Atp I Hope It's Clear That My Stance Is Not That Everyone Needs To Like And Be Okay With Generative Ai

atp i hope it's clear that my stance is not that everyone needs to like and be okay with generative ai art, my stance is that i am not going to take your reasons for disliking generative ai art seriously if they are rooted in the idea that it's bad because it can't produce art with a soul. or that the very act of desiring an artistic output without putting in Enough Work To Deserve It is threatening the fabric of society.

It's an obscenely conservative way to think about art and i'm not going to give it any legitimacy at all. i don't believe in a human soul and i don't believe the value of art comes from the amount of toil it required. i think that, right now and for the rest of human existence there will be creatives who continue to use the tools at their disposal to express meaningful ideas into the world. i don't think the idea that one of those tools could theoretically be an AI image generator is that unreasonable.

most ai generated content is slop but plenty of stuff crafted by human hands is slop too. the way to separate good art from bad art is not by drawing hard lines about what is 'allowed' to count as art, or saying there is an irreplaceable quality to a work that it gets imbued with when created by an Ensouled Being. the way to separate good art from bad art is to earnestly engage with the things you see in the world around you to develop and refine your own tastes about what sort of things you find meaningful and valuable.

it's like such a bizarre simultaneous devaluing and sanctifying of art at the same time to me. like art is so important and special and species-defining and the people who make it possess some sort of unique spiritual quality that can not be artificially replicated. but also Art is somehow a fragile and narrow enough thing that it's at risk of being irreparably bastardized or eradicated because of a machine. i don't get it. i don't get it!