In order to continue DB's story in an authentic manner, Jump should create a Toriyama AI bot

[PhantomSaiyan]

Anything that moves you is art. Regardless of whether it's done by a person, computer, animal, nature, a sequence of events or anything else. Doesn't matter if it's done on purpose or on accident either

No, art is by definition inherently a human thing, period, it's not up for debate.

[BootyCheeksJohnson]

Anti-fascists are anti-AI and fascists are pro-AI, so that should tell you everything you need to know, I would offer.

Sadly, I have seen some people on the left use AI art to make anti-fascist and anti-capitalist stuff. People are too lazy to hire people to make art. I have done art for free for people because I'm nice, or I don't want them to use AI.

Plenty of people claim to be on 'the left', that doesn't make them actually on the left.

D.C. Douglas (longest serving voice of Albert Wesker) is a great example of this. He uses generative a.i. and when people call him out for it he acts like a douche about it. Saying stuff like "why would I spend 12 hours drawing a picture of me and Wesker when I'm not voicing the character anymore?" Or "why would I pay someone far too much money to draw me with a character I don't voice anymore when a.i. can do it in a minute?" He's anti a.i. when it affects his line of work but the moment someone else's job is on the line he doesn't care.
Basically he claims to be of the left but supports the same stuff the right does when it benefits him.

[Hellspawn28]

Anything that moves you is art. Regardless of whether it's done by a person, computer, animal, nature, a sequence of events or anything else. Doesn't matter if it's done on purpose or on accident either

No, art is by definition inherently a human thing, period, it's not up for debate.

Art by other animals is still art because they are living beings. An art piece from an Elephant is art and not a picture from a bot. Even a drawing from an extraterrestrial would still be art because they would be a living and breathing life form like we are.

[Ronin]

Anything that moves you is art. Regardless of whether it's done by a person, computer, animal, nature, a sequence of events or anything else. Doesn't matter if it's done on purpose or on accident either

No, art is by definition inherently a human thing, period, it's not up for debate.

That's correct. Maybe I didn't phrase it that good. It is a subjective human experience and expression, but my point was that anything can be art as long as it's presented as so. Something that, which by itself wouldn't be art, becomes art if someone presents it that way.

[LoganForkHands73]

Art by other animals is still art because they are living beings. An art piece from an Elephant is art and not a picture from a bot. Even a drawing from an extraterrestrial would still be art because they would be a living and breathing life form like we are.

Agreed, I don't think art necessarily has to be entirely confined to human experience, though obviously, it is our primary frame of reference. I don't think there's a solid consensus on how the creation of art evolved as a practice, but I think it clearly has some roots in the behaviour of animals. Fish creating beautiful patterns out of pebbles and shells for their mates, birds performing choreography worthy of Tchaikovsky to pull fine shyt, and our fellow mammals taking interest in artwork purely for fun.

As for AI, despite the name, it's still in the phase of being a glorified tool. The AI itself has no agency in the creative process. It's not at a point of being able to create anything truly meaningful or beautiful without direct human input or plagiarising existing work.

Can people use AI to supplement their art in interesting ways? I think so, and I've seen interesting examples, even back when the technology was in its infancy. The pitfall many fall into is using it as a complete crutch, expecting it to pump out miracles by itself.

And I get it, life's not fair. Some people will never have the skill, time, talent or resources to extract the art they believe they have in their hearts into reality. But, well... that's just tough, isn't it? You won't be the first or last person to die with a really great idea in their heads that never got to see the light of day. Hell, even some great creatives of our time have projects that they haven't been able to realise the way they wanted, even with all the money in the world. Life never goes how we want it. Deal. With. It.

But mostly, AI art is bogged down by how soulless and, frankly, abysmally shit the vast majority of it is. There's also that whole thing of it being a measurable net negative on society and the environment, and anyone who relies on it is just lining the pockets of billionaires. As such, you're never gonna get a "punk AI art" movement, because there's no way to use it to truly subvert the system.

I think the other risk of AI art is the cultural pollution it can cause. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is already pumping ephemeral content out into the void, now you're telling me we have to sift through AI garbage as well? Fuck that. Even if there is another Van Gogh out there, how the hell is he ever going to be noticed in a world so crowded?

