1133
Source (Via Xcancel)
What a stupid fucking idea for a contest. "Press a button until something interesting pops out. Best button pusher wins." Glad it got subverted like that.
Yeah man, I hate photography contests too.
Tell me you know nothing about photography without using those words.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
You seem like you're fun at parties
It’s the opposite of the OP’s headline.
Aimbot works because being good at games is essentially bending your skills to match a simulation, aimbot can have the simulation parameters written into it.
LLMs are blenders for human-made content with zero understanding of why some art resonates and other art doesn’t. A human with decent skill will always outperform a LLM because the human knows what the ineffable qualities are that make a piece of art resonate.
100% yes but just because I really hate how everyone conflates AI with LLMs these days I have to say this: The LLM isn't generating the image, it's at most generating a prompt for an image generating AI (which you could also write yourself)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
this is clear proof that AI art is soulless and real artists will always outperform AI
As long as progress continues and humanity survives, computer generated art will eventually outperform humans. It's pretty obvious, as far as science knows you could just simulate a full human consciousness and pull images out of that somehow, but able to run that in parallel, never deteriorating, never tiring. It's not a matter of if "AI" can outperform humans, it's a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
You are not judging what is here. The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real. You could say it may perhaps, at some point, exist. At that point we might as well start talking about all sorts of other technically possible Sci-Fi technology which does not exist beyond fictional media.
Also, would simulating a human and then forcing them to work non-stop count as slavery? It would. You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves... But we should save moral judgement for when that technology is actually in horizon.
AI is a bad term because when people hear it they start imagining things that don't exist, and start operating in the imaginary, rather than what actually is here. Because what is here cannot go beyond what is already there, as is the nature of the minimization of the Loss Function.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Tell me you don't understand how generative AI works.
As long as progress continues and humanity survives, computer generated art will eventually outperform humans. It’s pretty obvious, as far as science knows you could just simulate a full human consciousness and pull images out of that somehow, but able to run that in parallel, never deteriorating, never tiring. It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
That did it!
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, because the best art isn't measured in skill, but in relevance to lived experiences
Until you can upload a bunch of brains and simulate them in full you can't capture that experience accurately, and you'll still have a hard time keeping it up to date
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Real regrettable take, come back in 5 years for a nice snack
To the many, many, downvoters...you're completely insane if you think AI art which has been a thing for like 18 months won't improve to the point that it's better than flesh bag artists ever.
You clearly don't understand how these things work. AI gen is entirely dependent on human artists to create stuff for it to generate from. It can only ever try to be as good as the data sets that it uses to create its algorithm. It's not creating art. It's outputting a statistical array based on your keywords. This is also why ChatGPT can get math questions wrong. Because it's not doing calculations, which computers are really good at. It's generating a statistical array and averaging out from what its data set says should come next. And it's why training AI on AI art creates a cascading failure that corrupts the LLM. Because errors from the input become ingrained into the data set, and future errors compound on those previous errors.
Just like with video game graphics attempting to be realistic, there's effectively an upper limit on what these things can generate. As you approach a 1:1 approximation of the source material, hardware requirements to improve will increase exponentially and improvements will decrease exponentially. The jump between PS1 and PS2 graphics was gigantic, while the jump between PS4 and PS5 was nowhere near as big, but the differences in hardware between the PS1 and PS2 look tiny today. We used to marvel at the concept that anybody would ever need more than 256MB of RAM. Today I have 16GB and I just saw a game that had 32GB in its recommended hardware.
To be "better" than people at creating art, it would have to be based on an entirely different technology that doesn't exist yet. Besides, art isn't a product that can be defined in terms of quality. You can't be better at anime than everybody else. There's always going to be someone who likes shit-tier anime, and there's always going to be parents who like their 4 year old's drawing better than anything done by Picasso. That's why it's on the fridge.
So your argument, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that:
- You believe the model of polygon-based rendering in video games has diminishing returns. No argument. Not sure what this has to do with the generated art which doesn't have similar constraints and doesn't work the same way.
- Art is subjective, so calling something better or worse is pointless. Also no argument, this is why it's absolutely ridiculous for people to be saying all AI generated art is universally bad. It has its purpose in the same way caricature "artists" in European historical districts have a purpose...in theory.
It sounds like we're on the same page, but you have a reason (which you've been unable to coherently represent) you think AI generated art will never improve to the point of being good.
AI art isn't bad because of its inherent quality (though tons of it is poor quality), it's bad because it both lacks the essential qualities that people appreciate about art, and because of the ethics around the companies and the models that they're making (as well as the attitude of some of the people who use it).
AI has no concept of the technical concepts behind art, which is a skill people appreciate in terms of "quality," and it lacks "intent." Art is made for the fun of it, but also with an intrinsic purpose that AI can't replicate. AI is just a fancy version of a meme template. To quote Bennett Foddy:
For years now, people have been predicting that games would soon be made out of prefabricated objects, bought in a store and assembled into a world. And for the most part that hasn't happened, because the objects in the store are trash. I don't mean that they look bad or that they're badly made, although a lot of them are - I mean that they're trash in the way that food becomes trash as soon as you put it in a sink. Things are made to be consumed and used in a certain context, and once the moment is gone, they transform into garbage.
