550
ha… wait, yes! Haha! (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

I am being serious. Vampires are the aristocratic monster.

Odd that someone really into AI is also some kind of sexual puritan. Why can't porn be art? You say "typically," but these are coward's words. What are your feelings?

The new Superman was made for money. Does this invalidate it somehow?

How does the song go...

"All you read and wear or see and
Hear on tv is a product begging for your
Fat-ass dirty dollar
Shut up and buy"

(you're the one who contends that visual media made without emotion is morally deficient)

Correction! I think your lack of social awareness is morally deficient. AI is just... annoying.

What is it you people like saying? AI is just the tool? Yeah.

I await your clarification on what art is ...

I can't because you're looking for me to show you which pixels indicate something is worthy of being graced by the title. There's no such thing. That was never my problem with it.

If you were really trying to understand, I think you'd recognize I've actually explained pretty thoroughly several times already.

that's the same as use of photography.

Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn't piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

Interesting how this doesn't seem to be much of an issue here in the year 2025. I wonder if there are forces at play which prevent this mass photography/painting confusion from materializing.

do you respond differently to the brush strokes because one is a photo ...

I might. I dunno.

I'd respond very differently if I knew one of these brush strokes was just the most statistically probable in an infinite series of possible lines—kind of loses its flavor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why can’t porn be art? You say “typically,” but what are your feelings?

    Porn can be art, but typically it isn't, and typically when it is it's called "erotica" or "erotic art". There's a distinction you apparently don't want to talk about, even though you started trying to make an argument about what constituted art.

    Weird that you started off saying "you must understand what art is" but now are reluctant to talk about it, even though your conception of it obviously differs greatly from mainstream definitions.

    Here's what I think. I think the vast majority of visual content we interact with is pretty emotionally empty. It's product packaging, advertising, memes, yes even superhero cinematic universe shlock written to a formula. I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything, and I think that people will always find an artistic outlet for their emotions if that's what they want. My partner paints as a hobby and I haven't heard them saying they're not going to bother because of AI.

    Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn’t piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

    Is your problem AI art or is it lying about art?

    I might. I dunno.

    Wow, you've really thought hard about this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Porn can be art, but typically it isn't, ...

    This is a very strict world view you have.

    Art comes from the conscious. Porn comes from the conscious. What distinction are you talking about?

    'Erotica' is either another word for the same thing, or it's the "high brow" version women can clink their wine glasses over. I don't understand what trap has been laid before me.

    "you must understand what art is" but now are reluctant to talk about it, ...

    What I am deliberately avoiding, The Riddler, is a stupid debate over some exact definition whereby you claim this thing doesn't count, and then I say "the word 'is' in this context means," and then you ironically call me pedantic, and we waste 14 hours intellectually jerking off.

    Like, it's way easier to just say that you are one of the vampire's familiars trying to trick me with lies. Like, uh ... like a lawyer. You know.

    I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything,

    I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical "given up" disease. I think they call that cynicism.

    I mean, I personally wouldn't lose anything; I don't watch Marvel. You don't think they're funny, though? I'm not gonna say I like them, but I've almost always laughed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    This is a very strict world view you have.

    "Can be, but typically isn't" isn't strict in any sense. It's the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We're still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can't have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that's important.

    Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it's a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it's a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.

    I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical “given up” disease. I think they call that cynicism.

    The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent