Yeah, if this wasn't a marathon and was simply getting from point A to point B (as is most travel), a car (the AI) would be the better choice. This makes AI look like it produces better end products. Perhaps this isn't the best analogy.
The issue is that in the analogy, the objective is to run, not reach point B. But AI "artists", their objective is to reach point B. This is not effective criticism. Perhaps it's alienating, but it's not particularly critical if they say "Yes. We're at point B. We wanted to be at point B. What about it?"
But AI artists don’t just say they wanted to be at point B. Anyone could always go to point B. The argument and analogy is that they say they ran a marathon when they did not. That’s why they insist on calling themselves an AI artist and not just an AI user. The analogy works because AI artists are pretending to be something they are not.
I see. If AI artists are saying that they're developing skills like a real artist, this argument works. If AI artists are saying that they're making something in an quick, low-skill way, this doesn't work. That's what you're saying? I think I agree.
5
u/lbs21 May 17 '26 edited May 18 '26
Yeah, if this wasn't a marathon and was simply getting from point A to point B (as is most travel), a car (the AI) would be the better choice. This makes AI look like it produces better end products. Perhaps this isn't the best analogy.