this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
1062 points (99.3% liked)
Fuck AI
8202 readers
1466 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
The question is if it matters. If an image can't be distinguished from what AI produces, isn't it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It's only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can't easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it's subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value "actual art". It's all just pretty pictures.
I can't distinguish AlteredEgo's comment from AI, so I think it may just be slop by default. Yeah. Unfortunately, he has nothing interesting to say—I've literally heard these exact words from like a hundred other places, so... I guess he's just not worth talking to. What a boring guy. Really an NPC, if I've ever seen one.
Try to be more original, Ego. Originality, yeah. Then I think you might be worth listening to.
And how is an AI system going to identify that or not?
Also I don't really like that definition for art. Feels kinda pretentious/gatekeeping. But inevitably that does lead us to what even is art.
After like 2 years of arguing with AI dipshits, the conclusion I've come to (and it's not really that novel) is that art is as any other language, like English, or body language, and I mean that literally, like body language, and its value is in whether you like listening to the person speaking.
This goes for SpongeBob, Dune, The Lord of the Rings, Reservoir Dogs, "Epic Fart Sounds 10 Hours" on Youtube, and any child's crayon, stick-figure drawing of their own house.
I would be more agreeable to that as a definition of it. But then some people do like AI output. As far as stuff other people make it's harder to say.
But to make it myself, that means a lot more. Even if it looks clearly worse than what I could buy or generate with AI.
If enough people collectively decide that AI art is art, then it kind of is. That's the nature of social constructs.
I reject this. Loudly and with purpose. Art is not art without a conscience to speak it, to make it. This is half descriptive, half declarative. I have no desire to cede any ground to these solipsistic, inhuman, vampire people.
The mere idea that your wife could be replaced with a rubber doll if it were made convincing enough is... fucking absurd, and worthy of the most extreme contempt imaginable.
Let's remove art from the debate then. It's something that presumably took hard work and now that hard work is put into question.
I'm not going to say that all things created by people aren't slop, but it's also true that our context for understanding art can change over time. What we're getting now, with certain art styles being associated with slop is a kind of Seinfeld effect.
To give a specific example: When the movie Annihilation came out, it quickly became a favorite of mine. I loved its visual style, and the narrative theme about broken people. A few months ago I re-watched it and realized that its visuals have been so coopted by endless slop recreations that I couldn't disassociate it from AI output. Even though the themes were still there and no less resonant than when I first watched it, my brain couldn't enjoy the film because I kept thinking about slop. The movie hadn't changed and all the artistic intentionality behind its creation was still there, but my ability to enjoy it was destroyed.