>

I wonder (not being in the know so to speak) - aren't images, or rather, isn't imagery something that can be considered art?  IF SO, it seems like this "distinction" would, lexically speaking, risk creating more confusion, and not less (IF I am not being an idiot, or aren't mistaken, at least).
I have a felling that you are combining two points into one here:
1). "AI art" is not liguistically precise, so we should use "AI image generator" instead
AND
2). Artificially generated art should not be consider "art".
When it comes to 1) - well, it's probably true that "AI image generator" is more precise than "AI art", it is still not precise at all. As an AI engineer I know that the term "artifical intelligence" has nothing to do with any intelligence - it's just really sophiscticated math. So shouldn't we try to force the name "sophiscticated math applied as an image generator" instead? It's much more precise (but probably still not precise enough).
Also - for people who doesn't know what AI is, I think this is a pretty accurate name actually. Images, paintings, etc. are considered art. They are generated by some magic thing called "AI". And we have a pretty descriptive name "AI Art" - is languange more about being scientifically precise or rather about being descriptive?
The 2). pretty much comes down to a very subjective and individual question of "what is art?". And I believe that other commenters had made a clear argumnets for why the whole process of designing and creating such AI generated images CAN be considered "art" and why for some people AI generated images CAN be viewed as "art". But it's purely subjective at the end of the day.
My point is - languange is not about being precise and art is what you consider it to be. It's impossible to have a precise name for everything, especially something as not-easily-definable as a genre of art.
And while I think I may agree with your last sentence

"AI image generator” is more precise and doesn’t lose anything except unjustified hype

it's not a good reason for me to enforce thousands of people to use different name. >

AI researcher here with many published articles at top venues (the reason I write this is because you wrote that you are an AI engineer so we play the same game). And I agree with everything you wrote except:
"that AI does not have anything to do with intelligence"
The truth is more closer to the following: "We have no freaking idea what intelligence is and/or how to define it." There are certain definitions and approximations that we can use, but they all seem relatively blunt (e.g., IQ scores, Turing test), and always fail to convey the whole picture. 
Consequently, that part of your claim is nonsensical. (For all we know, AI as we know it is intelligent to some degree and is on the path towards intelligence.) >

What I mean here is strictly related to my engineering view on AI - that under each method, model, layer, algorithm, etc. we have a pure math and no human-like mind (like I believe many people see it and media like todescribe it). Wheter or not to consider it "intelligent" is to me more like a philosophical question rather an engineering one.
And that's probably a totally different discussion on whether we can consider AI intelligent or not, is it close to human mind or not, etc. and I must agree with you that it is strongly related to the very blurry definition (or more the lack of clear definiton) of intelligence. 
But I don't think it changes anything in my point - in fact I belive that with that side discussion we are only confirming that we can never make a precise enough name for something. >

What do you mean with a human-like mind? Your first paragraph seems highly subjective and vague.
I agree with your two last paragraphs. >

By a "human-like mind" I mean how generally people understand AI - something that makes conclusions out of thin air in opposition to a construct of math and algorithms working on data, a magic box instead of a product of engineering/research work.
And I think you are right- it is subjective. And you might have a valid point here - maybe what we build is actually something similar to human-like mind. Maybe some super multi-layer deep neural network may be similar to human mind in terms of neurons structure in our brains. Maybe our brain is also only a sophisticated math machine. But again - my subjective opinion here is that it's purely philosophical question.  
EDIT: Adding one more thought.
What I am trying to say that for me AI is about solving math equations or figuring out engineering problems rather than shaping something that can be considered intelligence. >

Then we are in agreement. So, it seems I changed your mind, and if you were to rewrite your text you would say something along the lines of "my intuition or feeling tells me that what we have in AI is not intelligence". My feeling tells me that many (if not most) AI researchers would disagree with you. >

Glad we found a common ground - it was interesting discussion!
Yes - it’s a good rephrase of my text there. You are right - I used too strong words for an opinion.
Actually I know plenty of AI people who share similar views to mine. I even met few professors at my uni who openly were against using the word “intelligence” in term “AI” and preferred using “machine learning” as an umbrella term instead (which again is causing other nomenclature problems). >

I meet professors who are some of the most cited on a daily basis. They have different opinions to each other. Most of them don't care about what intelligence is and see it as a crappy word. But whatever intelligence or creativity is, they would also agree that it is clear that systems like AlphaGo and GPT3 exhibit some part of it.
In regards to ML: It is a part of AI. Any professor or researcher who does not know this is a professor you should ignore. The first AI systems were based on logic and planning, which use no ML at all. For example, multi-agent systems use e.g., game theory and optimization to a great degree, and have outperformed ML systems in many applications. >


Compelling images are not necessary art, if they do not evoke an emotional response. For instance, we would not classify a company’s logo as art, because it is lacking artistic intent.

