- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
I can’t stress enough that most of AI is not used to create art
Can it do this? Yes. Is that what the majority of people engaging with AI everyday are doing? no.
The fact that this is your concern leads me to believe you know nothing of what AI is actually doing in society
i’m a painter who doesn’t paint. i’m a writer who doesn’t write.
what do you actually do, says the skeptic.
i’m a prompt artisan, says the creator of this ‘art.’
so, you just type text into a box?
yes.
but when i type artist into google it spits me back this definition: "a person who creates art, such as painting, writing, music, or sculpture, using conscious skill and creative imagination.’ you aren’t creating anything–the AI is the creator. at best, you’re just influencing what they create with words.
whatever.
so, if i fuck an artist and tell him that his song would be better in B minor, then i’m a creator?
whatever.
Lol imagine not only lacking the shame to bring one of those out in public but then going to your sex doll gathering and realizing you have one of the shitty models whose heads look kinda like paper mache.
I wonder if the two guys that look like they have the same model get angry at each other about it.
I also wonder how much overlap there is in the venn diagram of people who end up resorting to getting a sex doll and people capable of keeping them maintained so they don’t become biohazards.
i wonder what the cultural vibe is in countries that view art with reverence.
people in america aren’t looking at the bigger picture–this country has NEVER cared about art or artists.
is jazz on pop radio? does your average american give a shit about impressionism or even know what the fuck it is?
so, why would they care about the average novelist? does your typical american even fucking read?
does your typical american even fucking read?
I have a feeling I would be very angry at this, if I could finish sounding out the letters!
(Edit: Bobby, stop that! lol.)
I wouldn’t even say it’s just American’s, it’s worldwide. Most societies don’t value or appreciate art unless it’s easily consumable slop that makes them feel better about their existence.
I’m slowly finding uses for ai and I dont like it :( It’s helping me navigate linux and troubleshoot game or pc crashes
Yes. AI provides access - often even to folks who would have no other way to get started. That’s a good thing…
All things that could have been easily looked up before google borked itself.
Complicated multi-variable problems were never easy to Google.
Possible, if you were prepared to put some time in, but still not easy.
That you can explain several paragraphs of the details of a problem as a prompt and get a decent answer is a definitive upgrade.
I see the argument it will reduce peoples research abilities, but thats an education problem.
Occasionally I grudgingly think maybe there might be some limited use for ai, and then the ai I can’t turn off at my job will attempt to proof a document about fire safety and really confidently want the word ‘exciting’ instead of ‘exiting’ in regards to stairwells and fire emergencies. It also wants staff to congratulate outside a burning building rather than congregate—which, fair.
I’m sure your Linux distro has an associated forum that can help answer your questions better than a robot can
They really don’t though, which is often the problem. How do I solve this weird esoteric problem, let me either dig through mountains of posts which are only tangentially related, or ask my local LLM to do it for me, implement a fix and move forward with it. Would I rely on it for production? Hell no. Would I do it rather then spending hours trying to find an answer? Absolutely. For things like that, it’s like moving from chipping letters in stone to typing on a computer. They both get the job done, but one is certainly a better use of time.
AI is really fast at searching forums though, can usually dig up posts better than I can. Doesn’t help that AI slop has filled the internet making manual search harder
I do both, thing is I learned windows by myself clicking buttons but on linux i can’t just guess the command lines
What distro are you using? I use mint as my daily driver, and have had to use the command line maybe twice, over the past few years
Bazzite, I needed to do some ssh thingy. Also I had crashes for a while I tried to pinpoint
the whole thing is stupid. you just prompt the ai to rephrase your shit-prompt so something whoa-ai and that’s it…
I’m a software dev. There’s this colleague who can’t do shit without AI. The thing is that whenever Claude asks a question, he selects the “Recommended” answer reading neither the question nor the answer. It makes my blood boil.
Well, he thinks he’s a developer
JESUS, just full brain off slop consumption. Terrifying.
U hiring 😋 ?
Obviously they’re not artists. 🙄
They’re prompt engineers. It’s highly complex, hard science shit.
They’re not artists because nobody can play the guitar!
I mean it is a skill, just not an enormously valuable one.
Its a bit like knowing how to use Microsoft Office. Good to have but not the basis for a hire.
I want y’all to know I took a deep breath before writing this.
Writing AI prompts does not make someone an artist. Nobody is seriously contesting that, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
But you also can’t just type, “Hey Grok, make me a 30-minute video recreating the entire Cell Saga,” and have a finished production magically appear. That’s not how this works.
There is an actual pipeline involved. Multiple AI applications and other software, compositing, editing, sound design, music, voice acting, visual direction, continuity, revisions, and an enormous amount of human labor. Some of these projects involve hundreds of hours of actual work. The AI is a tool within that process; it isn’t a magic button that produces a finished piece of media from a sentence.
And I know, I know, AI is the literal Antichrist around here. I get it. But this caricature of what people are actually doing with AI is becoming a massive misrepresentation of the technology.
It’s getting irritating because I see this constantly now. The same joke, over and over, based on the assumption that someone typed a single sentence into an LLM and somehow produced an entire film, song, animation, or game.
At this point, I don’t know if some of y’all are intentionally ignorant about what LLMs and generative AI actually do, or if you just enjoy reflexively hating the technology. Either way, the joke has run its course.
It isn’t funny anymore. It’s just inaccurate.
Writing AI prompts does not make someone an artist. Nobody is seriously contesting that, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
This is a bald faced lie. So this is either an AI “hallucination” you didn’t bother to read before posting, or you are a liar.
So I wrote everything you see above.
It’s not ai generated. Those are my words.
Prove it. Show me evidence that there is an abundance of people claiming that they are artists because they write a prompt into an llm.
You should stop taking those breaths, it’s making you write nonsense attempted justifications for the destruction of the working class and biosphere by billionaires.
The industrial revolution made the same justifications. Not sure the environment is better off because of it, but humanity in the long term is far better off because of it. Will ‘AI’ be the same? Who knows. We all seem to think technology has made our lives better, so I assume to some degree, yes.
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again.
I am completely against building data centers for AI usage. I would prefer those data centers disappear right along with AI, LLMs, and everything having to do with them, as long as our environment stays intact.
I don’t actually care about AI, the companies that make it, or how much money they potentially make or don’t make.
My point, once again, is that the joke has run its course. That’s simply not how the technology works.
You, on the other hand, are an ignorant simpleton barely able to hobble together a sentence, instead of actually addressing what I was saying.
sorry, but I do think its rather funny. also i do not think OPs meme is in reference of the actual work being done around the use of ai but rather the ai use itself and people who put themselves to an higher standard because of it.
The internet was full of slop long before AI, and now it’s full of even more slop because of AI. I don’t think that fundamental reality is ever going to change.
The bigger issue, at least for me, is the environmental cost of generating all this additional AI slop. I absolutely support building fewer data centers, and if that means AI tools eventually go away entirely, I’m perfectly fine with that.
But I think what OP was actually getting at is the idea that people are demanding recognition for their AI-generated slop as “art,” and I just don’t think that’s what’s happening. There are certainly people who take AI-generated content way too seriously, but that’s a separate argument from whether AI has fundamentally changed the amount of low-effort garbage on the internet.
I do see quite a few people having something along the lines of “AI Artist” in their bio whenever im on my way of blocking them, but there is probably less reason to argue about that.
For me its by the way also less the slopification of the web that I dislike about AI the most and not even the environmental cost (though its definitely up there), but just the implications it has on the education system. I think it has an even slower burn there, but maybe thats just because we already had a headstart in destroying our planet.
Totally agree with the way that llms and AI is currently. I would not want to see it in the classroom, especially with my children.
How come? I mean if used as a tool to accelerate learning, concepts and to allow students to learn things in a personalized fashion, it could be a great tool. I would say multiple choice tests aren’t great, but the invention of the Scantron certainly freed up instructor time to focus on teaching rather than grading.
It accelerates learning by skipping over the most crucial part, the thinking part. Things like the scantron on the other hand accelerates it by skipping tedious parts where there was almost no thinking to begin with.
And yes, while calculators might also skip some of that, its in my opinion not comparable as you need to still understand how to get to the solution when using an calculator.
I won’t even bother reading this. The comment is probably AI generated too.
You’re the second person to say that you’re not going to read this. Why even bother telling me this just don’t read it and move on.
I’ll tell you what I told the first guy.
Go fuck yourself.
Congratulations! Plenty of other people did so… Go fuck yourself?
Did you come up with that yourself or used chatgpt for that too?
And we who did all envy their foresight…
Are you quoting somebody or did you make that nonsense up?
Rather flattering you assume it’s worthy of being attributed…
I’m asking you a question; the exact opposite of making an assumption.
