Anonymous ID: 216e81 Sept. 5, 2022, 10:05 a.m. No.17500723   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0816

>>17500708

as an artist who does not do bricks on the floor it does piss me off. Digital art is one thing using a tablet and stuff because there is still an artist using his hands to create a drawing for instance. BUT AI doing art, no thank you. Bunch of bullshit undermining real creativity.

Anonymous ID: 216e81 Sept. 5, 2022, 10:33 a.m. No.17500833   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0918

>>17500816

it is a tool but not a refined one or anything there is no control. This debate goes back as far as i know to the introduction to photography saying that artists are not creating art that way. Since its a print system the art would be the film not the prints in theory. Debates range on this. But with AI you are separating the creator from the creation even more. Who is the creator in fact the artist who puts the words in or the program that culls millions of data points to create something. THe creative spark is lost in this process. As other anon complained about bricks on the floor, that at least has more of a creative spark than some program. Especially when that program can replicate every artists style in its own work again pushing the creator farther from the creation. Almost like it is a metaphor for the religious battles we see.

Anonymous ID: 216e81 Sept. 5, 2022, 10:38 a.m. No.17500861   🗄️.is 🔗kun

has anyone taken the footage of the sign language person and mixed it with the tick tock music those kids do just think it would be funny

Anonymous ID: 216e81 Sept. 5, 2022, 10:56 a.m. No.17500928   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17500918

your ability to fail debating this is glaringly obvious. A tool yes but it is not art. Least of all created by an artist. Perhaps for reference it might come in handy but that would be the extent. I already explained the photography argument. IT being a tool is not the issue, the issue is it creating full works and winning over humans. SO yeah fuck AI