The question is if it matters. If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It’s only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can’t easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it’s subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value “actual art”. It’s all just pretty pictures.
If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either?
I can’t distinguish AlteredEgo’s comment from AI, so I think it may just be slop by default. Yeah. Unfortunately, he has nothing interesting to say—I’ve literally heard these exact words from like a hundred other places, so… I guess he’s just not worth talking to. What a boring guy. Really an NPC, if I’ve ever seen one.
Try to be more original, Ego. Originality, yeah. Then I think you might be worth listening to.
Hahahe touche. Just to be clear, originality or being novel would be only one facet of what makes good art or not. AI models could soon produce endless “novel” garbage which remain garbage.
And yeah you do have a point, if you look at the endless garbage comments rolling in on social media it does beg the question. If it’s indistinguishable from AI comments, what does it say about humanity? Or does social media diminish us as a species?
But I’m a proponent of using advanced algorithms and now LLMs to improve discourse on social media. For example the endless reposts of the same garbage, with the same emotional manipulation for karma or propaganda - this an AI model could see and tag. Like “this repost #120 of a video showing X without mentioning the context Y. Funny comments are “Z” and “W”. Emotional manipulation towards “U” politics.”
We as a species are easily emotionally manipulated. And those with money and power or those who find themselves in a righteous mob of same thinking morons have the ability to reshape how people perceive the world. This is how all facets of the pluralistic overton window have become more and more polarized and have shifted towards authoritarianism. Because the social media tools spread certain memes globally now. And you see that Lemmy, despite not being owned and controlled by capitalists and developed by communists has not magically made this problem go away.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree. It is degrading to know that much of our content can be faked by a LLM machine, but it also opens the possibility to rise above it. Simply by tagging “this is AI quality garbage”. This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree.
I’m not buying into the false equivalency. I dislike both, I guess, but I hate AI way more. Which is deserved because AI is waaay worse.
This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
You mean by avoiding it? Great, we’re already doing that. I’m already doing that. You should have no problems with me because we are, hand in hand, “raising the bar.”
After like 2 years of arguing with AI dipshits, the conclusion I’ve come to (and it’s not really that novel) is that art is as any other language, like English, or body language, and I mean that literally, like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking.
This goes for SpongeBob, Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Reservoir Dogs, “Epic Fart Sounds 10 Hours” on Youtube, and any child’s crayon, stick-figure drawing of their own house.
art is as any other language, like English, … like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking
That has to be the worst definition of art I’ve ever heard. You’re literally describing entertainment or content. Art is subjective, but is often supposed to make you uncomfortable, to be unpleasant to watch or experience. In order to punch a crack into that thick skull of yours. The value of art is that it can help us understand ourselves or the world or where we are going as a society.
What you are saying is DEGRADING to the the human dignity. If enough people collectively “decide”? You are literally saying that what is marketed the best through advertising or brainwashing becomes art. “Because we all here scream the loudest, we are right!” “Our hate will reshape what has value and what doesn’t! Let the vote brigade march forward!”
There is a reason artists are supposed to be poor, because they are not making the tasty morsels of dopamine candy and popular masterpieces that made billions of dollars. They are making the weird shit that makes people go “Uhhh what? Mommy!”
Go watch Eraserhead for 10 hours on repeat! Go and repent!
@HerbGrower@slrpnk.net and no I don’t think a machine can tell us what art is. But it can tell us what is novel and not. My somewhat malicious argument is even worse if you apply it to AI music. Because you can write some good song lyrics yourself and describe what you want the music to sound like, and a relatively simple model that can run on a gaming GPU can produce some absolute bangers. It’s far “worse” than it is for images. Because once we have models that can easily and objectively determine “this song is novel, e.g. different and has not stolen significant elements from any other known song” then… well mainstream music was overproduced generic slop before, so how would you argue that AI slop is worse than that if sounds actually better than the latest sweatshop produce slop they try to market to you?
