728
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
728 points (94.9% liked)
Fuck AI
2518 readers
748 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A photographer without a camera cannot produce art though. They can imagine it, explain it and even make a rough sketch - but the end result isn't art. It's a concept for art that is not yet made reality.
Similarly, there are differing levels of effort in order to create AI art. For instance, someone using an LLM to create an AI picture has approximately as much artistic merit as someone using their phone to take a selfie. It requires roughly the same amount of effort as well.
But for other AI art, it can take a lot of time to get everything right. I've dabbled with Stable Diffusion two years ago and there is a lot of finetuning and parameters you had to set to get anything worthwhile. My attempts roughly looked like taking a photo with random brightness, contrast and exposure settings: like utter trash. With some time and practice one could likely get adept at manipulating whatever model one is using and generate plenty of images with purpose.
Most AI generated images have little to no artistic merit, just like most pictures taken with a smartphone camera. But you cannot conclude that any and all art with either of those tools is therefore impossible.
That is correct.
Photographs that simply document something existing are not art. The photos I take of something that catches my eye are not art if I don't bother with a minimum of framing or any kind of composition. Those are just snapshots of something existing, which is also the case with most selfies.
I sure can!
A camera can be used to make art and just document things. A paintbrush can be used to make art or just paint a wall a single color without any larger context that would make it art. Tools used to make art are also able to be used to make stuff that isn't art. Even art that might look random, like Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings, were intentional with composition and purpose.
A LLM is a randomizing copy blender. It has a vague idea of what the person is going for, but it is just mashing together stuff that was pumped into it without intent or purpose. If it gets lucky and is what the person wants, cool. It still isn't art and can't be due to just being a randomized mismash of things other people created like fancy copy machine.
Just picked up this photograph from Goodwill
This is a photograph that simply documents the raccoons and blue Jay just existing.
I could have pointed a camera and with "AI" help or auto focus taken this photo.
AI can't go out in the woods and find this shot. A good wildlife photographer can and does.
Now, if I told you that this picture was taken with a remote camera? That some person just had a camera pointed at a stump for weeks and got lucky.
Does that make it less "art"?
It's the work and effort that gives the art the feeling.
You looking at that photo makes you feel a certain way. It has beauty. It is art.
Now, if you think the photographer camped out for days hunting the perfect picture of these raccoons or if this is actually just an AI generated photo of Raccoons. Is going to change your feelings and if you appreciate it as "true" art.
I would call you a liar because that is clearly hand drawn based on some reference images being combined or in a very unlikely case it could be staged. There is absolutely zero chance that it was a random image from a trail cam.
While it is possible that it could be an AI regurgitation of someone's artwork, that is far less likely because it doesn't have the weird AI artifacts that are common in something with that much detail.
Photographers frequently make art. They can also just take pictures that are documentation. Documentation via pictures can be visually appealing without being art.
A lot of art is ugly and doesn't communicate the same feelings to all viewers. Some art needs to be explained for anyone to understand the intent and meaning behind it. Even unclear and bad art is still art.
On this we agree! AI slop can be turned into art with additional work and effort. The direct results from a text prompt are not art. People who can only create images using an AI text prompt are not artists.