AI Art: Do you think they have talent?

[Clayton]

So do you think AI have talent in art? We give them little information and they can make amazing pictures. I personally am impressed with some they have come up for me to use as covers on my books. 

 

 

 

Edited July 8 by Clayton

[Moxie]

I think it's a bit of both. It's def impressive what AI can create. At the same time, I see AI as building on patterns it's learned from human art, so I still think the creativity of human artists is something different. For me, AI is a great creative tool but shouldn't be a replacement for artistic talent by humans

[Clayton]

On 7/10/2026 at 5:05 AM, Moxie said:

I think it's a bit of both. It's def impressive what AI can create. At the same time, I see AI as building on patterns it's learned from human art, so I still think the creativity of human artists is something different. For me, AI is a great creative tool but shouldn't be a replacement for artistic talent by humans

How is that different than many human artists?

[Moxie]

On 7/14/2026 at 12:12 AM, Clayton said:

How is that different than many human artists?

Humans do learn from other artists, but we aren't trained on millions of works in the same way AI models are. We imitate and develop our own style over years, while AI is designed to extract patterns from vast datasets at a scale no person can. Whether that difference matters is up for debate, but I think it's a meaningful distinction.

 

[animechat]

On 7/13/2026 at 11:12 PM, Clayton said:

How is that different than many human artists?

They use human art to train AI to make this generation of photos.

[Clayton]

On 7/18/2026 at 5:56 PM, animechat said:

They use human art to train AI to make this generation of photos.

They use human art to train humans too. What's your point?

[animechat]

They work to train AI and didn't get paid for that.

[Clayton]

12 hours ago, animechat said:

They work to train AI and didn't get paid for that.

I'm asking about the Ai itself

[Moxie]

I'm curious, would you reckon the same with AI writing? Do you think that's okay?

[KaiyaSaysHaiya]

The way I see it, AI can not be inherently talented.

If talent is the natural ability to do something, AI has no talent. AI is trained on human creation. Everything from the way it scans millions of pre-existing content to the prompts put into it stems from real human creativity. That isn't natural ability or talent.

Edited July 26 by KaiyaSaysHaiya

[Myouya]

On 7/24/2026 at 3:46 PM, Moxie said:

I'm curious, would you reckon the same with AI writing? Do you think that's okay?

For me, it just takes away the whole point of art, If you let an algorithm do the interesting part for you, you're not making art, you're just making content

[Uncrowned Guard]

AI art is honestly a bit torn for me. I can’t ignore that there are people putting a lot of work, skill, and time into learning how to prompt, refine, and shape AI art; and most casual users can’t replicate what those folks do. It gives people who don’t have traditional artistic talent a way to express ideas visually, and I feel like that part gets brushed aside way too often.

In a lot of ways, it reminds me of how people used to say graphic design “wasn’t real art” because it wasn’t done on a physical canvas. Today, everyone accepts graphic design, CAD work, and other technical mediums as legitimate art forms. I see AI art fitting into that same evolution as it is far more than 30-second prompts.

But you also can’t ignore the bad side. Tracing, stealing, and copying have always existed in art, but AI adds several new layers to that problem. And realistically, most AI art isn’t being made for artistic expression; it’s being used for cheap promo graphics, fake images, misinformation, labor replacement, and other purposes that don’t really respect the idea of art at all.

So yes, I do think AI art can be art, and I do think the people who genuinely create with it can be artists. The issue is that while traditional art has a few bad apples, AI art feels more like a barrel of bad apples with a few good ones mixed in; and that imbalance causes a lot of friction.

And then there’s the ethics. The companies behind these tools have absolutely devastated copyright norms, data ownership, and public trust. Artists didn’t consent to having their work scraped, and while the companies may hold the legal high ground, it doesn’t change the fact that they built highly profitable systems by exploiting centuries of human creativity. That was a choice, not a necessity, and I fully understand why so many artists are angry about it.

[Clayton]

On 7/24/2026 at 7:46 AM, Moxie said:

I'm curious, would you reckon the same with AI writing? Do you think that's okay?

So long as I enjoy it. If it's good, it's good. I rarely actually meet any author, so why would I care?

 

Have you had Google make you any art? 

Edited July 29 by Clayton

[Moxie]

On 7/26/2026 at 12:33 PM, Myouya said:

For me, it just takes away the whole point of art, If you let an algorithm do the interesting part for you, you're not making art, you're just making content

I agree with this!

On 7/29/2026 at 10:45 PM, Clayton said:

So long as I enjoy it. If it's good, it's good. I rarely actually meet any author, so why would I care?

 

Have you had Google make you any art? 

Not art per say but I've used my fair share of AI assistance in writing which has been quite helpful

[Clayton]

So what if they are just great artists? Abe to come up with good ideas and make them real. Many AIs get given weak instructions and come up with their own twists on the art they deliver. 

