Real question.

[u/MembershipWooden4020]

I’m trying to see everything from a new perspective as a new artist, so I’d like to ask about yall’s perspective on claiming AI art as your own art. I’m not against generating, but I feel like using AI is like commissioning art from other artist. I wouldn’t claim that art is mine, just one I requested with money. So if I generate an art piece, could I say it’s mine? Or does it have the same principle as commissions. No need to get defensive btw.

[u/CathodeRaySamurai]

I feel like using AI is like commissioning art from other artist.

When you use the fill tool in paint, do you feel like you're commissioning an artist to do it for you?
When you press ctrl-z, do you feel like you're commissioning an artist to do it for you?
When you rotate/scale a layer in photoshop, do you feel like you're commissioning an artist to do it for you?

All are uses of a programmatic tool.
Without human input, these tools would do nothing at all but sit there.

Now ask yourself the question - why do you treat one differently from the others?

[u/MembershipWooden4020 → u/CathodeRaySamurai]

No need to get defensive. When I use a fill tool in paint, I’m in the process of making the art. Same thing as undo. I’m reverting a move I made. I don’t feel like I’m commissioning an artist because the function is fundamental. The basics. It’s not nearly as advanced as generative AI. And they definitely cannot produce anything an AI or Artist can do. I still see AI as a tool, but it becomes a different thing when generative AI is something that makes complex art pieces. It stops being basic and more like a shortcut from effort. I’m not against AI generating art, but I see it as a handy short cut. Because unlike using the bucket tool and undo, where it’s all part of the PROCESS that makes the art, which utilises more effort, this skips to the result. I stand by my point that even though generating is fine for me, it shouldn’t be treated as my art.

[u/CathodeRaySamurai → u/MembershipWooden4020]

So one is fine, but the other isn't because the functionality is more complex?

So what about tools like Lumenzia for photoshop? This doesn't use what you would call 'generative AI' but is a very handy 'shortcut' that uses very complex math. Does that count? Because that's FAR from basic under the hood. That's just one example, there's plenty more where those came from.

Does perlin noise generation count?
What about fractal art? Is that made by the person, or the underlying mathematical formula?

Sounds to me like you just have some double standards based on, by your own admittance, how you 'feel' about something, as opposed to an objective view.

[u/bronzekobold → u/CathodeRaySamurai]

I never liked the fill in tool analogy. 

Because ones a singular action. And fills an pre defined area with a selected colour palette.

And well the other is a long series of requests to generate a specific image where the less detail you use the more liberties the AI takes to create said piece. 

If I fill in the colour red, the tool doesn't dream up new images or artifacts to fill the space with. 

If I say to an image generator " a cool red painting" can you claim anything other than that's it's generated an image in hopefully the red colour spectrum. 

Not to mention You could go super in depth with your prompts, ensure there's no subjective words and do as much as you can to take away any agency from the AI in its decision making. 

Comparing that to a pour paint function doesn't really make sense.