I mean these are serious questions before gen AI came along, with everyone producing slop and posting it for updoots and self validation. High art is supposed to have societal value. It’s important that we continue to publicly support artists not to feed the capitalist entertainment machine or social media slop, but to continue to develop as a civilization. The solution to gen AI is really simple and the same as the crisis art has faced countless times before: Artists need to create something new with or despite the new tools if they want to stay relevant.
You are aware that you can like something that also makes you uncomfortable, yes?
Sure, I am, but I don’t think most people are. And your definition makes it clear that you’re even applying a moral purity test to the creator. If we don’t “like” the creator the art is bad eww.
Morally? You are aware of what kind of slippery slope that is that various fascists and imperialists went down already?
Let me ask you directly, do you think morality should be decided by majority opinion or popularity?
What if majority opinion is decided by emotional manipulation by those with the most money and power to own all the channels of speech and can produce the most convincing and manipulative speech? Or my algorithms that reward “polarization”?
Kevin Spacey played questionable characters and villains amazingly well. His art remains without question despite most people feeling disgusted watching him now.
If enough people collectively decide that AI art is art, then it kind of is. That’s the nature of social constructs.
I reject this. Loudly and with purpose. Art is not art without a conscience to speak it, to make it. This is half descriptive, half declarative. I have no desire to cede any ground to these solipsistic, inhuman, vampire people.
The mere idea that your wife could be replaced with a rubber doll if it were made convincing enough is… fucking absurd, and worthy of the most extreme contempt imaginable.
It is but that is the harsh reality. Gen AI is no doubt an insult to what it means to be human, what we value about ourselves. What it means you either just enjoy the process, or have to work harder to create art that rises above. As long as you can see something with your inner eye and communicate that to others through your medium, art is saved.
But how much hard work is put into stuff that is never even questioned because it isn’t “trending” like OP for some reason? Because there isn’t enough bandwidth? How is that not the same problem we’ve had for the last decade? People created things in obscurity and nobody gave a shit.
I’m not going to say that all things created by people aren’t slop, but it’s also true that our context for understanding art can change over time. What we’re getting now, with certain art styles being associated with slop is a kind of Seinfeld effect.
To give a specific example: When the movie Annihilation came out, it quickly became a favorite of mine. I loved its visual style, and the narrative theme about broken people. A few months ago I re-watched it and realized that its visuals have been so coopted by endless slop recreations that I couldn’t disassociate it from AI output. Even though the themes were still there and no less resonant than when I first watched it, my brain couldn’t enjoy the film because I kept thinking about slop. The movie hadn’t changed and all the artistic intentionality behind its creation was still there, but my ability to enjoy it was destroyed.
Interesting. Because Gen AI is certainly the annihilation of certain facets of human creativity (I’d say the sloppiest aspects). What is creativity without meaning but annihilation? (EDIT: I’ve recently rewatched Annihilation and rewatching the ending now again, I love it more than ever because how relevant it is to the currently ongoing annihilation of our civilization).
It’s also a great example of how hate bandwagoning reduces enjoyment. I’ve seen this with “Rings of Power”. It’s not the best TV show, certainly not the worst. There are like 4 subreddits discussing the show, 3 filled with endless hate and vitriol. 1 with discussions about who or how artistic decisions were made this or that way and how it conflicts with the source material. Finding that community made watching the show more enjoyable again.
So the community you choose absolutely does affect how you can enjoy entertainment or art. Basically you shouldn’t allow yourself to be infected with hate mongering because that has it’s own “economy” of karma and grifting on e.g. youtube.
A more important example would be how judgemental opinions can affect the view on “minority” cultures or the global south. Liberalism wants to commercialize it, conservatism wants to purify it.
The question is if it matters. If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It’s only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can’t easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it’s subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value “actual art”. It’s all just pretty pictures.
I can’t distinguish AlteredEgo’s comment from AI, so I think it may just be slop by default. Yeah. Unfortunately, he has nothing interesting to say—I’ve literally heard these exact words from like a hundred other places, so… I guess he’s just not worth talking to. What a boring guy. Really an NPC, if I’ve ever seen one.
