Because AI haters have a deeper relationship with Meaning™ than a person who got fascinated by a new seratonin-manipulating toy. If AI art enthusiasts were capable of understanding how the toy even worked beyond “magic machine makes my thoughts real”, they might feel a little more inclined to treasure their children’s drawings as well
Claiming that you have a deeper connection to meaning or artistic appreciation than someone who disagrees with you is about the most pretentious thing I’ve heard in a long while.
Consider that some people can understand how AI generation works, and still somehow disagree with you. Oh, and they can also appreciate art.
Do you think a photo of a can of soup can be art? What about the output of a math question specified to the point that the output is just a formality?
What about a urinal?
Then they obviously don’t understand it very well since it’s still somehow providing them with novelty. Seriously, the parlor trick has a threshold if you’ve seen it enough. I happen to think object permanence is beyond infants but by your logic that would also be pretense because I just I haven’t met a baby yet who had it.
And as I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty stupid. The fact that the “infinite art machine” couldn’t keep an ape like me pressing the novelty button kind of speaks to its inability to create anything meaningful. I am a very low bar for overcoming pattern recognition.
Ah, yes, because the disagreeing with you means “infatuated by the random picture machine”, right? No room for someone to think that it’s, I don’t know, another tool a person can use in the creation of art? Kinda like how not every cellphone picture is high art, but you wouldn’t say you can’t use a camera to make art.
But no, clearly you’re the arbiter of knowing how stuff works and, what art is, and how others appreciate it.
object permanence is beyond infants but by your logic that would also be pretense
Yes, because developmental psychology is exactly the same as “art critique”.
It’s pretentious because you’re responding to someone who disagrees with you by asserting that either they don’t understand the subject technically, or their entirely subjective experience of art is somehow lesser than yours.
There is definitely room for that. I have encountered several of the people you’re describing in this thread. They were rather nice.
If it seems like I’m being arbitrarily harsh on you and that one other guy, it’s probably because 12 hours later you’re still in this thread reply-guying everyone who disagrees with you into exhaustion. If I go “hey great point man” another master debate lord is going to come along and demand my time to do it again for his petulant take.
Kind of like how you’re doing now when somebody more well adjusted already got me to reconsider. Release me from this thread, I’m out of energy for AI debate bros
‘I’m bored now, you should check out all the other places this comment section went…’ but what kind of asshole replies to other people, an entire twelve hours after a thread started? Debates end exactly five hundred minutes after beginning! We will have ordnung! I claim to have reconsidered, in a way that’s a backhanded insult to whoever I’m talking to now, and if you expect that to produce a correction or apology for my original claims, get stuffed.
There he is. Speak of him and he comes like a dog. Well played millords your tantrum has made the comment section very cringeworthy and I learned a valuable lesson about interacting with anyone who mentions AI. Be sure to continue reaching out to me because I promise your raving will reach my inbox
‘It’s not art because you’re shallow idiots’ is not an argument.
Functional adults can also draw incomprehensible squiggles, and haters insist that has magic qualia. Like any napkin scribble fully captures artistic intent, but a crystal clear depiction of a concept is disqualified.
Well, incidentally I’m not particularly interested in arguing with people who are a certain level beyond touching grass for the foreseeable future. I don’t actually set out to change anyone’s mind, you actually just asked a very interesting question in this thread so I engaged.
If you are genuinely interested in exploring deeper, you should check out all the other places this comment section went. Some other people made some very excellent points. I can’t guarantee anyone can make you see art the way people who actually love art do, but you should at least be entertained.
Because AI haters have a deeper relationship with Meaning™ than a person who got fascinated by a new seratonin-manipulating toy. If AI art enthusiasts were capable of understanding how the toy even worked beyond “magic machine makes my thoughts real”, they might feel a little more inclined to treasure their children’s drawings as well
Claiming that you have a deeper connection to meaning or artistic appreciation than someone who disagrees with you is about the most pretentious thing I’ve heard in a long while.
