yet another AI art opinion

(no, I don't and will not use it.)
(but also I'm not entirely against it.)

let's start with some directions I find not particularly interesting...
(challenge: surprise me here)

"AI art has no soul  put into it"

And by this, I mean the idea that there's a detectable essence to art (the end product) which AI cannot generate. I don't buy this. With careful selection, AI art is indistinguishable from human art. If this isn't true of your niche now, it's not hard to imagine this can change.

"AI can never be as creative as a human"

This one's just not even wrong — AI is not the one purporting to be creative. The one who prompted and selected (presumably with careful intent!) the AI art is.

What if we compare the prompter to a photographer? Is there any commonality? I think there's something to be investigated here... the possibility of which is completely steamrolled with this false comparison.

"AI art threatens livelihoods"

I actually have compartmentalized thoughts on this.

On one hand, duh. We all know artists need to eat. Of course it's important to affirm the importance of artists within the [furry] community.

But also, I don't like treating art like a product of capitalism and the algorithm-catering growth mindset that this implies. Just think of literally any youtuber who has spoke of the insidious weight of this framing on their productions and personal growth (excluding Mr. Beast... he breathes a different air or something). It's a little dystopian when it's simultaneously expanded and reduced as, "hey enough people like you (your art) so you get to not starve! yay!" y'know?

Like yes, this is what reality is, in some sense. But we don't have to think of it like that while still supporting artists materially.

Also, an AI art takeover isn't like shuttering a small-town manufacturing plant — this loss is decentralized (in physical space...). When it comes down to it, most artists can and will find something else around them. They won't literally starve.

But that we speak as if they will, that's deeply symbolic.
It's us subconsciously wielding the power of the society we live in, metaphorically equating the destruction of the furry economy with some profound loss to furry itself.

ofc, that metaphor (and to what extent it's just  a metaphor) should be scrutinized... the artist-client relationship is complicated, and beyond that, smth smth furry, consumerism, status, post-scarcity, etc. I think there's actually a lot to say about (around?) this point.

And I lied; I think this argument actually gets at something substantial (foreshadowing). It's just hidden under the "art = job = money" cover, which makes it unconvincing to a certain flavor of AI-bro who uses the cover to proclaim they're doing the same thing as everyone else (all while further degrading the status of art). Or even more charitably, the furry who uses the "art = consumption = fandom participation = status" equivalence class glob of a thought to portray AI art as equalizing fandom access.

replicating an artist's style with AI

I just don't think there's much to discuss here...

it's obviously an asshole thing to do.
everyone with a brain to be reasoned with knows this.

sometimes community norms dictate what's right and that's that.

I have similar thoughts around closed species. respect the original artist if you want, or not. the community dictates the consequences.

but relatedly...

plagiarism machine / art theft / etc

no, AI is not a copier. I won't bother delineating the differences.

also controversial take, but I think if you put your art online, you're implicitly letting it be defaced or derived... like valid to be upset at any development you didn't forsee, but that's kinda just how things go on the high seas.

I deeply empathize with the hurt felt by artists over the lack of consent... I think it's right  in some way for artists to feel hurt! But I simultaneously think this take lacks power towards its targets. It's just so removed from the actual experience of generating AI art, the explicit violation of consent so invisible, that it can feel nonsensical. And that's what matters.

Like, the user had no hand in the training data... even if they are slightly supporting this maybe immoral thing by engaging with the responsible corporation, how much attention do you pay to if your products were produced in a sweatshop? Isn't your direct monetary support of something even more dubious worse?

Note, the point of this isn't to engage in tu quoque  or whataboutism. It's not attacking the validity (nor even the soundness) of the argument, but merely how motivated you are by its form. Hence, why do you think the user should feel moved either?

*any argument about effort or skill*

I can buy that prompting and selection takes an eye and effort. But further, I think it's a general principle that any barrier be justified and artificial scarcity is stupid. Yeah yeah, maybe you  find the value of art cheapened if it was produced by a process you don't like. But you don't weep for the AI bro. At the end of the day, beauty is in the eye of the beholder[s], and you can't rain on their parade...

...or can you?

Here's my attack, and simultaneously my bet.

Rants about how AI art is "bad" only serve to reinforce norms around AI usage in the fandom. And while that's a good thing, it doesn't directly address the deeper threat posed by generative AI:  how the confluence between it and today's society yields destructive attitudes towards creative communities.

AI enthusiasts will be unconvinced by the noise, and the allure of "accessible" custom art will always tempt.

The anti-AI side needs its own bait.

Communities carve themselves out amongst each other, and a core defining aspect of each is what relative advantages  they offer to their participants. In the face of AI's unavoidable advance, "artistic merit" is turned mundane. Customization has lost its value. The mere possession of imagery no longer a reliable signal for authentic identity.

What artists need to do is wax unapologetically about art.

We need to emphatically challenge the "AI-artists":
Do you really understand what it is to be an artist?
Do you know what it means to take on that label?
Do you know what it's like to form a relationship  with a piece?

Be genuine; don't be afraid of sounding pretentious. Take the high points of your artistic being and expand on them... for just like life, most days of being an artist are pretty ordinary. Yet, there are moments which fill themselves with intense meaning and depth. What makes those moments possible? Through context and process, where does meaning spring from? How does art make you alive?

Or from a bird's eye view, the smear of ordinary days assemble into something grand and lively. What is it that you find yourself doing when you look from above, and how is it that art permeates it, holds it, shapes it...

And then even in the ordinary act of making art, what is its essence? Do you love your media? Your mindset? The shaping of your ideas necessary to do what you do?

With all this, the point is to sow existential doubt.

Maybe the AI artist will realize they fail to relate not because you're incomprehensible, or being overcomplicated, but because they're missing out on all the depth and breadth of experience necessary to comprehend your joy. And maybe then they will positively question their place in the world.

If an AI artist can take up the challenge, identify with what I'm doing, and find their own meaning within my words... then y'know what, I'm ok with that.

We've come to an understanding.

We're doing enough of the same thing that I can look past the superficial differences and appreciate their work. I'm at rest, reassured that the world they stand for isn't ignorantly squashing art's potential simply because it's hard to recognize and speak of. Because fundamentally, what's important is a personal perception that it's not the art or media itself which holds any actual value, but how we interact with and view it, from conception to dispersion. And that, like so many "simple" truths, is easy to state but hard to digest.

So in the end, this extends far beyond the issue of AI art.

I think by having more of these kinds of discussions, by closely examining what makes us move, we all grow.

And maybe in sharing them, we can grow a little together.

As artists, as people.