Some (not all) logical fallacies in text above are:

• False Dilemma: "Some argue that the ability of AI algorithms to generate original works of art threatens to make human artists obsolete and that the concept of individual style is therefore no longer relevant."
• Appeal to Fear: "There is concern that AI algorithms could be used to generate fake news or propaganda, or to create revenge porn or other types of non-consensual content."
• Slippery Slope: "This type of technology has the potential to be highly disruptive and could be used to manipulate public opinion or create propaganda."
• Appeal to Ignorance: "Ultimately, the impact of generative AI art on society and culture will depend on how it is used and embraced by the wider community."
• Red Herring: "Is the concept of individual style still relevant in the age of generative AI art?"
• Hasty Generalization: "At its most basic, generative AI art is the art that is created using algorithms or machine learning techniques."
• Non Sequitur: "This can take many different forms, from paintings and drawings to music and even poetry."
• False Analogy: "One of the earliest examples of generative AI art is “AARON,” a program developed in the 1970s by artist Harold Cohen, AARON was designed to generate original works of art in the form of drawings and paintings, and Cohen used it to create thousands of works over the course of his career."
• Straw Man: "Some have raised concerns about the potential for AI algorithms to do harm or be used for nefarious purposes."
• Circular Reasoning: "It is often thought that this individual style is an inherent part of an artist’s identity and is the result of their personal experiences, influences, and creative vision."
• Ad Hominem: "The emergence of generative AI art has led some to question the validity of this idea."
• Bandwagon: "As the capabilities of generative AI art continue to improve, the question of how it will impact the art world and society as a whole becomes increasingly pressing."
• False Cause: "The history of generative AI art can be traced back to the early days of artificial intelligence research."
• Begging the Question: "As generative AI art continues to evolve and become more prevalent, it is important to consider the ethical implications of its use."
• Equivocation: "Some believe that generative AI art will simply complement and enhance traditional forms of art, rather than replace human artists altogether."
• Non-factual Appeal: "Regardless of which perspective is ultimately correct, it is clear that the emergence of generative AI art raises important questions about the role of human artists in the art world and the definition of art itself."

​

Is this also WRONG USE of AI?

how did you generate this list so quickly?

With AI, just copied text, added prompt: "Logical fallacies in text above are:" and it started writing.

amazing.

I'll have to rethink some of the post, I guess :O

People mislead themselves all the time by socially programmed ideas they picked up from the outside. Plenty of mines to look out for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

sounds like this might be a trap a lot of people who demonize generative art / AI art fall into, too. preprogrammed biases. I'll have to give it a good think. Thanks for the feedback!

Did you actually read your AI generated answer? It incorrectly applied nearly all those fallacies.

edit: scrap "nearly", I think it got them all wrong.

No wonder it's a list of trash.

Nice article, sounds like written by chatGPT with a couple of alterations by author… ;) /s

Sorry, had to edit to make it clear that I am joking.

I like the article, it sums up all the fears humans have about AI art well.

The „appeal to fear“ is the one that is correct in my opinion. Which other fallacies would you see as applied correctly here?

Regardless, it’s sweet and fascinating that an AI writes such a list so eloquently.

its just anther tool, people should chill and focus on skills.

The vast, vast majority of artists throughout history have never been able to make an income. So the complaining we are seeing now is just coming from a privileged few. Throughout history the most common experience of being an artist has always been that you livelihood essentially never existed in the first place. I'm not targeting this blog specifically, I'm just pushing back against the recent sentiment.

it is. the non sequitur and straw man aren’t really those fallacies. seems like it is a list of fallacies with random quotes.

No, appeal to fear is not displayed here.

Appeal to fear would have to take the form:

> Either P or Q is true.

> Q is frightening.

> Therefore, P is true.

There is no appeal to fear here, just a listening of possible negative effects.

Looking closer, I don't think ANY of those examples are actually the listed fallacy.

Yeah this reply hurt to read. It's not the wrong us of AI, but it's a poor execution lol.

I saw a thread of Twitter where someone argued that they can't afford such high prices for art and some people replied it should stay that way because art has always been a luxury commodity. It's such a classist opinion coming from people who grew up privileged.

Thank you for explaining your view on that!

I have understood it being the fallacy as following:

Q being propaganda and fake news and P being use of AI - despite fake news and propaganda being doable completely without AI as well and happening all the time already plus AI also being usable to distinguish between fake and real news too and as such not necessarily leading to an increase of propaganda/fake news.

Or: IF you accept AI as good, THEN you will be victim of fake news and propaganda.

Of course IF we assume a causal relationship between AI and fake news/propaganda, THEN it would not be a fallacy anymore.

