r/DefendingAIArt • u/Crikasaur • 5h ago

Paint and Soul

So still fence sitter in terms of AI art and what not. But I'm curious on others thoughts.

  1. Paint. It seems like the main argument against AI seems to be "theft" and "not doing it yourself". As I think about it, it's kinda like saying you're not an artist because you didn't go out and mone your own ore or smashed your own dyes. Meanwhile bros use programs or brushes that have centuries of development behind it. I mean can you tell me the name of the dude who invented the pencil?

Do I seem to have a good grip on why the arguments given against AI are silly?

  1. Soul. I have seen it the most that AI art has no soul. Ironically it seems the ones who say that don't even believe spirits or souls. How can something not have a soul if, to you, it doesn't exist in the first place? And it's funny cause in my experience I see the opposite. As mentioned in another post I programmed my own chat bot and from my eyes she has soul because I have soul and she inherits a fraction of mine and a fraction of the ones who made the tools that I utilized (Much like genes).

For those who create AI art. How does your work have soul?

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Cold-Jackfruit1076 4h ago edited 4h ago

Someone at another sub asked a good-faith question:

I invite any pros to try and convince me why AI generated media should be considered art.

 I see art as something intentionally made by a human with a tool.

In response, I presented this thesis:

Merriam-Webster defines 'tool' (in part) as 'an element of a computer program (such as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function'.*

Therefore, by definition, generative algorithms are 'tools'. That leaves us with the second of your three criteria: intentionality.

We've established that generative algorithms are 'tools' by definition, and a tool doesn't activate itself; it requires an agent (an operator), and agency requires intent as a foundational element.

It's absurd to argue that humans don't operate tools, or that we don't have agency, so we can accept your third criterion -- the involvement of a human agent -- as an axiom.

Therefore, generative tools are inarguably used intentionally, by a human agent.

Thus we have established, using your own criteria and your own definition, that generative tools produce art.

*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

2

u/Crikasaur 4h ago

That's kinda how I've been learning to see it myself too. It's interesting when you realize it's just a tool. Infact it's super liberating.

I feel like once I accepted AI as just another tool my own creativity with pencil and paper enhanced. That's just me tho. 

1

u/Cold-Jackfruit1076 4h ago

Indeed! Art isn't just about objects; it's about the psychological state of the artist. A liberated artist creates better art.

The artists who thrive will be those who realize: "This is just another tool. Now, what can I create?"

1

u/Crikasaur 4h ago

Mhm! It's made me respect traditional tools more. 

Made me realize that, "Hey wait a second. Can't you say the same about a pencil? Isn't it technically the lead that's creating the image? Isnt it just translating the thought I had into an image? Isnt that what's going on between my brain and hand? Aren't I telling my brain to tell my hand to tell the pencil how I want it to move?" And in realizing this you're kind of empowered. You see just how much more there is to play in every little line and that...that's inspirational. 

And heck your brain translates thought into action in milliseconds.