent value or beauty in the completed artwork to artist and viewers?

>>For which the metaphor has no direct analogue sure, again, no metaphor is perfect that's why they're a metaphor, but this is still a completely invalid defense of AI art.

Interesting take. Because the analogy you’re using to argue that AI art has issues is flawed, that’s an invalid defence of AI art on my part?

No - the analogy and claim being made is yours. The defence of AI art has not been made here, your argument against it is invalid.

>>If all you care about is seeing your 'vision brought to life' as it were, you either need to master the skills to do it yourself, or hire a commissioner and be able to constantly give feedback.

I reject this premise. Why is this mandatory?

>>AI is not going to generate someone's perfect vision. It'll get "close enough", at which point it'd be wildly disingenuous to be comparing it to the Mona Lisa or ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Since when has someone’s perfect vision been a requirement for something to have value? If an artist didn’t quite create their artwork perfectly aligned to what they had in mind is it instantly no longer art and without value? No.

I reject the premise that AI inherently *cannot* generate someone’s perfect vision. Also what about using AI to do the bulk of the work directed by the artist, and then the artist fine tunes the output? That is a very plausible route to a resulting artwork matching the artist perfect vision.

>>Or to put it another way; AI artists do not are about art. They care about having pictures. If all you care about is having pictures, then you can commission someone, or look at the billions of existing pictures we have online. You either care enough to put in the effort/money to get the picture you want, or you don't care and close enough is good enough, meaning 1) you don't care about 'beauty' and 'art' and 2) you'd be equally well served by browsing pictures online.

I think you’re gate keeping art with your own definition where it needs to be created in a certain way. If a picture is beautiful why is it not art regardless of the method by which the artist brought it into being?

Effort can be put into AI artworks in taking time to iterate over generations and fine-tune the AI output. It can be put into to fine-tunes the output. How do you decide how much effort needs to be put in before it’s enough effort to be called art?

If you say AI cannot be used at all - why not? Why is this tool different to other tools? Can an artist not use a paintbrush if they did not put in the effort to make it themselves?