this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025

735 points (94.9% liked)

Fuck AI

2571 readers

664 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

VerbFlow@lemmy.world

MrMcGasion@lemmy.world

TootSweet@lemmy.world

BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world

cynar@lemmy.world

themaninblack@lemmy.world

drmeanfeel@lemmy.world

pavnilschanda@lemmy.world

CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world

WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world

Communist@lemmy.ml

eatCasserole@lemmy.world

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world

NutWrench@lemmy.world

Soup@lemmy.cafe

iAvicenna@lemmy.world

Tinks@lemmy.world

wizblizz@lemmy.world

corus_kt@lemmy.world

Prandom_returns@lemm.ee

TrickDacy@lemmy.world

TheFriar@lemm.ee

HawlSera@lemm.ee

andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works

33550336@lemmy.world

Nougat@fedia.io

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world

Quill7513@slrpnk.net

ogmios@sh.itjust.works

glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz

735

Haven't seen this on here yet - humans don't require computers to create art... Art is inherent in us. (europe.pub)

submitted 1 week ago by miguel@fedia.io to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i say this as nicely as I can, you dont need expensive and exploitative algorithms to make art. i dont really care if you say you cant make anything, put a pen to paper and draw. your terrible scribble has infinitely more value than anything a tech company's software can generate using stolen data. and after you crumple that up and throw it away, get another sheet of paper and do it again, and again, until your wrist snaps apart, and I guarantee you will not only have learned something about yourself but you will be more of an artist than any tech bro using chatgpt

[–] Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

People use AI for making “art” not because of their lack of ability to create art per se, but they use it rather as a way to cut costs in their commercial projects and skip contracting real artists. This is why it's malicious. I wouldn't care if somoeone uses it for pure, private leisure.

[–] spongeborgcubepants@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Back to rock, huh?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago

Wait until people remember you can just hit the AI bros with rocks

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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".

[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee -1 points 6 days ago

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.

[+] Juliee@lemm.ee -9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I get the message and agree but busty dragoness is not an art lol let’s be honest here. It’s a well crafted image

It never ceases to amaze me that nsfw goon creators think of themselves as artists

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Just cause you don't agree with it doesn't make it not art. Art is anything created by an organic being that relays a mood or a message wether it be intentional or not.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Art is something that conveys some message and meaning. Gooning is just opposite

Cmon you surely realise that these nsfw furry commissioners cannot be called artists.

Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.

Organic being is also wrong btw. Sentient instead.

On the most basic level art is means of communication.

As you can see portrait of big tiddy dino waifu on porn site has no message nor communicates anything. There is no meaning to it. There could be but there isn’t. Though OP picture actually communicates something so it is an art in this example, meta art

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"art can't be erotic" is some stupid american conservative puritan take.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean if you call a dino with huge tits an art then you are only embarrassing yourself

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There is nothing about bahonka honkas on a reptilian that immediately disqualify it from being art. You can have tremendous brushwork, lighting or technique on your scaly porn.

Besides if it manages an emotional response it's art. Getting you horny is an emotional response.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Not really lol. Please, no one sane would consider dino with a dick an art. What kind of bubble are you in? Some kind of coomer circles maybe but those people are not to be taken seriously

You would be ridiculed at any art institution mercilessly if you made it as some sort of bachelors. Actually I want to see it lol

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If the rule is "emotional response except for THAT ONE, eww" its not really an rule. Its some puritan bullshit.

I never said it was high art, it still qualifies as art.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No one serious qualifies it as art, you are just embarrassing yourself

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago

Why not then? Other than americans would rather watch snuff as theyd lose their shit over seeing a njpple.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.

Usually it's not a very high standard but it is a standard, and even without getting into proper erotica and staying with pulp: Lemon stealing removed exist. Even Gonzo in itself is a choice, breaking through the traditional structure, opting to completely eradicate the fourth wall, the pretence. I bet it takes quite some skill to portray the fantasy of being a camera man on a porn set vs. the reality of it.

Art is not like enlightenment, it's more like meditation. You don't need to be good at it to be doing it.

On the most basic level art is means of communication.

Nope that'd be language (in whatever form). The core of art is intent. It's the science of subjective choice, there's no requirement to be intersubjective. It can be just you and the medium, and that medium can even be yourself, c.f. ars vivendi. Plenty of philosophers are artists.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I disagree

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

With all of what I said? Damn.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

With your definitions everything becomes an art. Even painting your walls and baking bread hence it must be incorrect definition as obviously not everything is an art. There is a difference between craft and an art. You can be a good crafter of nsfw images but that doesn’t mean you are an artist.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Craft is about objective, not subjective, choice. Craft is saying "The wall of this mug needs to be thicker or I won't have enough clay to trim the surface smooth". Art is saying "I'd like to do some more experiments with copper inclusions, they tickle my aesthetic sense". Sorry I watched a lot of Florian Gadsby lately.

The creation of a bread recipe often involves art, it is a conversation between your personal taste and the medium. Figuring out how to bake 100 of those a day in a reliable, reproducible manner, is craft. Different bakers land on different points on that spectrum. It's no different with goon artists, but they probably all have created a recipe or two.

[–] Juliee@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I disagree with that. I think my definition is superior

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

And I think 99.999% of music played in clubs is boring because I'm not interested in the exploration of the emotional motifs that they do. Doesn't mean that it's not art, that they're not doing any exploration, though, even though there's large amounts of formulaic slop. It means that most DJs aren't Boris Brejcha. And even with how good he is, due to setting, audience, he's no French 79, Aphex Twin, you name it.

My definition accounts for all that nuance, any particular work can be various degrees of art and craft and the 100th bread that our baker bakes from their own artful recipe is no less of a piece of art than Andy Warhol's 100th print of the same thing.

[+] Zacryon@feddit.org -6 points 6 days ago (3 children)

"real art". Gatekeeping art now, are we?

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes.

Art is made by living things. Until AI is alive it cannot make art. Current models don't fit the bill. That's not saying that a far more advanced future AI couldn't make art, but at present AI can't make art.

[+] Zacryon@feddit.org -7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And by what definition would an advanced AI be "alive" enough to create art?

[–] oascany@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When it can be proven to think for itself and not regurgitate what it thinks you want to hear. When it steps past lines of code, not as a façade or fascimile, but as its own being with its own goals and its own sense of realised existence.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If I may rephrase it: Art can be created by an AI only if it has agency and self-awareness (or, more general, conciousness).

Is that necessary though to create art?

Quite a loaded philosophical question, but an important one if we want to talk about the essence of art and the beings – either natural or artificial – that create it.

Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?

By that definition, those without a (known) sense of self-awareness or conciousness, couldn't. And yet, we can see behaviour that we would call "art". Be it a bird, which mimicks sounds or invents a dance to impress females, or a fish that draws patterns into the sand for similar reasons.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's dolphin poetry. Most animals simply don't seem to be able or interested, though, the development of art as a reflective practice (as in: the science of subjective choice) requires a lack of pre-programming, reliance on self-reprogramming, that's mostly limited to humans as far as we're aware.

Cats seem to like music in pretty much the same way as we like purring, as in: It resonates with them, but so far there's no cat composers out there, reflecting the thrill and joy of the hunt in terms of music. I'd totally listen to that.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Lemmy users are notoriously delicate. They cannot survive outside heavily moderated and curated online spaces.

Hence, gatekeeping is a needed tactic to ensure these spaces were they thrive keep a metastatic state.

In fact, a common practice in Lemmy is to gatekeep subjective experiences, like humor, art, memes, taste in music, movies or games.

You name it, you will have dozens of users telling you that "no, in actual fact, your subjective experience about is wrong, and has to conform to mine, or else"

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I require a computer to create art. I suck at everything art related. Can't draw, can't paint, can't play a musical instrument. If I have an image in my head, the best way to create it, for me, is to tell an AI what I want and then look through the results for what is closest to the image I had in my mind.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

We all start out like that. There is no magic artist that "just paints it" or even draws it, it's hours of training.

Folks, it's not magic! Just get to it and you'll get better. Copy other artists to learn styles and how to do things, and one day you'll wake up with your own unique style that is just you.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 days ago

You are less of an artist than the person comissioning an artist.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 66 points 1 week ago (53 children)

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.

load more comments (53 replies)

[–] grue@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (8 children)

This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments