FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
In your case, AI was used as an intermediate step in a larger workflow. You maintained the creative final OK for the output. You aren’t selling the output, and (I assume) you are disclosing your use of AI, or are at least not trying to hide it. IMO this is just about the best case scenario for AI use.
When there is no input but prompts, no QC, being sold as human art to people who don’t know any better (or worse, those who don’t care), that’s where artistic merit dies.
Anybody can bash on some keys. Piano, PC…
inriconus@programming.dev 4 days ago
I do openly disclose my use of AI and I have no intention on selling them.
While anyone can bash on some keys, it is becoming more difficult to even prove something wasn’t created by AI.
So, that spurs another question; If someone made it a goal to generate something fake and fool everyone that they create, while the artwork was generated and is not their own, the intention was to fool everyone to make a statement… would the deception be a form of art?
FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Not in my eyes. Fraud is fraud. Gives off prankster “social experiment” vibes and I don’t consider prank videos art either.
inriconus@programming.dev 3 days ago
That’s a good point, it would be fraud, but art is very interpretive.
It reminds me of that Banksy painting that he put a shredder in the frame and it was put on auction. When the painting sold for $1.4 million, the painting proceeded to shred.
I don’t know if that Banksy painting would be considered fraud or not, but he definitely made a statement.