The attached post is doing numbers on my bit of the Fediverse today. It's basically the same argument I've seen over and over on social media, and I just don't think it's true. (Please be aware though that I am furious about generative AI and would like it to be fired into the sun.)
Any medium or tool can be used by an artist to put a piece of themself on display for others to judge and critique. I think this includes generative AI. If a human is choosing what to ask the program for and what to keep and how they feel about it, and other people can look at it and decide how they feel about it, that's art, isn't it? Part of what makes it art can even be that it is made using generative AI, and the way that makes the artist and the observer feel.
Yeah, it might be art that is disliked because of the medium, and it might be art that causes harm of various kinds, but it is still art.
There are a lot of very valid ways to criticise generative AI and the people who are pushing it, but this isn't one of them. It's like trying to turn people against a fascist politician by saying they're ugly and fat instead of criticising their policies and actions because they're a fascist; it says more about you and how you think about people than about your target.
If you have ever looked at a picture and liked it, and then found out it was AI and felt ashamed, the "AI can't make art" propaganda has kind of worked on you. Yeah, AI can't make art. A person can use AI to make art though, and it is still art.
The anger and disappointment are valid, but misdirected. The below targets and harms art and artists and observers out of laziness, because it's easy and we like the idea of dissuading people from using generative AI by telling them it's bad art or not "real". If you want to take a stand against generative AI itself, do that instead.
