Comment by frakt0x90

You are correct. I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with people who don’t get it.

Those people don’t tend to have a good understanding of what most humans like and why they like stuff like music.

Sure, but you also just disregarded a whole swath of people who use the tools/abstractions as a component of the composition of a final work. If I download a free vector of a premade sun to put into my final multimodal image, how is that any less authentic to me and my work? You feel like I cheated? Not how you would do it? This reminds me of when the film industry moved to digital and the pro associations said for contest submissions, first no digital at all, then it was ok for you to use digital post production but not a digital camera.

A: This post is part of an eternal debate about art: Do we appreciate the finished work, or the artist? This post is firmly in the latter camp. There are also solid arguments for the other extreme.

B: Having spent some time trying to make songs with Suno, I can assure you it takes more skills than I have...

We humans use machines to make art. Robots may use a machine but that imagio deo component is missing.

I used to sing dumb songs like when changing my kids diaper I’d sing “you got a STINKY DIAPER, you got a stinky diaper and it smelled like pee, oh don’t you knoooow what I mean” sung to Deo’s Holy Diver. Just dumb stuff like that.

I still sing songs like that, only now I’ve got almost an hour of dumb songs that Suno has made, like my kid asked “what if we just put in gibberish and the word poop a lot?” As kids do, and we got this absolutely bizarre Europop song where a dude sings his heart out about poopy poop, and my kids now sing this tune. It’s been nonstop laughs. My daughter is into Harry Potter and we made a song together just about her turning her hair green in potions class, with harpsichord and a theremin. We’re having a great time. I’m never going to be an artist and never going to try to make money off this stuff. I’m just making weird little bespoke memories with me and my kids.

You are assuming a very specific form of generation. There are plenty of levels in between. Simply saying "AI" isn't sufficient to make an argument.

Well said. The credit is with the model; you commissioned it but did not create it.

With AI art... there is no passion, there is no pain, there is no emotion, there is no sex, there is no feeling, there is no reason. When Blaze Foley sang If I Could Only Fly or Nina Simone sang Stars or Bardot sang Je t'aime or Morricone wrote Se telefonando or Vermeer painted Zicht op Delft or Orozco painted his Epic of American Civilization or Maugham wrote Of Human Bondage or Stoppard wrote Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead or Cheever wrote The Swimmer there was a magnificent concentration of real feeling and a real reason that each of these things were made.

Could you imagine someone prompting a model, receiving the result, and then saying, as Cheever did about The Swimmer:

>It was a terribly difficult story to write. I couldn't ever show my hand. Night was falling, the year was dying. It wasn't a question of technical problems, but one of imponderables. When he finds it dark and cold, it has to have happened. And by God, it did happen. I felt dark and cold for some time after I finished that story.

---

To me, the reason for art is feeling, and the problem is that most things don't really provide feeling - if they do, it is a cheap and one-dimensional feeling. Almost all art and music and literature (and food, wine, architecture, poetry, photography, theatre, dance) that people consume today is _good enough_. It is correct, it satisfies. You listen to some hours of good-enough music on Spotify and the music is all correct and you come across "Chill77"'s AI-generated Papaoutai cover and you think that it is good. After all, it seems to have fooled a number of genuine Stromae fans. But the real function of art is not to satisfy. It is to reduce you to tears or silence or lust or anger or some beautiful cocktail of feeling. Of course, in the right context, with enough supporting factors, anything can produce emotion, but the best art needs little or nothing to make you feel. Bad art and good art are all around us, but the great is rare. That rarity is why people enjoy AI art: they forget the last time they felt, the AI is good, and that is enough.

The sad thing, of course, is that to make the great you must make a hell of a lot of bad and a fair amount of simply good art. And then there are those who have no delusions of grandeur but just make art for the sake of it. AI art cheapens those things; it makes them a trivial undertaking. The architect who would have become great on the completion of his two hundred and seventh building can now generate the first two hundred and six with the push of a button. The woman making fliers for her dance club - each one no great work of art, but certainly made with care and love, sees now that her work is useless and stops. We all lose.

I'm a professional artist. I don't use AI as it's just not there yet.

But I don't consider using AI all that different to using a camera. A photographer still has plenty of work to do with composition and framing, the lighting, the subject mater, even timing. I still consider a photographer an artist.

I think an AI artist will have a lot to consider as well. To distinguish themselves from other AI artists.

Update: When I say the AI tools are not there yet, its precisely because I can't seem to get the AI to take feedback or instructions. I can't adjust the lighting to create the mood I want, I can't tweak the framing.

That argument is pretty close to what people used to say about photography.

In reality its more about the candler maker seeing gaslighting down the road. You are not going to compete.

If it were so easy to create good AI music, I'd be able to do it all myself instead of following so many artists. But it takes a lot of skill.

Your snobbery will be short-lived as tools eclipse our "art", and creativity is revealed as nothing inherently unique to humans.

Creativity, fundamentally, is overlapping memories of what you have seen already. Literally no different than any diffusion or transformer model.

You painting a piece of art or composing a song was really the functional output of billions of cells coordinating in unison, 100% subconsciously, and the thoughts that arose out of your subconscious were entirely (or mostly, to avoid free will debate) out of your control. Your output was the product of billions of years of stellar and biological evolution on top of millennia of human history and influence. You created nothing.

Soon you will have to grapple with the reality of what really drives your enjoyment of media, and part of that will be realizing that the human-ness never mattered at all.

Is beautiful nature scenery not beautiful because it wasnt hand-crafted painstakingly by a creative human? Of course it is. There is no intuition for the vast swaths of time it took to form, that is a modern human conceptualization that came long after we already found nature to be beautiful.

We have a biological pattern recognition tuned for beauty regardless of its origin. And there is nothing inherently unbeautiful about elegant software that can produce beautiful "art". Nor is there any justifiable, defensible, or intellectually honest way to argue that the human/effort element in art matters in any way besides perhaps portraying and conveying social status.