Books are fatal: they are the curse of the human race. Nine-tenths of
existing books are nonsense, and the clever books are the refutation
of that nonsense.
— Benjamin Disraeli, 1870:I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which … that ninety percent
of SF is crud.
— Theodore Sturgeon, Venture Science Fiction, 1958AI will turn the steaming pile of decomposing crud into a dumpster
fire you can see from space. This will bring the Reapers.
— Me, Slack Jawed with Wonder, 13 November 2024
I’ve quoted myself above, so I don’t feel the need to reproduce it
here. This post is going to be a defense of using AI art, if not to
you, then to myself.
First, I try to respect living artists. Here’s a phrase I like to use:
I do not ‘make’ AI art, I commission the algorithm. I have an idea, the
algorithm makes it ‘real’.
Second, a commissioned work will never really
capture zeitgeist, or “the spirit of the times.” Many artists
cut their teeth copying artists they admire. One could make the
argument that the training an AI goes through is very much the
same. The difference here is between introspection and regurgitation.
So, a syllogism.
My major premise is that AI art is no different than a Jacquard
loom: it only produces what it’s been made to produce. Second, AI art
isn’t introspective. There is no interior dialog in what it
creates.
AI art will never tell us anything about ourselves. It certainly can’t
tell us where we’re going. It can only give us pretty pictures of
where we’ve been. At rock bottom prices.
In other words, fertilizer. High Tech Cow Pats. A lot of sites
(including the one I use) are giving it away, practically
free. Practically free is a price I can afford, at the moment.
So as long as this site isn’t generating any revenue, and has only one
other person dropping in, I will continue to use AI art.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. We’re all in
this together.