Another generation using the text from the I Ching as a prompt. This time it was hexagram 41 - Decreasing, with old lines in the second and sixth positions.
According to the haters, this is not art and they’d immediately be able to tell it was done using AI.
Could consider the AI itself to be art, any by extension anything it produces is a part of that art.
Though, combined with the other commenter’s point about it involving work from the prompter as well (or “work” tbf, since not all AI output requires tweaking if you get lucky), makes me wonder.
If someone creates a tool that is a work of art and another person uses that tool to create another work of art, how much of that 2nd work belongs to the 2nd artist and how much belongs to the tool maker?
Same thing with skills and technique. I got better at doing random landscape paintings after watching Bob Ross do it. I applied the techniques but might have never known them in the first place if not for Bob. How much of that art is mine vs Bob’s?
Not saying AI is entirely equivalent to these scenarios or that anything should change based on the answers to the questions. They are mostly philosophical and interesting to consider IMO.
I wish we had UBI so that this whole topic wasn’t so existential for people who depend on selling art to survive (which was difficult even before generative AI was a thing).
I am not a hater (I am quite active in this community).
But I would still say this is not art and I’d immediately be able to tell it was done using AI.
This is a really bad drawing on second sight/first zoom. This model clearly wasn’t trained on rock formations in this drawing style. Or hands.
