The debate over whether people who use generative AI to create images should be called artists has erupted again on Reddit, after a post in the anti-AI community drew more than 37,000 upvotes. The discussion centred on a blunt claim that there is 'no such thing as an 'AI artist' because the artificial intelligence creates the image while the person merely commissions it.
The response was overwhelmingly critical of the term, with commenters arguing that prompting a model does not amount to making art. Others questioned whether someone who spends considerable time refining prompts should receive credit for the final image.
The disagreement has also exposed a wider divide between people who see AI as another creative tool and those who believe artistic creation requires human expression, skill, and intention. Across several Reddit communities, the same question keeps returning: where does using an artistic tool end and being an artist begin?
Critics Reject the Artist Label
The original Reddit discussion quickly became dominated by people rejecting the idea that an AI image generator makes its user an artist. One of the highest-rated comments stated, 'There is no such thing as an AI artist. The AI made the art, you mearly comissioned it'.
Another commenter argued that the image should simply be described as something that was 'made' rather than 'AI art', saying that using the term helped normalise it.
The criticism was not limited to the amount of effort involved in writing a prompt. Several commenters argued that an AI system cannot create art because it has no feelings, personal experiences, or desire for creative expression.
One lengthy response compared AI-generated images with computer-generated speedruns, arguing that technical perfection is less interesting than watching a person apply years of practice and accumulated knowledge in real time.
Others focused on the distinction between commissioning something and creating it. One commenter compared the situation to ordering a tattoo, asking whether telling a tattoo artist to create a rose would make the customer a tattoo artist. Another argued that people using AI are effectively 'creative directors', rather than artists.
The term 'prompter' appeared repeatedly. One commenter simply wrote, 'They're not artists, they're prompters', while another said that even people who spend considerable time developing prompts should be described as 'prompt engineers' rather than artists.
The argument has appeared repeatedly elsewhere on Reddit. In May, a post in r/antiai titled 'Generating prompts is not art. "AI artists" do not exist' questioned what actually makes AI-generated work unique and whether the people producing it develop the same skills as traditional artists.
Reddit Is Split Over What Makes an Artist
The disagreement is not confined to anti-AI communities. Discussions in r/aiwars show that some people who support generative AI still draw a line between casually generating an image and considering yourself an artist.
One January discussion titled 'AI prompters shouldn't be called AI artists' came from a user who described themselves as very supportive of generative AI. Their argument was that simply entering one prompt should not automatically make somebody an artist.
They suggested that someone seeking that label would need to refine outputs, correct details and actively shape the final result.
The replies showed just how contested that standard is. One commenter argued that AI users can be artists because art is not necessarily defined by physical labour, while another questioned whether the label 'artist' should have strict requirements at all.
The same discussion also included people who felt that spending only a few seconds writing a prompt should not carry the same recognition as years of artistic practice.
A separate r/AIWarsButBetter discussion in April made the opposing case more directly. Its author argued that AI outputs can be art and that AI prompters can be artists, saying that prompting can involve artistic intention, judgement, and revision.
The argument was that art does not necessarily depend on the physical difficulty of producing an object.
That position was also reflected in another r/aiwars discussion in May, where a commenter said they had changed their mind and concluded that AI-assisted art could still be called art. They nevertheless distinguished between someone who simply generates an image and someone who uses AI as part of a wider creative process.
The latest Reddit debate therefore does not produce a single answer to whether AI users are artists. What it does show is how strongly people disagree over the meaning of the word itself.
For critics in the original thread, the distinction is straightforward: the machine produces the image, while the person writes the prompt. For supporters, the human intention behind selecting, directing and refining an output can still amount to creative work.
For now, 'AI artist' remains a disputed label, with some Reddit users openly preferring 'prompter' and others arguing that the creative process matters more than the tool being used.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the main debate about AI-generated art?The debate centers on whether individuals using AI to generate images should be considered artists.
- What are the arguments against calling AI users artists?Critics argue that AI generates the image, and the user merely commissions it, lacking personal expression and skill.
- What do supporters of AI-generated art argue?Supporters claim that human intention in selecting, directing, and refining AI outputs can still be considered creative work.
