Talk:AI art
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Asparagusstar in topic Split proposal
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AI art article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
- Add new text under old text.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
Article policies
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject icon This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
| WikiProject icon | Computer science Low‐importance | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
.jpg){kind=link}
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
Discussions
- Not moved, 28 February 2024, to Artificial intelligence image generation, see discussion.
- Moved, 11 February 2026, from Artificial intelligence visual art to AI art, see discussion.
Hello, I am of the opinion that this article should be revised so that every mention of artificially generated art, should be amended to read "artificially generated imagery". Other phrases such as "images", "image generation", and ""art"" can be used. And that where the word "artist" is referenced referring to someone who prompts an artificial intelligence model to create imagery, the word "artist" should be replaced with "prompter", as these people do not have a significant enough involvement in the creative process to earn the title of artist. I believe this is necessary as artificially generated pictures are not a form of art, and due to Wikipedia's goal of maintaining accuracy I believe that it is imperative that the article be changed to support this. I'm not going to bother justifying why artificially created "art" is not art, as that is not the point of this talk page. I simply believe that the term "art" used in this page is misleading to the readers. 144.6.121.250 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
- no, for two main reasons
- we're not meant to assume intent with any of those words. the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that
- what we are meant to do is compile what sources say. the sources call it art, the article calls it art
- what you mentioned two threads up is effectively using wikipedia as a source, and what you mentioned here would be original research, which are... not optimal play
- this isn't to say that i agree or disagree with your points about what the piss puddles are or aren't, i actually agree with most of them, just that the way wikipedia works is geared towards not taking any given editor's personal opinion into account in mainspace unless it can be backed up with a source
- as is, sources already exist calling it "art", so regardless of whether or not it's to be taken literally, that's the name that stuck, and it's unlikely that future sources with conflicting names will come in droves large and consistent enough to actually get the article renamed, instead of just having a section added about whether or not it should be referred to as "art"
- what do you mean those weren't two? consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
- So do you think it's worth adding perhaps a section that mentions all this? Perhaps labelled controversy or something? 58.178.132.192 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
- if sources are found, a section like this can and probably will be added. such is the nature of wikipedia~
- ...or in more pessimistic terms, "maybe not with what we currently have" consarn (grave) (obituary) 23:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Ok I'll just gather sources then. Considering there is plenty. 58.178.131.30 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
- About the "the sources call it art, the article calls it art" section. The fact one calls it art does not make it art, because sources can be biased and as such, wrong. That is why one cannot exactly boil it down to "the term "art" could be used literally or figuratively, but the article isn't supposed to care about that", for calling it "art" is factually wrong. Analytic philosophy exists for a reason, the meaning of the words used are meant to be universally understood, agreed upon, and most importantly factual. It is inherently inaccurate to call it art, and if it is not corrected from "art" to "image generation", it misleads readers. While "There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art" (from the Wiki page for art), however the article states "Artificial intelligence visual art, or AI art, is visual artwork" but when you check visual artwork's Wiki to which the link redirects, it clearly states "Current usage of the term "visual arts" includes fine art as well as applied or decorative arts and crafts" and excludes generative art. Therefore, I would like to formally request to either edit or rewrite the article regarding AI "art", or "visual arts". I believe for the sake of clarity it is of utmost importance to add some clarity to the AI art page, regardless whether or not someone agrees with my views or not, solely for the sake of clarifying said viewpoints brought up in my comment. Okasawa Michio (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Please have a look at WP:V and WP:NOR. You won't get anywhere on Wikipedia saying that the sources could be wrong so we should rewrite the article based on your personal opinion. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Per WP:NOTSOURCE my understanding is that we're not able to reference other wikipedia articles to determine policy. On whether 'philosophy says...' its completely arbitrary to use one form of reasoning over another. We use sources; See WP:PSTS. And to say 'sources are biased' is just a fact. That doesn't mean they're wrong, even if some positivist philosophy has taught you that its possible to purge bias. In this case you seem to be saying, O. M., that we should ignore what the authority says and rely on what we collectively think. That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOTADEMOCRACY --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Reply
- The Artful Dodger is indeed full of art but not the kind concerned with aesthetics. I'd say AI art is roughly equivalent. Arlo James Barnes (pro-∪nion) 01:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- So do you think it's worth adding perhaps a section that mentions all this? Perhaps labelled controversy or something? 58.178.132.192 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
This article seems highly fallacious. How is it going to assert that automatons carried creativity and intelligence? It is a complete misrepresentation of fact. ~2026-52160-3 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I agree that GenAI images shouldn’t be called art. However, it’s Wikipedia’s job to explain encyclopedic terms. There’s also an article called AI slop if you’d like to read that. 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 22:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Not a vote If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa |username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed |username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm |username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. The !vote-count was 8-4 in favor and the opposing arguments based off of MOS:ACROTITLE were adequately rebutted by Wracking, EarthDude, and Qwerty123M. There's also WP:CONCISE for the support !votes, which met no opposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult Δx talk to me 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
Artificial intelligence visual art → AI art – More common name. None of the sources say "Artificial Intelligence visual art" in their titles.
