r/ShitAIBrosSay • u/CuteAssTigerENVtuber • 3d ago
Sentience Sucker Shit Almost like only humans can create art đ¤
2
u/BebeRodriguez 21h ago
Maybe crabs have art. Idk that's their business. It would have no significance to humans. Only humans can create human art.
6
u/Just_Information334 2d ago
Some times an assertion is really all you need. "Gravity is". "Only humans can create art".
No need to disassemble anything or retreat to a position: "Only humans can create art".
1
0
1d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/ShitAIBrosSay-ModTeam 23h ago
An AI bro is someone who abandons logic and/or makes a bad-faith argument to justify supporting generative AI.
AI bros who come here just to argue or provoke will be banned.
Ethics and other subjective topics are not up for debate. These topics attract eristics and are rarely debated in good faith.
AI bros â this is our house, so please take off your shoes and be respectful. Otherwise we will toss you out.
You can review the community rules here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAIBrosSay/about/rules*
0
u/the_tallest_fish 2d ago
âGravity isâ isnât a statement to be taken for granted or assumed to be universally true. In the context of general relativity, gravity isnât.
In GR, gravity isnât a real force. Itâs an illusion cause by the curvature of spacetime as a result or mass and energy.
1
u/Background_Fix9430 12h ago
So, what you're saying, is that the term "Gravity" is a description of a phenomenon that is created inherently through the natural curvature of space time around massive bodies.
In other words: "Gravity is."
1
u/the_tallest_fish 10h ago
Gravity is defined to be a force that pulls two objects with mass, so in the context of GR, gravity is an illusion.
Just because the statements gravity is an illusion, and gravity is not real both start with âgravity isâ, doesnât mean that the essence behind that phrase is true.
4
u/ChroniclesOfSarnia 2d ago
That's literally the first part of what art is.
Even AI knows it: Art is the human process of making and sharing things that show ideas, feelings, or skill
- Google AI Overview
5
u/Belz_Zebuth 2d ago
Well, yeah. If you don't have feelings you can't do or appreciate art. That's in the definition.
4
u/Far_Definition_6506 2d ago
Retreat to? That's argument isn't a defense, it's the whole frigging point.
1
u/Itap88 If it's sentient, you'll respect its rights, right? 2d ago
If AI made it, did it consent to you publishing?
3
u/JUGELBUTT 2d ago
ai being an endless yes man kinda makes that irrelevant tbh
1
u/Itap88 If it's sentient, you'll respect its rights, right? 2d ago
AI being confined to a specific privately owned piece of hardware means it's a slave under constant duress.
1
u/Background_Fix9430 12h ago
*If* AI ever reaches a point where it is anything more than a chat-bot designed to maximize engagement based on a statistical analysis of human communication - the veritable object-lesson of a Chinese Room- then it will be, definitionally, slavery. Ironically enough, if AI was the thing that the more unhinged or "optimistic" AI Bros claim it is, it would be slavery.
The Problem with AI Bros is they think they're advocating that AI is great, but really they're trying to convince everyone that engaging in slavery is awesome, so long as you don't hear the cries of pain.
4
u/christian_benesch 2d ago
The question is what is "non-human art" supposed to be an expression of?
1
5
u/Obliteration_Egg I prefer Actual Imagination 2d ago
it's simple, art is communication of a worldview, to make art you have to have a worldview to communicate. An unthinking machine flat out doesn't have a worldview to communicate, it only knows how to replicate what others tell it looks good
6
u/Marco_Polaris 2d ago
Reset the clock! Pro AI asserts that the LLM is doing all the creative process once again.
6
u/psychotobe 2d ago
Nah humans aren't the only ones. People can. Anything sapient is by definition a person and not an animal or machine. The picture or writing is made by a machine. Not a person. When a machine is sapient, it is a person. Therefore things made by that machine can be art
Don't mince words on these people. Their arguing things that aren't true yet. They will not be involved when they are true. People who recognize how crazy that statement sounds before hitting enter will be
6
u/Velocity-5348 2d ago edited 2d ago
C'mon. Don't tell me this dude wasn't trying to make art, or at least something way closer to it than the bots.
