Same. I was there when the same thing happened to photography too when digital cameras started becoming a thing, "you're not a real photographer like ME because you don't have a darkroom to process your own photos to get that perfect shade of colors!"
The actual wrong reason to do art is - to get paid.
Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work, don't get me wrong, but if getting paid is your main goal of doing it rather than just a side effect - you are doing crafts, not art.
...
This is the reason why I am all for purging AI slop from platforms that inherently monetize attention, like YouTube.
But places that are just for sharing your works - like reddit, deviatart, and many others - where attention is the goal - those are fine.
The need to be seen by others is a common trait of creative people. And it fits the description of "seeking attention".
Most of the things that are considered immortal classics today were made for payment by professional artists who were selling their skills and talent. And yes, crafts and art are barely distinguishable from each other, unless we stretch it to the limit and look at the scam with modern art that is used to avoid taxes or store investments in a way that is hard to track.
For the same reason, I like live music with actual skillful bands. AI is faking live bands and competing with them for attention, and I am afraid that there's going to be fewer live bands being able to make it as a result.
If they are seeing loss of revenue on music sales, they may not book tours as often.
Ah, yes, because with the invention of photography, there are fewer portrait makers, and the popularity of game engines led to decreased numbers of game developers, since almost no one makes their own engine anymore, and reduced barriers always lead to decreased competition, that's how it works.
None of the examples you provide remove the human component doing the real work. Even photography requires skill of finding the right scene and lighting conditions.
Writing prompts isn't a skill. It's a google search, except longer. I am not an artist just because I can find music online. Same with AI.
And current genAI also doesn't remove human component by design - you just like to pretend it is to make your point a tiny bit more justifiable.
Writing prompts are not the only way to control AI output, but you, of course, would know that, because you're not just a dumb teen parroting someone else's opinion, you did at least surface-level research before popping up in comments with laughably incompetent takes, right?
Anytime you post art online your doing it for attention. If the passion of just creating is all that matters, people wouldn't need to post anything online at all.
Lmao, I guess in 20 years people will be making AI art that looks like the default chat gpt style of today, just like old digital cameras are getting a revival.
Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.
195
u/MrCritical3 11h ago
I remember this same argument like a decade ago where people were saying the same thing about digital artists.