339
She's out there
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
339 points (96.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
10095 readers
545 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
Calling it "AI Art" gives it too much credence. They are generated images. Nothing more.
some would argue even less
Depends entirely on your definition of art.
To me, art is "playing with your senses". The way a painting plays with your vision. Music plays with your hearing. Food plays with your taste. ...
And in that sense, a generated image is art. Especially if it evokes emotions like hate for being AI generated.
Regardless of definition, art requires an intention. You cannot find art in the wild, it has to be created.
It's a pointless waste of time to make the distinction.
It's not.
Words matter. For example, calling an LLM "AI" has incorrectly shaped people's perception of its abilities. This is a core aspect of marketing for this reason, and the choice to call it "AI" was specifically to take advantage of how much word choice matters in shaping perception.
Yeah yeah. The definition of AI has now fundamentally changed. Notice that I never said an LLM is not a form or subset of AI at all. The term "AI" has a much broader scope than an LLM and because of that people think it can do more than it is capable. An LLM cannot reason—it just predicts the next most likely word to follow with some additional weights as a loose guideline.
Posting only a link to a wikipedia page is obnoxious. You're not even bothering to explain how you think it's relevant. In this case that would be particularly important since the "AI effect" you linked has nothing to do with what I said.
Are you too lazy to even explain, are incapable of explaining, or are you just regurgitating whatever you can find in an attempt to overwhelm with low-effort "arguments"? (This is rhetorical. Please just go away, since you're clearly only here with bad faith.)
You both are right. You're right because it's important. They're right because no one gives a shit.
I would only agree that people who are ignorant or willfully ignorant will not care, but that does not give any strength to their argument. It just acknowledges mass ignorance.
Many of us know this. It's not new. Change what you can, learn to accept or ignore what you can't
You can hate al you want but if you follow that line of thought paintings are just 'painted images' and photo's are just 'photographed images'. There is a lot of paintings that have 0 artistic value (like when done by children) and photographs that have 0 artistic value (like pictures of holidays and vacations etc). There being a lot of AI with 0 artistic value doesn't mean there can't be such a thing as AI Art.
Generated images in themselves cannot be art. Generated images could be used to create art, and I would say that falls into what you call "AI art", but it would be still better described as "generated art."
ai generated art didn't create itself. someone typed in text and uploaded an image that they wanted manipulated. Movie directors only give instructions to actors. They don't create the sets/costumes. They don't write the words. They only give instructions and they get awards for being artists.
That is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what a director does. Though, I see what you're trying to say with that exceedingly off-the-mark analogy. That just had to be said.
Ultimately, due to how subjective the idea of art is there's nothing I can say to convince you that this perspective is wrong. As long as people want something to be considered art, they will find a way to craft an interpretation that makes it work.
Just as I was able to take your meaning with your analogy and not dismiss it because it's so incorrect, I expect you and others to understand the meaning of art being "created." Instead you decided to leverage the broader concept of what is created in order to manipulate the idea to encompass generated images. I don't think this discussion could possibly turn out as anything but a frustrating and negative experience, so I will step away from it. Suffice it to say that we will simply always disagree on this subject.
Then explain where my analogy fails.
You can change my mind by explaining how a director is different than what I've seen in hundreds of behind the scenes commentaries and documentaries on movie creation. To be more specific, some directors are also writers, storyboarders or cinematographers. But those are additional jobs that not all directors do.
You need to explain why it is incorrect.