But being able to mechanically draw well doesn’t make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do
High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That’s a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art
Creativity isn’t the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn’t reflective of one’s creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Mechanical skill at manipulating a tool like a brush is not in any way correlated with artistic talent. Creating and imagining the meaningful concepts and transposing them into reality to convey emotional and intellectual meaning is a reflection of artistic quality. Not how good someone is at drawing. If AI can empower person’s to transposing their ideas into reality then it should be encouraged and widely adopted
If you aren’t artistically talented, whether through lack of ability or through disability, then AI is significantly better at turning an idea into existing art than using a pencil/paintbrush/pen
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
The point is that the system itself is the issue. Calling out specific reasons for that is fine if you do so to call attention to its presence as the bigger systemic threat. But debating if one effect of capitalism is worse than another effect ignores the fact that we should be focusing on capitalism as a whole
AI can be bad only because capitalism is bad. Address the root cause
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn’t like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
System A is bad
System A produced Product 1 and Product 2
Product 1 and Product 2 are therefore bad because they were produced through System A
Criticizing Product 2 without criticizing Product 1 is an incomplete analysis; and criticizing either Product is foolish because System A is the cause of the issue
System A must be destroyed in order to prevent it from creating new Products that will be bad, and to undo the badness of the existing Products.
System A is capitalism
you’re buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience
The electronic device you used to make this post was also made by exploiting wage laborers for the benefit of capitalists. Yet, you found that device to be so convenient that you still bought and used it anyway. The same could be said for all of the other goods and services that you use.
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in anothers
Some of those people are looking at a life of medical debt induced misery for themselves and family
Right, but it benefits our ruling class for the working class to have an extremely financially precarious existence. Makes it harder for them to pay attention, help each other, start unions, rise up, etc if they’re constantly focused on their immediate circumstances rather than the big picture.
Smartphone addiction also aids in this
So you agree with me and disagree with the article?
You’re saying Kamala will help restore the GOP to the party of Bush and McCain. That is a terrible thing to admit. The neoconservatives are monsters who harmed the country, to say nothing of the innocents abroad who were tortured and murdered
What was McCains stance on all of the above?
Pining for the party of Bush is pining for evil and diminished living standards
Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs and oversaw the patriot act, Guantanamo Bay waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib. He stole the election in 2000 in Bush v Gore. He was a fascist and damaged the US worse than Trump
If the US won’t ever have single payer then we should emigrate to Denmark. Why would I want to live here?
If you’re a progressive who thinks the Democratic Party is a tool of corporate America, talk to someone who still can’t forgive themselves for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000—then ask yourself which candidate, Harris or Trump, would give you any leverage to push for policies you care about.
This is contradicted by this:
Like you, we wish for the return of the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, a party animated by actual ideas. We believe that American politics are healthiest when vibrant conservative and liberal parties fight it out on matters of policy.
I don’t want a return to party of Bush. I want the American people to have the highest standard of living in the world - not the people of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
If you’re saying that Kamala will restore the GOP, then it seems that the American people will never be prioritized. In which case, we should all leave and emigrate to Scandinavia where their people are treated like human beings rather than servants
The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.
Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.
Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.
Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.
As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.
AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.
The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.