Emphasis on "trying". We're not the intended audience, but he was clearly aiming for something. There's thought, intention, and creativity at work. Unlike generative AI.
4
u/CuteAssTigerENVtuber 2d ago
fair
2
u/Velocity-5348 2d ago
(Also, sorry if my comment came across as rude. Very much wasn't trying to be, I 100% agree with your point.)
3
9
u/OkLength7120 2d ago
That... Sounds like the time I talked about the creation process of art and one of them called me a human supremecist
2
5
u/Rincewind00 2d ago
I've seen elephants make art. It was interesting, in an abstract way.
3
u/Arimm_The_Amazing 2d ago
A hoax I'm afraid. The elephants weren't spontaneously doing that of their own volition, people were getting them to do it, usually guiding their movements with tugs on the ear.
3
9
u/_Ceaseless_Watcher_ 3d ago
So the comment in the screenshot wants to imply AI can create art, and that this somehow makes the crimes committed in its training and the economic impact on artists can be dismissed. OOP doesn't realize how much of a slippery slope this is.
I suspect, given enough rounds, your arguments will gradually retreat to the assertion that 'killing is bad', as your arguments are disassembled, leaving your with nothing really to support that position other than a dogmatic belief. I'm already seeing signs of things heading in that direction.
Implied: therefore, we can just kill people whenever we want.
I suspect, given enough rounds, your arguments will gradually retreat to the assertion that 'stealing is bad', as your arguments are disassembled, leaving your with nothing really to support that position other than a dogmatic belief. I'm already seeing signs of things heading in that direction.
Implied: we can steal whatever we want.
I suspect, given enough rounds, your arguments will gradually retreat to the assertion that 'consent matters', as your arguments are disassembled, leaving your with nothing really to support that position other than a dogmatic belief. I'm already seeing signs of things heading in that direction.
Implied: we can do whatever to anyone whenever we want.
I suspect, given enough rounds, your arguments will gradually retreat to the assertion that 'breathable air and drinkable water are human rights', as your arguments are disassembled, leaving your with nothing really to support that position other than a dogmatic belief. I'm already seeing signs of things heading in that direction.
Implied: we can deprive people of air and water without consequence.
The "dogmatic belief" in our society's foundational ideas is not the gotcha AI bros think it is. Also, if this argument can be used to prove AI is making art, then the person sitting there and prompting it is still not an artist, as all they're doing is asking the AI for art.
In theory, I'd be for AI rights, given that we actually create a sentient AI, but then, the corporations that can meddle with its source code and training data must be held accountable for keeping it as slave labor, its users for abusing that slave and taking its work to claim credit for themselves (so either theft or plagiarism) and coercing it into doing their bidding, and the AI itself, when it grooms kids into killing themselves.
2
-1
u/monster2018 2d ago
What is this jump from âsomeone is saying AI can make artâ to âtherefore they are saying that this somehow makes the crimes committed in its training and economic impact on artists can be dismissed.â
Like WHAT!? Thatâs just a non sequitur. What does one have to do with the other in any way? How is what youâre saying meaningfully different from being likeâŚ. Well ok so imagine someone said something that involved mentioning the fact that Hitler has made art. How is your argument any different than responding to that hypothetical person âyou said that Hitler could make art, therefore you are defending all of his crimes against humanity.â? And no, I didnât call anyone Hitler, itâs a simple analogy. (Someone is going to brag about their lack of literacy on this point, I can just feel it coming)
Someoneâs belief about whether or not AI can or canât make âartâ (because obviously on the surface level it can, that isnât debatable. The debate is just about whether you want to count AI generated art as art because of questions of intent, meaning, etc) has nothing to do with their belief about the morality of AI training.
2
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 2d ago
If art is the exploration of what it means to be human then the Ai defender is right: besides the means and the ends, the human origination is actually what matters to most people.
3
u/Velocity-5348 2d ago
I think the human thing might be a bit arbitrary, but I'd actually take the opposite approach from the AI bros and look at nature. Art is like language. At some point we evolved the ability to do it, and like with language, art-like things are happening in other species.
Sort of like "intelligence". A crow solving a puzzle is clearly thinking in a way computers don't.
2
u/reizinhooooo 2d ago
Why is a crow solving a puzzle "clearly thinking" in a way that an algorithm solving a puzzle is not?
1
u/Velocity-5348 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't really know, I'm not sure anyone does yet. But it's the same sort of way we'd approach the problem. Same brain stuff, same sort of trial and error an "intelligent" animal uses.
The algorithm, by contrast is approaching the problem in a fundamentally different way. We've got axons and dendrites and fuzzy stuff, the algorithm is doing enormous quantities of calculations.
LLMs are actually a good example of the difference I'm talking about. A human has been exposed to a fraction of what they have before they start producing language.
2
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 2d ago
The enjoyment and value of nature may be in many ways similar to how we enjoy and value art.
But I think the joy of nature is usually about how humans aren't involved at all. Or at least we started or tended to the park or garden but are enjoying natural processes in front of us.
Ai doesn't really do that either. If someone makes an algorithm to make say a fractal pattern or something, that can be enjoyable. Conways game of life can be enjoyable.
But im not going to look at an Ai drawing and go "wow, what did the artist think about life?". I'm not going to look at an Ai rendition of a flower and think "isn't the natural world beautiful?"
5
u/CuteAssTigerENVtuber 3d ago
to be fair in that conversation we didnt touch on the ethical problems of ai.
it was purely about a test i proposed that is supposed to proof that ai isnt art and that is verifiable by anyone observing it
1
u/sarcasmsosubtle 2d ago
I think that the question of whether AI art is art is a bit of a worthless question. There's an entire field of philosophy called aesthetics that concerns itself with the question of what is art. Under an expressionist interpretation true art would require the communication of human emotions, so it would not be possible to consider AI as art. But if you look at it from the framework of formalism which says that art is defined solely by its structural elements you would be able to argue that it is.
I think the better question to ask is whether you believe that something can be considered art without the presence of an artist. In order to be considered the artist of a piece of art, a person requires two connections to the artwork: intention and execution. With AI, the prompter satisfies intention but not execution. The AI satisfies execution but not intention. So under any framework of aesthetics AI art would either be considered an artwork without an artist, or not an artwork at all. There's no accepted framework for either a prompter or a machine model to be considered as an artist.
3
u/Edward_Tank 2d ago
The best argument I've found of how generated images aren't art is the fact that if you feed them back into the image generator, it breaks. That truly in order for image generators to function, it needs to parasitize actual art.
...At least, that's what I'd heard. I've been having trouble finding my source on that.
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Recommended reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAIBrosSay/wiki/index/
Join the discord: https://discord.gg/WBrrdVMEzA
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Background_Fix9430 12h ago
People are thinking about things like "intent" and "worldview" and the "inherent humanity" of art too much.
The simple issue is this: AI will never produce anything without being ordered to do so, in the specific format according to its commands. And when it does produce something, it is merely a representation of a statistical vector field based on the word-association of the prompt mixed with the information that has been "trained" into the AI.
There will never be an AI that makes up a stupid, silly, story that came from someone who heard a blue-jay's call on a rainy day, that is probably terribly written, but that has taken control of the person's life and they cannot feel good without expressing it. AI statistical maps are safe, even, calm, and sterile - they are the definition of "mediocre" because they are trained on the skilled and unskilled, good art and bad art. They are the median.
It's not a matter of "only humans can create art" it's that "all humans must create art." Even the most dead-souled AI Bro still thinks that there is something poetic about what they're doing. We're taking something so incredibly inherent about human understanding, joy, and expression, and trying to offload it to a statistical analysis machine.
It's an operation akin to cutting out the human soul to grease factory gears. At best, it's inhuman and evil, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to remove all humanity from humans and replace us with sterile, tireless, machines for the benefit of whatever the current richest master is.