Generative artificial intelligence prompt engineering and artistry

[Euphoric Elephant]

Suppose someone has top-notch prompt engineering skills when working with generative artificial intelligence so much that the final rendered output rivals, other creative persons, should their artistry be questioned?

 

[Irv Walter]

I think one of the things that makes art special to humans is that it is so deeply personal, vague, and subjective that it's hard to even define or describe it at all. Because of that, while I'm all for differentiating the benefits of hand-crafted art versus AI art and the kinds of value that can be obtained only from it being hand-crafted, I'm not for trying to draw a line in the sand for what is and is not art or discounting the efforts put into its creation by the human beings who directed its production. If someone putting in endless hours of AI prompt engineering to make the vision that they have in their head really doesn't have enough soul or passion involved, then we should start calling out abstract artists actually just using gravity and physics to make random images.

 

[Arnold Longford]

Only a fool would buy any AI art. Let them throw away their money.

 

[Frank Cohen]

It's subjective. Everyone has a different opinion.

 

[Ray DeLauri]

The problem I have arises from the fact that many of these generative AI tech companies don't intend on making a tool, they are trying to make a replacement and are profiting off of theft.

 

[Danny Scheller]

The technology is constantly getting better and soon it will be indistinguishable from real artist's art. The main gripe I really have with AI art right now is that artists' work was used as training material without permission.

 

[Zara McLoughlin]

So many artists want to be artists just to impress people. Lots of them are afraid that AI art will diminish the impressiveness of their skill. But, in my opinion, art is about beauty and the expression of ideas through images. I see the advancing capabilities of generative artificial intelligence as a blessing in that regard.

 

[Naomi Hamill]

I'm a writer, not an artist, and I spent 5 hours on MidJourney today, the first two hours blew me away but by the fifth hour, I reached the barriers of this tech very quickly, it's very limited and soulless indeed, the attraction was lost after 5 hours, the art felt "soulless" and the same thing over and over, definitely no human invention.

 

[Unknown Knight]

I'm a writer, not an artist, and I spent 5 hours on MidJourney today, the first two hours blew me away but by the fifth hour, I reached the barriers of this tech very quickly, it's very limited and soulless indeed, the attraction was lost after 5 hours, the art felt "soulless" and the same thing over and over, definitely no human invention.

Cool, except soul means nothing to your average consumer.

Good art is really for other artists. Most people just want a pretty picture.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Only a fool would buy any AI art. Let them throw away their money.

If you can't beat a computer in your own industry then maybe you just don't belong to that industry.

 

[Raven Darkholme]

If another human could replace an artist. What does an AI do that would be new? In the end, money talks. So follow that. Make a name for yourself. Or be left behind.

 

[Penguin]

What's wrong with replacing the creative workflow? If the result is the same or better then it's a win-win, creativity should be about taking what's in your mind and making it tangible, making that process easier should be the goal, right?

 

[Arnold Longford]

What's wrong with replacing the creative workflow? If the result is the same or better then it's a win-win, creativity should be about taking what's in your mind and making it tangible, making that process easier should be the goal, right?

Making the process easier means less effort which equals less meaning to your artwork. That is what bothers most artists right now with how low effort and how easily amazed people are by copied art that the original artist isn't even credited with.

 

[Zbigniew]

Making the process easier means less effort which equals less meaning to your artwork. That is what bothers most artists right now with how low effort and how easily amazed people are by copied art that the original artist isn't even credited with.

The way I see it is that there will be less financial meaning to your artwork, as the process of creating it just becomes much cheaper, i.e., artists will earn less unless they adapt, reposition, and innovate.

And the legalities around copyrights are just a growing pain for the technology, given some time copyright law will catch up and create more balance between creators and the technology, the technology itself isn't going anywhere, the technology isn't inextricably linked to copyright theft. In fact, Adobe Inc. has already released its own image-generative AI (Firefly) that's trained entirely on their own fully licensed stock imagery

 

[Ronaldo van Persie]

What's wrong with replacing the creative workflow? If the result is the same or better then it's a win-win, creativity should be about taking what's in your mind and making it tangible, making that process easier should be the goal, right?

Stable Diffusion doesn't produce art without creativity. If you don't provide the creativity, it just steals from other artists.

 

[Lex Luthor]

Stable Diffusion doesn't produce art without creativity. If you don't provide the creativity, it just steals from other artists.

I get what you're saying, but I think it does get a bit more complicated when you consider that even creative work done by a person, the work being fed into a model, is really just an assembly of that person's own inspirations, things they saw and liked, then augmented it into their own work, it could be argued that AI image generation is just a structured and automated way of doing the same thing, it could be argued that the AI is doing "creativity."

 

[Steven Lampard]

What's wrong with replacing the creative workflow? If the result is the same or better then it's a win-win, creativity should be about taking what's in your mind and making it tangible, making that process easier should be the goal, right?

The point of creative workflow isn't maximizing outputs. It's about exploring techniques, working on areas of improvement, finding peace in the monotony, and enjoying making something yourself.

 

[Emma Frost]

Only a fool would buy any AI art. Let them throw away their money.

Painters said the same thing about photography. It took a while for acceptance but it came.

 

[Jamal Schade]

Painters said the same thing about photography. It took a while for acceptance but it came.

For most true painters that acceptance never came, those painters died feeling the same way; photography was accepted by society, not by painters. The longer it was around the more people just accepted it as a normal thing but there's a reason that going to school for photography is still considered a joke and it's because the art world still hasn't fully accepted it.

 

[Charles Harris]

I don't have a problem with AI replacing artists. What bothers me though is the realization that people, consumers as a whole, do not care for the people that are responsible for all their entertainment. Their favorite stories, their favorite games, their favorite movies, all of it created with teams that truly care about what they're creating. However, as soon as the tools to create art are available, we suddenly realize that people do not care about those who have given us these memories.