Most active commenters
  • petralithic(5)
  • Jensson(3)

←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 13 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jkingsman ◴[27 Aug 25 19:49 UTC] No.45044262[source]▶
I appreciate seeing this point of view represented. It's not one I personally hold, but it is one a LOT of my friends hold, and I think it's important that it be given a voice, even if -- perhaps especially if -- a lot of people disagree with it.

One of my friends sent me a delightful bastardization of the famous IBM quote:

A COMPUTER CAN NEVER FEEL SPITEFUL OR [PASSIONATE†]. THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER CREATE ART.

Hate is an emotional word, and I suspect many people (myself included) may leap to take logical issue with an emotional position. But emotions are real, and human, and people absolutely have them about AI, and I think that's important to talk about and respect that fact.

† replaced with a slightly less salacious word than the original in consideration for politeness.

replies(11): >>45044367 #>>45044380 #>>45044473 #>>45044533 #>>45044608 #>>45044647 #>>45044670 #>>45045227 #>>45048762 #>>45051119 #>>45062362 #
randcraw ◴[27 Aug 25 19:57 UTC] No.45044367[source]▶
Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. It must forever parrot.
replies(8): >>45044540 #>>45044662 #>>45044689 #>>45044820 #>>45044916 #>>45045032 #>>45045144 #>>45045204 #
petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:10 UTC] No.45044540[source]▶
A human might generate a piece of media using AI (either via a slot machine spin or with more advanced workflows like ComfyUI) and once they deem it looks good enough for their purpose, they might display it to represent what they want it to represent. If Guernica was AI generated but still displayed by Picasso as a statement about war, it would still be art.

Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about the intent of the human using those tools. Image generators are not autonomously generating images, it is the human who is asking them for specific concepts and ideas. This is no different than performance art like a banana taped to a wall which requires no tools at all.

replies(5): >>45044708 #>>45044895 #>>45044983 #>>45045005 #>>45046572 #
TheCraiggers ◴[27 Aug 25 20:45 UTC] No.45045005[source]▶
I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal:

A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war.

A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war.

I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.

replies(2): >>45045167 #>>45045310 #
1. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:57 UTC] No.45045167[source]▶
Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.
replies(3): >>45045440 #>>45047041 #>>45047930 #
2. saltcured ◴[27 Aug 25 21:20 UTC] No.45045440[source]▶
And, is the artist the one who taped it, the one who told them to tape it, or the one who created the banana?
replies(1): >>45045484 #
3. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 21:25 UTC] No.45045484[source]▶
It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.
replies(1): >>45050201 #
4. averagefluid ◴[28 Aug 25 00:47 UTC] No.45047041[source]▶
> Your answer to that is the answer to your question.

In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion? You're not making a grand philosophical point, you're frustrating the attempts of other people to understand your point of view and either blocking them from understanding your point of view or addressing your argument in a meaningful way.

If you cannot or will not engage in the conversation it would be more efficient and more purposeful for you to say so than the "whatever you say is what I say" falseness you're expressing in the above comment.

replies(2): >>45050173 #>>45055863 #
5. Jensson ◴[28 Aug 25 09:28 UTC] No.45050173[source]▶
> In what logical or philosophical framework does my opinion dictate your opinion?

Because priors affect your conclusions.

For example, I don't like licorice, that makes me not like many kinds of candy. But I know that if a person likes licorice, they will have a very different view on these candies. Similarly how you define art affects how you see AI art, because its meaning is completely different to different people.

So for the example in question, I don't view a banana taped to a wall as art, but I know some other people do, and I understand why they do so, so answering that question tells us a lot about a persons priors.

replies(1): >>45050305 #
6. Jensson ◴[28 Aug 25 09:33 UTC] No.45050201{3}[source]▶
Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist?

> AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case

So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art?

Edit: And if you think an AI can't handle that question, I just gave it to an image model and got this. Did I create this art-piece? If not, who did? Did the AI create it?

https://imgur.com/aWT8YCb

replies(1): >>45055578 #
7. Jensson ◴[28 Aug 25 09:52 UTC] No.45050305{3}[source]▶
> I don't view a banana taped to a wall as art

If some don't understand why, I argue art needs to stand on its own, without the surrounding social context. If you view trash as art just because an artist told you, then the art isn't the trash the art is the artists explanation.

So, if you see a banana taped to a wall on a house when out walking, would you see that as beautiful art? If not, it isn't art according to my definition. The art piece is the whole thing, the banana and the explanation.

But many pictures can be considered art on their own without the social context, they are just beautiful and nice to look at. A banana taped to a wall doesn't pass that test.

Edit: So according to this definition AI art can be art, since some of those images can stand on their own as beautiful pieces of art without needing a social context.

8. jibal ◴[28 Aug 25 16:20 UTC] No.45054021[source]▶
"be polite"

Project much?

replies(1): >>45057256 #
9. petralithic ◴[28 Aug 25 18:47 UTC] No.45055578{4}[source]▶
The AI created it but you choosing to display it is the art, performance art specifically, not that the image itself is art (but again if someone looks at it and it moves them, the image itself could also be considered art); did Duchamp manufacture the urinal he turned into The Fountain? No, but then why do we still consider that art? By your logic, he wouldn't be an artist.

Not sure why you're talking about managers, that seems one step removed. Michaelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to create something, is the Pope the artist? But then let's say Michaelangelo then uses some machine or hires his subordinate to paint for him, who is the artist then?

10. petralithic ◴[28 Aug 25 19:12 UTC] No.45055863[source]▶
It is a rhetorical device that nevertheless clearly explains the various thought groups of AI art. If one requires human creation rather than mere human intent to be art, then similarly they can't consider a banana taped to a wall as art, nor AI as art either. But if one considers the former but then discounts the latter, then that's a logical hypocrisy. I am of the group that considers both as art, because both require human intention.
11. anigbrowl ◴[28 Aug 25 21:29 UTC] No.45057256{3}[source]▶
When I see rude behavior I respond in kind, since that's clearly what the person understands. To do otherwise is to reward trolling.
replies(1): >>45057508 #
12. jibal ◴[28 Aug 25 21:57 UTC] No.45057508{4}[source]▶
ALL of the rude behavior and trolling was yours (and you're still doing it) ... there's nothing rude about "Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.". And your behavior violates the site guidelines, whether it was "in kind" or not.

I need to bathe after reading your grossly dishonest excuses. Over and out.

replies(1): >>45057960 #
13. anigbrowl ◴[28 Aug 25 22:54 UTC] No.45057960{5}[source]▶
Deflecting a question with a different question is rude. You seem to be taking this a mite personally; I'm not responsible for your bathing schedule.