this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
986 points (94.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
7291 readers
3811 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
"I judge art on the basis of how it was made, not on its merit in terms of the emotions and thoughts it elicits from me"
Is it not possible that how something is made also elicits emotions and thoughts?
Sure but I don't think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn't what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it's different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
Imagine arguing that flavor is what is important in a dish and not the type of knife used to cut the vegetables, and have someone respond he'd rather drink piss.
Its more like arguing a soulless robot should make your food built upon stolen recipes, not only are the recipes stolen but that robot cannot taste nor understand flavor. All it understands is the words of the recipes and sometimes not even that, it than needs to make new recipes without being able to taste it. Your food will taste as bland and souless as the robot who cannot taste it, even if it does taste good you'll know its basically just a worse version based on stolen recipes.
Bruh a "stolen" recipe made by a robot tastes exactly the same as a purchased recipe made by a human. "Love" is not actually a real ingredient in a meal.
And all things being equal... I would rather have a robot serve me than coerce some human.
It simply is, premade and mass produced machine food simply doesn't taste as good as if you make it yourself (if you're decent at cooking)
Yes but in this analogy, the Twitter user is saying burned toast is always better then the finest processed foods.
I will always attribute more value to human made images, just like I attribute more value to hand painted pieces compared to digitally painted pieces, but I dont attribute it disproportionately as to create two rigid categories.
I'm just saying broad sweeping statements don't make much sense and are an awful way to judge and consume art.
I mean I eat food made by a robot basically every day and it's pretty good.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but a huge amount of the food that is eaten in the world is made by "robots". It ain't the Keebler Elves in those factories baking your vanilla sandwich cookies, that's for sure.
Go watch any video on mass produced food and you'll see that it is made by machines. Drinks are mixed, bottled and packed without any human intervention. You would have a hard time trying to find a dish that you eat that was not prepared in some part by soulless, tasteless machines.
Those robots were still configured by humans to produce a product the humans designed.The automatically produced food is still human food.
AI are also still configured by humans, since they are the ones choosing which training data is used. So automatically generated art is still human art.
The needed training data is so enormous, it is not cherry picked by humans. Furthermore, transforming random data until it fits the given description enough according to a "neural network" that was statistically curve fitted to the training data, is not in any way human.
You're confidently stating something that, literally, no scientist would claim. We have no idea how neurons form our mind.
The reason that we use the term neural network is because the functions implemented in the individual neurons in neural networks are based on functions derived from measuring actual neurons in real brains. The model weights are literally a mathematical description of how different neurons connect to each other and, when trained on similar data computational neural networks and organic neural networks form similar data processing structures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1566253524003609
You are now arguing that statistical CGI is human because its "neural networks" are inspired by biological neurons, which is an entirely different argument than the one I answered on. But fine.
As your article says:
The functions and achitecture has been so optimized and simplified, that it is just matrix multiplication now. It's just math now. Math that is a lot simpler than the math that would be required to describe and simulate human brains.
"Just math" is used to describe essentially everything in science. You're implying that a mathematical model can't predict reality which is just incorrect.
We use math to accurately describe all kinds of natural processes and phenomenon. Mathematical models are the foundation of most fields of science because they accurately model reality.
And, because matrices a useful mathematical tool for describing complex systems (here, the connections between large numbers of neurons) they're often used in many fields.
This is why we can predict time dilation in the GPS satellites used to locate your phone or how air will flow over the blades in jet turbines: because mathematical models of a process completely describe the process.
bruh
of course math can predict and model reality, but that was not my argument
my argument is that the mathematical model for machine learning is in no way close to human minds anymore
And I'm saying that you can't know that, because science doesn't know that.
There is a reason that these are called neural networks. The atomic unit that they're built on is a model of actual neurons and the information encoded in the network (connection strength and activation threshold) is based on observational studies of brains and how they process information.
Making a claim like 'it isn't the same as a human mind' is simply not supported by evidence because there are no studies that try to correlate neural structures with the subjective 'mind' (i.e. the software running on the brain hardware).
