Take the computer from a real artist, they can still make art. Do the same to an AI "artist" and see how long they keep claiming to be such.

I'm a digital chef, I prompt the dish I want into doordash and it shows up in my home in 45 minutes.

Being good at prompting AI to generate art is like being good at using a search engine to find a specific picture.

~~Search engine~~ AI artists!

AI-generated art is an incredible tool for art design. I used to spend countless hours sifting through Google images, trying to piece together mood boards or find references for very specific concepts. Now, with AI, I can quickly generate visuals that capture the exact mood, style, or design I'm aiming for, saving both time and effort.
However, I view AI art as a starting point, not the final product. Once I’ve developed a clear visual direction, I hand these concepts over to a skilled artist to bring the idea to life with depth, creativity, and a human touch that AI simply can’t replicate. AI streamlines the creative process, but it doesn’t replace the artistry and nuance that only human creators can deliver.
It's a lot like commissioning something from an artist. You have to describe what you want, with the style, details and mood you want to see, then maybe go back and forth a few times until it's just right. Doing that well is a skill, so are things like art direction. But replacing the humans executing on the direction with a machine doesn't suddenly make the directing human an artist.
You’re being facetious but searching is a skill too. A simple skill but still a skill.
- Nobody said it wasn't a skill, just that it isn't the same thing as creating art. You know, the thing that artists do.

5000 years later:

"And here we see a fertility figure, commonly worshipped in the late Microplastic era".

"Nothing will stop real artists from making art."

I think this is kinda an empty sentiment. Nobody is trying to stop artists from making art. They're just trying to stop paying a lot of them for their art.

Talks about real art being unique and then goes and draws the most generic, cliched furry shit that looks exactly like a million others.

That. And the famous equation rendering == art. Like, raw art? not art! Naive art? Not art! Performance ?not art.
- Is performing not rendering? Wtf is "raw art"? And being naive doesn't stop you from rendering. None of your examples make any sense.

If you take away an artist's brushes, they can't make art without making new brushes.

All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.

I don't like AI art, but I don't think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.

There are a ton of other types of art than those using brushes. Hell, the example is using something other than a brush.

By coincidence, a friend just posted this elsewhere:

This is the equivalent of "you should learn to do all types of complex math shit in your head because you won't always have a calculator with you". Except you can now whip out your phone.
Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve. It's a bit like encouraging people to take apprenticeships in chimney sweeping or lessons on how to be a royal jester. Do what makes you happy, sure - but be prepared to do it as a hobby not as a job. Especially if the machines can outbid you.
Some jobs become obsolete as time passes. If artists are next to be this century's town criers, that's okay. We'll all become obsolete sooner or later.
- Before the electronic calculators, “computer” was a career. Much like today, the scientists and engineers would write out the equations that need to be solved, but then pass the work to a “computer” to plug in actual numbers. The difference is modern computers are electronic and historic computers were humans who did arithmetic as a career.
  Here’s the relevant Wikipedia article:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
  But those scientists and engineers still knew how to do math, even if they were offloading that work most of the time. The point being, it’s still important to learn how to do math, even if you won’t be the one actually doing it most of the time, and this has been true for hundreds of years, well before electronic calculators and computers.
- Imagine trying to convince someone to spend 5 years of their life learning to paint, instead of just waiting for technology to improve.
  You mean like they had to do for virtually all of human history? I can imagine it quite well.
  If artists are next to be this century’s town criers, that’s okay.
  This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. As if art was meaningless to humanity.
  I suppose you would have an AI paint over the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

This rocks

It's the one rock actually

And the best they could come up with was anthro shit?