[miyoji]

> you sound like someone from the 1800's shouting about how photography should be banned and not allowed to crowd out hard working painters.

I'm saying that you shouldn't call photographs paintings because they aren't paintings. I don't particularly care if people make AI "music" or "art" and I don't particularly care if they consume it (people have been consuming awful media for the entire history of humanity, they aren't going to stop because I say so), but if you give me a ham sandwich and call it a hamburger I am going to be annoyed and tell you that it isn't a hamburger and to stop calling it that because you're misleading people who actually appreciate hamburgers.

AI "art" isn't art. I don't care whether you like it. It's like fractals or rock formations or birdsong - it may be aesthetically appealing to some people, but that isn't the definition of art.

[roywiggins]

Similarly, people keep posting articles to HN that get upvoted which are substantially AI edited. They're never labeled as such, and it's unpleasant to find myself reading unlabeled ChatGPTese again. There's a Show HN up now that has an entirely generated readme, which is just... fine, I guess. I just don't want to engage with it.

Ed: two Show HNs that are substantially AI generated readmes, now

[jayGlow]

I would say trying to dictate what is and isn't art really goes against the spirit of art in general. plenty of art exists to push boundaries including what can be considered art.