Top
Best
New

Posted by 3dedb728-3f77 16 hours ago

People Hate AI Art(mccue.dev)
128 points | 154 commentspage 4
darthsidiouss 5 hours ago|
LOL
aeon_ai 14 hours ago||
Let me propose another alternative.

People generally hate low effort AI slop.

Irrational people hate art made with AI as a tool.

"By invading the territories of art, photography has become art's most mortal enemy." - Said someone who nobody knows because it's a long and dead opinion.

mold_aid 1 hour ago||
I wonder if people inject the "tool" discourse into these discussions because they think it has some redemptive power. Like where is the difference between "AI is an expedient to producing images I don't have the talent to make or the money to pay for" and "I use AI as a tool to produce images because I have an affirmative belief in the goodness of AI"
happytoexplain 14 hours ago||
>Irrational people hate art made with AI as a tool.

No, it's OK to care about the source/process. It is not irrational. You may disagree, but it is utterly human - as rational as things get.

emccue 13 hours ago||
And to emphasize: I am fully aware that there are people who don't care. Of course there are people who see no issue with it.

But there aren't people for whom it is a positive, just those for which it fails to be a negative. It creates a severe negative impression or a neutral one.

That is a terrible tradeoff!

darthsidiouss 5 hours ago||
lol
krapp 14 hours ago||
[flagged]
happytoexplain 14 hours ago|
Enjoying how "triggered" people are is probably the absolute polar opposite of what we should be aiming for on HN.
jatora 14 hours ago||
[flagged]
phlakaton 14 hours ago||
I thought the AI art was okay, actually! For AI art.

For me it's contextual. In the case of engineering presentations in particular, I'll live with some AI art if it means less reading off of fifteen-bullet-point wall-to-wall text slides. But I always prefer and appreciate non-AI art – even stock art, if employed judiciously.

If, say, a consultant or outside speaker brings in a dripping-with-AI-art slide deck to talk about AI – now that I consider the height of cringe.

tokioyoyo 14 hours ago||
Arguing in good faith - could you link me to some "good AI art" that's supposed to change average person's mind? I personally shrug off AI-generated image, and always think it's lazy cope-out. Because "it feels that way", but also, it technically is true?

Funnily, I only apply this logic to AI-generated images for the masses. If someone does it in one of my group chats, I'd think of it as "ok you spent some time for a small audience, i respect that, here's your well-deserved chuckle". It might be my age speaking out, as I grew up in "organic free range internet, full of ridiculous under construction gifs". But I really struggle to imagine a future where most adults would say AI-generated art can generate any emotions.

livinglist 14 hours ago||
I don’t hate AI arts in general I just hate those AI arts that I personally think are badly executed with tastes that don’t align with mine.
ekianjo 14 hours ago||
You have no idea what "AI art" is these days. And if you think you do, well, you are very naive.
pesus 14 hours ago|
Care to elaborate what it is for us naive fools?
zetanor 14 hours ago|||
I think he means that the point of the article is that the doodle is AI-generated.
ekianjo 5 hours ago|||
There is virtually nothing that a good lora cannot imitate
RcouF1uZ4gsC 14 hours ago||
It seems like there might be just a small vocal minority that hates AI art.

Most people probably don’t care.

I bet there were painters in the 1800s who talked about how people hated photographs and how they were uncanny and creepy compared to paintings.

happytoexplain 14 hours ago||
>It seems like there might be just a small vocal minority that hates AI art.

Certainly, clearly not

For now.

In the future, I despair that the next generations will adjust. Horrifying, but possibly true.

tehjoker 14 hours ago|||
Art without human input is pretty meaningless. It's just pretty colors, even if well executed. I guess there are people that vibe purely on kitch aesthetics. They don't have good taste ofc, but I guess from a capitalist perspective that's a market.

People are confused because since the 1960s literally the CIA intervened to disrupt the transmission of meaning in art, because it was a field dominated by "subversives" who were opposed to capitalism and imperialism. They promoted meaningless post-modern art that was purely aesthetic. So decades later, starved of good examples, people have no idea what art is anymore.

monkpit 14 hours ago|||
“Art wasn’t supposed to look nice, it was supposed to make you feel something.”

A weird facsimile of art that has no soul is entirely uninteresting.

krater23 14 hours ago||||
Then no one that makes art is in danger. AI is just replacing the 'Art' that is not really art and just some paid painting.
jatora 14 hours ago|||
[dead]
monkpit 14 hours ago|||
If you ask me, the rise of the term “slop” in recent years is a sign that a considerable amount of people do care.
tasoeur 14 hours ago||
[dead]
wurtapp 14 hours ago|
I think people who don’t like it genuinely don’t understand it enough to be fascinated by it or have some other issue with it that has nothing to do with the content itself
p_j_w 14 hours ago||
A complete lack of human input and, as such, no genuine human feeling or expression. This sounds like it has everything in the world to do with the “content.”
Our_Benefactors 14 hours ago||
> A complete lack of human input

Obviously a false statement or the image would not be generated in the first place. You will need to significantly move goalposts for this statement to be truthful

mold_aid 1 hour ago||
you mean like standing in front of a Rothko and saying "I could do that"