409
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
409 points (98.6% liked)
Fuck AI
8598 readers
1426 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- Don't make any posts that are just AI content with no context unless the point of your post is obvious from content. (Don't just post slop advertisements or slop political cartoons. At least make your point about it clear so we know you aren't just trolling.)
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's simply that simple; the process does matter.
Humans are touched by humans. If I found out a no-soul entity made it I feel betrayed.
Call it double standard. Call it whatever you like.
This is how I am like.
Bite me.
Trying to explain art to people that don't understand it is really hard.
It's also the fact that while humans incorporate their experiences, they also possess genuine creativity. AI only remixes its training dataset.
OK but what about art that clearly took no skill, like a picture of a can or a Jackson Pollock painting. Do we care about those any less?
Like I can splatter paint on a wall and call it art. Is that as bad as slopbots?
With Pollock, he was exploring the process. The end result looks like splatters but it's actually really hard to make a fake. Also sometimes those splatters are because he was doing shit like throwing the paint into a jet engine, which is cool.
Andy Warhol can fuck himself, his whole gimmick was people will buy the dumbest stuff if you call it art, the whole thing was a gaff and a grift at the same time and everyone knew it but bought into it anyway.
However they are both superior to slop makers. Because art is about choice. Each color splatted onto a canvas and each color chosen to repeat on a silkscreen by those two was a choice they made. Bots don't make those choices, it's just stolen pictures turned to static turned to numbers and then covering words into numbers into static into an image. The prompter doesn't make a choice about the image and neither does the bot.
Yeah I dig that sort of process used for art, its interesting !!
But what about when it comes to pixel art or anything like that? A bot can spit out the exact same pixel art a human can (probably better) and no one could ever tell. So basically we need to revert to paint on canvas and acoustic instruments only now? Because the bots can perfectly replicate every instrument and people can't tell at all.
I'm just saying we are old man yelling at cloud. We're completely fucked and its not going to change, because have you seen the normies that still use google and amazon? Yeah, theyre the dumbasses pulling us all down into the slop and they love using botslop themselves.
I guess art shows and concerts will still exist IRL. But everything else will be bot slop, so may as well get off the internet now.
Kinda shitty of you to be that dismissive over pixel art. That's something that still involves choices.
Ai still can't replicate things perfectly, people can spot it.
And they don't like it.
The point isn't to have an image made, the point is to make something, which I feel some people don't get
People tend to claim that, but I disagree ... once you try your hand at action painting or other styles of abstract expressionism, you'll notice that it by no means "easy" ... sure, it's not the same thing as painting like Bob Ross or the painters of the olden days, but to create a lively, polyfocal surface that's not just a gray, nondescript mess, is a skill of it's own.
It's not random noise (and I'd say if you think it is you need to train your senses better) ... if you've actually seen a Pollock "in the canvas", there's so many tiny little structures and details to discover, there's typically a balance of colors, structures, and densities. Fairly complex paintings, phenomenologically speaking.
I'm a terrible visual artist, have always been better at audio. But I can see what you mean seeing a painting on canvas is a lot different. I just dont get much emotion from visual art anyway and everyone is always trying to pin meaning to things when it isnt there.
Its kind of like how people freak out about how deep some lyrics of a song are and then when the writer is interviewed they say "what, that? That was gibberish I made up when I was high". I can see where the parallels are here.
Just like if you showed a painting at an exhibit and went on about how "deep" it is and how much meaning it has and get a crowd of people nodding their heads, then afterwards you say it was bot slop. A lot of "art" is in peoples heads.
Unfortunately, in the future its not going to matter if its bot or human, people like what is good to them. Same reason kids love bot slop "music" now. they dont care about music, they just hear what sounds good to them.
Its a sad future, but its absolutely inevitable. We will be the .000000001% hanging on to any human art and we will all probably be tricked by bot art masquerading as human anyway becuase it will be undetectable. Or we can just only experience pre 2016 media forever, which was largely better anyways.
This was an interesting discussion I had with my family when we went to the Uffizi Gallery. I wanted to see the brush strokes, to feel something, but some of my family members were very focused on checking the check boxes of "yup I saw that" so seeing the birth of Venus from across the room peering over a hundred heads and struggling to see any more detail from being the centimeter thick glass than I would from a high quality scan on my computer was hardly memorable, but finding a small piece that spoke to me in a side gallery that only a couple of other people walked into was absolutely mesmerizing. I couldn't tell you the name of the piece or the artist without looking it up, but I can tell you that was a magical feeling.
Some of my family members saw the entire galleries we went into, I only saw a subset because I took the time to look at what spoke to me, and honestly I liked that far better than sprinting past paintings and sculptures just to "see" everything
It's human slop, which is clearly better than AI slop. I'm being completely serious.
You can discuss the merits and intentionality of human slop. You can criticize and deride it, even. You can't do that with machine output. There is no intentionality, no one to deride.
Art is a form of communication. Modern art tries to explore new ways to do this. This can take the form of viewing common things in a new light. E.g. the soup cans. It can also deliberately be abstracted to absurdity. E.g. using paint splatters in an attempt to express pure emotion.
A child's stick man drawing takes relatively little skill (for an adult) coming from a small child to a grandparent, it communicates so much more, and can be treasured accordingly. The skill isn't a critical bit of art (though often important, the communication is.
AI slop cuts that line of deep communication. It also poisons the communal trust in the value of that link.