Boy, I'm sure the people who make them disagree. A lot of effort and intent goes into those.
And say, what about the logo of an art company?

Things which are beautiful and evoke emotion are not art if they lack artistic intent. For instance, a sunset, or a rock formation, or a plant which grows in a fractal pattern may be beautiful and affect the mind in an art-like way, but we don’t call it art because it’s essentially just a result of math and physics and not human expression. AI images are actually a lot like that.

Math is very much used for artistic purposes. From things like the golden ratio to mathematical generation, like the spirograph >

If we're talking about effort and intent as an argument for why a company logo could be art, it's important to note that AI art lacks both effort and intent. >

AI doesn't generate anything without somebody telling it what to generate. The intent comes from there. >

Yes, there's intent on the part of the person inputting a text prompt, but that's analogous to the intent of the wealthy patrons who commissioned works by artists like Da Vinci and Rubens. Since we credit Da Vinci for The Last Supper and Rubens for The Descent from the Cross, and not the patrons who commissioned these works, we ought to "credit" the deep learning algorithms for the "art" they produce rather than crediting the humans who "commission" this "art." >

… and we credit the camera for the photos it produces, not the photographer? >

Okay, so I think that the main overarching point of your argument hinges on the fact that art is primarily an expression of a human, created to convey a message, evoke a feeling, etc. While I agree with this point, I think that your application of it to image generation is mistaken.
The first main thing that sticks out to me is you saying "There’s no mind, or creative intent behind a DALL-E image. It’s a rather mechanical process by which a computer program translates a string of text and some random noise into an image.". And, to some extent this could be true if AI algorithms were used to generate content without any human input, at all. However, the resulting images are a work of the person generating them via dialing in all the settings and writing a prompt. Their inputs are passed through an algorithm that returns a new result. Since humans have long since used tools to transform one medium into another, why would using an AI for that purpose suddenly prevent the users from being artistic? To offer a comparison - taking a photograph is a function where the input is a person specifying a camera's location, rotation, optical and digital processing settings - and the output is an image. What specific quality would separate a photographer using a camera to create art vs a human using an image generation algorithm to create art?
To address your other point,

Compelling images are not necessary art, if they do not evoke an emotional response. For instance, we would not classify a company’s logo as art, because it is lacking artistic intent.

While I agree that purely naturally occurring or random things are generally not art unless framed by a human, the example you picked doesn't relate to the point. The job of graphic designers is to use learned conventions in typography, visual styles, color theory and other fields to craft a logo or a brand that invokes certain feelings or memories for the viewer. While it's a highly "corporatized" example, I don't see a reason to exclude graphic designers from the artist designation.
That brief ramble of mine aside, can you prove that AI use will never constitute artistic intent? For example, generation algorithms let humans combine depictions of things with visual styles or other situations that were never seen before, creating brand new depictions. How could this not be a possible venue of artistic expression? And that is just one example that barely scratches the surface. >

It's telling that OP is not responding to this post.  The camera/photography analogy is spot on. >

No. AI art immediately and concisely communicates the information needed. This is being nit-picky.
It reminds me of when my theatre teacher took the time to tell us how something that happens in real life can be "tragic" as that refers to an event similar to a tragedy, but it's incorrect to call something a "tragedy" in real life, as it is not a play.
The funny thing about language is that it is entirely arbitrary. None of these words have inherent meaning. The purpose of words is to communicate an idea to someone else. "AI art" gets this done, much like how people know what you mean when you refer to something as a "tragedy". >

I agree language is dynamic, the reason I disagree in this case is because I think the term actively contributes to a misunderstanding of what the thing actually is.  I.e. people call it ai art because they think there is a machine creating art but that’s not what’s happening at all. >

Is a sunset art? Is hearing the leaves on the trees and water in the ocean murmer art? >

None of those things are art >

Do they only become art when someone has painted them, or recorded them? Must art be filtered through a person? Can a monkey or elephant create art? >


Do they only become art when someone has painted them, or recorded them?

