Lurker > LtZim

Jesus Christ. I only had it for 2 months too.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

Apple is probably gonna be the first end consumer PC to make the jump to RISC because of legal bullshit surrounding ARM.

Most AI art people out themselves as using AI. Plus they fail at any test given to them, or cant seem to answer interview questions well.

enterprise technology rarely becomes consumerized

They don't even have consumer grade APUs available for desktops, yet they are in consoles. Those processors are data center, and will be way too expensive to produce on a mass scale. We're talking $15,000 or so.

Fundamentally those backing AI art reek of the same techbro stench that gave us NFTs. AI art might have actual commercial viability in some fashion for marketing, but it lacks authenticity, community, intent, messaging - anything, it's just a weapon that will be used by people who are not artists in order to disempower actual artists.

It will likely fail since art impacting culture does so because of the intent behind it or the reaction to that intent. People will never be impressed by it because there is nothing to be impressed by; no craft, no identifiers, no technique, nothing, just a bunch of numbers in a tin can stealing other works and meshing them together into a void of meaning.

Even something like self-driving cars, which will have impacts on industries, ultimately do serve a good purpose to society. Most tech developments like this do. But to apply it to art is to misunderstand the actual meaning of art to a culture. The same culture that detatches itself from the almost factory made lack of aesthetic as the MCU will not then attach itself to AI art; the latter is simply the final result of making art products. It has no shelf life, spoils, and is left to history's dustbin beyond what it showed about the culture it was made in.

For the same reasons boomers are upset at things that didn't exist when they were young. Some people just can't handle the fact that the world changes over time and new things exist.

I dont believe you. Even if you did paint it yourself, its so obviously an AI-prompted design that it doesnt matter. If you really are a serious artist, then you need to find a different style, because A) no one is going to believe when you say its not AI, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours.
Sorry, its the way of the world.

Ive seen recruiters/art leads on LinkedIn saying they receive applications and portfolios full of AI art. Those applicants get blacklisted.

You can use image software to make art, and some of the tools are automated. It'll cut images out based on what it thinks is the border, add its own level of shadows/blur, and so on etc. Does that mean if it's edited in that way, it's no longer art since the process was not fully made start to finish by a human with complete manual control?

Its inevitable. Whenever someone tries to recount or evoke photographys impact on visual culture when Daguerreotypes were introduced in 1839, a statement attributed to the French history painter, Paul Delaroche (1797-1859), gets dusted off for re-use. From today, Delaroche supposedly intonedand whether he spoke excitedly or portentously, well never knowPainting is dead! In either case, his announcement of a game-change, whenever its trotted and printed out, ends with an exclamation mark, to underscore photographys meteoric impact on conventional representational imaging.
Of course, painting didnt die, even if the medium seemed to have taken a direct hit. In France, for example, as photographic images spread over the years, so did Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism. Photography, one might argue, didnt murder painting; it shook things up by creating new options and opportunities.
Flash forward to California in the mid 1960s, when John Baldessarinow recognized as one of the most original artists and influential educations of his generationlooked back at paintings he had done in the previous decade and couldnt reconcile them with the reality of the his everyday world and life. He began to incorporate photographic images into his art works and, pretty soon, Baldessari says in the piece hes done for click! photography changes everything, I was using photography almost exclusively in my work. But it wasnt photography that I was interested in, but what art might be, and how photography could give me a quick way to implement my ideas.

1. Art is art, doesn't matter who/how/when it's made, on purpose or by accident, etc. Stop being so prideful about how.
2. It's cool that AI can even do this at all
3. Imagine a combination of AI art with human judgement, you could see some cool art
4. If it's further and further perfected, imagine the possibilities. You could have a whole 3D AI world. Would be cool for movies and video games.
5. Humans made AI so it's still our art in some way.
6. There are always gonna be boomers that think technology is gonna ruin everything or that it's not how it used to be in the golden days. That's like a math guy getting mad that a calculator exists. It's still cool for a human to do art too cause art is art. You can still make art if you want, don't let the existence of AI stop you.
7. If you're worried AI is gonna take over the world or whatever, it doesn't seem like art should be the biggest of those worries.

This is a really dumb hill to die on my man

Inspiration =/= copying. When musicians copy other artists they rightfully get shit on.

Inspiration is different than taking pieces of already made art, smashing it together and calling it new.

Or hell, just flat out copying well established art pieces
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/0/AAPstsAAEAEI.jpg

AI art literally steals from actual artists.