this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
237 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

77084 readers
3043 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think that art can be defined as a creation that elicits an emotional response. The method of creation has little to do with it.

Whenever digital artists started becoming a thing, they were gatekept as well.

[–] RightEdofer@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Only with all other art till now most every element is a conscious decision by the artist with intent. Most AI “artists” don’t have a clue what’s actually in their “own” images. Any emotional reaction is a byproduct of the training data (which was created largely by real artists with intent). In which cases the audience would likely understand the history and context of a piece better than the person who typed the prompt. This is nothing at all like other technical developments even though they did indeed see pushback.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Authors/artist intent matters about as much as a warm shit in a shoe when it comes to deciding what is or is not art.

The literal only thing that matters is if the viewer thinks it's art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder full stop.

The only thing author/artist intent is good for is scholastic endeavours. Valuable and useful in its own right, but the defining aspect of art it is not.

[–] RightEdofer@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Edgy. Enjoy your fake human endeavours.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You may call it fake, but even the AI is created by humans and are therefore human endeavors, just indirectly.

[–] RightEdofer@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

That isn’t really true. Machine learning is designed to teach itself. Regardless, what does it matter if you can’t go back and learn anything interesting about the people whose work is in the training

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If ai art makes you upset it's art. People who argue that ai art isn't art are having an emotional reaction thus it's art.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

i experience an emotional reaction when i step in shit too

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't that the, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, sort of thing?

If you step in the shit created by the Cloaka art system, is it still not art?

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

by that i mean - that an emotional reaction doesn't make something art