this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
56 points (93.8% liked)
196
18180 readers
92 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bullying people who does no harm to anyone is cool now?
Many people use gen AI for completely innocuous tasks. And for many things that harm nobody. Still you take pleasure insulting and degrading Innocent people.
That's not better than any other bully/oppresor.
Don't act surprised when people stop helping and having solidarity with your fights when you have spent a decade insulting everyone around you.
There's nothing wrong with making fun of someone for making a bad life choice.
Bullying people for things that they can't change about themselves is different. That's not cool
If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that's cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don't even dare to try to express yourself.
People with cameras choose what they take photos of.
People using AI also choose what they want to create.
And generative artists for instance, a lesser clue of what the final result will be than a AI artist.
Generative art is not art?
Collages are art?
Art gatekeepers are always funny, full of inconsistencies.
The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
So generative art is not art?
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
The public has largely decided that it's not. That's why it's controversial to use. Don't waste my time.
Typical, talking all that much about art and don't know shit about art.
Here, for your knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it's not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths """defending"" art don't even know.
That's what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that "don't know and don't want to know" no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
Well, it's a shame that chatgpt through sheer corporate momentum has completely erased whatever branch of artistic expression this is.
You should be pissed at Sam Altman for appropriating your culture.
I'm not into identity politics, sorry. Can't say I'am surprised anti-AI people having an overlap with indentity-politics.
You "can't say you're surprised" that anti-AI people are left of the overton window? Amazing.
This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.
That seems a convoluted disticntion.
When I see these pieces in museums I've seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it's easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that's totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
Microwaving a premade meal doesn't make me a chef. Generative AI is able to make fake copies and imitations of art, but it isn't an artist. The prompters are just that, they're reheating someone else's creation and calling themselves chefs.
No, they do not. That is, in fact, the point of having a decision engine make decisions for you. I would know, I've used it.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don't make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don't even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
But it does make you an artist.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art. What's difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
Sorry, those aren't people. The Grand Canyon might be awe-inspiring, but it's not art.
This is what it always comes down to. Every single one of you thinks that art is spectacle. It's very consumerist of you.
That we disagree.
And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.
To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that's being perceived. It's a way to look at what art it that it's truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:
Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare's version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?
Yes. For the same reason that training a chatbot on your mom's happy birthday texts will never be good enough.
Do you need to feel a love connection with every artist? If not that response is not really relevant isn't?
It is literally the same. If I put it side by side you will not be able to distinguish them. If you cannot distinguish between two things they are the same.
If you were a future archeologist and found those two scripts. Your job as an archeologist is to catalogue the arts and crafts of past civilizations. How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash while taking the Shakespeare script and put it into a museum, when the two of them are exactly the same, and you have no evidence on who wrote it?
If you need to know that something was made by an human to be considered art then you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts. For me that's an inconsistency. Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.
Again all this is subjective. If we want an objective truth we need to do some science. Thus an experiment. We could try to define art by the physiological responses that individuals have perceiving certain things, those which share the same physiological response can be considered art. Or even if we want to add the axiom that art NEEDs to be made by humans, we could look and measure the physiological responses of individuals making different things, and catalogue those with the same physiological response as art makers, or artist and the products of those actions art. It would be interesting to do these experiments and add traditional and AI art into the mix, don't you think?
Why would I throw a marvelous statistical anomaly into the garbage?
It can. It does. "Welcome to the neighborhood!" from your neighbor and from a local Internet Service Provider inherently mean different things, even if they're "identical."
For most of human history, I've been able to assume that something that looks like it was built by people was built by people.
The existence of LLMs has made me more cautious, yeah. Seems like a societal net-negative.
God, this is why stem majors need to take humanities.
Just curious and for a good laugh.
Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities? Do you think studying humanities make you a superior being? A better human? Do you think the study of humanities is what gives people morals and people that had not study humanities are all sinners that would go to hell? I've heard it all.
But I'm curious to hear one more. What way do you think truth about nature can be approached that it is not the scientific method?
I know that some people approach truth by dogma "this is true because I (or someone I like) say so" but I must never agree on that.
I can have all opinions about art that I want, same can you. As long as they are internally consistent probably both will be true. I think "art is what make people feel they are perceiving art" is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world gives the rank of artist and that it was not made by a technology based on neural networks generation text-to-image as it was presented in the year 2021". But both are still opinions, if you want something more solid you need the scientific method and experimentation.
The fact that you would even ask this. Do you even know what they study in there? Speaking of rejecting knowledge, my guy, there is so much out there to learn. You have trapped yourself within the smallest box.
Mine is actually "art is communication," but if being dishonest makes you feel better, go for it, buddy.
Using a camera doesn't make you an artist either. Photography as art takes a lot of effort, just snapping a shot isn't it. You aren't very good at this.
Says you. I just don't agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.
I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in "I'm an artist" are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day
I'm not an artist, ~~I'm just better than you on a philosophical level~~ i just respect artists.
I'm not particularly worried about losing the "likes generative AI" demographic, especially if they're not going to support more important movements because their poor choices are being mocked.
'No harm'
How much CO2 was generated in the creations of these shit posts?
Could that energy been used in some way that generated something more than chuckles?
Less CO2 than playing a videogame.
I can generate an AI image with my graphics card at 100% in 5 seconds, probably less.
I gaming afternoon can be 5 hours with the same graphics cars at 100%.
I suppose you are also worry by the increase of CO2 usage in 3d art, or in digital art instead of pen and paper art. Are you not?
For me it takes less processing power to generate an AI still than to render a frame in blender with a lot of lighting, shaders and whatnot involved.