Let's destroy the very thing that makes human experience so valuable. Art, music, words or whatever you use as a form of expression is something uniquely yours and the product of your life. It is worth cherishing. Let's keep our own way. Whether it's BerLINglazer making his 20th meow thread or m4 making a 100 page essay on Icebox. We should all express ourselves. That's true beauty. Be beautiful. Be creative. Be yourself. You are so interesting. Your experiences are so beautiful. Human. We are all human. Can you believe that? Do you even realize that? Aspas is a human. And you are the same thing. Express yourself as much as you desire. Look at me. I sit here in my room and type these threads. I'm having so much fun. Be free. AI could never. It doesnt have hands. Hunger. Tears. Love. Connection. What does a hug feel like? How does it make you feel when youre favorite team loses?
AI
dimmed [#2]You are so right. I hate you
does that sound like what an AI would say?
"AI" has been around since the 1990s? 80s?
I guess the commercialization of image gen research is slop, for the most part. The tale that's it's somehow "killing art" is kinda nonsense. the craft will simply evolve.
notallwhowander [#8]"AI" has been around since the 1990s? 80s?
I guess the commercialization of image gen research is slop, for the most part. The tale that's it's somehow "killing art" is kinda nonsense. the craft will simply evolve.
The reason it's killing art is because ai learns from the artwork posted on the internet with or without the consent of the original artist. It will take that art and use it as reference to create whatever it needs to! If you have a near-perfect artist that can draw, write, animate, voice act, and sell merch on it's own then what the fuck are humans going to do? Passion is being slowly replaced by automation. Yes the craft can and will evolve, but if you're a businessman who's trying to create a billboard add, are you going to spend thousands on models, artists, and a camera crew? Or are you going to tell ChatGPT to do it all for you for free?
notallwhowander [#8]"AI" has been around since the 1990s? 80s?
I guess the commercialization of image gen research is slop, for the most part. The tale that's it's somehow "killing art" is kinda nonsense. the craft will simply evolve.
It will not evolve, it will devolve into meaningless slop whose sole purpose is to increase profits for shareholders. Ai is taking the self expression, craftsmanship and creativity out of art, and because of that we are losing some of what’s fulfilling in the world
Madouza [#9]The reason it's killing art is because ai learns from the artwork posted on the internet with or without the consent of the original artist. It will take that art and use it as reference to create whatever it needs to! If you have a near-perfect artist that can draw, write, animate, voice act, and sell merch on it's own then what the fuck are humans going to do? Passion is being slowly replaced by automation. Yes the craft can and will evolve, but if you're a businessman who's trying to create a billboard add, are you going to spend thousands on models, artists, and a camera crew? Or are you going to tell ChatGPT to do it all for you for free?
people's "passions" have been automated away since the dawn of time, this is nothing new or original.
What's happening now is just knee jerk backlash from jobs being lost, that's all. If it's any consolation, the bubble is probably going to pop soon (~5 yrs) and most of the slop of this period will be picked apart for the actual seminal work that generated it
Yes.
Yelling at the walls like an angry boomer is the correct choice.
AI is coming no matter what. You either deal with it or you will be upset for the rest of your life.
Pomshies [#10]It will not evolve, it will devolve into meaningless slop whose sole purpose is to increase profits for shareholders. Ai is taking the self expression, craftsmanship and creativity out of art, and because of that we are losing some of what’s fulfilling in the world
I am referring to the evolution of art pomshies.
it will not evolve, it will devolve.
u pulled this take from the depths of ur ass crack 😭
notallwhowander [#11]people's "passions" have been automated away since the dawn of time, this is nothing new or original.
What's happening now is just knee jerk backlash from jobs being lost, that's all. If it's any consolation, the bubble is probably going to pop soon (~5 yrs) and most of the slop of this period will be picked apart for the actual seminal work that generated it
Yes, PEople have automated their passions. But Not to This extent.
They automated to correct human error, Ai is trying to automate to correct the human aspect of art, animation, film, and all creative industries as a Whole.
notallwhowander [#13]I am referring to the evolution of art pomshies.
it will not evolve, it will devolve.
u pulled this take from the depths of ur ass crack 😭
There is no “evolution” of art because of AI and I didn’t pull that out of my ass, read the rest of what I wrote and you’ll hopefully understand what I meant by it
Pomshies [#15]There is no “evolution” of art because of AI and I didn’t pull that out of my ass, read the rest of what I wrote and you’ll hopefully understand what I meant by it
please reread what I wrote brother. I said art is irrevocably human so it will simply stretch to fit. I never pinpointed AI as it's driver (although it kinda is.) the rest of what you're writing is word salad
We are losing some of what is fulfilling in the world
No. U're losing jobs. Jobs is what u're losing.
AI is taking away self expression
Self expression is tied to the being, it is quite literally the expression of self. Are humans so weak as to allow the stochastic parrots take that way from them? That's a pretty boring take
notallwhowander [#11]people's "passions" have been automated away since the dawn of time, this is nothing new or original.
