←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 3 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.047s | source
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 #
perching_aix ◴[27 Aug 25 20:20 UTC] No.45044662[source]▶
To honor the "spirit" of OP's post:

I looked up Picasso's Guernica now out of curiosity. I don't understand what's so great about this artwork. Or why it would represent any of the things you mention. It just looks like deranged pencilwork. It also comes across as aggressively pretentious.

What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?

replies(6): >>45044703 #>>45044721 #>>45045583 #>>45047300 #>>45048360 #>>45050537 #
pegasus ◴[28 Aug 25 10:38 UTC] No.45050537[source]▶
Since you seem to have no problem dishing it, I hope you can eat it as well, so here you go. It's your comment that can be rightly described as pretentious. First of all, "aggressive" doesn't make sense as a modifier to "pretentious" - you were probably influenced to pick this word because of the subject and the feeling of the mural, then self-indulgently left it in, no doubt imagining yourself an innate art critic taking poetic license. Second, the way you italicized artwork. Thirdly, and mostly, because even though you just "looked up Guernica now out of curiosity", you imagine your uninformed opinion worthy of consideration to someone else out there. It's not.
replies(1): >>45059183 #
1. perching_aix ◴[29 Aug 25 01:58 UTC] No.45059183{3}[source]▶
Yes. I consider these to be trivial attributes of what I wrote.

It was basically all part of the point: I don't appreciate the position taken in the blogpost in the OP, as it is willfully dishonest (its author not only admits, but even flaunts this).

This is why I remarked that I'm following in its spirit. All the points you list out are issues I also have in general with discourse like the blogpost, and with derivative discourse spawned by it. I was expecting people to react badly, specifically in order to demonstrate why. Even felt a bit bad about italicizing artwork, and felt it was a bit on the nose in hindsight. Wouldn't quite call it a flamebait, but in a sense I guess it was one.

In the end though, I got some reasonable discussion out of it, a bit to my surprise. Still kind of processing whether this was an exception to my conjectured rule, or how else I should wrestle with it. I ended up restoring a bit of "faith in humanity" for myself, rather than confirming my resignations.

This isn't to say I don't believe or didn't mean what I said though, to be clear. I just presented it in a way I consider malicious (the way the blogpost is written). You seem to consider so too and have reacted now in kind - although it doesn't read like along this same idea. But then maybe I'm just falling for my own trap at this point.

replies(1): >>45061127 #
2. pegasus ◴[29 Aug 25 07:12 UTC] No.45061127[source]▶
I see, you were playing "Picasso hater" to OP's "AI hater". Well played, in this case, but you could have just written what you just have above, it would have prevented some confusion and misdirection. Yes, OP is unreasonable and arrogant and thus ends up going totally overboard, even though there is some truth in his complaints (pinpointing better what that is would be a worthwhile conversation to have). In my book, being a hater is not something to flaunt, but rather something to look into. Deep enough understanding inevitably softens that hate if not all the way into appreciation, at least into tolerance. It's the same with Picasso's work: once the missing historical, emotional and artistic context is perceived, the value of the work will become self-evident as well.
replies(1): >>45066272 #
3. perching_aix ◴[29 Aug 25 16:36 UTC] No.45066272[source]▶
Well yeah, I could have done that, but then outcome would have been impacted. Apologies for pulling a fast one on you like this.