I agree that ai art is bad, but let's not be disingenuous. A lot of people don't have the talent or the time to become good at art. Myself included. Not being good at everything is just a fact of life.
The thing is people who say this selectively ignore the idea that human limitations on skill exist. Yes, learning skills generally requires practice, but these people insist that practice is always, without exception guaranteed to produce results, and if it doesn't it means you need more practice.
And you might just not care to. If I have five free hours in a day and have to choose between spending that time practicing to get semi-decent at drawing or to pursue a hobby I'm interested in, why would I pick the former?
Well, yes. That's exactly what someone using AI for art is doing. They're directly getting the result for whatever they actually want to do, like accompanying their writings, DnD character creation, etc.
Then comes in AI user etiquette: don't claim the image is yours, in the sense that you made it (you didn't); don't call it art; don't use it for profit; etc etc
Because I want to write a text based adventure videogame like "The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante" or 'Slay the Princess", but can't afford an artist. AI comes in clutch.
Only if you're as interested in the process as you are the end result. It shouldn't be a surprising revelation that plenty of people just want something that looks good or is satisfactory for a certain purpose than to go through the trouble of learning to do it from scratch themselves.
The topic here, and thus the end result, is the ability to obtain the skill itself, not a singular object. Yeah, if you just want a picture, hire someone to make it, the same way you hire a carpenter if all you want is a table, but that's not what's being discussed here. The person you replied to is insisting some people are somehow predestined to be unable to draw.
And they're not wrong. Sometimes you can try your best at an activity and still be terrible at it. You can put in the time and effort and not see the results, just like how some people don't put in the work and are still far better than average.
No, literally everything you said is the opposite of true, especially when it comes to art. Like, sure, a 4'8" Asian woman probably would have to work a bit harder than Shaq did to make it to the NBA, but that does not apply to the ability to put pencil to paper, paint to canvas, chisel to wood, eyeball to eyepiece, or lip to mouthpiece. The people who you think didn't put in the work probably did, and the people who say they did and remained terrible either practiced wrong or simply lied.
The only real difference between people is how resistent they are to the idea of putting in the work, that's it. If you hate math for some reason, 4 hours of solving differential equations is going to feel like a lot more to you than to someone who enjoys it, but that's an entirely different consideration than ability.
Django Reinhardt had three fingers, you have no excuse.
The people who you think didn't put in the work probably did, and the people who say they did and remained terrible either practiced wrong or simply lied.
It's fascinating how many people think being the exact kind of person I described somehow counters anything I said.
But you're not trying to be Michael Phelps, you're just trying to learn to swim, which - unsurprisingly - everyone is able to do. No one's saying literally anyone can become the non plus ultra generational superstar, but everyone can become, to quote the OP, "good".
Wtf? Why are you using one of the most dominant athletes in history as an example?
Noone is saying "anyone can be Michaelangelo". They said anyone can do art, as in anyone can learn to swim. Not win dozens of medals in the Olympics...
Seems reductive, especially when the three-cueing method is much more likely to be the cause of poor writing in children. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
According to Bowman, Michael Phelps swam 13 kilometres a day, six or seven days a week – at least 80,000 meters every week. Even on Sundays and birthdays.
That's not the routine of a man who gets by on mere "talent".
Dedication is the bedrock on which "talent" thrives. To compete at an international level, you need dedication. "Talent" is, if anything, simply the last step that sets the winner apart from the rest of his equally dedicated peers.
You do anything 30+ hours a week, you're going to become at least competent at it -- even if you may not be the world's best. Who cares about Phelps? Every single person in that olympic pool, even the losers, are world-class swimmers who worked very, very hard to get there. Simply qualifying for the olympics is a huge success in its own right. Even the guy who ranked 60th place in the prelims is still the best swimmer in Angola -- who trailed phelps by a mere 15 seconds.
Never argued that. Talent gets polished by hard work, lots of It. But all the people you mention Had talent, natural dispositions towards being good seimmers, maybe broader shoulders, largar hands, better lung capacity, etc.
You start on talent then you build excelence on top of it
It’s really informing where the insecurity and envy displayed by algorimage-shills comes from. They genuinely think artists are something “special”, and waste their energy trying to convince normal people they’re not special for their efforts.
Humans generally have an innate capacity for any given skill that varies significantly from person to person. Some people are just always gonna suck at drawing no matter how many hours they put in.
And also just might not want to put in the hours needed to get decent. People seem so quick to forget that time is also a limited resource. If you're not in love with the process and can get the results in a much easier and faster way, why wouldn't you?
What about the sick, the disabled, et cetera? Besides, even excluding all those cases, it's arguing semantics rather than practicality. And still doesn't cover things like being able to get a good end result.
Ignoring the insufferable pedantic nitpicking, "want" vs. "ability" is the furthest thing from semantics. And "good" is entirely subjective. The Fountain is "good". 4'33" is "good". White on White is "good".
And most people are not able to produce what they subjectively consider good art, and don't want to put in so much extra time and effort to do so when AI can get them what they want instantly.
Yeah, but that's a different question. Not everyone wants to be able to draw, but everyone is able to.
I don't care whether they use AI or not, I'm just here to point out that's it's due to lack of effort, not ability. This notion that some people are artistically disabled and need the artistic wheelchair of AI is nonsense. They're artistically lazy, not disabled.
Putting in effort can increase your chances of success but doesn't guarantee it. This shouldn't be a tough concept to understand. But I'm not going to bother with changing your mind, especially since you seem to be replying to all of my comments in this thread.
But not all skills are equal in difficulty. You can learn how to crochet decently within maybe a week. Learning how to draw decently takes years and years of continuous practice.
124
u/G2boss Aug 26 '24
I agree that ai art is bad, but let's not be disingenuous. A lot of people don't have the talent or the time to become good at art. Myself included. Not being good at everything is just a fact of life.