However, we do know how neurons accept inputs based on weighting and apply linear transformations of their inputs into their outputs and we can create mathematical neurons that match observed neurons. We can train these networks and the way that they adjust their weights also matches cultured physical neurons. We know based on observational data that the mathematical model matches the physical neurons.
Obviously we don't have Transformer networks in our brains, because we don't learn to predict next tokens or to denoise images. But the underlying hardware that these systems run on is an exact analog of the neurons that make up the brains of everything on Earth. There's nothing magical about human minds, they're built out of neurons just as much as transformer networks.
You're trying to split hairs but not explaining how any of that applies to the definition of art.
"Authenticity" is a myth. Everything is "plagarized". There's no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Ok weirdo. Enjoy your literal poop!
Good thing that this isn't what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that "pro-lifers" use to reframe the argument about abortion and women's rights.
It's always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren't compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn't even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they'd rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That's what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.
Why does AI art have "no authenticity"?
Because if you use words that only have objective definitions then you can arbitrarily move your definition around if people come up with counter-examples.
It's a way of creating an argument that means nothing and also can't be argued against on Internet forums where there are no rules (unlike, say a debate stage or court room where you have to rationally prove your points).
"I find the ethics involved in the creation of something to be irrelevant."
It's called capitalism. There are no ethics in how anything is ever created. If you're mad about people being exploited, then fight capitalism.
But poeple just sound corny hating on every work of generated art. It's very possible to make nice pictures and videos with a computer.
No ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't apply to "luxury" goods like art and entertainment. That's like arguing that it's okay for people to still use Reddit and Twitter after all the stuff from the past few years because "no ethical consumption under capitalism." This isn't Amazon or Wal-Mart killing off local businesses so that they're the only place you can find stuff that we're talking about. This is not reading Harry Potter or buying merch because JK Rowling is a TERF. It's super easy to avoid companies like that, I do it all the time. I stopped using streaming services (and TV before that), and there's easily a dozen video game companies that I refuse to buy from due to the way they treat their employees and customers. And protect sexual assault. Let's not forget that Ubisoft and Blizzard both are guilty of that.
This isn't about people making art with digital tools. I do that all the time, and AI gen can easily be a super cool tool for that. Except for the whole stolen labor part of it and people using it to do a corporation while using excuses like "no ethical consumption" to absolve themselves of stealing the skills and work of artists.
Creating art is considered a useless skill looked upon with contempt by society, yet the product is highly coveted, and AI is being used by people who want the reward but don't want to put in the effort and don't want to pay those who can put in the effort fair compensation for their work. It's merely another step in the long road of devaluing artists.
Do those "luxury" goods exist under a different economic system than capitalism? If not, then this argument makes no sense.
Never heard anyone arguing over the ethics of the mining of lapis lazuli, and i think slavery and human misery trump plagerism.
So if ethics define art then DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc are not artists
Lapis lazuli? Maybe not, but lithium mines are a constant source of criticism for those reasons, and your simplification of the world to an either or scenario is incredibly disingenuous.
If you think that people like Da Vinci and Michaelangelo had nothing to say, then you know nothing about artists. Da Vinci hated the Pope who commissioned the Sistine Chapel so much that he painted him burning in Hell directly behind the altar. He was a gay man who had relationships with his apprentices and performed illegal autopsies on bodies to study the human anatomy during a time when it was considered descecrating the dead, which formed the foundation of modern medicine's understanding of the human body.
You're just making excuses so you feel better about stealing the labor of others.
No one is making excuses, I'm just pointing out the hipocrisy of saying that the art is less valid because of the tools used.
And yes, I believe a person who has an artistic idea but not the skills to represent it should be able to do it though AI, just writing a prompt doesn't make it art just like drawing a sunflower very realistically doesn't make it art. Is music less art because it's made with a synth or in Ableton?
Good thing that's not something I said, then. So what you're doing is arguing a point that nobody said in order to reframe the actual argument into something different. Making excuses to avoid confronting the actual argument.
