@Elfie @hideki If I enjoy AI "art" the same way I enjoy "real art", why shouldn't I call it art?

The author isn't dead; they were never alive to begin with.

@hideki @ai @hideki
Because it doesn't fit the definition of art, it lacks human nuances and it's an ill intentioned interpretation of the term, not to mention a misuse of platform itself

What did you mean with the last part?

@Elfie @hideki

I dunno, I know that people spend hours trying to tweak prompts to get these AIs to draw the exact thing they want. That seems pretty nuanced and intentional to me, though I concede it's very different from painting a canvas.

For the last part, I meant that I believe in the death of the author idea - that art should be judged on its own merits, disregarding the author's intent or personal character. And I think that applies here: you shouldn't deprecate AI art just because it lacks an "author".

Like, if a thousand monkeys on typewriters managed to bang out Romeo and Juliet, I'd still enjoy reading it just as much.

A different criticism of AI art, which I agree with much more, is that the AI is just recycling its training data, without giving credit to the human artists who produced those "input" artworks. But this criticism implies that AI art *should* be considered art, but 'derivative' rather than 'original' art.