#ALSO. THIS IS BY NO MEANS ME SAYING I SUPPORT GENORATIVE ALGORITHMS AS A CONCEPT.

[gutsfics]

tbh i think that the "is ai generated content art" argument is roughly the same as "is Duchamp's Fountain art". i think that the argument of if its art is what makes it art, because it is invoking some kind of feeling. starting a conversation. if that makes sense?

that being said, absolutely there is a time and a place for it (ie not replacing the work of paid artists). and it should only be trained on artsts who have consented to it.

i dont want to read fiction made by ai bc if you didn't take the time to write something, why should i take the time to read it? and for non fiction, it'll be riddled with incorrect facts because an algorithm "decided" that this word is the most likely to go next in the sentence based on what it's database says, even if its factually incorrect.

one of my favorite pieces of art is an ai image that was sent to a company that makes paint-by-numbers, and then filled out by a person. the artist, tumblr user rigatonidanza, asks "is this art? at what point does it become art? can it never be art because its ai, or because its paint by numbers? is it art because it elicits a response from the viewer?"

the point of art is to make you think, and to make you feel. does it stop being art if its not made by human hands, the way algorithmically generated images are? is it not art if its something mass produced, made for intentions other than what the artist uses it for, like Fountain? even if looking at it makes you feel something? anything? even if that "something" is a negative emotion?

all that said. if you use generative algorithms as an excuse to not pay real artists, you are a human tar pit. may you always immedeatly stub your toe after it stops hurting from the last time you stubbed it.