Consider that some people can understand how AI generation works, and still somehow disagree with you. Oh, and they can also appreciate art.
Do you think a photo of a can of soup can be art? What about the output of a math question specified to the point that the output is just a formality?
What about a urinal?
Statements can be pretentious and also entirely correct, your hurt feelings do not constitute a rebuttal
Whose feelings are hurt?
Did you stop reading after the first sentence? Calling someone pretentious isn’t typically intended as a rebuttal. Maybe finish reading next time.
Oh, and since it doesn’t seem like you know: “that statement is correct” isn’t an argument. It can be rubutted with a simple “no it’s not”.
Then they obviously don’t understand it very well since it’s still somehow providing them with novelty. Seriously, the parlor trick has a threshold if you’ve seen it enough. I happen to think object permanence is beyond infants but by your logic that would also be pretense because I just I haven’t met a baby yet who had it.
And as I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty stupid. The fact that the “infinite art machine” couldn’t keep an ape like me pressing the novelty button kind of speaks to its inability to create anything meaningful. I am a very low bar for overcoming pattern recognition.
Ah, yes, because the disagreeing with you means “infatuated by the random picture machine”, right? No room for someone to think that it’s, I don’t know, another tool a person can use in the creation of art? Kinda like how not every cellphone picture is high art, but you wouldn’t say you can’t use a camera to make art.
But no, clearly you’re the arbiter of knowing how stuff works and, what art is, and how others appreciate it.
Yes, because developmental psychology is exactly the same as “art critique”.
It’s pretentious because you’re responding to someone who disagrees with you by asserting that either they don’t understand the subject technically, or their entirely subjective experience of art is somehow lesser than yours.
There is definitely room for that. I have encountered several of the people you’re describing in this thread. They were rather nice.
If it seems like I’m being arbitrarily harsh on you and that one other guy, it’s probably because 12 hours later you’re still in this thread reply-guying everyone who disagrees with you into exhaustion. If I go “hey great point man” another master debate lord is going to come along and demand my time to do it again for his petulant take.
Kind of like how you’re doing now when somebody more well adjusted already got me to reconsider. Release me from this thread, I’m out of energy for AI debate bros
Toxic even in retreat.
‘I’m bored now, you should check out all the other places this comment section went…’ but what kind of asshole replies to other people, an entire twelve hours after a thread started? Debates end exactly five hundred minutes after beginning! We will have ordnung! I claim to have reconsidered, in a way that’s a backhanded insult to whoever I’m talking to now, and if you expect that to produce a correction or apology for my original claims, get stuffed.
There he is. Speak of him and he comes like a dog. Well played millords your tantrum has made the comment section very cringeworthy and I learned a valuable lesson about interacting with anyone who mentions AI. Be sure to continue reaching out to me because I promise your raving will reach my inbox
Troll, your shit shows up in context links for other replies. I gotta scroll past you claiming absolution, en route to “I shidded.” Fuck you.
You told me to look elsewhere, and I find you sneering about how you’re done sneering.
‘It’s not art because you’re shallow idiots’ is not an argument.
Functional adults can also draw incomprehensible squiggles, and haters insist that has magic qualia. Like any napkin scribble fully captures artistic intent, but a crystal clear depiction of a concept is disqualified.
It’s not art and you’re shallow idiots, happy now?
Well, incidentally I’m not particularly interested in arguing with people who are a certain level beyond touching grass for the foreseeable future. I don’t actually set out to change anyone’s mind, you actually just asked a very interesting question in this thread so I engaged.
If you are genuinely interested in exploring deeper, you should check out all the other places this comment section went. Some other people made some very excellent points. I can’t guarantee anyone can make you see art the way people who actually love art do, but you should at least be entertained.
‘It is too late, I have already drawn you as the soyjak.’
You never cared about this topic. You just wanna be in a club.
Hold on, getting my “art club” medal to show you. Plz make a prompt of it. You know, in good faith and stuff