[JulieYBM]

And I get it, life's not fair. Some people will never have the skill, time, talent or resources to extract the art they believe they have in their hearts into reality. But, well... that's just tough, isn't it? You won't be the first or last person to die with a really great idea in their heads that never got to see the light of day. Hell, even some great creatives of our time have projects that they haven't been able to realise the way they wanted, even with all the money in the world. Life never goes how we want it. Deal. With. It.

People want that instant gratification, but that's just going to show how little they actually understand and appreciate art. This shit takes time and experience to create. When I'm not happy with something I create, I either think about what I don't like about it or get a friend I trust to give me a different perspective. It's really easy to get tunnel vision when creating art and sometimes, one has to take a step back and go away and doing something else to get a new perspective.

I'm literally in the fuckin' mines right now, working on a chapter of a book and some days it feels like torture just putting a single word on the page. Other days, I can crank out 3,000 words and my brain just connects all the dots like I want it do. You can't make art if you don't like people or see the beauty and the potential in the world—which is why conservatives make shitty art lol.

There just isn't any use for AI. Need help creating something? Enlist another human being if it's there's something you can't do! This is why directors so often have favorite actors, writers or cinematographers they like to work with. I myself do not draw—although, I've considered learning for the love of the game—but that's only spurred me to want to work with other talent to bring ideas to life. Art is about bringing humans together, after all.

[Luso Saiyan]

Art by other animals is still art because they are living beings.

But they are not people. Animals don't make art. People, unlike animals, have intellect and reason and art is about creating, expressing and conveying something from oneself to another.

[Zephyr]

Largely agreeing with Hellspawn, Ronin, and Logan. Humans aren't nearly as special as people like to pretend we are. Emotion, intellect, and intention are hardly features unique to homo sapiens, even if they are at their most complex and sophisticated in us (as far as we're aware, and at least on Earth).

Maybe more controversially, I don't think the label of "art" is nearly as special as people like to pretend it is. As a basic distinction: some beauty occurs in nature, while other beauty is found in created things. When we are appreciating the beauty of something that has been created, something that is artificial, regardless of who created it, how they created it, or why they created it, we are treating that thing as art. And when we do that, it feels extremely strange to not call that thing a piece of 'art'. That includes a cool pattern created in the sand by an insect, and the lovely song that my cat is singing, and beaver dams, and bird nests, and bird songs.* That includes the random circular scribbles that are left on a piece of paper as a result of testing to see if a pen has enough ink. That includes buildings, vehicles, tools, clothing, packaging, etc. That includes advertisements and merchandise. These are all things that were made as a result of one or more conscious entities responding to the world around them, and we can experience these things and react to their aesthetic qualities.

The whole "death of the author" thing comes to mind here, where people usually bring that up to argue for the irrelevance of intent when it comes to evaluating a piece of art. Or commercial art, where the thing is being created not necessarily to express an idea, but to get the bag in order to survive. Or get smokes, in Dragon Ball's case, a story which has famously been described by Torishima as "a work without substance" that contains "nothing you can learn" (cool story, Torishima, substance still snuck in and I learned quite a bit!). Whether it's a creature carving a very cool looking path as a byproduct of simply trying to scavenge for food, or my cat wailing her little head off in the most grating tones possible just to get some food or companionship from me, non-human animals are just as capable of making things that have aesthetic qualities that can be evaluated, whether they intended that or not, whether they could intend that or not. Or is a toddler's 'fridge art' not "real art"?

Definitely more controversially, yeah I would include AI generated art as well. It's effectively a new form of pastiche or collage, where existing art is taken and combined to make something new. Of course, these collages/pastiches are ethically-dubious for a great many reasons, usually fuck-ugly, and much less interesting in a variety of ways. As far as "who is the creator of the piece?" is concerned, I think you'd have to include the person who typed in the prompt (they'd be like the "producer" or an "editor", repeatedly nudging the direct creator to approximate their specifications incorporate feedback), as well as whoever picked and chose which things to train the model on; but most importantly the people whose pieces were used to train the model in the first place. It's like an involuntarily-collaborative effort.

If anyone has a really good suggestion for what to call "created things that I can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of" that isn't 'art', I would genuinely love to hear it. Because colloquially it sure feels like that term is 'art', and I promise you it is okay that this results in 'art' including "too many" things. Some art can be and is worthless garbage, like AI slop. "It isn't real art though!" really doesn't need to be the ultimate line of defense against some lame hypothetical about Iyoku training a bot on Toriyama manga to keep DB going forever "authentically".

---

*: This has nothing to do with Dragon Ball or AI, but we're already deep into "Philosophy of Art" territory in this thread, so why not. What about those trails, those dams, and those nests? What about farms? What about canals? Is it "art" when one or more conscious entities take the natural world with its natural beauty, and reshape it into something else, something artificial in its beauty? I think that is indeed a natural consequence of my line of reasoning, and it's kind of cool to think about. The extent to which the entire planet has been reshaped by conscious entities almost renders much of what we might usually call "natural beauty" actually artificial in nature, at least somewhat.

Finally, if you're a theist, and you believe that the 'natural' world was literally shaped directly by one or more deities, then nature itself is an artificial creation, and would thus appropriately be labeled 'art' under my view. I am not a theist, so I don't go this far, but it is another fun thing to think about.

[PhantomSaiyan]

You can yap all you want, art already has definition, and the word human is inseparably tied to it.

And no, it's not because "we think we are more special than we are" we literally fucking created the concept of art, and no other species replicated it.

"But what if an animal learns how to paint-" They don't.

If you think that art is not tied with humanity, then you misinterpreted the meaning of the word your entire life and had no idea what it actually meant.
Even nature, as beautful as it is, cannot be categorized as art and whoever does it has no idea what the actual definition of the word is, its beauty is something else entirely.

[WittyUsername]

I do remember reading about how certain species, namely orcas and great apes, do supposedly have their own “cultures”.

[Zephyr]

You can yap all you want

Well, as long as I have your permission.

Yes, we created "the concept" of art. As far as we're aware, we're the only entities in existence that even have the capacity to think in terms of concepts. We also came up with "the concept" of eating; that doesn't mean we're the only things that eat.

You might find that dictionaries do not prescribe the correct way words ought to be used, they record the way words are used. This is why new words get added to the dictionary all the time.

You might also find that language is an ever-evolving thing, and words acquire new meanings as time goes on. This is why your extremely helpful dictionary citation includes multiple definitions of the word. Terms like "gender" and "sex" having different meanings in the present is also a product of this sort of thing.

The better point to be raising is: should we expand our usage of the word "art" to include non-humans? To which I say: "why not?" There's no practical reason for clinging to a needlessly-anthropocentric definition. If you're committed to treating human-made things as more valuable or special, it is trivially-easy to place the "human" adjective in the front, and call some things "human art". That seems more clean and elegant than cooking up some new term for "created things that I am evaluating the aesthetic content of" that includes both 'art' and non-human creations, something I'm still eager to hear suggestions for.

Finally:

If you think that art is not tied with humanity, then you misinterpreted the meaning of the word your entire life and had no idea what it actually meant.

It is both strange and bold to just assume that I've believed this my entire life, or that I was somehow not aware of a dictionary definition. I have landed on my present position after many many years of careful and thoughtful consideration, in part facilitated by earning a Master's Degree in Philosophy, a process that involved my taking several courses on aesthetics, and discussing issues like this at length with my peers and professors. I'm aware that I am defending a very unpopular position, and I understand why it is unpopular. Trust me.

[PhantomSaiyan]

Yes, we created "the concept" of art. As far as we're aware, we're the only entities in existence that even have the capacity to think in terms of concepts. We also came up with "the concept" of eating; that doesn't mean we're the only things that eat.

That's just a ridiculous comparison. Eating exists regardless, art exists because we literally create it, they're not even remotely comparable.
I'm sure that as someone who's bragging about their philosophy studies, you don't need me to explain such a simple thing, but here we are... You definitely could have found a better analogy here.
Or maybe you couldn't have, because the point is wrong to begin with if you wanted to compare something that exists in nature with something that we literally invented ourselves.

You might also find that language is an ever-evolving thing, and words acquire new meanings as time goes on. This is why your extremely helpful dictionary citation includes multiple definitions of the word. Terms like "gender" and "sex" having different meanings in the present is also a product of this sort of thing.