Adam Savage had a good comment on AI in one of his videos where he said something like "I have no interest in AI art because when I look at a piece of art, I care about the creator's intent, the effort that they put into the piece, and what they wanted to say. And when I look at AI, I see none of that. I'm sure that one day, some college film student will make something amazing with AI, and Hollywood will regurgitate it until it's trash."
But that's outside the context of your original post, in which you said that AI art would someday be better than what humans can make. And this is where my point about video game graphics comes in. AI is replicating the art in its training set, much like computer graphics seeking realism are attempting to replicate the real world. There's no way to surpass this limit with the technology that powers these LLMs, and the closer they get to perfectly mimicking their data and removing the errors that are so common to AI (like the six fingers, strange melty lines, lack of clear light sources, 60% accuracy rate with AI like ChatGPT, etc.), the more their power requirements will increase and the more incremental the advancements will become. We're in the early days of AI, and the advancements are rapid and large, but that will slow down and the hardware requirements and data requirements are already on a massive scale to the tune of the entirety of the internet for ChatGPT and its competitors.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
flesh bag artists ever
Dehumanization. Great. What did the artists do for you to have them this much?
Also, do you have any idea of how back propagation works? Probably never heard of it, right?
We're all flesh bags, what are you talking about? Explain to me how you are not a bag full of flesh (technically a flesh donut, if you consider the sphincters).
I've heard of the neural net back propagation, but I've just now learned that it's called that based on flesh bag neural nets. What about it?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Haha, humans taking over AI jobs!
Prompt engineering is not easy. Getting something as good as a real artist's work is very hard, especially if you're not an artist. Of course actual art is going to win every time.
Prompt “engineering” goes to show that you can stick the word engineer on the end of anything to make it sound official and important. Talking to a chatbot is not engineering of any sort
The trick is the artist invested time
Yeah, a real picture engineer worked hard on it
"Prompt engineering" now that's a new one, what next? Prompt researching?
Vibe coding
i don't want to shit on someone's honbies but i will take dick from a Kamen Rider fanboy over a AI Prompt Engineer any day
load more comments
(2 replies)
I like the artwork, I approve of the message, and this gave me a chuckle.
But c'mon, like, it's against the rules. If you are annoyed by AI art being submitted to human art contests, you should be annoyed by this too.
The first time I read about AI art being submitted to a human contest and winning, I thought, "how drôle." Of course, now I see it violates the spirit of competition. AI art should have its own category -- and that doesn't just go one way. Like it or not, AI is a tool and if some people want to explore how to use it to make good content, let's let them do that in peace. Maybe it will become fractionally less shitty.
Actually I don't have to be ok with anyone contributing to the burning down of the planet. I feel like adults should have a better understanding of morality than simply "its against the rules and is therefore wrong".
I think most people don't really develop moral reasoning past "I don't want to get punished" or, if you're lucky, "it's against the rules."
No man what are you doing! We already used the "well actually it's bad because uhhh climate change" argument against cryptocurrencies, you can't double-dip like! When you hate on AI you're supposed to use the "but it's plagiarism" argument! Everyone knows that!
OK then
- It is bad for the climate
- Its plagiarism
- We are literally putting our means of expressing ourselves into the hands of a few people. So once they just decide that cats are now not allowed, no one will be able to create memes about cats
- You are fueling a machine that google is selling to the genocide in Gaza.
- You will never be able to create new things. Since an AI only has relatively few nodes that are random (so it can output different things when given the same input) let's say about 10% of your picture is actually new, and the rest plagiarised. You could just input that again and make it more random, but inputting something AI generated into an AI just makes it shit itself, it will not be „random” like an artist thinks about making a new way of expressing themselves”,but random as in „let's just expose a drive to extreme radiation and see what the data looks like after 1000 bitflips
- The data collection. If a normal human collected that much data about me I could just sue them for stalking
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Generated art isn't art. Generative AI artists don't exist. Calling it a tool implies it helps in the execution of a task when all it actually does is shit out slop based on stolen training data.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm shocked i haven't seen captchas of the form "choose which image is AI generated"
People who use Lemmy would be able to tell the difference most of the time, but the average person would have zero idea.
Just look at any of the YouTube videos with obviously AI generated clickbait thumbnails that get 10s of millions of views. Or all of the shitty obvious Photoshop thumbnails that existed before AI.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
You cheated. Of course if you're an artist, you're going to make better art than AI.
it's like... yeah you can tweak every single parameter and build your own checkpoints and stack hundreds of extra networks on top of one another and that is certainly a skill, but creating art with intent is an entirely different skill. and the first one won't give you shit if the contest is about creating art with intent.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He's a modern day John Henry.
Im pretty sure that's called cheating.
on stupid contests like these it's allowed
If you listen to the AI preachers at their pulpits, AI gen works the same way that people making art does, so how could it be cheating if they're the same thing?
load more comments
(1 replies)
What front end is this? Looks gorgeous
Is it not mono? It looks like mono.
Edit: oh I'm sleep deprived, I thought you said font.
I appreciate the enthusiasm
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
1133 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
2555 readers
838 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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS