729
Back to rock, huh?
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
729 points (94.9% liked)
Fuck AI
2571 readers
669 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wait until people remember you can just hit the AI bros with rocks
How about people who need a camera to create their art? Are they less of an artist than a painter?
I'm sick and tried of people re-hashing a discussion that has been settled for almost two centuries. Yes, photography can be art. There's art in how you use the tool. Not all people making photographs are artists or are even out to create art, and then it isn't art, and that's also fine. Why are people having such an issue applying the same to AI as a tool, saying not "Your shit sucks because it's AI" but "Your shit sucks because you're a hack".
Cameraman is an artist, he does way better than ai piss bro to master his art genre.
It's 2025 and you don't know why AI sucks? At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it, you had time to develop critical thinking.
How about using AI-assisted tool in creating your art?
I'm a professional underwater photographer who teaches the subject at a university as a side job. I teach my students to hover underwater on scuba without stirring up the bottom to get the perfect shots. They're having to control their buoyancy, adjust camera settings and lighting, frame their shots, and more. It's extremely difficult, detailed work to get an underwater photo.
Does the fact they use lightroom and AI de-noising filters invalidate all that work?
Technical aside all generative AI is denoising. At least all diffusion models, don't really know the tech behind the rest.
Models made for generation will be able to denoise complete noise, reading things into it, but will also be able to only denoise a little bit. Models made for denoising might lack the capacity and training for a complete denoise to be faster, but ultimately it's still the same technology.
Is everyone who ever took generative AI for a spin an "AI piss bro"?
I won't, for a millisecond, deny that there's a fuckton of AI piss bros who wouldn't be able to see artistic intent if it kicked them in the head. They write a random prompt, hit "generate" and declare it art, and yes of course that's all thoughtless garbage. But it's also perfectly possible to take thoughtless photographs, that doesn't mean that all photographs are thoughtless garbage, or all photographers "photography piss bros".
At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it,
So you can more confidently dismiss me as an ai piss bro, I presume. Certainly would make not engaging with the argument easier.
I've always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it's trying to say.
I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art... presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you'll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.
I don't think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don't think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it'll be for different reasons and in different scales than I'm... eh... moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I'm impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.
Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
load more comments
(23 replies)
I think the argument is that an AI "artist" is incapable of creating art. Their "tool" does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.
load more comments
(28 replies)
This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
Archaeologists:
Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
load more comments
(5 replies)
arouse
Art is inherent in us. Just like the need to put boobs on mythical lizard creatures.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin...
“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”
Exactly. AI images are not going to eliminate art. They just make it more difficult for artists to compete under capitalism.
The solution is to abandon capitalism. Not stop tech development.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›