Firstly, art and creativity are turning into a kind of Lego constructor with minimal value, and secondly, it is becoming more and more difficult to trust the news, because AI makes better and better deepfakes; Thirdly, people, for example, I have a friend on the Internet, but due to the frequent use of AI, he has become quite apathetic, I try to support him and somehow help him, as I did before, but more and more often he just ignores me and brushes me off with a simple thank you or bye, and if we communicate, then not for long, since he does not listen to me, but usually he shows me masterpieces or memes that he has generated with the help of AI, calling it real art, honestly, it is more and more unpleasant for me to communicate with him.
I hope I explained clearly, sorry, the exact explanations are not about me.
Anyone that uses AI to compose music or make art is neither a musician, nor an artist- any more than I am a mathematician because I use a calculator.
It’s trash.
Good point, wrong conclusion
As a hobbyist photographer, I find it pretty amusing that when I use a device I just point at a target and press a button, it counts as art - but when I spend 3 hours tweaking a prompt to get exactly the image I want, suddenly it doesn’t. Seems way more like an ideological stance than a logical one.
Go ahead and tell the AI to scout out the location, then travel to the location to shoot, wait for the optimal lighting conditions and then find the best angle and camera settings to capture that one in a million photo that your years of experience working with film and photography tools taught you.
If you can tell me honestly that an AI would do the same job, then I’m going to say you should find a new hobby.
I have heard this bogus “but what about a camera?” argument more times than I can count. And it’s always a poor argument in defense of AI.
I don’t need to tell an AI to scout the location, travel there, wait for optimal lighting, nail the composition, dial in the settings, etc. I don’t need to tell a sculptor to do that either - it’s a completely different artistic field. Nobody here is claiming AI-generated pictures are photography - they’re not. Photography is done with a camera. The discussion is whether generating pictures with AI counts as art or not - not whether it’s photography.
I’m using photography as the example because people dismiss AI art on the grounds that “it doesn’t require any skill or effort,” but the exact same argument has been thrown at photography forever. There was a time when purists said the same thing about digital photography, and they were equally saying it about film photography back when it was new and painting was still “the” way to make pictures.
There’s a lot more to good photography than just point and click
The discussion is whether it is art or not. It doesn’t matter how bad someone is at it - people still accept it as art. You’d be a massive dick telling a beginner that their photography is so terrible it doesn’t even qualify as art. You can also take a great picture completely by accident, just like you can put a ton of effort into one and still end up with garbage.
Any HUMAN being using learned skill to capture a photo is art. Because art is something produced by a mind that strives to create it.
AI is not art because AI can’t comprehend art.
A camera can’t comprehend art either - it’s just a tool a human uses to create it. AI doesn’t generate anything on its own either; it needs a human to operate it too. The camera isn’t the artist, Photoshop isn’t, a canvas and brush aren’t, Illustrator isn’t. They’re just tools. The artist is the human behind them.
The word “garbage” is also appropriate, although in the case of AI, it’s not exactly garbage, given the quality of content created by AI this year, which is almost indistinguishable from human-made, but I can’t find the right words, so I call it top-quality excrement.
Yeah, I’ve noticed, it fucking sucks
support him? how?
Lately, I also think that it is useless, but I have no one else to communicate with on the Internet.
You’re here aren’t you?
Stop talking to AI apologists. They are either purposely malicious, or just low intelligence. I’ve met both.
There’s tons of communities here and mastodon that value real art.
My bizarre opinion: AI is making bad and amateur art more valuable, because AI can easily make overwhelming drawings and arts, but if you ask it to draw some shit drawing it just can’t handle it because they won’t train AI on low quality shit.
I’m starting to see more quality on bad designers with a lot of inconsistencies than good design styles, because it’s one of few ways to be completely sure it’s at least legit and audited by a real person.
I agree, in my case I am now happy to see at least a crooked drawing, if only it was created by a real person.
The same happened with audio.
Everyone and their mother can download east west synths and make a movie score in 3 seconds. I’ve done it. Easy.
What it can’t do is make authentic organic music. And sure, llms can make it "seem* organic, but you can tell. At least for now. I myself always research artists of music I listen to so its not an issue, and I can tell for now when something is fake.
Gotta repost this gem:
Give me a bit to find the author…
What cartoon is this horse from?
Ren & Stimpy
I know people like that. Kind of annoying but some people are addicted to llm slop. Not sure why.
Maybe share some actual human art with them instead. Or talk about how the one thing llms can never do is be authentic (or be non plageuristic)
I don’t think that AI devalues art.
Nobody looks at AI products and goes, wow, this is art.
At least not in and of itself. There could be something to be said for using AI as part of a larger artwork, and that does not devalue the artwork, in my opinion, but AI by itself is not art.
Nobody looks at AI products and goes, wow, this is art.
I’ve came across plenty of AI pieces that I genuinely like.
I understand liking AI stuff, but calling it art, I think, is deceptive at best.
I think art requires the intentional minuscule effort of a human being in its foundation. And AI is like other art that has been ground into paper mache and then plastered into the shape of something that resembles art rather than art itself.
While the case could be made that if a human being did that, that that would be art, the fact that a human being did not do it is the reason why it isn’t art.
Nobody looks at AI products and goes, wow, this is art.
Well, in fact, I have seen such people and they directly called it real art. But it was hard to disagree with them, given the highest quality of the content generated.
As for art in general, I know very well what it is and am completely disappointed with it.
At least not in and of itself. There could be something to be said for using AI as part of a larger artwork, and that does not devalue the artwork, in my opinion, but AI by itself is not art.
Well, over time we will see if this is true.
nothing can “devalue” art. each piece of art means something different to every person who has ever perceived it. nothing can add or remove “value” from that.
you can argue it removes economic value from it, but then I would remind you that money and the economy is entirely made up and has no intrinsic value of it’s own besides what you give it.
either way, if you’re perceiving art as less valuable because of the existence of generative AI, then it is your own subjective choice for that art to have less value, not an objective “fact” as you claim.
Well, unfortunately, we live in a complex world where thinking that you know something for sure can end in a fatal mistake, and history has proven this many times. So yes, value is a relative concept.
Hey, don’t shit on Lego.
AI is not art, and typing a few prompts into a chat box is not creativity. It may look like it on the surface but nothing about it genuine.
The way I see it, genAI only enhances the value of things actually drawn/painted/created by humans. In a world where everyone can generate dogshit toxic waste, a real artist, like my favorite Panda Paco, can create high value art that has infinitely more value just by painting or sketching it without the need for any genAI slop. Same for his digital art.
I am also of the genAI adds negative value to everything it touches camp, if you couldn’t tell.
Though, speaking of genAI, I had a thought hours ago that I can almost guarantee most genAI bros in maybe a year or two will be so genAI pilled, so used to not thinking at all, that they’ll start saying that anybody who thinks for themselves is ableist. Kinda like how they currently love to claim disabled people need genAI.
I disagree with the premise and find it borderline offensive to call Lego builds “minimal value”.
People fail to see that AI is becoming a middleman for everything that requires thinking and removing the human to human thought-based interactions from our lives. In particular the indirect human to human interactions. This is a massive loss.
The replies here got me typing so much I can’t post a proper reply to this. I’ll make a post and link you to it, but it will be a long one.
I’m surprised that I haven’t yet seen anyone influential claiming that AI is the Antichrist.
…or that AI is how Jesus will be resurrected.
Return him the same level of interest that he shows you when he puts up an AI generated “masterpiece”. Just a simple - "Oh… " as a response.
Step back and see what he does, if anything.
