They didn’t claim anyone was trying to stop them from making art. In the context of the rest of the post, that is about how a lack of a specific tool or software won’t stop artists from creating art.
You’re spot on about them trying to stop paying people for art, though.
Hmm, who is this Rose fellow?
Michael Rose is a senior resident in internal medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
The only person The Atlantic could find to peddle this shit isn’t even allowed to practice medicine without supervision? lmao
Did you see that there is a word that comes after digital?
A digital artist—that is, an artist whose medium of choice is digital—is still able to make art in other mediums without ceasing to be a digital artist. That doesn’t make the other art digital, and they didn’t claim that it did.
If typing in prompts to generate images from the stolen work of artists makes someone an artist, then so does commissioning art and giving feedback based on how you want it changed. If you’re not okay calling that person an artist, ask yourself why you’re fine with calling AI ‘artists’ that.
In the OP their entire medium and tool set was taken away and they still made art. Not sure how that’s not demonstrating perfectly that an artist can make art no matter what they have on hand.
They weren’t saying that the rock art was digital art.
They’re saying that as an artist whose medium of choice is digital, they can still make art in other mediums and that any artist will be able to do the same, no matter their medium.
The more accurate comparison would be people who can both draw and pay other people to use photoshop for them based on what they tell them that they want. Outsourcing the art making process and giving feedback based on what you’re presented with has always been an option, AI ‘artists’ just don’t want to pay for it or admit that’s what they’re doing.
Even a 3D artist who has never used clay before is going to be able to make something from it that looks good, just because so many of the same artistic principles and methods of thinking about how to modify what you’re working on to get the result you want still apply.
Give an AI ‘artist’ anything other than a plagiarism machine and suddenly they can’t do anything, because they don’t want to actually put in the time and effort to understand art beyond ‘this one looks good and this one doesn’t’.
Yeah, I could be on Reddit all day if I wanted to… I don’t want to, it’s radioactive at this point. Might as well go frolicking in the dump.
Same. I might be able to pick a few of mine out of the yearbook if I had to find their names somehow, but I wouldn’t know them if I saw them now.
Anything above ground level = cliff, to a pigeon. I bet this is a 2nd+ story entrance to an apartment.
You’re gonna take a girl home and fuck her in the ass and then get mad when you find poop?? This is an occupational risk of ass fucking. Do you not have access to a shower and washing machine?
According to OP’s previous comments the dev of this has spent 600k of their own money on this. If that claim is legitimate then feel free to draw your own conclusions about why someone with 600k to burn would spend it on an NFT crypto reddit, but without images.
That’s fair! It’s entirely possible they got rolled by The Atlantic and didn’t know what the editors were going to do to the piece. But like, at the same time maybe question why a national publication would need someone who isn’t able to practice on their own to do an opinion piece about something highly politicized… (them before they agreed to write the piece I mean, if that wasn’t clear)