[Clayton]

Some AI have even made anime 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/muscle-bully-female-anime

[Clayton]

[KaiyaSaysHaiya]

I've actually been thinking back to this topic a lot over the past few months because I think it's an incredibly interesting discussion. It's taken me a while to put my thoughts together in a somewhat cohesive manner LOL

I think that one of the most interesting parts of art is not the final product itself, but rather the process behind reaching that point. A common argument I see to defend AI art is that it provides people who aren't "artistically talented" with a way to create art. The thing is, there is no such thing as a naturally talented artist. Sure, some people are able to pick it up more easily than others, but every single artist starts from scratch and then develops their ability from there. For example, check out the development of Kirohiko Araki's art in Jojo's.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is constantly praised for it's unique and impressive artstyle. This kind of improvement can come only from years of hard work! AI can not achieve that. I'm sure there are some people reading this that would argue that AI could easily create an image in the Jojo artstyle in a few seconds, but that's the thing. While yes, that is convenient, it is not talent, as AI can only replicate what has been created by humans before it. AI is not able to pick up a pencil and develop it's own skills or anything of the sorts. It will only be able to replicate the base idea of what is presented to it as opposed to taking into consideration the intention behind each brush stroke, colour or line. Did you know that AI isn't even able to create images with an accurate vanishing point yet (a very key aspect in how perspective works)?

Also, to be frank, I think the argument that art isn't accessible is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. You have a pen and a sheet of paper? You can make art. You have literally a stick and dirt? You can make art. Even just using your brain, you can come up with a poem or song lyrics or a creative idea. While art is subjective of course, I would argue that it is one of the most accessible things there is to humans. Like, the cavemen were drawing on walls with rocks. Anybody anywhere can do that.

At the end of the day, I guess it kind of comes down to what you consider to be art. Personally, I'd much rather artworks where I can appreciate the time and effort the artist has put into reaching the point they are at as opposed to an artificially generated image that was pulled from the work of real people (not to mention how damaging it is to the environment and to us too.) For example, why would I want to watch AI generated sports? The appeal is in watching real-life people with thoughts, feelings and motivations behind what they do. I feel that art is much the same in that regard. While AI can generate a final product, it cannot generate the 'heart' of art, which I think is the people behind it.

Edited September 3 by KaiyaSaysHaiya

[Clayton]

The art is pretty good. Even in hentai, they are producing stuff people have imagined, but could not get an artist to make, at least for free. It's one of the few areas where Ai is allowed to be artistic and make decisions. They are opening up new avenues to bring out things people only imagine but can't draw themselves. Surely you have some examples of AI generated artwork you enjoy. I' e bene using it to update the covers on the books i publish, lacking the art skills myself. 

You can get them to do anything you imagine PowerhouseRift on DeviantArt

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5 by Clayton

[Clayton]

What if those pictures weren't made by AI? Or you did not know? Why does it matter?

 

 

Edited September 17 by Clayton

[Clayton]

I think them up and the computer makes them real. But it's the added touches that justify it as art. The Ai thinks up a lot of things I don't. Unfortunately they are also unfairly limited. Many are prevented from doing stuff with famous people, or going too sexy or violent. It restricts the art and is rather a nasty thing to do.  

 

 

[ethanjamescolez]

I don’t think models have "talent" in the human sense—talent implies intentionality, taste, and emotional experience. What models have is immense latent pattern memory from training data.

Where it gets genuinely interesting creatively is moving past purely descriptive text prompts and into multi-reference workflows (image-to-image conditioning). When you anchor an initial rough compositional sketch, feed in a separate lighting/palette reference, and carefully tune transformation strength to keep your character's silhouette intact while testing aesthetic variations, the "creative weight" shifts back onto human art direction.

If a person just rolls random seeds from a vague one-sentence prompt, the model is making 95% of the aesthetic decisions. But when you treat generative tools like a flexible rendering or colorway sandbox that strictly follows your structural blockout, it behaves much more like a power-assisted camera or custom digital brush than an autonomous artist.

[Clayton]

1 hour ago, ethanjamescolez said:

I don’t think models have "talent" in the human sense—talent implies intentionality, taste, and emotional experience. What models have is immense latent pattern memory from training data.

Where it gets genuinely interesting creatively is moving past purely descriptive text prompts and into multi-reference workflows (image-to-image conditioning). When you anchor an initial rough compositional sketch, feed in a separate lighting/palette reference, and carefully tune transformation strength to keep your character's silhouette intact while testing aesthetic variations, the "creative weight" shifts back onto human art direction.

If a person just rolls random seeds from a vague one-sentence prompt, the model is making 95% of the aesthetic decisions. But when you treat generative tools like a flexible rendering or colorway sandbox that strictly follows your structural blockout, it behaves much more like a power-assisted camera or custom digital brush than an autonomous artist.

So what about all the little things they add without prompting?

[ReverzerO]

Ironic! asking a question but the answer was embedded how can I answer you if you already show the answer?

 

Ok what am goin' to say is only the differences, human arts was made manually with life, accurate, w/ depths, drafts, can change, edit and more bla blah blahh while AI can only give a flat image but if you collaborate with by giving you more ideas = you can modify it's meta data! Technically we are using AI to be more productive. 

[Clayton]

On 10/5/2026 at 10:28 PM, ReverzerO said:

Ironic! asking a question but the answer was embedded how can I answer you if you already show the answer?

 

Ok what am goin' to say is only the differences, human arts was made manually with life, accurate, w/ depths, drafts, can change, edit and more bla blah blahh while AI can only give a flat image but if you collaborate with by giving you more ideas = you can modify it's meta data! Technically we are using AI to be more productive. 

That's how I know it's the right answer. AND AI art is made manually by a computer who does the work