357
Terry, no!
(ani.social)
ai slop detected
I swear I've seen this exact thing except not AI slop ages ago
Like less than a month ago, AI slop AND reupload ⌤
Edit: I'm stupid, you meant the original... Which I think I also saw, but I'm not sure? Mandela Effect maybe!?!!
Another edit: Okay, I NEEDED to search for it (Sleep be damned), and I found one very similar!! Posted on Reddit eight years ago, way before the GenAI boom: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/6gzfra/damn_wish/
Ai i can see but what makes this 'slop'? Other than that those words go together?
The lack of artistic value.
What do you mean by artistic value?
This article by Cory Doctorow explains it quite well, I think.
I see what they're saying but I don't think they put it right, and I don't think it applies to this post either way.
Intent is a concious thought. Just because the artist had an intent while making the art doesn't imbue every detail with the intent. Every subconsious microdecision doesn't necessarily align with the artist's intent and neither could I hope to extract meaningful information from them. I can only understand what the artist intentionally put in there. But I get what they're saying, there are countless conscious decisions an artist makes while making their thing.
Needless to say artistic value isn't measured by the amount of intent. It does makes sense that the guy above meant intent when they said value though
Anyhow, IMO the visuals of a meme is the last place to seek artistic intent. Especially with these 'joke with visual assist' kinds of memes the grand majority of artisitc intent is the joke with the visuals being a tool to adapt it to a visual medium. If anything I think the visuals of this meme have more artistic intent than the recurring characters of a webcomic strip telling a joke to each other.
Hence to me "The lack of artistic value/intent" seems to be more of a justification for not liking ai art (edit: meant this post specifically, not ai art in general), not the reason of it
Intent is a concious thought. Just because the artist had an intent while making the art doesn't imbue every detail with the intent. Every subconsious microdecision doesn't necessarily align with the artist's intent and neither could I hope to extract meaningful information from them. I can only understand what the artist intentionally put in there. But I get what they're saying, there are countless conscious decisions an artist makes while making their thing.
I disagree. The fact that art includes the intended bits, as well as the unintended ones makes it so interesting IMHO. The fact that you always put a little piece of yourself (as well as your artistic abilities) into the art is amazing and impossible to recreate from a machine.
Take the sanic meme, or "It's Friday" by Rebecca Black. None of these people wanted to make "bad" art, but they still put it out there and the imperfection made the pieces so popular.
Anyhow, IMO the visuals of a meme is the last place to seek artistic intent. Especially with these 'joke with visual assist' kinds of memes the grand majority of artisitc intent is the joke with the visuals being a tool to adapt it to a visual medium. If anything I think the visuals of this meme have more artistic intent than the recurring characters of a webcomic strip telling a joke to each other.
Even the worst webcomic carries more artistic intent than some AI slop. You can clearly measure the "artistic intent" of whateis contained in AI slop: it's the prompt. If I prompt an AI "Make a funny comic", then the artistic intent is "make a funny comic" (and maaaaybe all the other prompts beforehand that I didn't want to propagate).
"Putting a piece of yourself" is magical thinking to me. Ai makes mistakes too and when it does people rant endlessly about how useless it is and that is what people used to call 'slop'. If a human making the mistake makes it desirable instead then this is once again not the reason but a justification.
If I prompt an AI "Make a funny comic"
But that's the issue, you don't know what oop prompted to make this. They could have been arbitrarily simple or elaborate with what they asked and you couldn't tell beyond that they were happy with this result enough to post it. And I'd argue the amount of intent in a prompt is still independent of its length as they could've tried longer descriptions and found that the results of shorter ones align with what they seek better.
I choose to believe the joke came from them and given that this is an internet meme that exists to deliver the joke, I don't dwell on the visuals.
"Putting a piece of yourself" is magical thinking to me.
It's a metaphor. You're ndt supposed to take those literally. 🙄
Any creator will inevitably put their worldview and skill level into their art. So-called "AI" has neither.
Ai makes mistakes too
Those mistakes stem from a mathematically inaccurate model. Human mistakes tell something about the creator
people rant endlessly about how useless it is and that is what people used to call 'slop'.
Not why it's called "slop", homie.
f a human making the mistake makes it desirable instead then this is once again not the reason but a justification.
Not what I said. Any detail in human art is there because a human put it there. It's a form of (sometimes involuntary) communication that computers lack.
