Source (Tumblr), alternate frontend.
this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
946 points (96.0% liked)
Fuck AI
2605 readers
934 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine if computers did this with math. Same thing.
The problem isn't that computers do work for us. The problem is that we're violently coerced into serving capital or starving to death at best.
The effort and ingenuity put in to make computers do maths correctly and helpfully is incredible and immense; the way people use computers in original ways to solve incredibly complicated problems is and should be applauded, but the computer also just does exactly what it was told. Given infinite patience and concentration the computer is unnecessary.\
AI art uses already existing art and can't create something original or new. Setting aside the ethics of generators taking credit for work done by others (which is still unethical even outside a capitalist society), it just doesn't create anything interesting or worthwhile because almost definitionally something better already exists.\
Also to counter another argument I have heard before that human artists are 'trained' on other people's art too and often don't credit them. Humans also have innumerable experiences in their life that contribute to everything they think and do which, as chaotic systems go, is pretty good at finding a new path not taken.
Strongly disagree on the "AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new" part. Are collages new? Is new music new if it uses pre-existing chords? Is parody new?
Unless you think AI just copies/pastes existing art like Google image search (it doesn't), the things that AI creates is new.
As a couple people pointed out, I don't literally mean it can't generate pixels in a sequence it hasn't exactly seen. What it can't do is make art with an original take/message/meaning. It doesn't have the accumulated life experience of a person and so can't produce something that takes that and represents it in its art.
My unsolicited opinion as an artist of a few different media.
Good art communicates emotions and feelings of the artist to the audience through its medium. Parody is "new" when it takes an original artist's message, and responds with another artist's absurd take.
Without emotions or feelings, a computer just wings it, and tries to simulate it. It's like receiving a message from an insincere person - maybe pretty but ultimately shallow and hollow.
In the future, computers will be better at faking it. However, I think that will make real art from humans more valuable, not less.
It might be new, but it isn't "art", at least not by my definition.
Math, fot the most part, isn't a reflection of human psyche valued for the human connection and a shared soul.
It can be in a lot of places, but usually isn't.