Try to be more original, Ego. Originality, yeah. Then I think you might be worth listening to.
Hahahe touche. Just to be clear, originality or being novel would be only one facet of what makes good art or not. AI models could soon produce endless “novel” garbage which remain garbage.
And yeah you do have a point, if you look at the endless garbage comments rolling in on social media it does beg the question. If it’s indistinguishable from AI comments, what does it say about humanity? Or does social media diminish us as a species?
But I’m a proponent of using advanced algorithms and now LLMs to improve discourse on social media. For example the endless reposts of the same garbage, with the same emotional manipulation for karma or propaganda - this an AI model could see and tag. Like “this repost #120 of a video showing X without mentioning the context Y. Funny comments are “Z” and “W”. Emotional manipulation towards “U” politics.”
We as a species are easily emotionally manipulated. And those with money and power or those who find themselves in a righteous mob of same thinking morons have the ability to reshape how people perceive the world. This is how all facets of the pluralistic overton window have become more and more polarized and have shifted towards authoritarianism. Because the social media tools spread certain memes globally now. And you see that Lemmy, despite not being owned and controlled by capitalists and developed by communists has not magically made this problem go away.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree. It is degrading to know that much of our content can be faked by a LLM machine, but it also opens the possibility to rise above it. Simply by tagging “this is AI quality garbage”. This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
I’m not buying into the false equivalency. I dislike both, I guess, but I hate AI way more. Which is deserved because AI is waaay worse.
You mean by avoiding it? Great, we’re already doing that. I’m already doing that. You should have no problems with me because we are, hand in hand, “raising the bar.”
And how is an AI system going to identify that or not?
Also I don’t really like that definition for art. Feels kinda pretentious/gatekeeping. But inevitably that does lead us to what even is art.
After like 2 years of arguing with AI dipshits, the conclusion I’ve come to (and it’s not really that novel) is that art is as any other language, like English, or body language, and I mean that literally, like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking.
This goes for SpongeBob, Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Reservoir Dogs, “Epic Fart Sounds 10 Hours” on Youtube, and any child’s crayon, stick-figure drawing of their own house.
That has to be the worst definition of art I’ve ever heard. You’re literally describing entertainment or content. Art is subjective, but is often supposed to make you uncomfortable, to be unpleasant to watch or experience. In order to punch a crack into that thick skull of yours. The value of art is that it can help us understand ourselves or the world or where we are going as a society.
What you are saying is DEGRADING to the the human dignity. If enough people collectively “decide”? You are literally saying that what is marketed the best through advertising or brainwashing becomes art. “Because we all here scream the loudest, we are right!” “Our hate will reshape what has value and what doesn’t! Let the vote brigade march forward!”
There is a reason artists are supposed to be poor, because they are not making the tasty morsels of dopamine candy and popular masterpieces that made billions of dollars. They are making the weird shit that makes people go “Uhhh what? Mommy!”
Go watch Eraserhead for 10 hours on repeat! Go and repent!
@HerbGrower@slrpnk.net and no I don’t think a machine can tell us what art is. But it can tell us what is novel and not. My somewhat malicious argument is even worse if you apply it to AI music. Because you can write some good song lyrics yourself and describe what you want the music to sound like, and a relatively simple model that can run on a gaming GPU can produce some absolute bangers. It’s far “worse” than it is for images. Because once we have models that can easily and objectively determine “this song is novel, e.g. different and has not stolen significant elements from any other known song” then… well mainstream music was overproduced generic slop before, so how would you argue that AI slop is worse than that if sounds actually better than the latest sweatshop produce slop they try to market to you?
I mean these are serious questions before gen AI came along, with everyone producing slop and posting it for updoots and self validation. High art is supposed to have societal value. It’s important that we continue to publicly support artists not to feed the capitalist entertainment machine or social media slop, but to continue to develop as a civilization. The solution to gen AI is really simple and the same as the crisis art has faced countless times before: Artists need to create something new with or despite the new tools if they want to stay relevant.
You are aware that you can like something that also makes you uncomfortable, yes?
