this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
1140 points (94.0% liked)
Fuck AI
4727 readers
929 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.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Outsourcing thinking from your brain to an AI literally makes you dumber, less confident in the output, and teaches you nothing.
Call me a Luddite or a hater, but if you’re one of the people who uses AI as a shortcut to actual thought or learning, I will judge you and disregard your output and opinions. Form your own basis of understanding and knowledge instead of a teaspoon deep summary that is frequently incorrect.
They say that, when making an Anki deck, using it is only half the battle because a lot of the learning comes from the act of making it yourself. That advice is older than these LLMs and it really showcases a big reason why they suck. Personally, I haven’t even used autocorrect since 2009.
Being a luddite I feel requires having a highly abstinence-only approach. Knowing what is worth off-loading and what is worth doing yourself is just being smart. I’m really glad that I don’t need to know every detail of modern life but I still take a lot of pride in knowing how quite a lot of it works.
Genuinely the weirdest flex I have ever seen.
No autocorrect? Pfft, filthy casuals. I haven't even stricken a line through a word since the Carter administration.
Oh for sure, I won’t argue that, but it does explain my point. Even when I use a program with the squiggly red line I correct it myself so that I can reinforce the correct spelling.
Idiocracy - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
was that at the current regimes swear in right?
I agree all rich people are stupid people
The business of a king separates him from the world...
Same with using a calculator, no? Or not memorising log tables.
There’s a key difference between using a tool to crunch a known mathematical equation (because you cannot just say “find X” to the calculator) and having to punch in the right inputs - ergo requiring understanding - and simply asking the teacher for the answer.
Treat AI like the hermit oracle/shaman/divinator of yesteryear, and you’ll get the same results - idiots who don’t know how to think for themselves, and blindly accept what they are told.
LLMs are less replacing the need for log tables, and more replacing the need to understand why you need a log table. Less replacing a calculator and more replacing the fundamental understanding of math. Sure, you could argue that it doesn't matter if people know math, and in the end you might be right. But given that ChatGPT can and will spit out random numbers instead of a real answer, I'd rather have someone who actually understands math be designing buildings, people who actually understand anatomy and medicine being surgeons. Sure, a computer science guy cheating with ChatGPT through school and his entire career probably won't be setting anyone back other than himself and the companies that hire him, but they aren't the only ones using the "shortcut" that is ChatGPT
I was never taught what log tables actually are. Anytime logarithms were brought it, it was just "type it in to your calculator and it will tell you"
That wasn't my experience in school, but there's a good chance you were just in an introductory class or similar. However, that doesn't change anything about my argument. If you need the log of something, you knew that you needed to look up the log in a table to solve the problem. ChatGPT removes the need to even understand that you can use a log to solve a problem, and instead spits out an answer. Yes, people can use ChatGPT to accelerate learning, as one would a calculator, and in those instances I think it's somewhat valuable if you completely ignore the fact that it will lie to your face and claim to be telling you the truth. However, anecdotally I know quite a few folks that are using it as a replacement for learning/thinking, which is the danger people are talking about.
Better comparison would be opening a song on radio and saying "see I can produce music." You still don't know about music production in the end.
Personally dont think that's a good comparison. I would say it's more like taking a photo and claiming you know how to paint. You're still actually cre a ting something, but using a digital tool that does it for you. You chose the subject and fiddle with setting to get a better image closer to what you want and then can take it into software to edit it further.
Its art in its own right, but you shouldn't directly compare it to painting.
Even that is a bad analogy, it's like commissioning a painter to paint something for you, and then claiming you know how to paint. You told an entity that knows how to do stuff what you wanted, and it gave it to you. Sure, you can ask for tweaks here and there, but in terms of artistic knowledge, you didn't need any and didn't provide any, and you didn't really directly create anything. Taking a decent photo requires more knowledge than generating something on ChatGPT. Not to mention actually being in front of the thing you want a photo of.
I think my analogy is more accurate
Care to explain? I think your analogy gives the credit of art creation to someone who didn't create art, and thus is flawed.
I mean i think i explained myself quite well already, and not to be insulting to you, but i dont think you're willing to accept any argument i would make that goes against what you already beleive, since your argument against it simply you asserting your own beliefs (that AI art isnt art) as an immutable fact
Oh, I'm not saying AI art isn't art. It is. I'm just saying that the person writing the prompt didn't create it, or do anything remotely skilled or artistic to get the result.
Okay, but if theyre the one writing the prompt, changing parameters and pressing the button to generate it how are they not the one creating it?
And i do think photography is pretty analogous here. Anyone can point a phone camera st something, hit one button and generate something. It takes no skill or artistic talent to do so and the phone is whats doing all the work, but its still creating art. And just like AI, people can put more effort into it, coming up with a creative subject, fine tuning different setting to get the effects they want, or even using different devices/models to get different images, and retaking it multiple times to get something theyre happy with, then touching it up in editing software.
Again, the same can be said about hiring a person on fiverr with revisions. You write out what you want, adjust parameters with revisions, and click the "send message" button, but someone else is actually making the art. Just because, in this instance, the "other person" is a computer, doesn't change the fact that the requester isn't making art.
As for the camera analogy, sure, it is similar, but again I think it's missing an important part that makes the photographer the artist. For one, the photographer HAS to have the thing they are taking a picture of directly in front of them. The have to pick an angle and framing for the shot. The picture taken consists of their perspective in that moment, without outside influence. When someone writes a prompt for image generation, they don't really have a direct effect on the output. Sure, you can say that you want a blue flower with six petals, but the chances that you get that out aren't guarenteed. You can say you want it in the style of Van Gogh, or to have the look of a specific camera, or to have specific elements blurred, etc, but ultimately what's returned isn't up to you. Every time I've ever generated AI art, it is never exactly what I went into it wanting. Sure, it gets close, but there will be details off. I've had to accept compromise with the AI. AI art will always only work without exact expectations. People interacting with the AI will only have the option of "close enough." That means fundamentally the prompter isn't in control of the actual artwork, and thus isn't actually the one creating art.
Why are they not making it? Where is the line? I assume we both agree that a digital artist is making their art right? But when you boil it down they are still just sending a computer insteuctions and its making it for them. Or if its about getting exactly what you want out it, what about artists that create art algorithmically or with a paint can on a string? Or what about people who just arent very skilled at art? For example when i draw, i have to settle for "close enough" and also in photography i usually cant get the exact shot i want with the camera and will have to edit it to get close.
Sure, digital artists are making their art. But if they are using procedural elements, which are common in many 3d modeling and texturing softwares (to be clear, not powered by AI) I would argue they didn't really "make" that art, it was generated for them. If they add those generated elements to a piece, i would say they created the art piece as a whole, but they didn't create the generated part. If they are manually placing pieces, shaping models, and painting textures, then I still would consider them having created art.
I think where to draw the line is pretty clear. Did you do more than ask something/someone to make an art piece for you? Then you did art. Say you get an image generated for you. You didn't create it. If you then make meaningful changes to it (If you want to know my definition of meaningful change, just check the legal definition of transformative changes to media, I pretty much align with what the courts have decided) I would argue that you made the art piece as a whole, but you still didn't make the generated part.
As for the paint can on a string, I would argue they still created it. They actively tossed the paint can, cut the holes for the paint to come out, etc. If instead they had a machine that poked the holes randomly and randomly picked a direction/force to use, I wouldn't say they made the work.
When it comes to editing a photo you took, I think that it still counts as you making the art, unless you are having someone/something edit the picture for you. In that case, it's as if you were the original artist, and the editor is the one having made the transformative changes, making the new output the art of the editor, while the original art is still yours.