Wow.
Lol. A reasonable conclusion to draw when someone asks a question is that they do not know the definite answer - thereby you must have assumed it is at least possible the quote is worthy of attribution, which is to no small degree flattering. I thank you for the compliment, as unintentional as it was.
You’re railing against a strawman here. It’s an exaggeration to imply that people type literally one sentence in and produce art yes, but that’s not the complaint. The issue people here have is that AI “artists” take the part that requires actual skill and scoop it out, then fill the void back in with a gloopy beige paste. Then, like you’re doing here, they demand to be taken seriously and/or at least have their time respected because of all the externalities, like the time spent washing the scoop or choosing the exact right consistentcy of gloop to fill it with.
Generating five minutes worth of sexy women shooting orcs that explode into papercut gore confetti takes a lot of time. Stitching those together into a 3 minute video takes a lot of time. None of that is time that I give a shit you spent doing - it’s like buying out a vending machine, putting it all on fancy plates and demanding I call you a chef. Sure the skittles look kinda pretty, but all the careful arrangement in the world won’t make them taste better.
Two things.
-
You don’t know what a straw man is. It is the single most misused logical fallacy in existence.
-
Can you provide proof that there are people demanding that they be recognized for their 3-minute long AI prompted videos?
Because I just don’t see that happening. I don’t see a large body of people demanding they be recognized for their “art” for your example provided as in a short clip generated by AI hobbled together by some editing.
I could refer you to some YouTube channels that actually use AI tools to make phenomenal videos, but I doubt you’d actually care to look at them. But I’ll do it anyway…
My point once again is that the joke has run its course. There is no abundance of people demanding they be recognized for AI slop.
1.) …Do you often encounter people who imply you’re having sex with formal logical fallacies? Or just maybe could I have been using the term colloquially.
2.) Well yes. If you read the next paragraph in your comment, you’ll see an excellent example of someone attempting to neg another user into watching a bunch of fucking awful slop content on youtube by implying they aren’t being fair to people who make “phenomenal” videos.
You’re a perfect example of the exact kind of person I was talking about. You’re insisting, again, that the joke is no longer relevant because we should be respecting the time these people put in to using AI to produce art. Thank you! I couldn’t have made my point nearly as well without your help.
It is ironic that you do not understand what a straw man argument is, cannot use the term correctly, and then proceed to commit one against me. You are inventing a position that is easier to argue against, despite the fact that I never took that position in the first place.
I have no idea what having sex with machines has to do with a straw man argument. Nor is there some way to use the term “straw man” colloquially that would make your usage correct. If anything, that tells me you do not understand what “colloquially” means either.
I did not say the joke is irrelevant. I said the joke has run its course and has become irritating. There is a distinction. More importantly, that is not how people are actually making good AI content. The sources I provided are anything but slop. They demonstrate legitimate uses of AI tools and actual production pipelines being used to create worthwhile content.
Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may not find that content interesting, and that’s fine. But I would assume at this point that your inability to acknowledge when something is good or bad has more to do with the fact that AI was involved than with the actual quality of the work.
Why are you people like this on this platform? You literally cannot rebut what I actually said, and you cannot defend your own position, so you invent a different position that is easier to attack. Stop doing this. It is ridiculous.
It is okay to admit that some AI-generated content is good. It is also okay to admit that some AI-generated content is bad. Saying, “Hey, this is actually good,” is not betraying the cause. You are allowed to acknowledge quality even when you dislike the technology involved.
Housekeeping:
I have no idea what having sex with machines has to do with a straw man argument. Nor is there some way to use the term “straw man” colloquially that would make your usage correct.
It’s… it’s a double entendre. I was implying you are both arguing against a figurative strawman (which you are) and fucking a literal man made from straw. I’m not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Colloquial
/kə-lō′kwē-əl/
Adjective
(comparative more colloquial, superlative most colloquial)
(linguistics) 1. Characteristic of familiar conversation, of common parlance; informal.Railing
/ˈɹeɪlɪŋ/
Adjective
(comparative more railing, superlative most railing)
Filled with invective and violent complaintsRail
/ɹeɪ(ə)l/
Verb
(third-person singular simple present rails, present participle railing, simple past and past participle railed)
(transitive, vulgar, slang) To sexually penetrate in a rough manner.Straw man
/stɹɔ/ /ˈmæn/
Noun
(sing. straw man, plural straw men)
A doll or scarecrow, particularly one stuffed with straw.Straw man
Figurative
The straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.Phew, now that that’s out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Don’t believe me? Here:
But you also can’t just type, “Hey Grok, make me a 30-minute video recreating the entire Cell Saga,” and have a finished production magically appear. That’s not how this works.
