this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
80 points (97.6% liked)

Slop.

845 readers
313 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would argue it's theoretically possible to generate actual art with the help of generative AI. I'm not sure how much of it I've seen, And I may be wrong.

AI is shit at generating art on its own, but it is good at presenting a grand averaging of things. Ask it for an image of X with Y doing A in B location, it’ll produce a triangulation of those four things that isn’t quite human. Not objective, of course, but the process is particularly mechanical in a way humans don’t process..

Which does position AI content to be used by actual artists as the “muse” for reflection and response to the world around them, which art has always done. AI discerns an average, the artist creates original art that says something about that average.

[–] AnarchoAnarchist@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm just reluctant to say that AI cannot ever possibly be used to generate art, because clippings from magazines can be used to generate art. A jar of piss and a crucifix can be used to generate art. Someone far more creative than me could conceivably, theoretically, use these tools to generate something worthwhile.

This comic isn't art. It's a glorified reaction gif. Everything that I've seen from AI is more like a glorified reaction gif than art.

When you tell generative AI to make a picture you're commissioning something from an algorithm. Davinci created a work of art in the Mona Lisa, the patrician who commissioned the painting did not create art.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago

I'm just reluctant to say that AI cannot ever possibly be used to generate art, because clippings from magazines can be used to generate art. A jar of piss and a crucifix can be used to generate art. Someone far more creative than me could conceivably, theoretically, use these tools to generate something worthwhile.

Collaging is a form of that artistic reflection of the world I was talking about. So yeah, I could see a version of that being done with AI.

When you tell generative AI to make a picture you're commissioning something from an algorithm. Davinci created a work of art in the Mona Lisa, the patrician who commissioned the painting did not create art.

Which is what a lot of these AI “artists” are after, the feeling of being a patrician with the largesse to get art made for them.

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

When you tell generative AI to make a picture you're commissioning something from an algorithm. Davinci created a work of art in the Mona Lisa, the patrician who commissioned the painting did not create art.

Great analogy, comrade. I like that a lot.