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.
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.