Yes.

Must art be filtered through a person? 

Yes. Art is that which is intended to be art. Accidental happenstance isn't art.
We can find aesthetic pleasure in a sunset, but we would call it 'beautiful', not 'artistic' (unless you were someone who believed in gods that create sunsets).

Can a monkey or elephant create art?

If they intend to, yes. Since they don't, they can't. >

So if I intend to produce art then whatever I do the outcome is automatically art? That just makes art another way of saying "anything someone says is art is art" >


So if I intend to produce art then whatever I do the outcome is automatically art?

Yesm

That just makes art another way of saying "anything someone says is art is art"

Nope - if you didn't make it, or if you didn't intend for it to be art, then it's not art.
AI art is the artwork of the programmer, because it's the programmer who intends to generate the images. >

Then I'm about to go shit out some art. >


Then I'm about to go shit out some art.

Jolly good. You wouldn't be the first person to present their excrement as art. >

Say you go into your neighbors house. You see a beautiful print framed on their wall. It gives you certain thoughts and emotions, you enjoy looking at it. Are you saying you would not call that thing on their wall art until you knew where it came from? That seems unintuitive. 
It is an outcome, end-state issue. If the product fits the criteria of art, then it’s art. 
Think of it this way: the AI does not generate spontaneously. It does so with a prompt. In a way, this is already like the paintbrush used by the prompting human. It’s just another level of abstraction from the actual creation process, but that is not a new concept; there are other examples of that happening independent of anything to do with computers or AI. For instance, an artist setting a contraption in motion and letting the process create what it creates - that can be art. 
At the end of the day, restricting what is or isn’t art tends to always be the wrong answer. The boundary is always expanding, never constricting >


Are you saying you would not call that thing on their wall art until you knew where it came from? That seems unintuitive. 

If AI gets out of control to the point where people routinely hang it on their walls - yes, probably. 
I struggle to call hotel paintings "art", because they barely have intent. At best they're a piece of interior decor in a shape of a painting. AI images have the same vibe - most of them are generated with the purpose of getting a "pretty picture" and nothing more.
When it comes to actual painting that are just "pretty and nothing more", at least I can appreciate the craftsmanship and skill that went into creating them. With AI, even that is missing. And no, it doesn't take much skill to use AI generators. Especially when compared to real art. >

Surely you agree that I can describe an image that could be evocative and have a deeper meaning to a viewer. In other words, I can describe art in text. If I can do this, then you must agree AI can create art - because the AI will use that same sentence to make an image. If an artist comes up with a provoking or beautiful idea, the AI can execute that vision. There is still intention and meaning in the end product.
As an example, "a figure holding a toy looking out a window". If I put that into a AI art generator, would that image suddenly lose meaning to the viewer? It can still provoke emotions in the viewer about loneliness, or childhood, or disassociation, or whatever the specifics of the piece are. 
The point is, the AI is simply another paintbrush for the artist. The sky is the limit to what can be created, and it's up to the artists to break boundaries. That's the exciting part. >

To me, art had always been a celebration of both skill and creativity. Like already mentioned, one can exist without the other, there are countless paintings that tell no story and are just "aesthetics", but someone still used their mind and body to make them, and that's beautiful. AI takes that away.
If your AI image has a truly creative concept behind it - I might think of it as art. I feel like it would take more than one picture, though, it would need quite a bit of supplementary material. 
Then there's the issue of AI generators being trained on stolen data from actual artists (no, not the same as "inspiration") which muddies the issue even more. >

Lab-grown meat is called "cultivated meat" because it is still meat, despite being grown ex novo from a living creature's tissue sample. Why not call it AI images "generative art"? It's still art, despite the method of creation. >

I would argue that it’s a bit different because “meat” only refers to the product, where “art” implies something about the process.  
I.e. if you found a beautifully patterned painting, and later found out it was just a random water stain on a canvas, you would no longer consider it in the same way.  
Or, if we called meat grown in a lab “cultivated animal flesh” would you still consider it accurate naming? >

If a print is made of a beautiful painting, does the process count? Is a reproduction of an artwork still art? The cast of a bronze? A photo of scrimshaw? Arguing the artistic relevance of 'the process' is arguing the relevance of metaknowledge (not transmitted by the medium) that could be unknown. Does a Van Gogh piece mean less because I didn't know of his suffering? If I believed the water stains' randomness was itself beautiful, would it not be art?          
Meat grown in a lab can be called 'cultivated animal flesh,' because it is. Generative art can be called art because it could be. >

