[kradeelav]

generated images =/= created

AI generated images have the potential to be art in the eyes of the beholder, but let's not pretend that generation is the same as the mental, physical, and spiritual flow state that goes into painting or drawing a piece.

[colinmhayes]

I don't think that's what the parent is doing. They're pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming AI art is copying copyrighted works because human artists are trained in similar ways. That's not making a claim about whether or not AI art is "real" art.

[supergnu]

why not? human artists do exactly the same thing - combine learned patterns into new compositions.

[slowmovintarget]

Human artists create with intent. Statistical image generation throws paint at a million walls and keeps the handful that are statistically close to images tagged with words in a prompt.

That's not the same thing, and there's a reason why all of those generated images seem... off.

[kradeelav]

I think we may be talking about two different concepts regarding creation of art.

Absolutely humans (and myself, I'm a professional illustrator) use a mental patterns to come up with ideas.

The physical difference in AI generation is the lack of butt-in-chair time of the flow state. Painting/drawing/rendering art is not just mindless time to be compressed; it's a mental/physical/emotional/(and some would say spiritual) flow state with a lot of "input" abstractions beyond the patterns. Things like the creative's personal mood, personal past experiences, recent discussions with friends, recent texts they read ... those all fold into it. I wouldn't trade that flow state for the world, and it absolutely leaves fingerprints in my creations.

[paulryanrogers]

Humans don't usually do stroke for stroke copies of paintings. Or pixel for pixel sampling of photos, unless they get rights to the sources.