As an artist who doesn't care about their art being stolen since it's posted online, I see it as ugly.

If used by an actual artist it could look fine, but using a high quality style and still have messed up composition, wrong use of shadows, unnecessary details in the most weird spots, and mixing different styles in the same picture in a bad way, etc... It's super ugly and obvious the one who's generating the images is not an artist and have no understanding of what makes art look good which makes it very uncomfortable to look at.

I just wish their data burns and never make me see that filth again.

Quote from hkanz

I produce a newsletter and articles for my work, and it’s useful as a replacement for stock images, especially for generating more diverse images. I don’t really view it as art though, it’s just the product of a tool. Someone who generates AI images is not an ‘artist’.

Ironically I think AI "art" is fine as long as it's touched up a little (most of these shits are ugly out of the box, the fact that prompters are lazy and impatient just makes it worse) and I'm fine with most use cases except for yours.

AI-generated content is not art. To have art, you must have an artist, someone (or a group of people) with a vision (or visions) that can translate their idea(s) into a piece of art.

Typing out a prompt and having a computer conjure up something based on stolen assets from other artists is not the same as creating something which matches your own internal vision.

Using references to aid you in creation of your own unique vision is acceptable, but AI is pretty terrible to be used as reference material anyhow.

I stand by the fact that for there to be art, there needs to be a vision, and the artist (or artists) must have imagined something, and must make an attempt to reproduce the thing they've imagined through any means... either by painting, singing, writing, filming, coding, etc... these things can all be used to create art, but only when an individual or a group's imagination has been replicated, or at the very least that there was an attempt to replicate it.

Nothing that a computer generates on it's own from a mere prompt can be considered art. Computers have no imagination, and thus, are not able to produce art, they can only steal the imaginative ideas previously formed by human beings, and rearrange them into a scattered and useless mess of data, to be presented in either the form of images, audio, or text files.

That fact that some people accept such soulless files as art saddens me.

Visit my scanning blog: Jammin' Scans

::End of Transmission::

AI art is not true art in the sense that is wasn't created through a person's artistic talent and generally lacks the attention to detail and effort invested as opposed to something fully drawn by a human.

I certainly wouldn't see myself ever spending money to buy an AI generated artwork to hang on my wall.

The value of a piece of art comes from 2 things:

• Compensation for the labor involved in it's creation.
• Scarcity (e.g. a canvas painting is unique v.s. a print that can be endlessly reproduced.)

AI art is generally lacking on both of these.

That being said, there is a place for it if used properly. ...and the problem is that most people don't.

I frequently browse the booru sites where I see both AI and Human-made drawings, both good and bad.

• A good AI can make a better drawing than a bad artist.
• And a good artist can make a better drawing than a bad AI.

Good AI Art does take some effort:

• Time and effort was invested coding the program.
• Time and effort was invested training the AI.
• Time and effort was invested prompting the AI and repeatedly refining the prompts until it achieved the desired result.
• After all that, the result may still not be perfect and still require some editing / touch-up by a human artist.

So, while not to the extent of something entirely produced by human hands, it is a product of someone's (likely multiple people's) labor.

The value of good AI art comes form the effort of the computer operator. However, it cannot be equivalent to the value of the effort of an artist as the AI image can be endlessly replicated and variations of the original can be created with minimal effort after the initial work was done. Both the labor and scarcity factor are lower than something entirely created by human hands.

The biggest problem with AI art are the computer operators who don't invest effort.

Their work is a product of pure laziness and one can tell from the results. Just like the art of a human who spent little time practicing and little time on the individual piece can be seen to be objectively bad.

Computers fundamentally function on the GIGO principle. (Garbage In, Garbage Out) If you don't invest the effort to correctly and precisely instruct the computer, it won't achieve the desired result.

All the time, on the booru sites, I see AI drawings with the wrong number of fingers or toes, or hands and feet entirely malformed. I guess AI generally doesn't do great with people and sucks at drawing limbs. It doesn't really understand human anatomy and is basically just doing guesswork based on what it has seen without understanding what it has seen.

THE PROBLEM IS THE IDIOT WHO THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO SHARE THAT DEFECTIVE IMAGE WITH THE WORLD instead of first investing a bit more of their time tinkering with the AI and/or an editing software until it didn't look cursed.

In conclusion:

I see AI art as a different category/class of art. Doing it right does require effort, which should be appreciated, but it is not equivalent to the effort spent to create something unique with one's hands entirely from scratch.

This category is brought down by lazy people, who are lacking in artistic talent, sharing the incomplete results of of their meager efforts.