I would argue when you refer to a print as “art”, you’re referring to the artistic intent of the artist who created the original work which is being printed, not the print itself.  
So if you made a print of just some random image, that would not be art >

Perhaps the whole issue is your own understanding of what art is. People generally don’t seem to put as much meaning behind the word as you, and generally I don’t see people struggling with this concept; so perhaps it is just your own understanding? >

By your definition a landscape photograph cannot be art because there is no emotional intention in what is, being photo garphed.
If you now say the photographer framed it and made some choices that may or may not be true, it could easily have been the auto camera settings. In which case the act if choosing the size of the AI picture or cropping it in any way makes it art, which the AI can do on its own. >


It could be the case that AI image generation is a tool artists can use to create art, but then it still doesn’t make sense to call the program an “AI art generator”, because that would be like attributing a painting to the brush rather than the painter.

So then you agree that images created with AI image generation can be "art" - but that the artist is the person who utilized the AI tool, not the tool itself.  But doesn't that still make it accurate to call it "AI art"?  Just because you attribute a painting to the painter, rather than to the brush, doesn't make it any less of a painting.  
Is "AI art" inaccurate just because it implies "art created BY AI" rather than "art created USING AI"? >

"Compelling images are not art if they do not generate an emotional response". 
That is pretty subjective. By that standard I could write off 99% of art as not art. There is a guy around where I live who likes to fly fish. What he did was add paint to his lines and use his fishing technique to paint. I think it's dumb. It's just random ass lines on a page. So since I see absolutely 0 emotional response beyond "well that's fucking stupid", does that mean it's not art? 
Most art is pretty dog shit. As someone who plays online games I often see fan art, and it almost always makes me cringe. The AI generated stuff is actually kinda interesting and makes me take a closer look. So because I see absolutely 0 value in their drawings, does that mean it's not art? No.
Emotional response is not a requirement for something to be art. I personally don't really care for most art, but that doesn't mean it isn't art. Any kind of image generation that exists for the sole purpose of being looked at an appreciated is art. Not all art is good, but it is art. >

You know, I was prepared to speak out against your earlier points until you clarified near the end with

It could be the case that AI image generation is a tool artists can use to create art, but then it still doesn’t make sense to call the program an “AI art generator”, because that would be like attributing a painting to the brush rather than the painter. 

And at this point, I agree with you entirely as to how you're describing the tool of AI image generators. 
I might debate some of your definition of art, particularly in that it's to evoke an emotion. As an artist and a fan of art, I've found that while this is sometimes true, it's also very often true that people get an emotional reaction to art that was never what the artist envisioned or intended, and that other types of art are meant to be thought provoking, rather than emotional in the response they draw. 
Because of those truths, I'd argue that your view of art isn't broad enough to cover all forms and views of art, but to be fair, pretty much nobody agrees exactly on the definition of what art is. >

I do research in AI image generation. I call it that because it’s much more broad a topic because the images I train models to generate aren’t always intended to be art.
For example, I have some models intended to generate training images for med students to recognize different diseases. That’s not intended to be artistic in any way.
Then I have another model that is meant to combine the artistic style of two or more artists into a new style with elements of both. That would be AI generated art because it has artistic intention and applications.
Both terms have their uses. People mainly use the term AI art when talking about AI generated images that are meant to be artistic and I think that’s perfectly appropriate. >

Totally agree! I do AI too but not image related, but I got absolutely distracted by the OP and others who made it only in a single context of “art”, but there are plenty of applications of AI image generation not meant to be art. >

I had this debate recently with my wife, who is an MFA. My position is that it is art because it embodies the intent of the user. AI image generators are tools, like a paintbrush or microphone. In fact, AI is already used in creating art commonly. Photoshop, auto tune, etc are all examples.
"Art" is a creative act. It makes no mention of using tools one way or the other, so it can't be limited by whether certain tools that make the creative process exponentially easier are used or not. >

