Comments by "The Red Knight" (@theredknight9314) on "Delusional AI "Artist"" video.

And yet it won🙃 Perhaps this shows that art is more then what thou ist claimeth it to be
16
Ai art is real art. So long as one sees it as art, it is art. Thats all that is needed
6
@sakurayankishi9708 you are completely avoiding my point. In the most basic of steps human art and ai art are the same. Brain prompts idea, idea takes on references from pre-existing things it has reference to, idea is then transferred to artistic medium. That’s literally what humans and ai do.
3
@DavidMihalj-r7t the word art cannot be accurately defined. Photography is art and yet it involves 0 human creation. Landscape paintings is art and yet what is being painted was not created by humans hand. Natural beauty is seen as art and yet no person makes lakes or mountains. If i look upon a piece a see it as art, what right do you have to say my perspective of what art is, is wrong?
3
@Hugh.G.Rectionx correct
2
@sakurayankishi9708 “expressive application of human creative skill” Photography is not that. Portraits are not that. Ect. They are just copies of things people did not make and yet are deemed art. Thus your definition is wrong
2
@sakurayankishi9708 you clearly do not understand what i said. You did not create the mountain you painted, nor the face, nor the colors or shades. Nor did you create textures or the shapes, nor the emotions or objects to which your words refer to. All people is take things that exist and put them into a new medium. Thats is literally what ai does. Thus humans and ai are identical.
2
@sakurayankishi9708 you do realize the human brain functions exactly like ai. Right? Meaning it takes preexisting information and combined it into something new. An ai created painting follows the same process as a human made one. It takes something that exists and transposes it into a style and medium to what the brain prompts it to.
2
@sakurayankishi9708 yes actually it does. Lmao. You clearly need to catch up on how modern ai works. We have artificial brains that function like people and power supercomputers. All of the stuff you listed is IDENTICAL to ai prompting.
2
@sakurayankishi9708 of course i read what you commented Ai art is art. Ai and humans are both computers, one that is alive and another that is not yet alive. They function the same. The medium by which you create art is meaningless to what art is.
2
@BLP04 yes it can. Art is just a thing to which one claims it is. I proclaim ai art is art. Therefore it is.
2
@sakurayankishi9708 yes, its thrown out the window because it’s entirely nebulous and meaningless. Based your argument people with aphantasia could not be artists.
2
@sakurayankishi9708 its literally the same. There are famous artists who hated painting and yet did so. There are people with aphantasia who paint. Your definition is arbitrary and completely subjective, thus it is not a meaningful or valid definition
2
@alien0gamer139 by definition it does tho. Art itself is subjective. Now would it be considered beautiful or aw inspiring. No. But is it art. Yes.
2
@alien0gamer139 you do realize that the definition of art on google EXCLUDES many forms of art. Such as photography, landscape painting, wildlife photography, as well as things such as flower gardens, and natural landscapes like waterfalls and forests. There so much stuff thats considered “art” that has 0 human involvement in it. Stop being elitist and allow me to enjoy the things i see as art.
2
But it is. Art is what you define it to be. Thus ai art is art
2
Wrong. Because its a compilation of different art pieces. It itself is a unique creation. Thus it is not subject under copyright
2
@spaget4563 thats not a valid point. Ai does what people do, base creations off of things that already exist. Otherwise create a color that does not exist
2
@spaget4563 ai does exactly what people do. It takes things that exist and creates new versions of that thing. Otherwise if that wasnt the case then humans could do things like invent new colors that dont exist and ai could not, which is not the case.
2
@spaget4563 your argument is completely incoherent. Emotion is not a valid criteria for what defines art. #1 emotions do not exist and cannot be measured #2 that argument falls flat because art is defined by each individual whom views it. So if one defines it as art and the other does not. Is one wrong? And if so how does one prove that. #3 the mechanism of art itself is literally the same for humans and ai, it is this (take thing that exists and use it in “specific” way to make art piece” Wether it has emotion or not is completely unimportant to wether something is or is not art. Otherwise a piece of art designed off of no emotion wouldn’t be art, which is obviously not true
2
@lespectator4962 in order to have a valid definition. It must be based upon something that is not nebulous and subjective. Emotions are invalid because a: they do not exist and b: human emotions change with culture and time, thus historical pieces would lose their meaning Also, what if one feels emotion towards ai art, by your definition that would make it art, thus invalidating your point. “Being made with emotion” is invalid because photography, splash painting, portraits, landscape painting, calligraphy, wood working, writing and so many more art forms can be done without emotional input by the creator and can have no emotion by the viewer
2
@lespectator4962 ok. If emotions exist then use the scientific method to objectively prove an art piece has an emotion. Ill wait
2
@lespectator4962 yes but that is the emotion of the viewer interpretation of the art. A psychopath would not feel the same towards a piece the same way an autistic would. This is because art and its meaning is subjective. Thus art is not defined by emotion. But rather if one sees the piece as art. Thus its up to the viewer to determine what is art. And if they proclaim ai generated art to be art, then it is. What right do you have to tell others what is and is not art
2
@lespectator4962 you misunderstand. Im not saying that you cant say its not art. Im saying that it is art to some people and thus meets the most basic definition of what art is. There are people who think portraits are not art, does that mean it is not art, to those people, sure. But to others, no, it is art. Thus once again proving that what art is, is entirely subjective to each individual person.
2
@gerragotheallidile by definition it is.
1
By definition it is art. Otherwise nothing is art
1
But by definition it is art
1
@moreyourpops155 that excludes many types of art. Your definition of art is subjective because art itself is subjective. Anything is art so long as one believes it is such
1
@sakurayankishi9708 based on that logic, photography, sculpting, scenery painting, and portraits woulndt be art
1
@sakurayankishi9708 but they arent valid examples because they just copy pre-existing things into a canvas or photo. Thus under your own definition, ai art is art because ai does what people. Copy things into new mediums
1
@sakurayankishi9708 people dont create things either. All we do is copy references and use pre-existing materials. Just like ai.
1
@sakurayankishi9708 and? So did the ai.
1
@alien0gamer139 it literally is. The definition on google excludes numerous forms of art from photography to flower gardens to natural formations. Art is what the viewer describes it to be.
1
@alien0gamer139 my replies are not sending
1
@michaelmorris1865 and? Doesnt invalidate my point
1
@michaelmorris1865 you arent creating anything. A machine captures an image of a mountain. Its motion different then prompted ai
1
@michaelmorris1865 you hold a machine/put it in a stand and push a button. You do not capture the image
1
@gerragotheallidile and? Thats testament to how subjective art actually is
1
@spaget4563 #1 emotions do not matter, that is up to the viewer #2 the human brain literally prompts itself so your point makes no sense. #3 ai and humans do it identically. They require precursor knowledge of something to make it. If you do not believe me, create something that is not based on anything known. Ie: a color that has never existed before
1