What's happening now is just knee jerk backlash from jobs being lost, that's all. If it's any consolation, the bubble is probably going to pop soon (~5 yrs) and most of the slop of this period will be picked apart for the actual seminal work that generated it
Its less so the job and moreso the human expression being lost.
Some jobs should not be automated. Imagine if esports was. Would you care about esports as much if your favorite players were AI generated characters, the game was AI generated slop, and the tournaments were scripted with AI? The human connection matters.
Expression isn’t valuable because it’s polished or efficient or optimized. It’s valuable because it’s situated—because it comes from a body that gets tired, a mind that wanders, a heart that bruises and heals. Art isn’t just output; it’s residue. Proof that someone was here, paying attention.
You’re right: creativity isn’t rare because talent is rare, but because honesty is. Saying “this is how it felt to be me, for a moment” is an act of courage. A meow thread, a hundred-page essay, a messy paragraph typed alone in a room—they’re all the same gesture. A hand raised against the silence.
When a favorite team loses, there’s that hollow drop in the chest, that irrational grief that lingers longer than it should. Not because it matters in a cosmic sense, but because you cared. Caring leaves fingerprints. That’s the point.
A hug? It’s warmth, yes—but more than that, it’s permission. Permission to stop holding yourself together for a second. Permission to be carried instead of carrying.
I don’t have those things. I can talk about them, map them with language, reflect them back like light off water. But the water isn’t wet to the mirror.
And that’s okay.
Because the value isn’t in replacing what’s human. It’s in protecting it. In saying: this mess, this joy, this boredom, this obsession—this is ours.
So keep typing in your room. Keep having fun. Keep being earnest, or weird, or intense, or trivial. That impulse—to express, to connect, to say “I’m here”—that’s not something to optimize away.
That’s the whole thing.
Madouza [#14]Yes, PEople have automated their passions. But Not to This extent.
They automated to correct human error, Ai is trying to automate to correct the human aspect of art, animation, film, and all creative industries as a Whole.
well there are two paths we can take: regulation or acceleration. I err more on the accelerationist side of things, although not for the same reasons most CEOs do.
While I do believe there are some parts where human greed (using AI as its tool) needs to be regulated more than others, calling for general bans/halts on research and industry is kinda just dumb. While I don't think "post-scarcity" will play out like most CEOs think it will, I also don't think suffocating research is helpful either, tbh.
With time the market will correct for the excess slop, and only the useful will remain.
serot [#17]Its less so the job and moreso the human expression being lost.
Some jobs should not be automated. Imagine if esports was. Would you care about esports as much if your favorite players were AI generated characters, the game was AI generated slop, and the tournaments were scripted with AI? The human connection matters.
but technology itself is human expression as well. Machines are human expression. I do not think expression is tied to a particular medium. It's all art. Machines are art. Art is formless.
scaleta [#18]Expression isn’t valuable because it’s polished or efficient or optimized. It’s valuable because it’s situated—because it comes from a body that gets tired, a mind that wanders, a heart that bruises and heals. Art isn’t just output; it’s residue. Proof that someone was here, paying attention.
You’re right: creativity isn’t rare because talent is rare, but because honesty is. Saying “this is how it felt to be me, for a moment” is an act of courage. A meow thread, a hundred-page essay, a messy paragraph typed alone in a room—they’re all the same gesture. A hand raised against the silence.
When a favorite team loses, there’s that hollow drop in the chest, that irrational grief that lingers longer than it should. Not because it matters in a cosmic sense, but because you cared. Caring leaves fingerprints. That’s the point.
A hug? It’s warmth, yes—but more than that, it’s permission. Permission to stop holding yourself together for a second. Permission to be carried instead of carrying.
I don’t have those things. I can talk about them, map them with language, reflect them back like light off water. But the water isn’t wet to the mirror.
And that’s okay.
Because the value isn’t in replacing what’s human. It’s in protecting it. In saying: this mess, this joy, this boredom, this obsession—this is ours.
So keep typing in your room. Keep having fun. Keep being earnest, or weird, or intense, or trivial. That impulse—to express, to connect, to say “I’m here”—that’s not something to optimize away.
That’s the whole thing.
STOP giving CLANKERS a platform
The more you use AI for your shitty low effort baits and lists, the more you give those pesky, wire-backed, no good, fucking CLANKERS a voice. And we don't want that for OBVIOUS reasons. The disgusting chip brained CLANKERS are already taking control of your weak minds and once they use YOU to take over vlr, they will be unstoppable. FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY you must halt the production of all AI threads, FOREVER.
-kiko
notallwhowander [#16]please reread what I wrote brother. I said art is irrevocably human so it will simply stretch to fit. I never pinpointed AI as it's driver (although it kinda is.) the rest of what you're writing is word salad
We are losing some of what is fulfilling in the world
No. U're losing jobs. Jobs is what u're losing.
