You got it absolutely backwards: all they can do is project an image. AI models don't draw, they dream up. There is no canvas, no brush, no paint, no rough draft, no refined draft, none of the actual labor an artist performs between imagining what they want to draw and showing the final picture to others. Yes, artists do do something very similar to what an AI model does… as a step zero, out of many, all of which AI model skips.
You are adding extra steps into the process to define "real art".
Honestly, right now you are entering into realm where we are to ask "what even is art", because your definition here makes so that anyone using digital tools
is not an artist because no stuff you list. Or how about those who do splatter painting? Is that not "real art" because there is no rough draft or refined draft or anything, just paint being thrown at the cloth and called "art"? Do you believe that Jackson Pollock was
not an artist?
See, if we are going this route, we should have solid definition of "what is True Art" so we can say what is, and isn't, art. Is a child drawing lines on paper art?
Is someone setting up a bucket and a swing to put paint on canvas a art? Notice how there is no draft, no brush, no actual labor since all work is done by paint and bucket.
But if we define "putting paint into bucket and making it swing, then curating result" as labour, what is difference when it comes to people who need to constantly adjust weights and prompts, perhaps even drawing a reference picture? Is that not labour?
Source or GTFO, because I'm not gonna take the argument that your brain is just some 'chemical algorithm' on faith alone. This reeks of pulp-scifi 'humans are just algorithms' nonsense.
It sounds more like an excuse to value the work of machines over people.
I trust you can prove that there is some quantifiable "human" element that is separate from, well, how actual humans work? Our brains are chemical computers. Can you prove existence of "soul" that separates us from everything else?
My argument is that we are part of the natural world, with all the limitations and results that come from it. You, on the other hand, are right now arguing there is some inexplicable quantity that only a living beings posses that separates us from computers.
I am going to give you a hint: there is no difference between living human and non-living human, except end of chemical processes (which get replaced by
another chemical processes). Our brains don't think everything through, they use shortcuts, or as you would call them,
algorithms to quickly solve problems we face every single day. Something as simple as walking is our brain running an algorithm on the background to make millions of micro adjustments to make sure we keep falling forward, without falling down.
That is not to say that you should just accept "it's all algorithms" as a valid argument for treating AI art as original art — you shouldn't. After all, by these standards "cut-and-paste" would be considered "not a plagiarism" as well, not to mention more transformative algorithms like, say, jpeg compression.
My point was less "it's all algorithms", it was rejection of notion that what computers do is "just an algorithm", as if humans have some strange exclusive inner power (often called "soul") that gives art meaning.
