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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay. I’m convinced you’re one of these “artists” I referred to. No one defends trash that hasn’t found a way to get something from it.
Stop with the camera thing. It’s a bad argument. It’s not remotely the same thing. And every time I hear it- which is a lot because it’s The only thing the “artists” and “musicians” use to defend their trash- it makes me cringe.
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.
It’s a shit argument. A photo, digital or otherwise is CREATING the location. It’s a copy of a thing that already exists.
AI can create entire songs complete with vocals that can fool engineered with have been in the business for their entire life. This is not remotely close to the same thing and you know it.
deleted by creator
Good point, wrong conclusion
I disagree with the premise and find it borderline offensive to call Lego builds “minimal value”.
This is just an example. I compared generation AIs to Lego constructors, only they can assemble themselves as if they were assembled by a person, thanks to prompts. This is of dubious value.
Hey, don’t shit on Lego.
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.
Gotta repost this gem:
Give me a bit to find the author…
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.
Yeah, I’ve noticed, it fucking sucks
I’m ambivalent about it.
On the one hand, it’s just math. It’s the way reality works for some reason. So may as well get used to it.
On the other hand, capitalism takes what should be a gift to humanity and makes every aspect of it insufferable. From unethical training methods to inefficient, monolithic implementations to offensive marketing to equipment shortages, there’s a lot to hate.
I don’t think it inherently devalues people or art, though. It’s capitalists who are trying to use it for that.
It certainly doesn’t devalue real art by real people, but it clearly is doing serious harm to humanity as a whole. Even for those of us that refuse to use it, it’s becoming harder and harder to navigate the world. The internet is absolutely overflowing with slop to the point at which you have no idea what’s real or not anymore. Open source maintainers are being overrun with slop “contributions”, leading to tons of churn and burnout. We are, at this very moment, existing in the shattered remains of the internet. And people that do use these things are experiencing marked detrimental effects, from delusional behavior to cognitive and neurological impacts.
The intersection of this technology and human psychology is something insidious and devasting. We are like a people exposed to a brand new virus for the first time, with no natural defense against the infection.
deleted by creator
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.
Ow, geeze. “Thought as a service.” Ew.
The silver lining is: if your nudes ever leak, you can simply claim its deepfake.
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.
GenAI doesn’t generate anything on its own either - it too needs the intentional minuscule effort of a human being in its foundation. I don’t think the “effort” argument holds up here anyway. People happily accept as art a photograph that took me 30 minutes to capture and edit, but they reject a GenAI piece I spent 3 hours tweaking until I got exactly what I wanted.
Nobody looks at AI products and goes, wow, this is art.
Of course they do. Every single person making prompts for it certainly does, and lots of other people as well.
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.
I really don’t feel that it’s devaluing art. Slop has always been slop whether AI or human generated. Real art takes an artist’s soul put into it and I don’t see AI replicating that. If anything it just highlights the importance of passion in art.
In fact, the AI can simply copy the artist’s soul and even enhance it, which turns out to be very easy thanks to high-quality models and accurate prompts.
I also used to believe in the soul of the artist, but, unfortunately, the delicious cake was stolen.
Trying to sell AI by saying it can “enhance” another artist’s work (presumably against their will) is like bragging about how it has been used to finish Keith Haring’s unfinished painting
I have yet to be emotionally moved by a single piece of AI generated content, and not for lack of exposure. I am moved by human art on a daily basis.
What sucks is that it should be a good thing. I think it could be better and hopefully we will see open source trained things that come out where more thought is put into the inputs to raise the quality.
In what sense?
so ones that are trained exclusively on well known and quality texts in fields along with transcripts of famous debates and such. Right now they kinda just amass a lot of input without any attempt to curate high quality training material.
No.
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.
