The part you’re still not grasping, despite my already having explained it once, is that in order to create this perfect prompt you’re imagining - in order to actually be the person who would make all those choices - you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice. Is there some version of AI art where experienced artists use it as their medium in lieu of pencil or oil paint or digital art? Maybe. But that’s not the point of all this, is it? The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice, but the person who has no training or practice is never going to be able to create that perfect prompt that you somehow imagine exists.
(All of which is putting aside that when you move a brush the paint goes where you want and is the colour you want, whereas a prompt will always be filtered through the random distortion field of a stastical association model, but we don’t even need to get into that)
You are misreading what I have written. I even explicitly said “No one is saying that.” In response to your earlier claim.
“you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice”
Yes. Exactly.
The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice,
That’s not the argument I made! You are way into strawman territory.
I claim that AI can be art because it is a tool that requires human intent. The type of effort is irrelevant. Everyone against AI art dismisses the effort of writing careful exacting instructions to achieve a result. Movie directors are considered artists despite not sewing the costumes, painting the sets, or writing the words. They only prompt others into achieving their vision.
The part you’re still not grasping, despite my already having explained it once, is that in order to create this perfect prompt you’re imagining - in order to actually be the person who would make all those choices - you’d have to have the kind of experience that only comes from years or decades of practice. Is there some version of AI art where experienced artists use it as their medium in lieu of pencil or oil paint or digital art? Maybe. But that’s not the point of all this, is it? The promise of AI is that it’s supposed to allow everyone and anyone to be Van Gogh, without any training or practice, but the person who has no training or practice is never going to be able to create that perfect prompt that you somehow imagine exists.
(All of which is putting aside that when you move a brush the paint goes where you want and is the colour you want, whereas a prompt will always be filtered through the random distortion field of a stastical association model, but we don’t even need to get into that)
You are misreading what I have written. I even explicitly said “No one is saying that.” In response to your earlier claim.
Yes. Exactly.
That’s not the argument I made! You are way into strawman territory.
I claim that AI can be art because it is a tool that requires human intent. The type of effort is irrelevant. Everyone against AI art dismisses the effort of writing careful exacting instructions to achieve a result. Movie directors are considered artists despite not sewing the costumes, painting the sets, or writing the words. They only prompt others into achieving their vision.