I agree. 99.999972%
However, some of your supporting comments seem to focus on the viewpoint of the viewer rather than the source.
I have been practicing "art" using different mediums most of my life. I'm in my 60s now. However, please don't discount my viewpoint on newer technologies because of my age. I'm a computer network engineer and am quite on top of things. 
To me, art is an expression from the artist. That can range from meticulously painted Renaissance era architectural paintings to taking a paint brush full of paint and aswwoshing across a large canvas, to a 5 year old scribbling on a wall with moms eyebrow pencil. Or calligraphy or drawings. 
They ALL come from the right side of the brain, which has the unique capabilities to exclude time limitations, shape naming (almond / foot ball shapes for eyes, etc.) Wile being able to focus on negative space, emotion, stroke weights, fluidity, creatively, and many more qualities. Please reference the standard for this explanation from the book "Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain" by Betty Edwards. 
AI generated images are computer generated from, at most, an algorithm. They can not "express" anything, mutch less emotion, nor can "see" as an artist sees. 
The term "seeing" could be in just one example described as this: Looking at a flower in a vase on a table in front of a window. While most people see a vase, a flower, a windo in a window frame, a wall, "seeing" negative space would be looking at the curved shape of the vase, how it intersects with the window frame segments, and the wall makes a shape without a name. So you can look at and draw that shape. Continue on with all the likes how the flower, it's stems, etc intersect with objects behind it, eventually you end up with a flower in a vase in front of a window, without calling any individual object a name. This is only one of many examples of seeing.
We have all (or many of us have) seen them fantastic youtube demos where an artist seems to appear to scribble and Mish mash around, then flip it over to reveal an exact image of their subject on stage. That is "seeing." It comes the brain. 
So while AI generated images can be fantastic and fun to look at, I do not consider it "art". I don't place any value on it. >

Okay so then should we call Jackson pollock paintings just “paint splattered on a canvas” then? >


For instance, we would not classify a company’s logo as art, because it is lacking artistic intent.  

Who is we? Where I come from there's a term "corporate art" that refers to logos, sculptures, and other crafted works (e.g. the infamous grub hub commercial, Metaverse avatars, etc) used by companies. 
Now on the one hand I agree with you, OP. There is no "artistic intent" behind AI image generation. Nor most corporate art. No emotional drive whatsoever. It is not "that kind" of art.
But, like, so? It's not art. It's AI art. It's got the modifier, like corporate, to let us know that it's different.

but as we get used to it we will recognize that this is more of a parlor trick than an expression of artistic creativity and intent.

Is a TV "tricking" us when it shows us a view of the outside like a window?
Who's being tricked, and what's the deceit? The makers of DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, etc, while differing in their levels of openness, have made no attempt to hide the general mathematical principles at play. It's a computer program. It's responding to prompts given by a human the way a computer program does, the same way computer programs always have. No trickery. >

AI cannot make art on its own. Humans are always involved somewhere in that process. >


“Art” typically refers to a type of creative work done by humans to evoke an emotion

And how AI Art is not created by humans? AI does not know what to do, human writes the prompt, tailors it, select images to be processed further and finally chooses the result to upscale. Without human there would be random gibberish.

There’s no mind, or creative intent behind a DALL-E image.

There is a human who wants to create an image and uses AI tool, do they not have a creative mind to have an idea of what he wants?  Aren't they specifically using DALL-E with creative intent? >

If we're being accurate, it's "Procedural Image Generation" because the term AI is itself a buzzword meant to invoke ideas of actual artificial intelligence when we're talking about a set of algorithms (albeit sophisticated) using a database reference. 
The term "art" is subjective, but the term "AI" is factually misleading. >

Eh, it’s similar to the use of “AI” as a buzz word. You can call it what you want, but “we” also includes the people who make the models (such as Midjourney), and they are obviously going to advertise it as “AI Art,” and they have good reason to. >

But again, those people are making the tool not the art.  If you have a group of people making paint brushes, you don’t consider them artists. >

I think s/he's arguing that it really doesn't matter. There is no monolith "we" to appeal to with an argument here, as art is subjective by perspective. You're free to call it whatever you like, but if someone (say, the person who built the model, or even 'just' the person who input the prompt) sees it as art, is it really anyone else's place to tell them otherwise?
Though apparently it's /r/comics responsibility, if the past two weeks have been anything to judge by. >

Everything is art, some art is more functional than others >

Would you consider waves crashing on the beach art?  Most would consider that a controversial opinion >

The surfer would find art in the waves, the photographer/painter would find art in it crashing on the beach. People go to the beach to feel peace and tranquility from the sounds and colors of sunsets. There are recordings of waves crashing because it makes people feel. How is it not art even if we dont know the artist? We appreciate it similarly with man-made art >