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently that’s a courtesy I shouldn’t take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea ‘you can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie out’ is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
… No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasn’t a literal example but that you were attempting to highlight a concept, then clarified that the conceptual argument you were presenting as being representative of the attitudes of the anti-AI crowd didn’t reflect the actual attitudes of the group. That was why I said you were arguing with a strawman - your justification for why the joke is tired is not why people object to AI, nor is it a widespread misunderstanding that AI workflows still involve human effort (feel free to try and prove it is, though!). We can bin “colloquially”, your argument is “definitionally” a strawman.
Second:
Please show on the mysteriously sticky straw-stuffed doll where I said that there were literally people demanding respect for their 3 minute slopfests (spoiler you can’t, I didn’t). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now you’re trying to, what, claim that because I didn’t do that, I can’t defend my argument? I uh… no. That’s silly. You can’t just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they don’t do that.
Third:
Actually, hang on, what strawman do you think I made? My argument has been consistent throughout this. Are you just trying to gaslight in a strawman? That seems like a bad idea - straw is flammable! We could all die!
Honestly it seems like you are, because I have no earthly idea where you got the idea that I’m simply reluctant to “admit AI content is good” - no, I have seen no good outright AI content. As a tool it can be situationally useful, as the primary creative tool it is hilariously garbage.
Fourth:
Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may not find that content interesting, and that’s fine. But I would assume at this point that your inability to acknowledge when something is good or bad has more to do with the fact that AI was involved than with the actual quality of the work.
So! It is okay for our subjective tastes to differ, But! I must be basing my subjective opinion (that those channels you linked are the definition of ugly, vapid, no-effort slipitty slop) on the fact I just don’t like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that I’ve seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels you’re so eager to hold up.
Yeah, sure, how magnanimous of you. Great point.
Fifth:
Why are you people like this on this platform? You literally cannot rebut what I actually said, and you cannot defend your own position, so you invent a different position that is easier to attack. Stop doing this. It is ridiculous.
"It’s over anakin, I’ve already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, you’ll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS you’re trying to pass off.
My argument this entire time has been that this joke has run its course. People are not claiming that they are “AI artists” simply because they put a prompt into an LLM.
Obviously, you are capable of understanding that. My example was hyperbolic and exaggerated. You provided me with the definition of a straw man and still somehow have no idea what a straw man actually is.
My example is not a straw man because I did not substitute one argument for another—specifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didn’t even make a substantive argument in the first place. I was merely expressing, as I have said approximately a thousand times now, that the joke has run its course.
The channels I provided do not make AI slop. I would venture to say that, to you, literally everything is AI slop. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that you have seen nothing generated by AI that interests you. That is, in itself, a massive example of confirmation bias. Why should I give much weight to your opinion when you have already made it clear that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile or be used to do something genuinely useful?
What I’ve noticed in general is that, as soon as someone starts throwing around the names of logical fallacies, the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly. You have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what a straw man is, how the fallacy is actually used, or how to identify one. At this point, I would almost venture to say that you would label anything a straw man if it doesn’t conform to whatever position you already hold.
And yes, I fully acknowledge that you may not like the same things I like, particularly when it comes to art. That’s perfectly reasonable. But there are objective categories of quality that you can acknowledge even when something isn’t to your personal taste, and you seem completely unwilling to concede that possibility when AI is involved.
And why on God’s green earth would I ever go back to Reddit when I have people like you to talk to here on Lemmy?
Also the formatting of your… Jesus man. Way too much effort. I have to go up and open every spoiler tag just to respond to what you’re saying. Maybe just right in paragraphs so it’s easier to work with.
Ohhh fine, if you want a quote-heavy wall of text, you can have one. As a treat.
But first a tiny aside (just one to save screen space for anyone scrolling the thread):
Boop!
My example is not a straw man because I did not substitute one argument for another—specifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didn’t even make a substantive argument in the first place. I was merely expressing, as I have said approximately a thousand times now, that the joke has run its course.
