Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
let us look at music.
real art = zero to none listeners
popmusic = ppl love it
from what i understand most humans like popular things so they can align with a herd.
while artists will keep making art, ppl will keep ignoring it.
Color cinema was also considered a crutch at its creation.
You’ve decided all popular music is bad and only the obscure stuff you listen to is art? And you expect me to take you seriously?
if you had any concept of music history you’d know they said that about all the music you think is worthy, Dylan almost had his show ended by an axe wielding Pete Seeger because he played a new fangled electric guitar and Pete thought that meant it wasn’t real music.
Art it’s the same, cezanne got endless hate for not doing real art, and literature Shakespeare wasn’t a real writer because he didn’t know enough Greek…
You’re just filling the role of antiquated gate keeper in a drama that’s played out a billion times with your side losing every single time. Good luck though I guess?
You have completely misunderstood what i am saying.
AI is not the end of art as many people have decried it. It is simply the beginning of a new era.