“The surfer would find art in the waves, the photographer/painter would find art in it crashing on the beach”
“Inspiration” Is the word you’re looking for here.  Not art. Art is a manifestation of talent, work, and last but definitely not least, inspiration.
Waves crashing on a beach can be a magnificent sight. Are the waves themselves “art”? Of course not. A painter standing beside a lake on windy day watching white caps roll into shore isn’t art. It’s simply a man witnessing a wonderful reality in front of him. If that same painter feels so inspired by those waves he decides to paint a picture of them, that picture is art. >

The room full of trash was composed with creative intent >

You need to read up on how diffusion model AI works. Every layer of the neural network adds human aesthetic rules to the piece. The reason AI art looks close to human art is that the "creative intent" has been quantified and added to the piece at every level. 
And that's just the initial result. The artist then goes and chooses the piece they like from the 30 or so versions, remixes some features in this piece, changes features with in-painting, then erases unwanted elements in photoshop and chooses the right upscaling algorithm. That is art.
If some of those words didn't make sense to you, you need to learn more about the thing you're debating. >

I understood every word you said, I posted this CMV because I already did quite a bit of reading on the subject and frankly your implication that I don't understand the subject is a bit patronizing.

the  "creative intent" has been quantified and added to the piece at every level.

That's quite a leap isn't it?  That "creative intent" is reducible to a set of features which can be extracted from a set of images while training latent diffusion models?
Creative intent is the concept that a human being attempts to express something through their art - an idea, a concept, an emotion - with intention.  A series of matrix operations is not trying to do anything.  It's just a fancy function.

The artist then goes and chooses the piece they like from the 30 or so versions, remixes some features in this piece, changes features with in-painting, then erases unwanted elements in photoshop and chooses the right upscaling algorithm. That is art.

I already mentioned that in the post.  It's not AI art - it's art involving an AI image generator as a tool.  The AI is not doing any art. >

I think your worldview can be summed up with a quote by Max Planck:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." >

Haha what a beautiful quote.
I will keep that one too. Thanks. >

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” >

No. Nobody is going to call it this. This terminology would have  big “aKSHuLlY” vibes and isn’t helpful to describing what’s being created. >

Source: AI engineer. There is a ton of creative intent behind ai art generators built by the modeler, that pretty much aligns with the same value assessments made by a painter or sculptor. When the natural language processing model (NLP) connects the prompts to the tags associated with the art in the data feed, it will almost NEVER perfectly match. In order to meet the demands of the audience, the modeler must decide what the audience prioritizes when assessing the beauty of an artwork. Here, the modeler is essentially engaging in “stylization” in that they are producing content that requires an impression of personal value. For instance, when I type in “beautiful sunset,” the person who built the NLP model must determine what I find more important to the prompt, the notion of “beauty” or the notion of a “sunset.” What is beauty? The modeler may weight certain words to matter more for the purposes of searching more matching configurations, and usually do weight nouns more than adjectives and adverbs to some extent. This can play a role in whether the art looks more real or abstract. If “beauty” was weighted higher, the art may look glowing and milky and may have common objects that are associated with beauty inside it. If sunset is weighted higher, the sunset displayed may be a sunset as though it were captured on a blackberry camera on a smoggy day. Since the output is directly affected by a person, with intent, I don’t think it’s fair to call AI art anything but ai art. I will however concede that the person who typed the art into the prompt IS NOT THE ARTIST. They are NOT making value assessments or interpretations. They are more or less asking the modeler for a commission. It’s not uncommon for an artist to use tools, have a crew, or outsource grunt labor. The program and the data feed essentially function as an efficient replacement for all of that. >

Think about it:  why are you using the term "AI" instead of "Artificial Intelligence"?
Because it's fast and short.
So is AI Art. >

But “ai images” is almost as short but way more accurate and begs much less controversy >

I agree that instead of calling it "AI Art", we should call it "AI Images".  Can we both settle on that as the solution? >

Yes I would be fine with that, the “art” component is the only thing I take issue with >

Unfortunately you don't get to be the decider, if a majority of people call it art, its art. It's nearly impossible to redefine a word without majority consensus. >

Well it’s only been a thing for a very short time now so the ink probably is not dry on that definition yet >

Do you think a majority are currently calling it art? Or even a significant portion of people? >

My view pertains to what we should call it, not what we do call it so I don’t see how this is relevant.  I made no claim about the likelihood of any result. >

