Source (Bluesky)
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
1154 points (97.9% liked)
Fuck AI
7828 readers
1133 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
Perhaps don't call it "art" either since it's just the result of one's and zeros spewing out data.... those people are not "artists" just talentless hacks....
I do so much art printing pages upon pages of /dev/urandom, please buy some. Computer made it artfully in art form.
if a banana taped to a wall is art than processing millions of images, finding correlation between said images and their captions and using the vectors to find those patterns in noise is art too
A banana taped to the wall has more human expression than any AI generated image
No it's a scam for money laundering.
human expression has never been a requirement for art, apes can make art too
This is at the core of why you don't understand anything and everybody is yelling at you and down voting you.
Art is not the same as imaging.
A computer can output imaging. A human artist can output art, which is the human perspective portrayed via imaging.
R. Mutt 1917 flashbacks
Clearly you can't draw or paint and just another tech nerd happy to denigrate human made artwork as no different from the garbage spat out of a machine with little to no thought other than "draw me in Ghibli style"
Perhaps try understanding what art means and stop trying to equate human made art with mass produced content garbage?
Plenty of other artwork to choose yet funny how people always want to bring up the banana taped to a wall as an example as to why art is nonsense you must be an American 🙄
And here a lot of artists would disagree with you. Because for artists, the act of creating is as important as - if not even more important than - the end product. To quote a smart college student's musings I once heard: "Art is how artists process life experiences."
The rest I agree with, AI is a tool and the biggest issues with it are the people who are creating it and the people abusing it and making life for artists worse. Adam Savage once said that someday some film student will do something really amazing with AI (and then Hollywood will steal it and copy it into the ground), but that hasn't happened yet. He said that what he cares about when he looks at a piece is what he can see of the artist in that piece, and with AI, you see nothing.
As an aside, there's a real conversation to be had about how the word "consumer" has replaced all forms of interaction in our vocabulary. We no longer enjoy or appreciate art - we consume it; we're not customers, we're consumers, etc. But that's not really relevant to the conversation except as a comment on how companies have pushed all forms of enjoyment down to the level of eating a fast food burger.
Other dude doesn't understand the difference between imaging and art. Art is the human perspective. This apparently is more than they can comprehend.
Honestly, they're not wrong, it's just that most people don't understand that aspect of why artists are so against AI.
Art is also a conversation and a mirror. Entire artistic movements have been dedicated to creating pieces intended to evoke specific feelings in viewers.
The story of the series of paintings titled Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue and the attacks on them are a great example of all of the points that I've talked about. As Wikipedia says:
Of the four paintings in the series, two would be attacked with knives, with a second failed attempt on one of them resulting in an attack on another of Newman's paintings instead. All because of some big canvases with the three primary colors painted on them in simple stripes. The first painting to be attacked is literally a red canvas with a single stripe of blue on one end.
It is sadly, not far removed from how a lot of photography works, especially now.
Take thousands of pictures, pick the few that look good. Even bad photographers get lucky often enough.
I'm not saying it's the same, there are obvious differences. But it's not a huge leap.
I’m sorry but that’s a really dumb take discrediting millions of photographers around the world.
Theres more to photography than taking thousand of pictures and just pick the one where you got lucky. Painters often also need many trys to get their art perfect.
You also have to go somewhere to take pictures. Then invest the time to find different angles of the subject. Then select the ones that you like best and edit them.
Theres a massive difference in taking a nice portrait of a real subject vs prompt “engineering” one in two minutes from your smartphone on the toilet.
Of course photography is much more accessible today, but so are most art forms nowadays.
I'm sorry I've worked with a dozen or so photographers. Some good, several very bad, and one or two who are genuinely talented.
They're all shooting as much as they can and picking what they like. Editing is 90 percent of the job.
One gal literally had no idea what any of the functions on her camera even did, just let it do everything. She just had a good eye for it in the editing room, and shot enough to take luck out of the equation. She is still being shown in galleries around town and has a stall at all the craft fairs around town. Photography is the only thing she does. The few who were and remain talented photographers aren't standing head and shoulders above their competition. The two really talented guys are teaching.
You don’t have to master all the functions of a camera to make art with it, just like noone expects a componist to play every instrument. Or a painter how to make his own colors. Of course it helps, but thats not part of what makes it art.
Also, if editing is 90 percent of the job, would you say thats not part of the art?
And why would the art be less valuable just because you took more pictures than you show? Does a musician publish every piece of melody they have ever created? Does an authornpublish every text?
Brother, you're not sounding very discerning here.
Just because some clown picked up a camera and started taking pictures, and representing themselves as a pro photographer, doesn't mean shit.
There is still a skill and a science that professional photographers employ.
You surrounding yourself with hacks does not mean everyone who does photography is a hack, like are you that silly?
I can buy a basketball and then call myself a basketball player. It's not a protected title. That doesn't mean there's no skill to basketball, and success in the game just means throwing the ball enough times and hoping probability takes over.