But being able to mechanically draw well doesn’t make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do
High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That’s a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art
Creativity isn’t the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn’t reflective of one’s creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Mechanical skill at manipulating a tool like a brush is not in any way correlated with artistic talent. Creating and imagining the meaningful concepts and transposing them into reality to convey emotional and intellectual meaning is a reflection of artistic quality. Not how good someone is at drawing. If AI can empower person’s to transposing their ideas into reality then it should be encouraged and widely adopted
If you aren’t artistically talented, whether through lack of ability or through disability, then AI is significantly better at turning an idea into existing art than using a pencil/paintbrush/pen
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
The point is that the system itself is the issue. Calling out specific reasons for that is fine if you do so to call attention to its presence as the bigger systemic threat. But debating if one effect of capitalism is worse than another effect ignores the fact that we should be focusing on capitalism as a whole
AI can be bad only because capitalism is bad. Address the root cause
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn’t like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
System A is bad
System A produced Product 1 and Product 2
Product 1 and Product 2 are therefore bad because they were produced through System A
Criticizing Product 2 without criticizing Product 1 is an incomplete analysis; and criticizing either Product is foolish because System A is the cause of the issue
System A must be destroyed in order to prevent it from creating new Products that will be bad, and to undo the badness of the existing Products.
System A is capitalism
you’re buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience
The electronic device you used to make this post was also made by exploiting wage laborers for the benefit of capitalists. Yet, you found that device to be so convenient that you still bought and used it anyway. The same could be said for all of the other goods and services that you use.
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in anothers
that’s a select group of people
Analyzing your query: It is indeed challenging to accurately verify if responses on Reddit originate from authentic human participants or sophisticated algorithmic entities. Therefore, the reliability of Reddit discourse as representative data remains uncertain.
Look at how much .world or reddit downvote and deride posts critical of Democrat behavior since the beginning on the election
Agreed, but why should we still presume that upvotes reflect genuine user opinion as opposed to astroturfing?
It seems that lib-aligned groups use Reddit to manufacture approval for their clients. Given this, why should we view Reddit as a credible window into popular opinion? The entire site is an infomercial at this point
Exploitation wearing a friendly mask
Vs
Exploitation wearing its true face
Either way, the masses are exploited. A better alternative is possible
consider making another account on an instance that is defederated with as few instances as possible
Any recommendations for such an instance? Or recommendations on where to find such information?
that’s not an option
Why?
It is a viable option. There is nothing preventing the Democrats from opposing genocide
Biden could do so tomorrow. Harris could then continue that policy
She will have the same position on genocide as Biden
Kamala will be the same as Biden on practically every issue
Which overall, is fine.
But on this issue of genocide, is damning
I want zero genocide
The Democrats want genocide
The Republicans want genocide
I want zero genocide
The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.
Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.
Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.
Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.
As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.
AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.
The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.