What we should call it is determined by usage not the perfection of the definition. >

Do you think there is no room ever for trying to improve language? >

To each their own I guess, but art is subjective, not objective my guy. It comes in all forms such as music an poems. Specifically, you are talking about drawings and pieces and the likes. Photoshops if done correctly can be a work of art, and even if the piece was not man made, people can still see this AI generated image as art. DALL-E itself is a work of art in itsslf because someone took the time to code it and made it functional for people to use >

Art is subjective but the subjectivity of the artist is a requirement. >

I'd argue otherwise. You are making the comment about the image you see in front of you. Artists already see their pieces as art (at least I hope so). This case is special because we are talking about an AI generating an image from 1s and 0s and sound, etc, so it can't tell you that the generated image is art, that is up to you to decide if it is or isn't art. Therefore the subjectivity is dependent moreso on you not the artist >

If you look at an image and you can't tell if it was made by a human or generated by an AI program... does it matter?
Also, AI programs are still written by humans. So, ultimately, the art is still created by a human, using a sophisticated human-made tool. >

Not only that, but the prompts can be quite complex and I think people writing them are artists. >


Compelling images are not necessary art, if they do not evoke an emotional response. For instance, we would not classify a company’s logo as art, because it is lacking artistic intent. 

AI images have provoked emotional responses though. I have one as my phone background now because of it.

Things which are beautiful and evoke emotion are not art if they lack artistic intent. For instance, a sunset, or a rock formation, or a plant which grows in a fractal pattern may be beautiful and affect the mind in an art-like way, but we don’t call it art because it’s essentially just a result of math and physics and not human expression. AI images are actually a lot like that. 

The intent was that of the programmer, so there is intent. It's not completely random or human-free. >

If there's no Artist, there can't be art. An artist has to be alive to feel and convey emotions, therefore a software can never create art >

That is some strong presuppositions though.
Why does something need to be alive to convey emotions? Natural scenes convey emotions all the time (take a sunset for example).
And secondly, how are you sure a piece of software can't feel emotions etc? >

Stable diffusion for example is just a bunch of matrix multiplications.  I am pretty sure it cannot feel emotions >

I'd like to take your opinion seriously, but you're just a bunch of meat. I'm pretty sure meat can't have opinions. >

The art is the text prompts people put in. It's actually really hard to get it to express the intent you want while still being formed by the AI. It takes many many prompts and words to get a good image sometimes.
Try it out on nightcafe >

While I agree on the movement to separate it from art. Because it may deter a generation of artists and lower the diversity of art. However, consider photos. A photograph is art. It captures a moment in time, but can really be anything. You could take a picture of a lemon and it would be art. AI art captures of combination of a prompt and the input of the image library. The range of the results depends on the patience and the knowledge of the system by the user inputting the prompt. The system is only a tool as much as a paint brush is. The prompt and any library change, is the learned skill. There are those who are good at it, new, and casual. It is an art form, learned just like the nuances of taking a photo. >

some tattoo artists just trace an image and add color it in and not even in all cases. we are getting to a place where a robot will be able to do this same thing if not already able in some senses. what you described is an argument that already existed before a.i.
I think this applies well here. >

You're essentially struggling with modernism vs post-modernism.
There's a lot more to both, but part it has to do with intent and interpretation.
A painter creates his lifetime masterpiece, but puts it in a drawer. Before anyone sees it, the home is lost in a fire. Did he make art? Does it count as art if nobody experiences it?
Now consider found art. Say someone buys an old autoshop, and there are paint drippings on the floor that make a neat pattern. If those floorboards are pulled up, can those be art? Or does it only become art if someone were to change up the pattern?
An abstract painter with the right pedigree could sell drip paintings for millions, while a layperson might say, "This is not art." 
A layperson might feel moved and cherish a highly unoriginal crayon drawing of a field with flowers and a smiling sun, because their kid drew it and that's what makes it powerful. Someone with artistic training might find it and say, "This is not art," because it falls short in technique or lacks a meaningful statement of some kind. 
The question being asked in all of these scenarios is, at what point does something become art? Does an artist breathe art into something with intent alone? The modernist would say so. Or, does a piece need only to be understood as art to qualify as art? Could a tree be art? If someone is considering the tree in and artistic context, the post-modernist would say, "why not?" >

