r/WhitePeopleTwitter • u/TheKalpar • 18h ago
Peter Jackson did not use forced perspective to film the unfilmable LOTR for you to tell me AI is "inevitable".
61
u/reddurkel 18h ago
It’s even worse.
The people who created art converted their thoughts and sounds and images from their mind onto a format that we all can experience.
And now those mediums are uploaded to servers so that they can become mashed into sludge and used as monetized soulless slop created by people who call themselves “Prompt Artists”.
These are art thieves.
61
u/Memerandom_ Department of Government Inefficiency 18h ago
It also straight up stole all our history and wants to monetize it back to us. Fuck "AI"
8
15
u/derpferd 17h ago
Is that art? Art is an expression of someone's view of the world
AI is an accumulation of other people's art, other people's view of the world
10
u/FeralBorg 17h ago
All AI products should be legally public domain, that won't stop stupid ads generated with AI but it would slow down the "AI artists".
4
1
u/Kaffe-Mumriken 17h ago
It certainly could be art, there has been loads of controversial art in the past, but it’s your choice as a person to consume art that you enjoy. Art in a gallery, art as a sculpture, theatre, dance, spoken word can never be AI. Though all art draws from all other forms, so I’m afraid we’re entering a crossroads where you can soon never say that any art had nothing to do with AI in some way.
-1
u/narrowgallow 11h ago
What's the difference if the data is modeled by a brain vs. a computer?
Like, what does a brain do differently in terms of observing the world in order to create models that take input from the world and generate coherent outputs.
6
u/derpferd 11h ago
A human brain is attached to a person.
And that person roams the world experiencing the perils of the world and the decisions made thereof.
And it experiences the pleasures of the world, the promise of pleasure and the decisions made thereof.
Something that doesn't walk in the world cannot understand those experiences, the decisions that are made from that nor the individual perspective of the world that is an outcome of that.
AI has developed a learned, note for note education of the human experience from what it has hoovered up from the internet and what has been given to it by way of human engagement.
But it does not walk in the world and it does not understand or appreciate the pleasures and the perils and the pain of that
1
u/malexj93 9h ago
The question comes down to whether the value of art is the product itself or fact that it was made by an artist (or artists). I think many would argue that the latter is at least an important aspect of value. We see it advertisements all the time: hand-crafted, home-cooked, etc. all use the implication of the personal production of a product to signal its quality. Oftentimes, the result is less polished by objective measurements, but we associate those imperfections with humanity, and come to appreciate them in their own right.
That said, not everyone agrees. Some will say "if I enjoy the product, who cares how it's made?", and there's a certain truth to that. Right now, the product is not indistinguishable (in most cases), but that may not always be the case. If the only difference between liking and not liking something comes from additional context behind its creation, is that really a relevant judgement of the piece?
For me, despite being fully "death of the author" when it comes to analysis and interpretation, and generally separate the art from the artist when controversial figures are involved, my enjoyment of art is largely tied to the fact that it came from a person. To me, art is the expression of the human experience (even bad humans), and since AI isn't a human and doesn't have our experiences, it doesn't do anything for me as "art". I'm just one person, though, and many will have other opinions or draw different lines.
I think the question of whether AI "art" is art is somewhat semantic and futile. We already don't agree on what human-made things count as art, and I don't think the distinction truly matters. Instead, we should be focusing on making sure AI-generated content is clearly labeled and able to filtered out of feeds, and ensuring that human artists continue to be employable for as long as people's livelihoods are tied to their employment.
2
u/bigbluethunder 13h ago
The whole acceleration sub or whatever the fuck would be like, "well ackshually, we should embrace things that make creativity easier."
Creativity isn't easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't be creative. I want people to have to actually be creative to bring something to life. That's the point of art.
5
u/HalfSoul30 17h ago
Necessary for "them" to make "art"
0
u/PatriarchPonds 17h ago
Untold millions of people making things to a vast range of tastes, styles, abilities and concepts. Just a small thing, obviously.
2
u/FuklzTheDrnkClwn 15h ago
Only people that couldn’t make art before ai and can’t without it say this.
1
u/ebr101 16h ago
Nothing is “inevitable”. Things happen based on explicable, historical systemic forces, as well as the individual and collective agencies of human persons. The framing of progress, or a specific version of progress, as unstoppable or inevitable is a cover to disguise how it is being actively shaped by persons and systems that want to articulate their particular vision for the future.
1
u/mkp666 17h ago
No one says AI is necessary to make art. They might say it’s cheaper or easier, but never necessary.
4
u/FuklzTheDrnkClwn 15h ago
The amount of times I’ve seen comments that say we’ll be “left in the dust” for not using it doesn’t jive with your response
-3
u/mkp666 14h ago
No one says that about art.
3
u/FuklzTheDrnkClwn 14h ago
Yes they do. To me, personally, about music production. Countless times.
1
u/Mihailis27 6h ago
I love that in the Symphonic Metal sub at least, clanker "music" gets shut down hard.
0
u/drekmonger 15h ago
Ridiculous.
Star Wars was made without modern computer graphics. The original King Kong was made without color cameras. The original Metropolis was made without sound.
Are we really claiming that technology for making movies/music/art should be frozen to circa 2020? That there's no such thing as a new tool that might be valuable to any artistic process?
-9
u/ultraviolentfuture 17h ago
No offense, but a lot of that art WAS made with technology that didn't exist prior to that art being made. New cameras/lenses/digital film, electric guitars and whammy bars and pedals and effects ...
I'm not saying AI generated effects are art, I'm just saying this isn't a good argument. Y'all are like fans of Mozart out here saying "yes, but they used electricity in their instruments to make unnatural sounds" ... like fans of Michaelangelo being "yes well in MY day we chiseled every sculpture by hand with a single chisel and hammer".
Art evolves to be a reflection of the world, alongside changes in that world.
3
u/Nine-LifedEnchanter 15h ago
That's not the issue though. The issue is that taste, skill, and judgment is not part of the process.
When you commission or delegate something a person with the actual know how will fill in the blanks. AI doesn't do that. Prompters have no idea what they don't know and that shows every time.
1
u/ultraviolentfuture 15h ago edited 9h ago
I don't disagree with you, that's just not the argument in the OP that I'm responding to (also, no one is insisting that AI is required to make art, the general argument (which you are also presenting) is whether or not that content created with AI IS art ... and I haven't offered an opinion one way or another on that).
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
DO NOT CELEBRATE VIOLENCE IN THIS SUBREDDIT OR WE WILL BAN YOU.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.