Take the computer from a real artist, they can still make art. Do the same to an AI "artist" and see how long they keep claiming to be such. : fuck

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

And the best they could come up with was anthro shit?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

Funni

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago

"Art"

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (10 children)

If you take away an artist's brushes, they can't make art without making new brushes.

All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.

I don't like AI art, but I don't think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You could absolutely use AI to make art. Almost all AI content you find online isn't that though

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] [email protected] -17 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Talks about real art being unique and then goes and draws the most generic, cliched furry shit that looks exactly like a million others.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That. And the famous equation rendering == art. Like, raw art? not art! Naive art? Not art! Performance ?not art.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is performing not rendering? Wtf is "raw art"? And being naive doesn't stop you from rendering. None of your examples make any sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

My bad, raw art was a crude translation from my language. Wikipedia tell me you call it outsider art. And naive art is pretty much define by a lack of rendering techniques.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No worries, I didn't realize there was a language barrier. Sorry.

load more comments (6 replies)

Fuck AI