AlphaWrite: AI that improves at writing by evolving its own stories

> many, many artists share this point of view

Bandwagon fallacy.

> slop-generating

Strawman. I never said what level of quality I find acceptable to sign off on.

> algorithmic regurgitation

Computational generative art has been practiced since the 1950s, and mathematically-derived generative art has been done by hand even farther back since at least the 19th century. Is a century not long enough time for people to accept it as a valid form of expression?

> the basic definition of an artistic creation ... disgustingly vapid and far from art

Gatekeeping, and No true Scotsman fallacy. Art is subjective.

> Comparing this to typing, editing, calculating and reprinting tools like the ones you mention is laughable and factually wrong

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, you also have missed the point of the analogy. I won't rehash what I said there.

> Even a calculator isn't the same

The accuracy and social validity of calculators were distrusted for a long time, and computers as well.

> It doesn't create your mathematical equations for you

It takes care of a lot of what was considered by many to be essential duties for any self-respecting mathematician of the era. Photoshop and cameras were similarly criticized. Learn some art history before dismissing this stuff.

> But to have AI create for you while calling yourself an artist is simply lazy intellectual dishonesty

You clearly have little idea how artists are integrating these tools into their work, and how it is allowing them to think and operate at a higher level, just like digital painting did to traditional painting, even though many felt "technique" was lost or ignored, they themselves ignore all of the new technique that comes with mastering new creative tools.

If you don't like the art, fine. If you don't like it solely on the basis of how it was created, that's fine, but it is by definition bias. But it's arrogant to go even further and start declaring what is and isn't art, and who is and isn't an artist. That is not for you to decide. Furthermore, your argument is riddled with fallacies and needs serious review.

> What i'm seeing here are the arguments of an apparently typical AI bro

Ad hominem and a clear display of bias. You know nothing about me, my history or capabilities.

> Sure, there are artists who use AI to create interesting projects that I would call art

> And yes, I declare myself completely able to say that shit like that isn't art

Gatekeeping, again.

The rest of your post regurgitates your previous post, and completely fails to address my previous rebuttal. Your argument is disingenuous, tired and still riddled with issues. Take the L and learn to not arrogantly force your world view onto other creatives.

> I don't think you get to decide as much as you think you do

Art is subjective, and I will say one last time: No one should be so arrogant as to assume that they have any business dictating the relationship between an artist and their patrons.

> I'm judging because I think the primary legacy of slop machines is are sucking life out of people who put in blood and sweat

So you admit that you are operating from a position of bias. At least you can recognize that, but it means that there is very little use in attempting to have an earnest, healthy conversation with you on this topic.

> who put their soul and themselves into their art because it is how they define themselves

I also define myself as an artist, and I put my soul into it, but apparently I have to get conartist6's permission before publicly calling myself an artist if I happen to use generative techniques. How tiring.

> I have the freedom to judge you

Yes, you do. Judge away. Meanwhile, I have art to make and share with others who appreciate my creative expression.

The most salient irony of this conversation is that you think you are protecting and appreciating some kind of sacred art, when from my perspective you are simply gatekeeping and seem to have an incomplete, narrow appreciation of what art is.

I appreciate art and expression of all forms, both familiar and strange. I don't base my appreciation of art on how hard the artist worked on a particular piece. I have intricate, original pieces hanging on my walls that I bought for several thousand dollars, right next to two-minute doodles that I bought for five dollars. If you truly appreciate art and human expression, you will reconsider why your argument comes off as judgemental and hateful.

Ad hominem is what people do when they lack a more convincing direct argument. It's one thing to draw attention to relevant attributes of a speaker, it's another to say "What i'm seeing here are the arguments of an apparently typical AI bro", which is literally an attempt to discredit an argument by insulting and pigeonholing the speaker, instilling bias, instead of engaging with the argument itself. It is childish, and poor taste.

> no input on your part except for some prompts, you're not a creative

Hm, some people disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_art

You can shout at clouds and spread hate online all you want, but you still don't have the power to declare someone a creative or not. I did not grant you that power and neither has anyone else. Your criticism is yours alone of which to bear the weight, meanwhile I'm gonna go make art with cool revolutionary tools that redefine what it can mean to be an artist and allow many more people to participate in self-expression.

It sounds like a lovely collection of art curated by someone with an eye for creative expression.

My intent was to be judgemental and by doing so to make you uncomfortable. I hope you appreciate the reasons why this technology is a steamroller to those on the receiving end of it, who will create backlash in self-preservation as they are facing an existential struggle against an opponent with trillions of dollars of incentive not to stop steamrolling