No one's arguing that the people using generative AI are enthralled with the methods, and I expect that people that make spin art are equally enthralled with the process and also amazed at the images they create, but I wouldn't call either art.
> I am not surprised people find compilers exciting, and equally enthralled with the compilation process and also amazed at the binary outputs they create, but I wouldn't call describing program flow using a higher level language programming.
If the artist/developer can describe what they see in their mind's eye using a higher level of abstraction, does that invalidate value and function of the output?
Basically, I think there is a risk that someone becomes overly enamored with the generative process, and just creates something that is solely an outcome of that generative process. A good example for this is the generative tree drawing algorithms. Great, a line drawing that resembles a tree, "look what we can make tech do!" That is math and algorithms, not art.
I agree with that entirely. That is already happening at a concerningly rapid pace with little in its way and will only speed up.
Invalidate? No.
Devalue? Yes.
In both cases you can actually get better at throwing input into your process to achieve results that you like more.
Gatekeeping lmao, art is whatever any of us want it to be. Hell, this comment is art, wanna buy the nft?