It's a tricky one, because some art is rare due to the artists being dead, etc. That means the market will value it's scarcity whether we like it or not. I agree though, the art world is absolutely filled with snobbery. Keep in mind I'm also talking about graphic design here, which I worked in for years. It can be a very economically unreliable profession to put it mildly.

It's just a glorified Vlookup + Photoshop blend using a huge repository. It can create something new but not with intenationality. I think humans will adapt to evaluate it better after being saturated with AI "art" for another few years.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I’m an artist and I think it AI actually gives what I do more value.

Logical fallacies can only describe flaws in the structure of an argument, not whether the axioms themselves hold true.

Art a luxury commodity? Art is everywhere. In books, on tv, in games, musea, billboards, whatever. It's hard to picture a media without art.

It will become another tool in a new medium of art.

They said the same things about water color when it came out as the cheap alternative to expensive oil paints. Now it's an accepted medium.

I get what you're saying but in a few years this might decimate the art community. Think of how many hand crafted furniture makers there are. They were made largely irrelevant by the industrial revolution and the production line. Sure there's a few very well paid ones making luxury goods but it's not a common profession. That's what's probably about to happen to visual artists. The vast majority of the art people consume on a daily basis from games, ads, shows etc that took teams of artists is going to get replaced by 1 or 2 art directors guiding generative AIs. I'm not saying we shouldn't automate commodity art this way but we shouldn't just pretend visual artists are going to be just fine. They aren't and they are going to need assistance.

I think it will just make niche classical art that much more expensive and sought after. The selling point will be, “this was organically made with real paints, took 300 hours, on special canvas, etc etc.” Your paying for the authenticity of the art piece, the “realness “ if you will. If your an inbetween artist that makes furry fan art, your fucked as far as making any money off it. But then again it questionable whether it was “real,” art to begin with lol. So far the “artists,” I see posting against AI on Instagram are no where near good enough to be complaining. If anything they should use the AI art as a reference to get better.

But is it still a fallacy if there is an actual causal relationship? As in - if there is time/temporal precedence and covariation and other factors cannot explain it „casual relationship“.

Wouldn’t that mean that one argument could be implied with the other correctly? This would be not an error in reasoning (structure) anymore then, or would it still be?

Isn’t that what you said by „listing consequences“?

Sorry for asking you again, but it is a field with which I only partly have experience with (I‘m the „empirical science“ type… the only fallacy that has been interesting to me previously was artefacts in statistical analysis) and your explanations are short and understandable and to the point and help me understand it. Thank you!

Has everyone just forgotten that some artists make physical artworks? Not everything is a png, you can go make a sculpture or something and the evil nasty AI boogeyman won't be able to do anything about it. Literally just go outside, dig a hole, get the clay out of the hole, and make a cup.

No, because the generally available training data will be constrained to public domain and non-copywrited or watermarked images. Also, because AI has no imagination, it is merely capable of synthesis.

Art is the expression and self-actualization of the artist and takes a wide variety of forms. Art will exist as long as people have a complex inner life and want to express it symbolically.

What do you mean by intentionality? In principle, large language models predict the most likely continuation to the input prompt. Intent is a very anthropocentric concept to describe a specific style and hierarchy of computation. It just parrots what an approximation function learned from training conversations.

Limiting the applications of these models, especially as they are modular and scalable, to some funny image or poem generation is very naive. It‘s not hard in principle to scale up LLM to a dynamic network of interacting agents, potentially opening the doors to never-before levels of automation complexity. Even chatgpt as it is now can basically sufficiently carry out a very big chunk of the subprocesses and provides tremendous increases in efficiency for real-life work in many different areas.

[deleted]

^ This.

At the moment, this is only affecting digital art - which is already replicable to begin with. Unless you own an expensive robot - you still need humans to paint and draw things in Real Life.

We also still need decent neural networks for 3d models and such.

Nowhere did I say that all artists will disappear. I even drew an analogy to furniture makers. What I'm saying is that commodity art is probably going to get automated in the same way as furniture making is mainly done by machines now.

Yes there will always be a place for human artists but that place won't be in commodity art. It'll be a luxury good like handmade furniture and the few that do make handmade art for a living will get paid well but emphasis on the few. The market for humans will be much smaller.

Did calculators replace people calculating on a piece of paper for a living? No. It just let them do their job better and... Oh... So they really got replaced? The occupation doesn't exist anymore?... Well, artists will be replaced.

Exactly. Nobody ever wanted to become an artist to get rich. And it's been associated with poverty for centuries.

I think AI has already surpassed human artists. The only remaining problem is accuracy (some minor details) but I've seen so many unreal things made by AI that I've never seen done by a human, like those merges of two complete different concepts (cat + cheese, or pokemon with superheroes). This is specially true if you consider that AI takes 1 second and can generate millions of alternatives.