When you asserted that your position really is that people hate AI because of (the substantive argument - that this is a true assertion because [your evidence]) the false impression held by the group that there is no human labor or skill-based human input utilized in producing finished works with AI components, you were creating a strawman. You substituted that excessively simplistic argument for the real one, which has been explained several times. That Is the strawman I’ve been referencing.
You have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what a straw man is, how the fallacy is actually used, or how to identify one.
What a suspiciously convenient and yet thus far unfounded assertion. Strangely, you have yet to hilight a strawman I’ve put forward - possibly because you are projecting your own lack of familiarity with the term, more likely because I haven’t made one. Who’s to tell? (me, I’m the one who tells).
The channels I provided do not make AI slop.
Mm…hmm.
you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile
Yup.
or be used to do something genuinely useful?
Don’t think I made that claim anywhere…
the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly.
There was no conversation before this happened, so it can’t have degraded vs. what came before…
At this point, I would almost venture to say that you would label anything a straw man if it doesn’t conform to whatever position you already hold.
“Behold, a (straw) man!”
But there are objective categories of quality
Alright, y’know what? I’m calling this one out. Put up or shut up time, budski; lets see a few of these “objective measures of quality.” Even stupidly simple measures like “It’s not static” “shapes are identifiable as distinct objects” and “did not induce vomiting” are all subjective so… yeah, lets go. Come on. Chop chop. Example time.
And why on God’s green earth would I ever go back to Reddit when I have people like you to talk to here on Lemmy?
… Self respect, probably. This redditor shit, like asserting your intellectual superiority, or claiming their argument is a strawman, or (one you seem to fall back on constantly) “claiming that the other person doesn’t even understand their own argument so clearly how could they have a point”? That just doesn’t fly here. You should know that by now. You’ve been trying that same tired shtick for at least days and it hasn’t once worked. Honestly, has it ever worked for you on lemmy?
-
I would argue that skill is not that much the issue.
If I had a button that put the image on my head directly onto a canvas I would be the best artist of the world. For me at least art is not about the skill but about the vision.
And the problem with AI is that it greatly limits the vision. It’s almost impossible to truly move the image or the concept you have in your head to the canvas using thar technique. Because the model will produce the images it has been train for, not the image in your head.
Other manual techniques do allow people to put the image in their head onto the canvas much more accurately and with greater intention. Independently of the complexity of skill.
I think photography is the greatest example. As it implies to tweak values and push a button, it’s not something that requires carefully hold a brush or have painting skills. But the camera allows you to produce the images as you want to produce them, with great intention.
That’s also why it’s true what the user abobe is saying that the person who has a pipeline and spent hours tweaking things with ai tools will get better results than the one who just wrote “draw me a pretty girl”. Because they would have probably spent a lot of time for the model to output something similar to what they had in mind. But still the models, even the most advanced ones, are too limiting in many areas.
At least that’s my take.
And the problem with Al is that it greatly limits the vision. It’s almost impossible to truly move the image or the concept you have in your head to the canvas using thar technique. Because the model will produce the images it has been train for, not the image in your head.
This one statement invalidates everything you said because you clearly have no idea how these tools actually function.
And honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with people who argue against what they call “AI.” They’re so blindly opposed to these tools that they won’t even take the time to learn how they work, what they’re capable of, or how people actually use them. They form an opinion first, then refuse to do the research necessary to see whether that opinion even holds water.
You don’t have to like AI. You don’t have to use it. But if you’re going to argue against it, you should at least understand what the hell you’re arguing against.
I have tried.
I spent several days on a comfyui workflow.
Using Anima as base model, with controlUI, trying loras, IMG2IMG with flux.
It’s very clear that the generation is limited to a dataset.
Even more clear when you use SDXL that basically works by tags.
But even with models which process natural languages you see the limitations imposed by the training data.
If you want to make a generic image that’s been done 10000 times it’s very easy. But if you want to do something very specific that the thing have not been trained to do… you are not going to make it. Unless you literally paint want you want and train a lora with it, which kind of defeats the purpose.
Hold on a second. If what you’re saying is true, which you have no way of proving to me that it is, I’ll take it at face value nevertheless. But if that’s the case, then you clearly do have some understanding of how these technologies work.
You’re telling me you’re upset that an LLM, which has been trained on pre-existing data, can’t produce something completely novel without referencing some kind of source?
