this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
727 points (95.0% liked)

Fuck AI

2518 readers
608 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (10 children)

But why give a lizard boobs? They don't have boobs!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I thought it was a meme...

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Haven't seen this on here yet

I've seen it 3 times already.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago

Archaeologists:

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Around the 2000's a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Although we studied this acient relicts in great detail, we can not make sense out of the high representation of fertility related dieties in comparison to other typical deities i.e.war or hunting gods. A possible explanation could be a crisis of reproduction caused by the cost of living during this period of time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 2 days ago (13 children)

I've always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it's trying to say.

I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art... presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you'll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.

I don't think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don't think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it'll be for different reasons and in different scales than I'm... eh... moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I'm impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

In the absence of needing to use skills to make a living, I have no problem with AI art. In a hypothetical anarchist mutual aid society, people could make art with whatever methods they prefer. Some might create AI models to make art because they're interested in that sort of thing. Others will make art in the traditional ways, also because they're interested in that sort of thing. There doesn't have to be tension between the two, and their basic needs are all there.

When people have to use their skills to make a living, though, then there's a problem. So many of the places that were paying artists are now whipping something out with an AI model. That leaves artists without a way to cover their basic needs at all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I don't know how much that logic tracks, at least long term. And I don't know that I'm going to be more inclined to be on the side of human labor over automation now when I wasn't for garments, car manufacturing and other commodities. The John Henry of visual arts I am not.

I do have a couple of seemingly opposing but not contradictory points to add to that, though. One is that historically anti-automation, anti-industrialization movements have a pretty bad track record at succeeding. The other is that I think you're giving "AI art" way too much credit. Small and medium-sized commissions may get impacted (I am on record saying that AI is the new "cousin who knows Photoshop" and I stand by it). For anything an actual professional needs to book and hire based on quality? Nah.

There may still be an impact on that high end, because I expect that generated elements will become a tool in an artist's toolset more than anything else. That may speed work up and require fewer people, but not "leave artists without a way to cover basic needs" necessarily. Just like photography, just like CG, just like Photoshop and so on. There was doom and gloom around all of those as well, and hyperbolic claims from tech peddlers, too. Go look up some of the claims of early photography entrepeneurs about what the technology would eventually be able to do, some are hilarious.

I also expect sooner or later people will get good at spotting telltale machine-generation quirks and put additional value in organic, human-looking creative products. People are already misidentifying human art as AI art, artists will likely lean into that. Think vinyl into CDs back into vinyl or the premium on less processed foods more than... I don't know, cars that don't have rattling doors or whatever.

That's a guess or a forecast, though. We'll see where it goes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 days ago (21 children)

Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool

Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

I think the argument is that an AI "artist" is incapable of creating art. Their "tool" does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I require a computer to create art. I suck at everything art related. Can't draw, can't paint, can't play a musical instrument. If I have an image in my head, the best way to create it, for me, is to tell an AI what I want and then look through the results for what is closest to the image I had in my mind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Furries: "I would like to purchase this rock."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wouldn't purchase this without nipples at least

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yes add the mouse button please

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago

The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›