Always being argued with by people who have no idea what I’m talking about.
Logistically? Maybe. But morally? Like, eat shit, man.
Sure, I am, but I don’t think most people are. And your definition makes it clear that you’re even applying a moral purity test to the creator. If we don’t “like” the creator the art is bad eww.
Morally? You are aware of what kind of slippery slope that is that various fascists and imperialists went down already?
People don’t like Kevin Spacey very much. I dunno, seems like that’s already been decided.
I am aware that you’ve only ever seen the word “morally” in Mein Kampf, apparently.
Let me ask you directly, do you think morality should be decided by majority opinion or popularity?
What if majority opinion is decided by emotional manipulation by those with the most money and power to own all the channels of speech and can produce the most convincing and manipulative speech? Or my algorithms that reward “polarization”?
Kevin Spacey played questionable characters and villains amazingly well. His art remains without question despite most people feeling disgusted watching him now.
My man, if you could not find anyone who liked Kevin Spacey’s work, then there’d be no one to say he was any good—it’s a self-answering question.
It is, they’re currently burning the world down for fun, and I don’t like it.
I would be more agreeable to that as a definition of it. But then some people do like AI output. As far as stuff other people make it’s harder to say.
But to make it myself, that means a lot more. Even if it looks clearly worse than what I could buy or generate with AI.
If enough people collectively decide that AI art is art, then it kind of is. That’s the nature of social constructs.
I reject this. Loudly and with purpose. Art is not art without a conscience to speak it, to make it. This is half descriptive, half declarative. I have no desire to cede any ground to these solipsistic, inhuman, vampire people.
The mere idea that your wife could be replaced with a rubber doll if it were made convincing enough is… fucking absurd, and worthy of the most extreme contempt imaginable.
Let’s remove art from the debate then. It’s something that presumably took hard work and now that hard work is put into question.
It is but that is the harsh reality. Gen AI is no doubt an insult to what it means to be human, what we value about ourselves. What it means you either just enjoy the process, or have to work harder to create art that rises above. As long as you can see something with your inner eye and communicate that to others through your medium, art is saved.
But how much hard work is put into stuff that is never even questioned because it isn’t “trending” like OP for some reason? Because there isn’t enough bandwidth? How is that not the same problem we’ve had for the last decade? People created things in obscurity and nobody gave a shit.
I’m not going to say that all things created by people aren’t slop, but it’s also true that our context for understanding art can change over time. What we’re getting now, with certain art styles being associated with slop is a kind of Seinfeld effect.
To give a specific example: When the movie Annihilation came out, it quickly became a favorite of mine. I loved its visual style, and the narrative theme about broken people. A few months ago I re-watched it and realized that its visuals have been so coopted by endless slop recreations that I couldn’t disassociate it from AI output. Even though the themes were still there and no less resonant than when I first watched it, my brain couldn’t enjoy the film because I kept thinking about slop. The movie hadn’t changed and all the artistic intentionality behind its creation was still there, but my ability to enjoy it was destroyed.
Interesting. Because Gen AI is certainly the annihilation of certain facets of human creativity (I’d say the sloppiest aspects). What is creativity without meaning but annihilation? (EDIT: I’ve recently rewatched Annihilation and rewatching the ending now again, I love it more than ever because how relevant it is to the currently ongoing annihilation of our civilization).
It’s also a great example of how hate bandwagoning reduces enjoyment. I’ve seen this with “Rings of Power”. It’s not the best TV show, certainly not the worst. There are like 4 subreddits discussing the show, 3 filled with endless hate and vitriol. 1 with discussions about who or how artistic decisions were made this or that way and how it conflicts with the source material. Finding that community made watching the show more enjoyable again.
So the community you choose absolutely does affect how you can enjoy entertainment or art. Basically you shouldn’t allow yourself to be infected with hate mongering because that has it’s own “economy” of karma and grifting on e.g. youtube.
A more important example would be how judgemental opinions can affect the view on “minority” cultures or the global south. Liberalism wants to commercialize it, conservatism wants to purify it.