Art is complicated. IMHO, it is not so black and white of a matter to be categorized so plainly, but I see this as more a matter of perspective than of linguistic definition.
There are many philosophies that encourage a more "artistic" perspective of the world, especially in an effort to further appreciate and find the beauty in things. Not everyone adheres to the concept of the universe as you as an individual perceive it.
More religious people might go as far to say that Nature is God's art, and thus all things are art to some extent. There are many similar types of philosophies across the globe that allow for more than just things crested with "mind" and "creative intent" to be considered art. 
Generally speaking, I'd say it's an odd thing to have such a strong opinion about, and I encourage you to study the idea of what makes something "art" from more angles than a purely linguistic perspective. >

Although you mightve brought up some valid points, AI Art is alot more simpler, therefore everyone will go for it >

If you can't tell if it's Ai generated or not then how much does it truly matter? >

Call it whatever you like. The term AI art is already in the water. "We" unfortunately is not a closed group of people that can change a term that easily. 
Otherwise I'd propose calling it "climate armageddon" instead of "climate change". >

What would you call images meant to evoke emotion for entertainment or enrichment? >


It’s a rather mechanical process by which a computer program translates a string of text and some random noise into an image. It kind of seems like the program has a mind, because we have never seen something besides a human mind interpret text into an image in this way, but as we get used to it we will recognize that this is more of a parlor trick than an expression of artistic creativity and intent. A very fancy parlor trick, but a trick none the less.

If we had a full understanding of the human brain, we could probably make a similar argument about what human artists do. That is, it appears that humans are creative, but underneath the hood it's all just brain chemicals reacting and neurons sending signals to each other. 
If AI can't create art, because, after all, it's just a mechanical process, then by the same argument, humans can't create art, because, after all, it's just a chemical process. >

If AI-generated images are convincing enough to the layperson, they should be called art. For instance, a regular person, looking at two digital paintings of a sunset, one made by a human, one AI generated, won’t know which is which, and will likely ascribe the same feelings to both. 
This nitpicky distinction only matters to artists, not consumers of art.
Can you quantify “artistic intent?” Can you look at a piece and recognize whether its flaws come from a lack of “artistic intent” vs a lack of execution skill vs being AI generated? I don’t think consumers look at art with this mental framework. >

The primary purpose of art is to invoke feelings of emotion and connection to the piece. To pull a reaction from the audience. AI art is no different. It invokes feelings of fear, dread, self doubt, and unease, especially in artists while holding to the visual principles of art and design. There is no rule like that where art should be made by a human to be considered art or artistic. >

It's art, but the guy pressing buttons isn't an artist. I've messed with it on my computer, and i can confirm it's not as hard as they claim. It devolves down to trying random words like a monkey on a typewriter >

Are you arguing what is art? Or that machines are incapable of creating art, due to a lack of mind or human attribute they don't have? Regardless, art is incredibly subjective and lots of things that may not be considered art by you or me would be considered art by another. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.
What emotions must be evoked to consider it art? If I don't get any emotional response looking at the Mona Lisa, does that make it immediately not art? By all accounts, Da Vinci was just painting a portrait for someone, which may or may not be art depending on reaction. >

The “AI” qualifier in front of “art” already does the job and distinguishes it from “art”.  Also AI image generator” makes it feel like google images generator or photograph generator, the point being that it creates extra noise and confusion. 
If there is “AI poetry” that is specifically geared towards aesthetics of poetry and writes poetry (as opposed to writing you emails or some serious nonfiction prose) we are not gonna call that “AI word generator” to protect the poets from getting their feelings hurt. >

AIrt >

Not writing to change anyone’s mind, but this reminds me of a section in Lex Fridman’s podcast in which he’s speaking with Magnus Carlson. For context the host is an engineer that works on AI. Lex shows off something that the robot can do and Magnus finds it amazing, calling the robot clever. Lex retorts by saying that a robot cannot be clever, only that the person who programmed the AI can make the robot seem clever using math and logic.
As a linguist it seems (to me) that the sociolinguistics surrounding AI are complex. Individuals who fill a niche are very specific about the terms are used to describe AI and what it can do. Artists don’t want to call it AI art (some call it stealing from real artists), engineerings don’t want people to call AI clever. Yet the general public has no issue with ascribing these terms. Ultimately it feels as though it’s boiling down to  the fact that people want to continue viewing these traits as something only humans can possess, and that it’s about protecting what sets us apart from everything else as a species. If robots can make art, be clever, and evolve then maybe we aren’t do special after all.