Technology

59427 readers

3470 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

377

Redditors Vent and Complain When People Mock Their "AI Art" (futurism.com)

submitted 7 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

266 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

100% this. No one creating pictures using AI Is and artist. And no picture made by AI is art.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

I just need to press a button and my DSLR will automatically upload the picture I took. Is photography art? Different people get different things from art. If you want to see something that took a human a hundred hours of consideration, that's fine. But I don't care what the artist was thinking most of the time. I care how it makes me feel. What inspiration it sparks in my mind. I've been moved and inspired by AI art. Admittedly I could also probably have been moved by inkblots. But people hang inkblot prints in their house because it does something for them. Art is subjective, meaning it's more about the subject viewing it than the artist.

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I’m sorry my opinion upsets you, but it’s not art. Period. You’re not changing my mind. If a robot isn’t an athlete for throwing a football, or a computer isn’t a musician for generating preprogrammed beats….

Punching info into a computer program made by other people…. Isn’t art.

I’m not arguing this with you.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You caused me no distress, I was just inspired by your comment to share my perspective.

If a machine isn't an athlete for throwing a football, there are no athletes. If a computer can't be a musician, there are no musicians. The line you're drawing where a computer is worthy of being called an artist, is whether or not it was created by evolution. But there's no technical differences between the two. Or at least there won't be soon.

I understand you're under a different opinion and I thank you for it. I have no need to change it.

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Thanks. Sorry for being aggressive. Just so used to being attacked for my opinion.