> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad.
That's prejudice.
That's prejudice.
Do you think it’s unfair for people to dislike AI generated art based on their principles?
And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
A fair retort is that holding every creative output to this standard, like a flyer for a community fair, is needlessly critical. That is not an unreasonable position. Still, I think it is fair for one to believe that using an AI image is a clear low-effort signal that strips away the human element that makes community events appealing in the first place. And for commercial products: if your ad is low effort, why should I believe your product is not?
Again, that is not what is being described here: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else."
> And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
If someone strongly values human agency and intent, knowing a piece lacks both (in part, or entirely) is a completely rational reason to call it bad. Many would argue (myself included) that the primary difference between "art" and "content" is human agency, effort, and intent. The more the outcome is driven by a black-box algorithm, the more that agency and intention are compromised.
What is being described is not "factoring". Factoring implies multiple datapoints were merged together. The quote demonstrates that only one data point was used.
You can see it again with "provenance isn't separate from art". What the quote describes is "provenance replaces art", which is prejudice.