this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
406 points (98.1% liked)
Greentext
7393 readers
659 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
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
We are getting closer and it makes me very sad.
There were some songs (of different genres) which I thought "huh, sounds really good" and then noticed, that it was AI (either by a disclaimer in the description, people in the comments or by the voice; the voice of AI is still fairly noticeable) and went "fuuuuuuuck, now I don't want to like it". And this annoys me, as I know it will happen more often and also that I will miss out noticing it more. AI creations can get flooded while real creators getting drowned out (looking with much disgust at you Pixiv and DeviantArt).
But I also want to add that I am not against AI assisted music creations. But then the creator must disclose where and how much the AI was involved.
I refuse to consider anything AI generated to be legitimate art.
There's nothing intentional about it, you simply give a prompt to a machine and it matches the pattern. That isn't art just like how doing madlibs isn't the same as writing literature.
A person using AI tools can be ok as long as it's a human doing the overall composition.
Like using AI to make samples to use in a song is fine, using AI to generate the entire song isn't.
It's functionally no different than an artist making a commissioned work, though. The artist is given a prompt by the client and they use what they've learned and trained on to produce the thing.
It is entirely different. It's like the commissioner taking credit for the artist and calling themselves the artist because their money bought the imagery into existence.
AI generations aren't art and people who take them and pass them off as art are frauds to themselves and others.
It's like you didn't read my comment at all
Look at the ratio and then question your own reading comprehension.
8 other people read our exchange and agreed with me.
Maybe instead of literally everyone but you having poor reading comprehension you've just got a bad point.
Mob mentality isn't necessarily correct. Blanket hating AI is the default on Lemmy so I'm not surprised by the ratio. You also harped on the people imputing prompts not being artists when I was clearly comparing them to clients.
The truth is that people said shit like you're saying about digital artists when that first became a thing.
Gen AI is still in its infancy, and it's not going to go anywhere.
Did you read my comments?
Where did I claim that AI is going anywhere?
You really need to work on your reading comprehension little bro because you're bringing shit I never mentioned up like it's some kind of refute to what I actually said.
Sorry but I'm not going to glaze you like your beloved LLM.