The internet was full of slop long before AI, and now it’s full of even more slop because of AI. I don’t think that fundamental reality is ever going to change.
The bigger issue, at least for me, is the environmental cost of generating all this additional AI slop. I absolutely support building fewer data centers, and if that means AI tools eventually go away entirely, I’m perfectly fine with that.
But I think what OP was actually getting at is the idea that people are demanding recognition for their AI-generated slop as “art,” and I just don’t think that’s what’s happening. There are certainly people who take AI-generated content way too seriously, but that’s a separate argument from whether AI has fundamentally changed the amount of low-effort garbage on the internet.
But I think what OP was actually getting at is the idea that people are demanding recognition for their AI-generated slop as “art,” and I just don’t think that’s what’s happening.
Midjourney? I’ve never even heard of this before. What?
I’m going to respond to your previous comment here to avoid multiple comments addressing the same thing.
The reason you think that is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs function and what the different types of “AI” actually are. You hate a caricature of what the technology is. You don’t know how it functions, you don’t know what it does, and you seem to think it makes silly memes from a short prompt while people are hooting and hollering about how great of artists they are.
You couldn’t even ascertain the satirical nature of the subreddit that you sent me, which is absolutely amazing.
What you call “AI” is a tool, and it has a use function whether you like it or not. That is a true statement. If you are not able to admit that, then you’ve developed confirmation bias and prejudice against a technology, indicating your ignorance of it. In the very same sense that racism is based on ignorance and misinformation. Yes, I just compared your reluctance toward AI to racism. Extreme, but applicable.
Also, you are the second person to say that I have somehow used a straw man when, in fact, I did not. I am making a claim and then supporting that claim with evidence directly below my example.
So, to reiterate, I am saying that you cannot make a completed 30-minute piece of media with a simple AI prompt. That’s not how the technology functions at higher levels. I then backed up that statement with the fact that there is a pipeline of applications, other programs, and other skills used to manipulate media generated by AI into a coherent 30-minute video.
For some reason, everyone ignores everything below my original statement and calls it a straw man. Once again, this supports the fact that most people don’t know what a straw man is, how it is used, how to identify one, and why it is probably the single most misused logical fallacy on the internet.
I sincerely hope that, in the course of this conversation, you will not devolve into random sarcasm and snide remarks about how smart you are, like the last person who claimed I made a straw man.
Wow! Thanks man! That’s actually a good sub, I just skimmed through it. Not a lot of good subs on Reddit anymore.
It is ironic that you would link me that sub. I’m assuming that you didn’t go through any of it. I recommend that you do. You’ll never admit it, but you’re going to think yourself a fool.
I did, and I found quite a few of the people you just said didn’t exist.
I found even more arguments that relied on almost as much faulty logic as they did incorrect facts. Strawman arguments about what I believe as far as the eye can see, with the occasional easily googleable falsehood about how AI or Nightshade works or doesn’t thrown in for good measure.
Oh, and an absolute shitton of people just believing that stealing art is fine actually, or that if people like redrawing AI art, they must be okay with it because they “copied” the AI’s idea. I can’t decide which is worse, that they’re not arguing in good faith, or that their sense of what art theft is has been so warped that they actually unironically believe it.
Funny how you went from claiming an argument was a strawman to defending it as soon as you were shown other people believed it though. That’s super interesting.
I do see quite a few people having something along the lines of “AI Artist” in their bio whenever im on my way of blocking them, but there is probably less reason to argue about that.
For me its by the way also less the slopification of the web that I dislike about AI the most and not even the environmental cost (though its definitely up there), but just the implications it has on the education system. I think it has an even slower burn there, but maybe thats just because we already had a headstart in destroying our planet.
How come? I mean if used as a tool to accelerate learning, concepts and to allow students to learn things in a personalized fashion, it could be a great tool. I would say multiple choice tests aren’t great, but the invention of the Scantron certainly freed up instructor time to focus on teaching rather than grading.
It accelerates learning by skipping over the most crucial part, the thinking part.
Things like the scantron on the other hand accelerates it by skipping tedious parts where there was almost no thinking to begin with.
And yes, while calculators might also skip some of that, its in my opinion not comparable as you still need to understand how to get to the solution when using an calculator.
Same process for AI. If you don’t understand how to use it, then it’s useless. Same thing with search engines, if you had ‘Google-Fu’ you could find anything. That’s any and all technology. If you know how to use a tool, it’s useful. But don’t give a person the wrong tool for the job, especially when they don’t know what they are doing.
The internet was full of slop long before AI, and now it’s full of even more slop because of AI. I don’t think that fundamental reality is ever going to change.
