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.
Isn’t that what the person you replied just said?
No. The person I replied to was exclusively praising skill and emphasizing its relevance to the final product. I pointed out that effort does not by default result in an original or creative product. OP dismisses effort and equates time with quality. Take for instance japanese calligraphy: the master places only a handful of strokes to render something gorgeous. On the other hand, someone could spend 80 hours meticulously recreating a photorealistic portrait in watercolor but it’s just a human xerox at that point. The human element is completely missed.
They didn’t say that though? The last paragraph made it clear (to me) that they were saying the end result isn’t the only part of at that makes it impressive, but also the effort/skill involved
I guess you’re right. I suppose this last phrase threw me off:
The way I read it this statement stands apart from the rest of their comment. Skill is nice–I agree–but I stand by my original statement: time or effort does not by default result in an artistic product. I suppose I could have read it wrong in that the comment as a whole is a bit disjointed.