You are free to choose human-made art, no one is taking that away from you. You are free to not consider AI-made art as not real art. But if someone considers them as art then they are art. That is the subjectivity of art, no one has the authority to decide what is art or not.
We had these discussions when photography started, there was a time when physical artists did not consider digital art 'art' and thought that people who used Photoshop were not artists. But today we know that they are artists.
And let me ask you a question is art really a human-only characteristic? Or do we ascribe art as a human-only characteristic because we humans see ourselves as a superior species? Would you not consider art made by an animal, not art?
How does an animal consider art? A design for a species of fish in their mating mound is not something to be considered as art. You are ascribing human characteristics to animals and I don’t think that’s a path I agree with. Yes it has a design and purpose but we call it art because we are human and have the concept of art. They only ascribe it to a way to reproduce.
I’m not being dismissive but I also think art, being the human concept by our creation in some form, to be uniquely human. Giving a program a few prompts to give you an image that it creates is not my definition of art. If you hand drew it on a computer with a stylus pen that’s one thing but giving it a few words isn’t.
By painting on a canvas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee) is just a brief summary, but as you can see animals have the ability to produce art and be considered artists.
As I said you ascribe art to be a thing that could only be done by humans because you think humans are a superior species.
Once again as I said earlier, no one has the ability to decide what is art. Not you, not me. If someone thinks something is art. Then it is art. You are free to dislike it, you are free to call it 'not art'. But trying to punish and hate people that do not follow your interpretation of what is art is a line gone too far. This is what this post was about because the current trend on Hive is exactly that.
Well clearly no one can beat you in a discussion so congrats.
I and many others will definitely reduce rewards or eliminate them for things we disagree with on the AI front. It's a new era we are living in but these are our choices. We are free to do what we see fit and I see AI material as a threat to the future of humanity and will act accordingly. You can post what ever you want, just don't get upset if people disagree with the value of it. Just the same as you disagreeing with the value of what others put out. That's the benefit of this experiment called hive.
I never said you are not allowed to adjust rewards, that is the right of every stakeholder of Hive. And in time people even might value AI art in different ways.
What this post was about, is dispelling the arguments against AI art that people use to hate people that want to make use of this tool. I am not advocating for rewarding AI art.
There is hate against people using AI image-generation tools, but there is no hate for people using machine translations. Translation is an art in itself. But we don't go around adjusting rewards on those posts that make use of MTLs, do we? This to me seems a little bit hypocritical. You can be hypocritical as much as you wish. But I would prefer that you are made aware of this hypocrisy.
We are having a discussion, there are no winners or losers in a discussion. It is about challenging ideas, exchanging ideas and maybe cause to new ideas to flourish.