The bigger issue, at least for me, is the environmental cost of generating all this additional AI slop. I absolutely support building fewer data centers, and if that means AI tools eventually go away entirely, I’m perfectly fine with that.
But I think what OP was actually getting at is the idea that people are demanding recognition for their AI-generated slop as “art,” and I just don’t think that’s what’s happening. There are certainly people who take AI-generated content way too seriously, but that’s a separate argument from whether AI has fundamentally changed the amount of low-effort garbage on the internet.
Do you live under an actual rock?
I’ll ask you what I asked. Everybody else provide proof that this is occurring in large numbers.
Have a whole subreddit full: https://reddit.com/r/defendingaiart
Here’s a good one. Because I know you’re not going to look.
Cool meme bro. What does it have to do with the debate over Midjourney again?
Midjourney? I’ve never even heard of this before. What?
I’m going to respond to your previous comment here to avoid multiple comments addressing the same thing.
The reason you think that is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs function and what the different types of “AI” actually are. You hate a caricature of what the technology is. You don’t know how it functions, you don’t know what it does, and you seem to think it makes silly memes from a short prompt while people are hooting and hollering about how great of artists they are.
You couldn’t even ascertain the satirical nature of the subreddit that you sent me, which is absolutely amazing.
What you call “AI” is a tool, and it has a use function whether you like it or not. That is a true statement. If you are not able to admit that, then you’ve developed confirmation bias and prejudice against a technology, indicating your ignorance of it. In the very same sense that racism is based on ignorance and misinformation. Yes, I just compared your reluctance toward AI to racism. Extreme, but applicable.
Also, you are the second person to say that I have somehow used a straw man when, in fact, I did not. I am making a claim and then supporting that claim with evidence directly below my example.
So, to reiterate, I am saying that you cannot make a completed 30-minute piece of media with a simple AI prompt. That’s not how the technology functions at higher levels. I then backed up that statement with the fact that there is a pipeline of applications, other programs, and other skills used to manipulate media generated by AI into a coherent 30-minute video.
For some reason, everyone ignores everything below my original statement and calls it a straw man. Once again, this supports the fact that most people don’t know what a straw man is, how it is used, how to identify one, and why it is probably the single most misused logical fallacy on the internet.
I sincerely hope that, in the course of this conversation, you will not devolve into random sarcasm and snide remarks about how smart you are, like the last person who claimed I made a straw man.
Wow! Thanks man! That’s actually a good sub, I just skimmed through it. Not a lot of good subs on Reddit anymore.
It is ironic that you would link me that sub. I’m assuming that you didn’t go through any of it. I recommend that you do. You’ll never admit it, but you’re going to think yourself a fool.
I did, and I found quite a few of the people you just said didn’t exist.
I found even more arguments that relied on almost as much faulty logic as they did incorrect facts. Strawman arguments about what I believe as far as the eye can see, with the occasional easily googleable falsehood about how AI or Nightshade works or doesn’t thrown in for good measure.
Oh, and an absolute shitton of people just believing that stealing art is fine actually, or that if people like redrawing AI art, they must be okay with it because they “copied” the AI’s idea. I can’t decide which is worse, that they’re not arguing in good faith, or that their sense of what art theft is has been so warped that they actually unironically believe it.
Funny how you went from claiming an argument was a strawman to defending it as soon as you were shown other people believed it though. That’s super interesting.
I do see quite a few people having something along the lines of “AI Artist” in their bio whenever im on my way of blocking them, but there is probably less reason to argue about that.
For me its by the way also less the slopification of the web that I dislike about AI the most and not even the environmental cost (though its definitely up there), but just the implications it has on the education system. I think it has an even slower burn there, but maybe thats just because we already had a headstart in destroying our planet.
Totally agree with the way that llms and AI is currently. I would not want to see it in the classroom, especially with my children.
How come? I mean if used as a tool to accelerate learning, concepts and to allow students to learn things in a personalized fashion, it could be a great tool. I would say multiple choice tests aren’t great, but the invention of the Scantron certainly freed up instructor time to focus on teaching rather than grading.
It accelerates learning by skipping over the most crucial part, the thinking part. Things like the scantron on the other hand accelerates it by skipping tedious parts where there was almost no thinking to begin with.
And yes, while calculators might also skip some of that, its in my opinion not comparable as you still need to understand how to get to the solution when using an calculator.
Same process for AI. If you don’t understand how to use it, then it’s useless. Same thing with search engines, if you had ‘Google-Fu’ you could find anything. That’s any and all technology. If you know how to use a tool, it’s useful. But don’t give a person the wrong tool for the job, especially when they don’t know what they are doing.