That’s simply how the technology functions. What a lot of people actually do is come up with their own original ideas and put them on paper or into a digital drawing program. Then they take that original picture or concept and put it into AI tools, where the AI can manipulate, refine, or transform that original work and save them significant amounts of time on tasks that artists traditionally had to do manually.
So your gripe with AI is essentially describing a limitation of the technology. That’s not really an argument against its use. It’s a limitation that can be worked around depending on how you use the technology.
I’m not upset.
As said I have use it. Both for image generation and llm for text generation. But knowing what they can and cannot do.
I mostly use it for roleplay. And generating images of places and characters on the go is fun and easy. But it’s not a tool that allow for a very high degree of creativity. Neither have the ability to put the “image” that someone has in their head onto canvas.
So, you are correct. There is no way for an LLM or AI application to generate the exact image inside your head. And nobody has ever seriously claimed that it can. I mean, maybe Sam Altman has said some stupid shit like that, because he is known for doing so, but realistically, nobody is arguing that this is currently possible.
There are some phenomenal AI works out there. I’ve recommended some channels that I really like, and I even do the role-playing thing from time to time to pass the time at work and whatnot.
But ultimately, yes, that is a limitation of the technology. I think we’re arguing against two completely separate things here.
I think that’s a pretty good interpretation; really the only thing I have to add is that I think of all the artistic skills, the most fundemental is the one that lets you translate from your idea to a real, tangible creation.
Happy cake day!
Tyvm!
Hey I write prompts for ai to write prompts that create art so I’m basically an art professor over here teaching new artists.
Do AI prompt “artists” get angry when other people steal their prompts?
Yes, it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
They actually do. I’ve seen this on AI chat bot sites. People won’t allow people to read the prompt/personality of the bot because they get all butt hurt when someone just copys and pastes their “work” it’s really cringe because it’s a basic llm. It’s not some flagship model or anything like that. It doesn’t care, at all.
Yes. They think ideas are what making the art, not the implementation. That’s also part why they think artists are “full of themselves”: Many of them talk about them having great “world changing” ideas for art, but they’re always stuff like “what if GTA was set in [insert real life city here]”, or “can you hack [popular FPS] to have VR support?”.
They absolutely do and they have feuds about it, funniest shit ever. “That thief thieved my plan for thieving!”
Isn’t that the same thing artists do when they are ‘sampling’ music? Everything is just a rehash of something else these days, told in a slightly different fashion.
CEO material all of them.
I recall a twitter thread that went around a while ago that had some Sloperator all pissed off because someone ‘stole’ his prompt, and that person’s Computer Rendered Artificial Picture got way more likes.
So, yes, the Sloperators get quite mad when someone uses the same prompt.
Sloperators
I’ve been calling them sloppies
Outdated reference: Makin’ sloppies!
Timeless reference: Fuck Rob Schneider
Some do, some don’t
I’m tired of this constant fuckai spam. AI slop this, AI slop that. AI slop impacts me almost not at all, while the constant hate mongering by fuckai is getting on my nerve.
Not a SINGLE “AI artist” ever “looked at you like this”. You are building a strawman as the target of your hate because you can’t do anything else with it. Are we a society defined by hate now?
I am happy you life in your peaceful world, though, over here it’s impacting us a lot also
Not a SINGLE “AI artist” ever “looked at you like this”. You are building a strawman as the target of your hate because you can’t do anything else with it. Are we a society defined by hate now?
If it never happened to you, it doesn’t menat it doesn’t happen to anyone else
Give me one serious example of where someone demanded you call them an “AI artist” and then looked at you glaringly and it impacted your life in any way whatsoever. Seriously what are you even talking about.
THIS is the big issue of our time? Instead of talking about actual actionable AI regulation all you fuckais can do is shit on imaginary strawmen. Wild.
Give me one serious example of where someone demanded you call them an “AI artist” and then looked at you glaringly
Welp, i started ignoring all AI people so i don’t have any recent example but some time ago there was this dude who vibe coded all the software ““he made”” and i told him he didn’t made a shit, it was all AI doing and started harrassing me and he def also glared at me if you wanna know (not an art example but it doesn’t change much)
and it impacted your life in any way whatsoever
I didn’t said those interactions impact my life thoigh, AI impact (negatively) my life. I can’t use image search anymore without having almost only slop results, pintrest has too many AI slop stuff that i just can’t find inspiration, my youtube feed is full of AI slop, even if i continue to block it, Fiverr is full of AI slop too, AI datacenters polute a lot, SSDs, HDDs, RAM and GPU prices skyrocketed so now i can’t pursue my hobbies, Ads are made with AI too so now i must stare at shit when i either watch TV or i am using someone else device, a lot of software is made with LLMs so now i have to use laggy or full of vulnerabilities software and it’s hard to avoid, it made some people lose their job… Do i have to continue or will you shut up now?