They all have the word human in them.

The better point to be raising is: should we expand our usage of the word "art" to include non-humans? To which I say: "why not?" There's no practical reason for clinging to a needlessly-anthropocentric definition. If you're committed to treating human-made things as more valuable or special, it is trivially-easy to place the "human" adjective in the front, and call some things "human art". That seems more clean and elegant than cooking up some new term for "created things that I am evaluating the aesthetic content of" that includes both 'art' and non-human creations, something I'm still eager to hear suggestions for.

It's way easier and more logical to create a new word for non human made things instead of muddying the already existing word.
There is nothing needless about the anthropocentric definition, art is an expression of the human soul, so the human element is very much needed.

It is both strange and bold to just assume that I've believed this my entire life, or that I was somehow not aware of a dictionary definition. I have landed on my present position after many many years of careful and thoughtful consideration, in part facilitated by earning a Master's Degree in Philosophy, a process that involved my taking several courses on aesthetics, and discussing issues like this at length with my peers and professors. I'm aware that I am defending a very unpopular position, and I understand why it is unpopular. Trust me.

It was not referred to just you but to everyone who thinks that art is not 100% tied to human beings.
But also, how much pondering and consideration did you really do if you consider the human element in art as something needless or outdated. Maybe you really did spend a lot of time thinking this through, but if this is the result, then it was quantity over quality.

And what I'm getting from all of this is that "philosophers" really like to overcomplicate things that can be easily explained with 2 sentences at most, and creating dilemmas that don't need to exist in the first place.

[PowerPhantom245]

This is going to sound awkward, but how common is AI in anime industry?
Is AI bot really that common in animation industry?

[PhantomSaiyan]

This is going to sound awkward, but how common is AI in anime industry?
Is AI bot really that common in animation industry?

It's not common at all at the moment

[Koitsukai]

Wait, so this isn't art?
Over 400 paintings this little saiyan has coughed up.

[PowerPhantom245]

This is going to sound awkward, but how common is AI in anime industry?
Is AI bot really that common in animation industry?

It's not common at all at the moment

Nice to meet another member with "Phantom" in the name.
Going back to the topic, it's only matter of time unfortunately.
We are getting first AI-directed movie next year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgmkrWXC_po

[Zephyr]

repeatedly trying to turn this conversation into a fight

Why, man? No, I wasn't "bragging about my philosophy studies". That would be a really fucking dumb thing to do in a post where I acknowledged that my position is unpopular within academic philosophy. I was trying to explain why your assumption about how I arrived at my position was wrong, actually.

You clarify that you meant it generally, but then assume that my thinking on the matter was "quantity over quality"....while also complaining about "philosophers over-complicating things". I can't tell if you want to have a deeper conversation about this shit or not.

I also don't care anymore. I wanted to respond to your points that aren't just shitty personal attacks, because some are theoretically worth addressing, but you're being such an obnoxious asshole for no good reason. It really isn't worth the effort.

[PhantomSaiyan]

but you're being such an obnoxious asshole

Disagree. I just responded to you.
Not liking another person's response =/= them being an asshole/them trying to "fight"

just shitty personal attacks

You brought up philosophy studies acting like they give you an edge. That to me feels like bragging, and I stated as such.
Not a personal attack.

You said you thought about this a lot. Again, if you call the human element in art needless or outdated, then it's clear to me that you did not spend that time efficiently.
Not a personal attack.

[MasenkoHA]

This is going to sound awkward, but how common is AI in anime industry?
Is AI bot really that common in animation industry?

It's not common at all at the moment

Nice to meet another member with "Phantom" in the name.
Going back to the topic, it's only matter of time unfortunately.
We are getting first AI-directed movie next year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgmkrWXC_po

It looks like ass. I can’t imagine it will turn a profit to encourage more all AI films

[PhantomSaiyan]

Nice to meet another member with "Phantom" in the name.
Going back to the topic, it's only matter of time unfortunately.
We are getting first AI-directed movie next year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgmkrWXC_po

Soon enough we'll have a whole Phanrom Troupe here

But I agree with MasenkoHA, that trailer looks like shit and I doubt many people will watch that "movie"