You are not entirely wrong, but you're not right either. First, by definition there is no algorithm that defines how the images are created. The word "algorithm" describes a series of steps in a process that is created by a human, and that's simply not how these AIs are created. The process of creating AIs for image generation isn't very dissimilar to how any human learns a skill: it's about exposure, and a training, not a pre-programmed set of instructions.
You also so wrong in thinking that this process is just "a reconfiguration of existing components", unless you think that a person painting a landscape is also just "reconfiguring images of landscapes" they have seen before. You seem to have a few misconceptions about how AI image generation works that are in the veins of the typical "this is a collage machine" fallacies I see around the net, and I would recommend taking a deeper dive into how this all works, because these are simply not true in the slightest.
Finally, the worst part in your argument is this: "Furthermore, the AI's output depends heavily on its training data, often derived from works created by humans." Well, sure... and so it's all art ever created by any person that has ever lived. There is not, nor has it ever been a human artist whose techniques, processes, and inspirations weren't derived from the works of others that came before them. Remember that famous quote from Picasso, “Good artists copy, Great artists steal”? That is EXACTLY what he was talking about. That's just how learning any craft works: you see what others have done before, learn their techniques, and iterate by mixing and matching every source of information you have ever experienced until you create something of your own. That's also what the AI does. There is this fallacy about human creativity as if it comes from nothing... but nothing comes from nothing. Human creativity is the result of every experience that person has every had: the more you experience, the more you can bring to your art that no one thought about introducing before. The process of AI image generation is just a formalized version of that: instead of birthing an intelligence from your womb and letting it loose in the world like humans do, they just select exactly which pieces of information you want that "intelligence" (which isn't that intelligent to begin with) to experience and feed it over a short period of time.
Now, you do have a couple of points that are absolutely right: first, given the exact same same of parameters, the AI should result in the exact same image. This however ignores how many parameters there are, and just how much changing even slightly one of them can result in completely different images. It also ignores that no AI is creating images in a vacuum: every single AI image comes from a human-created prompt, and that is typically the difference between good and bad AI art. There is no AI "artist", there's always a human behind it.
The second point is about the lack of control: true, if you give the AI a prompt and ask it to make one image, it will give you something that may or may not be what you want. Again, the problem is thinking that the process is just making ONE image and hoping for the best. What AI lacks in immediate control, it compensates with speed. So even if one can't necessarily make ONE image exactly what they want, they can tweak parameters and generate multiple different versions of a certain prompt in minutes, allowing you to quickly iterate until you find the image you want, which can be then further adjusted in other tools. Again, this process of iteration and refinement is entirely in the hands of a human being in control, which is what this once again a human endeavor, not a machine-controlled one.
The AI isn't meant to replace humans artists anymore than photo cameras were meant to replace painters, it's just another tool in the toolbelt, one that artists can and should be able to use in their own processes.
This is not entirely accurate when it comes to the definition of an algorithm and the nature of AI's work.
First, when discussing algorithms, it's essential to understand that they indeed represent a sequence of steps or a process to achieve a particular outcome. While human involvement is frequently required in designing these algorithms, it is not the exclusive domain of human craft. Machine learning algorithms, the backbone of most AI technologies, are designed to learn and evolve over time based on the data they process. The training phase of these algorithms involves humans feeding them data and defining their goal, but the actual "learning" -
the adjustment of internal parameters based on data exposure - is automated.
This learning phase represents the creation of a new algorithm, one that's not directly human-designed, but rather machine-learned....
As for the notion that AI simply reconfigures existing components, it's not entirely wrong. But comparing it with an artist's work is a misrepresentation of how the AI functions. When an artist paints a landscape, they're drawing on a broad range of skills, experiences, and intuitions, not just a simple recreation of previously seen landscapes. An AI, however, operates purely on the data it was trained on, without any contextual understanding or emotional perspective that a human might have. It's not a collage machine, but it does lack the deeply human element that can make art so profound.
Your analogy with Picasso's quote misses a key point. When great artists "steal," they're incorporating what they've learned from others into their own unique vision, often altering and innovating upon those elements to create something new and personal. An AI, however, does not have a personal vision or experience. It can only iterate on the data it has been given.
While there are certainly parallels between AI and human learning processes, the absence of personal experience and creativity in AI shouldn't be understated.
Now, it's true that an AI's output is influenced by its parameters, and changing these can yield different results. However, the crucial difference here is that the AI lacks a fundamental understanding of its parameters and how they relate to the outcome. It doesn't have an internal artistic vision guiding the selection of these parameters, unlike a human artist who actively makes decisions based on their aesthetic preferences and creative goals.
Your points about speed and iteration are well taken. AI indeed allows for faster generation and variation of images than a human artist could achieve. Yet, it's still a tool being guided by human creativity and intention, lacking the intuitive control and creative inspiration inherent in human artistry.
Lastly, you're correct that AI is Not intended to replace human artists. Like any tool, it's here to aid the creative process, not to replace it. But we must also remember that art isn't just about the final product. It's about the journey of creation, a deeply human process filled with intuition, emotion, and subjective experience, aspects that an AI does not possess. AI, no doubt, is a powerful tool, but it lacks the human element that makes art, art...