I mean lol, I’m SPECIFICALLY saying that this demonization and hate monger of AI USERS is a problem - while neglecting what we actually should do and demand meaningful AI regulations and push back against the neoliberal plutocracy taking it over. I do agree with about half of your points there. And you answer with “oh there was this vibe coder and I went to him and told him what’s what!” lol. The exact opposite of what I was asking.
The argument is that instead of meaningful activism that can change the world for the better, all you engage in is hate mongering as a form of emotional release. Spam spam spam. Seriously. Do you know how many millions of dollars you could collect from all those fuckais and hire some professional lobbyists that actually do something in Washington? Like what is your actual demand besides taking away stable diffusion models that can run on solar powered PCs?
Also, it’s not like we didn’t have a lot of human and commercially fabricated slop before already, like most mangas or manhwas. “Art” for me always had a way higher threshold, and maybe we shouldn’t have politely indulged all this human slop posted on reddit for years.
Nice try on the ragebait sloppy.
Hide the sub. You don’t have to see it.
if this was fuckAI 100%
If it was true 100%
This is just kinda… meh
my local fringe theater festival this year was plagued with AI slop posters and copy
I’m really happy you’re unaffected, and curious about your work and social groups that you’ve managed to avoid its negative impacts, but for a lot of us it’s a daily barrage.
Almost everyone in my family keeps sending me AI generated documentary shit all the time. Problem is bets I can tell only 50% of it factual. Every single video in my family, I’m tired of debunking boss. And despite proving more than a few dozen times, that it’s not 100% reliable data, they are content in accepting half truth and half lies for at least the half is true. And it’s getting in my nerves. So yes fuck Gen AI artists. They can rot in hell.
I’m slightly less mad at pure art promoters at least they’re not misibforming. But I’m still mad because art is human expression to me. A human has to decide every single stroke of an image, some speak more than others, but everything is intentional. Mistakes and all.
With Gen AI there is no active decision making in most of the image, prompt was active decision sure, but the details, how each curl of hair should be, or how two colors should blend, 99% of prompter artists are not making that minute decisions. And that to me is just expressionnless. So I might hate them less, but they too can rot in hell.
Yeah with the images now you can just ask a computer to make any image so I feel like the novelty’s gone, so why not just try to draw it yourself?
Even an amateur sketch sparks more joy, more connection, and tells me more about your passion than the most detailed most smoothest most super duper HDR style generated image.
In fact I would literally prefer a blank box with some plain alt text describing the image you would have generated. That way I can at least see what you the person were trying to communicate rather than what was statistically inserted based on association, temperature, and whatever advertising partners won the automated micro-bid for placement in the image.
See my other comment. You’re just pushing hate against people instead of meaningful regulations.
I push a lot of things, but thanks I’ll check it out
Just because you had the chance to avoid it (or so you think at least) doesn’t mean it’s okay in any way, and society for for everyone is being durably impacted by all this fir the worst, demonstrably so. So yes, we’ll keep complaining and denouncing it, sorry for your terrible inconvenience
But you’re not. You don’t do that. You’re denouncing people, turning them into villains. You’re not suggesting any sensible regulation (e.g. https://regulations.ai/). You’re not attacking the root of the problem, neoliberal capitalism.
All you’re doing is spraying shit into the ether.
actually we do both, and they are both necessary. Reforming or revolutionizing the system is the root of it all, and in the meanwhile, calling out and demonizing people consciously using the most wasteful and unethical tools available is also good and important. People that keep using these generative AI tools while aware of their impacts deserve being made fun of and cast out of a society which they clearly don’t care much about
A far more pragmatic and helpful approach would be to educate affected consumers on media literacy. The people sharing AI slop are the exact same ones who share fake news, fall for malware attachments, and fall for other scams even without AI. Tackling the root cause will handle the rest naturally. Hating on the tools or their creators is pure copium.
turning them into villains
Nah, they did that to themselves
More like all turd ego 🤪
Oh you mean those people that instruct an ai computer to draw pictures for them?
But but con artists were always artists though
Namely the ones you hardly hear of.