But that's the issue, you don't know what oop prompted to make this. They could have been arbitrarily simple or elaborate with what they asked and you couldn't tell beyond that they were happy with this result enough to post it. And I'd argue the amount of intent in a prompt is still independent of its length as they could've tried longer descriptions and found that the results of shorter ones align with what they seek better.
Again: not what I said. I'm saying that the intent behind so-called "AI art" starts and ends with the used prompt.
I choose to believe the joke came from them and given that this is an internet meme that exists to deliver the joke, I don't dwell on the visuals.
Then you choose to be complicit in the normaliztion of so-called "AI art", which leads to tangible problems in the real world.
Was it not called slop because it wasn't pleasant to consume, just like slop?
Again: not what I said. I'm saying that the intent behind so-called "AI art" starts and ends with the used prompt.
Yeah you didn't and that's why I responded with my comment saying that's not the case. I wasn't recapping you.
Not what I said. Any detail in human art is there because a human put it there. It's a form of (sometimes involuntary) communication that computers lack.
I don't understand which part you're saying you didn't say. Regardless, with the ai art just because ai fills in the details does that subtract from what the creator intended to communicate?
In total honesty it is rare for me to feel this (seemingly unconscious) communication you keep talking about which is why I called it magical thinking. Sometimes, some media does make me think things about its author due to the way it is made (as opposed to its explicit contents) but that meda is almost never internet memes. And while I don't use ai art myself I also try not to be swayed into the love-hate cycles the internet goes through with every new thing.
Hence why I (and apparently hundreds of other people) didn't have an issue with this meme. It is not lacking anything I normally find in this genre. I can see that there're also tons of people opposed to ai generated memes but I think the way that opposition is framed is often dishonest.
which leads to tangible problems in the real world
Then please comment about the tangible problems instead of falling back on the tried and true 'slop'. I agree that ai art is bad for artists and it is a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. But that has nothing to do with how it looks or what it communicates
Edit: tweaks
it's visibly lacking creative input from a human
(Adding Stellarst0rm's example because I somehow forgot it https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/6gzfra/damn_wish/)
Do you notice how the original sketch version has very different facial expressions for the punch line (if simplistic sketch art) and the AI doesn't clearly convey anything by the younger's facial reaction because the model paints the same "angry/alarm" pattern on both characters? Why is the younger vaguely angry in the AI version? You can make something up like "that's just the style" but...
There is no answer because there is no style because nobody made this. It's just a copy missing a piece of the humor the source had that didn't make it through as statistically relevant even though it DOES contain data for the punchline to observers. Do you see how the next model training on this will actually lose something that's a concrete part of the joke? Let's ignore "soul" and say that it dropped the ball on nonverbal communication in a way that's meaningfully worse to the viewer.
It's true that people will have a hard time articulating why modeling art and language are worse than actually making them, but I don't think their concerns are unfounded. It's slop in my opinion because it loses to napkin art despite having vast resources applied to it. I understand how the difference may seem like a grumpy nitpick but the models can't train off their own output without a buildup of convolutional traces that poison their outputs eventually and break them according to current studies. It's clearly missing SOMETHING intangible and whatever people call it, it's real.
Is the link you gave actually the 'source' of this image? Couldn't oop have thought of this independently but didn't think to give the child a particular facial expression?
I can't disagree that it is distict from human made art in a way that everyone here can tell. But I can't see anything in the post that would warrant it to be called slop if not for the context of ai, and personally I think it's iffy to say it loses to the link you posted.
I think criticizing the looks of ai, especially with posts like this that don't look half bad is people concealing other concerns they have regarding ai in a nudge nudge wink wink way and I wish it would stop.
fuck off, i already saw this computer rendered anonymized plagiarism (CRAP) meme
I'm stealing that acronym, you can't stop me! <(￣︶￣)>
i stole it too!
👍
You got it wrong, its Plagiarized Information Sintesis System (PISS)
Looks like AI? Is there an original?
This is a fairly old joke and this is the earliest one I could find with a date on it (2014).
It's similar and I've seen stuff like that before, but it's not the same gag.
Last week I saw a single panel joke about cats exercising with toilet paper treadmills. There were two nearly identical images circulating on Lemmy simultaneously, one being the original and the other one the obvious AI ripoff.
But I appreciate you having a look around
It is the same fucking joke.
Honestly don't know. It's saved to my "memes and funny" folder on my phone. I care not from whence the HAHA flows, only that it does.
What's the artist's name?
Looks like Microsoft Copilots recent works.
Beep boop bullshit
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
357 points (100.0% liked)
memes
14616 readers
3073 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS