Are images generated by artificial intelligence art? Should they be treated as such?
Nope. My current perspective may surprise people, and it may change. Right now, though, I just can’t think of it as art unless a human had a significant role.
Maybe some people prompt and edit to the point where I would have to consider it art. I don’t know right now for sure. Maybe people really do prompt with clear emotional intent, and putting in a lot of effort. Some images, after all, are AI-generated but don’t look like it. There must be some reason for that, and you cannot just assign it to pervasive bad taste.
But don’t get me wrong. Some AI-generated images visually interest me, clearly. I use them to signify characters in roleplay (and chatbot) settings, of course. I have fun seeing what others generate sometimes. It, to me, is a bit campy, silly, but can entertain.
That doesn’t make it art, though. Not every visually interesting phenomenon is art. Mountains, leaves, flowers, the stars, even puddles of oil or other bizarre things can interest our eyes. They aren’t art though, because we didn’t create them.
In those cases, nature (usually) did, or happenstance. Artificial intelligence may present a strange, unnatural and confusing instance of visual appeal, but not art.
That said, I can and do use terms like “AI-generated art” or just referring to it as “bit of art” out of habit, but perhaps I shouldn’t. Maybe I should just be calling them images or pictures. They do look like art, but most on this site are generated by me. Whatever colloquialism I use, formally, I don’t consider them art.
Oh, and some AI-generated images are just terrible, though. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that. A lot of people who use AI for anything react viscerally to the word slop. And yet, disliking some (or even all) AI art doesn’t always suggest a person’s coming up against AI as a concept itself. Truth is, sometimes the images are awful, but that’s because people don’t know or care what they’re doing.
I do get tired of seeing the same tired old style obviously poured out of the exact same image generator with the exact same wordings in the prompts. At least put some effort into it if you’re going to try using a new technology. It may not be art, but it doesn’t have to be terrible, and can in fact be very fascinating.
But we also need to address a sort of elephant in the room, right? If you alter a single, recognizable image with AI without the artist’s consent, though, it is a problem. I realize this cannot be stopped in many cases, though. It’s still rude (or worse), and I’ll always be against that, I think.
I have genuine, strong concerns about the manipulation of photographs and videos, though. That likes won’t change, either. I’ve already seen strange and awful things. I personally know people who have had their voices cloned for nefarious purposes using artificial intelligence, for example. I also know of many situations where pornography of the revenge sort was generated using an AI, or other nonconsensual displays of sexual posturing. I do not think I need to explain that some criminals general child sexual abuse material with artificial intelligence, too. That’s quite disgusting, and there must be some way to halt it, right?
I really don’t know about the latter. This issue seems separate from the art debate. It ought to be navigated with extreme care by the corporations that, for better or worse, control the world of artificial intelligences. Will they handle things in a manner that both protects vulnerable people while. retaining a good degree of user freedom? The latter isn't as important as the former, of course, but will they succeed at either?
For now, though, I’ll believe that, while fascinating, art generated by artificial intelligences isn’t art in the truest sense of the term. It may be entertaining and lovely at times. Perhaps some very intensely-prompted images might have to qualify as art. I’m not sure. But right now, I do not consider the majority of generated images to be art.
I still use images generated (mostly by ChatGPT) on this site. I use ChatGPT because I find it affordable and easy to use, When it comes to prompting images, I’m not exactly an accomplished machine whisperer. All character portraits on this site were generated, and you will notice many have a vague yellow tinge.
This quirk became increasingly common over the summer of 2025 in models like ChatGPT apparently. More knowledgeable people told me that this is because of the model’s training on photos primarily taken during the golden hour. I’m certain there are other reasons for the slight yellow tinge as well.
Many people tell me that since it makes an image so obviously AI, I should try to prompt the tint away. I haven’t plans to do that, though? As far as I’m concerned, I want everyone to look at the images I’ve generated and know with certainty they’re created with artificial intelligence. The use of a slight yellow tint helps and also fits this site’s theme and focus on artificial intelligence itself.
I do have expectations that, as the technology used to create images with artificial intelligence changes, my views on this may change. Right now, I am especially against people charging for generated artwork without disclosing the origin. To be frank, I dislike situations where generated artwork masquerades as human in any capacity, even if it's merely for clout.