Note that Dictionary.com lists AI as an adjective but not Artificial Intelligence. Seeing the latter used as an adjective in this article title gives the impression of an out-of-touch style guide. – MW (t•c) 08:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose. use full name. avoid to create additional, possible confusion using acronym when the current title is clear already. Cfls (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Weak support per nom + WP:CONCISE. The acronym "AI" primarily refers to artificial intelligence and as noted by nom, "AI" is used as adjective. My reading of guidelines (WP:ACROTITLE and MOS:ACROTITLE) doesn't preclude AI art as title (though AI for Artificial intelligence wouldn't be appropriate). I can't imagine this creating confusion.
- I this proposal has a potential issue of scope (WP:PRECISION). Removing "visual" from the title may blur the lines between this article and, e.g., Music and artificial intelligence. I would prefer "AI visual art" over "Artificial intelligence visual art" per nom. We may need a broad-concept article titled something like Art and artificial intelligence that covers all types of art and AI, but that's a separate conversation.
- Also noting a related discussion at WP:CFD started by the proposer Wracking talk! 07:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I oppose using the acronym in the title per MOS:ACROTITLE, "our strong preference for natural disambiguation. Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes." I support removing "visual" from the title per WP:COMMONNAME. Using "visual art" is overly pedantic because worrying someone might come to this article expecting it to be about music is like worrying people will come to an art museum expecting it to be full of music. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Is there anything AI art would be ambiguous with? – MW (t•c) 12:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- The disambiguation hatnote currently on this page for the "AI art" redirect suggests natural language generation, music and artificial intelligence and text-to-video model. Belbury (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Is there anything AI art would be ambiguous with? – MW (t•c) 12:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support - "AI art" is the more common name and it used frequently on social media. Guz13 (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Note: WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computer graphics, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Visual arts have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose, the present name is adequate to define the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support: I don't see the reasoning behind not using the AI acronym. AI redirects to Artificial intelligence, as it is the primary topic of that acronym. Furthermore, we already have countless articles which use the AI acronym, such as AI boom, AI slop, and AI bubble. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Note: WikiProject Robotics, WikiProject European history, and WikiProject Women in Red have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support per WP:CONCISE. An acronym in the title is only a minor barrier to fully understanding the subject of this article and the term "AI" can be explained fully through a short sentence in the lead paragraph. "AI" is a more WP:COMMONTERM in the sources used in this article and social media usage. Given that the term "AI" is used more commonly than artificial intelligence, MOS:ACROTITLE is not a concern to us.
Qwerty123M (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support as the more concise and descriptive title. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose --Ooligan (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support per U.S. state, not United States state Red Slash 18:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support as per EarthDude * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Ashelham (article contribs ).
— Assignment last updated by Salink298 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Reply
It has been suggested that this page be split out into pages titled AI image and Artificial intelligence and art . (Discuss) (July 2026)
This article talks about two things at once that are intertwined but not the same; that is, the generation of images with AI, and the use of AI for art. Plus, the term "AI art" is contentious; art is often understood as the expression of human emotion, and as such there is debate whether AI-generated works can be called "art". That's why I think this article should be split in two; "AI image" for the technology used in image production, and "Artificial intelligence and art", for the use of such technology in art. DaniPine3 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
OPPOSE This split already exists. "The use of AI for art" is the topic of this article, AI art. "The generation of images with AI" is basically the topic of the article Text-to-image model, which is linked to in the first paragraph of this article. If there is any part of this article that is not about "Ai art" and is instead about the general "generation of images with AI" then that could likely be merged into Text-to-image model or just removed. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Asparagusstar: The problem is, the redirect Artificial intelligence image generation still exists, which is definitely not the same as AI art, as DaniPine3 pointed out. It should direct to text-to image.Wuerzele (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- This proposal is to split this "AI art" article into two new articles. As I said, those two articles already exist, so the proposal really just amounts to changing the names of these articles. If you agree with the proposal here that "Artificial intelligence and art" is a better article title then "AI art" and you agree that "AI image" is a better title than "Text-to-image model," then maybe just put a bold "support" in front of your comment. I have added a bold "oppose" in front of mine. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Asparagusstar: The problem is, the redirect Artificial intelligence image generation still exists, which is definitely not the same as AI art, as DaniPine3 pointed out. It should direct to text-to image.Wuerzele (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- WikiProject Women in Red articles not associated with a meetup
- All WikiProject Women in Red pages
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class Visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles
- B-Class computer graphics articles
- Low-importance computer graphics articles
- WikiProject Computer graphics articles
- B-Class Artificial Intelligence articles
- Unknown-importance Artificial Intelligence articles
- WikiProject Artificial Intelligence articles
- B-Class Computer science articles
- Low-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- B-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- B-Class European history articles
- Low-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- B-Class Robotics articles
- Low-importance Robotics articles
- WikiProject Robotics articles