Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
Going to be honest with you, your art is fine.
Just fine.
Not great though. Not exceptional. Not really new or exciting.
Just what anyone with a weak prompt and an llm can do.
It’s ok.
I’m glad you are enjoying making it.
I never said it was great.
And what art is new or exciting these days? Everything is derivative of everything else.
I take it you spend time going to galleries or the theatre? That you engage with art at the source…
Because if you said something as fucking stupid as “and what art is exciting these days” whilst only consuming media through a screen, that’d make you look and sound really daft.
I listen to music, read stories, watch movies, play games, etc. Art is so much more than galleries and theatres.
It’d be daft to assume that the only art that matters is the bougie shit. Luckily I’m not some pretentious fuck who thinks that and looks down on what the average person enjoys.
But hey go stare at some Jackson Polack scribbles and discern the deep meaning in a banana stuck to a wall or whatever passes for high brow these days.
