this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1299 points (96.2% liked)
196
17484 readers
1075 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
the vast majority of human art lacks the real nuance and emotional impact real art carries.
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)
You really don't see the nuance to that? A human uses art to satirize the way other humans use art. A message is being conveyed. The message might be, "Fuck your idea of art," but that's still a message being sent from one human to other humans, through the medium of art.
An AI can't do that. An AI can't understand the emotions underlying the concept of protest art. You can ask it to make up some absurd idea, or even to generate a realistic image of it, but it's not likely to resonate with humans as well as human-made art does.
It's okay if this all sounds like gobbledygook - not everyone connects to art in the same way. But those that get it know exactly what I'm talking about.
The AI art doesn't appear out of nothing. Someone sets the actual content of the art in motion, and it's not the fault of the AI that the stupid human controlling it typed in "big titty goth gf" instead of something that illustrates a better concept.
What's the excuse of the banana guy for making a shitty piece with no effort?
You're talking like there's some rule about the effort required in order for something to qualify as "art," as if the time-saving aspect of AI-generation is what disqualifies its images. That's not how art works, and that's not the issue with AI.
For a lot of people, art is about expressing themselves. If you have an absurd idea to troll art by doing something inane like taping a banana to a wall, that is still expressing one's self even if it seems low-effort. You don't have to like it or agree with it, just as you don't have to like or agree with what another person says.
And unless the human takes great control in the generation of that image, other humans may feel something lacking in the result. At best, AI art resembles something made by someone who has the hand-eye coordination and technical skill required to make visual art, but who lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
The banana art resembles something made by someone who has no hand-eye coordination or technical skill required to make visual art, and also lacks the passion and training that allows them to connect emotionally with an audience.
Yeah, and that's because the people using AI art generators are just expressing base shitty things, and the AI haters don't see the pieces with effort put into them. This also goes against your other statement of
AI art can do that, since it's still a human generating the message in the end.
EDIT : Can you meaningfully differenciate between a person writing a "plan" for a curator to tape a banana to a wall , and a person writing a "prompt" for a computer to generate an image that has a certain composition, lighting, colour, etc?
If we can't explain the difference, AI must be sentient? This argument reminds me of "God of the gaps".
No man, that doesn't mean that. I'm saying the artist for the banana piece is depending on the curator to do the actual creation of the piece, just like the guy writing the prompts for the AI is depending on the AI to create the piece.
We might as well attribute that work to the curator, then, hm?
Does the artist also get credit for how high up the wall the piece was displayed? Which floor or wing it's displayed in? Because this is what AI prompter's claim. They paint nothing but enter painter's competitions.
You get credit for the things you do, and not for the things you don't. LLMs are built to decide for you.
Yeah, so that's a stupid thing that individual humans are doing. If you "hand made" a 3d model in Blender and printed it out and submitted it to a painting competition, you are not doing something right.
So the banana guy doesn't get credit for making the piece. what did they actually do then? This is my point: Either the banana guy is doing nothing and getting paid shitloads, in which case, not art, (lots of ) humans make trash, here's an example, which means the AI guy is also not an artist, so fine.
Or Banana guy is an artist because he came up with the concept and is an artist, and so is the AI guy because he also came up with the concept.
I'm fine with either. I'm not fine with "banana guy is an artist, AI guy is not"
The bananamana gets credit for doing the Art Museum equivalent of a shitpost. I think everyone understands this intuitively.
The AI guy writes prompts. Maybe they do some touch-up after. But, this leaves a lot on the table: where is the museum curator filling in the little birds in the sky? Or the pedestrian across the street who makes it into some generateds and not others? Or the row of planets that, in video, turns into a guitar that then turns into a gas cloud that then turns into a trumpet-planet-thing that then dissolves into nothing? They live in the machine. A machine that doesn't know what a pedestrian is, that doesn't know what a trumpet is—It's just visual noise. It may as well be TV static. It means nothing.
Why does the AI idea-guy think that their work should be interesting to anyone when it is 90% colorful jingle keys for me, the dribbling baby, to look at while observing their "concept": Cthulhu dressed up as a police officer.
Did you like that? Cthulhu as a police officer? That's my art. Type that into a generator and appreciate it for me.
Good thing they didn't choose paints or acrylics, then, huh? That might have been embarrassing.
Why do you think this is a gotcha?
It by-definition does not. The fact that you can't see this I think makes you an inhuman monster.
If this were true, why would I want any of it? Do you seriously consume art you think is garbage for no reason? Are you not busy? Is your life really so boring?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
The top 40 charts of music? 35 out of the 40 are pure crap, manufactured by people that are playing it by the numbers based on market studies, all in the pursuit of money. Now on top of that, imagine the majority of amateur fluff that people produce that are just low quality, or things that people make that aren't full of gravitas, nuance and actually emotionally impactful.
Wow. This is a very old-man opinion.
Are you comparing people's weekend projects to, I dunno, Marvel movies?
I like amateur fluff, you know? I look for niche indie games on steam or itch.io just because I want to see what people are up to—what fun ideas they have. That it seems to bother you they're not Casablanca is very strange to me.
Ok, so why is the visual idea that some computer hobbyist came up with but didn't have the artistic capability to create not something interesting to you?
I dunno. What is it communicating to me?
That was actually a great article. Thanks for sharing it. There was a lot more context around that event than I'd thought.