So do I. But if you're doing that with an LLM made by a company that's using unethically sourced training data to avoid paying the artists who made the art used for training, then you're buying into a system that exploits workers for your own convenience and that makes the art bad. AI slop isn't just slop because of the quality. It's also because it's wage theft. People respect the shitty napkin drawing more because, regardless of the quality, it shows that you were willing to put in the effort without the fancy tools while also not committing a corporation in the process.
The electronic device you used to make this post was also made by exploiting wage laborers for the benefit of capitalists. Yet, you found that device to be so convenient that you still bought and used it anyway. The same could be said for all of the other goods and services that you use.
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in anothers
Said electronic device is a requirement to hold a job in my country and ensure I don't end up homeless. It's the same as owning a car here. If you have neither a phone or a reliable form of transport (meaning a car in this public transit-less shithole of a country), getting and holding a job is incredibly difficult.
This is one of the reasons that the UN has considered access to the internet a basic human right as of the 2000s or so.
Owning a phone and using the orphan crushing machine to make funny pictures on the internet are not equal.
The point is that the system itself is the issue. Calling out specific reasons for that is fine if you do so to call attention to its presence as the bigger systemic threat. But debating if one effect of capitalism is worse than another effect ignores the fact that we should be focusing on capitalism as a whole
AI can be bad only because capitalism is bad. Address the root cause
I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the art
A stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as "bland", "samey", "wrong". The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.
These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
There is someone using the model and it's their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don't consider the intent of the camera.
The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It's also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren't being fair.
We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn't be the defining factor.
You largely ignored this since it is essentially "the thoughts and emotions it envokes". It is also arguably the most important.
We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don't call people stupid.
I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
https://makeitrad.xyz/project/etherea/
I disagree with your points fundamentally, and I believe the difference is in how we interpret both art and the creation of art. I do not believe that a prompter is able to convey enough intent for it to count.
This could be compared to someone commisioning a drawing for, for example, a story. The story and direction they give, that would be the prompt or what lead to it, in this case, would display their intent. The drawing itself, however, would not display their artistic vision, but that of the artist they commissioned to draw it. Now, they might coördinate with said artist to get their visions to align as closely as possible, but as I said, models have no vision, and so none can be aligned with. You could 'find' an image generated by such a model that aligns with what you wish for, but there is no intent behind it.
The environmental damage is inherent to the technology, as matrix multiplications are inherently not very efficient, and any given model runs a lot of them. Running a model at home seems more efficient because you only generate for yourself, but if every user of diffusion where to do this, the cost would not be better.
I do not understand what you see in the video you sent me. It does not, to me, seem to carry a message. Sure, some of it's imagery can be aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot interpret it as carrying any meaning.
Oh, and dw, I did not mean to call you stupid, I think the ideas about art you have specifically are stupid. That does not necessarily carry over to any other part of you.
Prompting can be quite involved, especially when you use techniques like ControlNet, img2img, and inpainting. In the video I linked, they used real footage of dancers and the rest is essentially very complicated post processing. There's countless way to use AI generation and it can easily be blended with other mediums.
While typing a quick prompt and generating something in a few minutes might not qualify as art, dismissing the entire medium is shortsighted.
The environmental damages are there but you chose to ignore the environmental damages of every other form. Even using cloud computing pales in comparaison with the cost of shipping over brushes from China.
I see in the video the things you were asking for in your previous comment:
It has clear creative intent and objectives. Context wise, it weaves together multiple art forms in a complex, cohesive piece. It's clearly pleasing and brings about an emotional response. It’s a strong example of how AI can be thoughtfully integrated into the creative process.
Having a message and meaning is just another goal post even more subjective then the last which is the real issue. You are gate keeping something so subjective, and calling any differing opinion stupid is brutally obnoxious.
How not to define art
(You can take this as agreeing or disagreeing with you, or both)
It is true it is an exercise in futility to try to give it a strict definition, as well as being very subjective. Nice vid, it's always fun to find quality youtubers I don't know.
Tbh, this is a valid take, but it's just as valid to judge art based on the experience of viewing it.
Idiot: "AI" will save us all!
Genius: "AI" is complete slop!!
\s
To be fair, "AI will save us" is a take that is incredibly stupid.
This, but unironically.