Art is the feeling one gets when experiencing it. Whether it be paintings, music or movies. Art is ‘me’.

It's understandable that traditional artists may feel threatened by the emergence of A.I. art, but it's important to remember that A.I. can be a valuable tool for artists rather than a replacement. By understanding how A.I. art can be integrated into a traditional artist's workflow, we can bridge the gap and find ways to coexist and even collaborate. Instead of allowing hate to divide us, let's work towards finding a way to bring traditional and A.I. art together.

White chocolate never replaced regular chocolate. It just exists alongside it.

Same here. Human creations will always have their niche. Ai just brings more to the table.

I’m studying for graphic design stuff would you have any advice or recommendations on this?

I don't think there are any professions that are going to be safe from AI, so I would say it's worth continuing to study what interests us and do what we enjoy. We'll all be in the same boat economically as AI obsoletes so many fields of human work. We're going to need UBI as a society.

That's an old idea. This was what artists including myself thought when midjourney first came out, but by how fast it improves and what its companies say its ideal use is it is inevitable that it will take the jobs from 99.9% of all digital artists.

It improves too fast and from what it looks like they train it from user data so it can produce work without even someone using it. That or the fact that if you have a grasp of art you understand how much better art directors are and that they are capable of replacing every artist in the world if they decided to unite. The only reason they are not doing it now is that they can't produce art fast enough to meet demand so they rely on artists.

So it's either it becomes good enough to do art on its own or good enough for art directors to dominate all of the industry jobs.

So you hate artists because they managed to beat the odds? and now they deserve to lose their jobs even though they spend thousands upon thousands of hours to get skilled enough to do this professionally?

Check some art directors that use AI art, they are leagues ahead already because they actually have the skill to tell what's a good image and what's not. You will notice a pattern with art directors supporting AI art that's because it allows them to replace every artist that was working for them it allows them to do what they didn't have time to do by producing images fast.

As an artist with a boundless imagination, it's easy to see how an initial spark of inspiration could quickly evolve into a full-blown epic fantasy, worthy of 20 movies. And with the power of modern technology at our fingertips, it's not a stretch to envision a scenario where that initial spark is brought to life at a staggering 30 frames per second.

But let's take it a step further - what if we could not only bring this epic vision to life on the big screen, but also create a video game to accompany it? A thrilling tale of zombie-slaying heroes, braving the undead hordes alongside Brad Pitt to save the world from a zombie apocalypse. Based on the wildly popular "World War Z," this immersive, 3D narrative experience would transport players into the heart of the action, just like the legendary holodecks of "Star Trek" fame.

And all of this could happen in just a week's time, with the finished product debuting in theaters and making you rich beyond your wildest dreams. It may sound like a tall order, but with the right vision and determination, anything is possible. So, let's get to work on making this epic fantasy a reality!

I don't think you read my comment or you didn't make the comparison between art directors and movie directors. Movie directors are galaxies ahead of you in vision, imagination, and skill and not only do you think you can compete with them but you think you will stand out in the endless sea of movies that will be produced by 1 line prompts. And most likely you won't be even needed, movies will be created without your input to fit the mood your phone detected. Marvel movies until the end of time and nothing that doesnt exist already because AI cant come up with something that hasn't been created before.

Listen, buddy, I'm not in the mood for your nonsense. First of all, the directors are good at politics and nothing else. Most of them sleep their way to the top, while the talented geniuses toil in labs for relatively low pay. The fact that you're shilling for the corporate media pretty much sums up the fact that you're either not very bright or just plain evil.

good luck with playing the victim I am sure it works with the ladies.

No, I don't hate anyone. I'm just pointing out the facts. Most artists spend thousands of hours and are skilled enough to do it professionally, yet still fail.

It's the nature of art(being subjective) combined with the fact the market has too little demand and too much supply of artists.

But imo if you have an inclination and you put in the hours you could almost certainly do it(at least at industry jobs). It's just that people give up long before they reach that level because learning art mindfucks you big time. To get better your perception should be ahead of your drawing and at the point where your drawing skills have reached or surpassed your perception then your perception gets ahead again. If you are getting better at art it's an endless circle of thinking everything you paint is shit which requires strong will. Obviously there's a lot of luck involved

[deleted]

>But imo if you have an inclination and you put in the hours you could almost certainly do it(at least at industry jobs).

Yet most artists have the inclination and put in the hours and don't succeed.

>Obviously there's a lot of luck involved

More than nearly any other profession I'd say, along with being an author.

If you think that you are so shit at directing you cant even understand the gap between you and them. I hope you are young so there's some room to improve because otherwise good luck with life. I should have known it was delusional of grandeur thinking that somehow you are an undiscovered talent and you don't need to put in the hours, you just need an AI to make a movie with your "unique" ideas. LOL