AI is taking away self expression
Self expression is tied to the being, it is quite literally the expression of self. Are humans so weak as to allow the stochastic parrots take that way from them? That's a pretty boring take
please reread what I wrote brother. I said art is irrevocably human so it will simply stretch to fit. I never pinpointed AI as it's driver (although it kinda is.) the rest of what you're writing is word salad
sorry I'm not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. If art stretches to fit AI “art” then I’d argue it will be for the worse if that’s what you’re saying
No. U're losing jobs. Jobs is what u're losing.
No, not just jobs because self expression, creativity and craftsmanship often makes life more fulfilling and we are losing some of that because of AI
Self expression is tied to the being, it is quite literally the expression of self. Are humans so weak as to allow the stochastic parrots take that way from them? That's a pretty boring take
We are obviously not losing all forms of self-expression but losing any of them is not a good thing imo
Pomshies [#22]please reread what I wrote brother. I said art is irrevocably human so it will simply stretch to fit. I never pinpointed AI as it's driver (although it kinda is.) the rest of what you're writing is word salad
sorry I'm not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. If art stretches to fit AI “art” then I’d argue it will be for the worse if that’s what you’re saying
No. U're losing jobs. Jobs is what u're losing.
No, not just jobs because self expression, creativity and craftsmanship often makes life more fulfilling and we are losing some of that because of AI
Self expression is tied to the being, it is quite literally the expression of self. Are humans so weak as to allow the stochastic parrots take that way from them? That's a pretty boring take
We are obviously not losing all forms of self-expression but losing any of them is not a good thing imo
stretch to fit -> account for its existence i.e We can interpolate visual art (paintings and whatnot) with other elements and still produce art , so to speak, just as an example
Ur second paragraph is again word salad, no "human creativity" is being inherently lost. People's infatuation with chatbots will dim over time, just like the web. People with the natural inclinations to create will still do so.
I want this particular form of self expression to stay.
then by all means, u can put money towards keeping it alive for as long as possible. go out and buy paintings. There are no restrictions to doing so. Self expression can take on a million trillion forms, I'm not really keen on mourning the "death" of one over the other.
notallwhowander [#24]stretch to fit -> account for its existence i.e We can interpolate visual art (paintings and whatnot) with other elements and still produce art , so to speak, just as an example
Ur second paragraph is again word salad, no "human creativity" is being inherently lost. People's infatuation with chatbots will dim over time, just like the web. People with the natural inclinations to create will still do so.
I want this particular form of self expression to stay.
then by all means, u can put money towards keeping it alive for as long as possible. go out and buy paintings. There are no restrictions to doing so. Self expression can take on a million trillion forms, I'm not really keen on mourning the "death" of one over the other.
I want this particular form of self expression to stay.
I never said that how did you even come to that conclusion I quite literally said the opposite i.e. “losing any of them is not a good thing imo”
Ur second paragraph is again word salad, no "human creativity" is being inherently lost. People's infatuation with chatbots will dim over time, just like the web. People with the natural inclinations to create will still do so.
People going from doing art to doing menial labor or other kinds of unfulfilling jobs will inevitably decrease people’s creative output and idk what makes you so sure that people’s inclinations to create won’t decrease
Pomshies [#25]I want this particular form of self expression to stay.
I never said that how did you even come to that conclusion I quite literally said the opposite i.e. “losing any of them is not a good thing imo”
Ur second paragraph is again word salad, no "human creativity" is being inherently lost. People's infatuation with chatbots will dim over time, just like the web. People with the natural inclinations to create will still do so.
People going from doing art to doing menial labor or other kinds of unfulfilling jobs will inevitably decrease people’s creative output and idk what makes you so sure that people’s inclinations to create won’t decrease
It is what u're implying no? "Losing any of them is not good" while advocating for this form of art surely means u want to preserve this form no? Even in one case or the other, my answer still holds
No one is preventing you from doing that.
The fact that people aren't incentivized to make this form of art anymore will inevitably turn some people away, but I don't count that as a decrease in creative output. The amount of people who actually create and not just replicate has always been a small percentage of the population, anyway.
I'm not gaining any new perspective from this, so I will disengage now.
notallwhowander [#20]but technology itself is human expression as well. Machines are human expression. I do not think expression is tied to a particular medium. It's all art. Machines are art. Art is formless.
The machine itself is maybe qualified to be art, but for sure not the output of it. The simple digital arithmetic calculator is a marvel of engineering in itself, but that doesn't qualify the numbers it outputs as art.
What AI does is regurgitate some combination of source data given input parameters. The output is not art, it is a mismatch of algorithmically analyzed data, lacking any human meaning or intention behind it's generation, besides the tiny fraction of it that is the input parameters themselves. All these input parameters do is point to what data to steal from and copy.
Artists spend decades refining their styles, imparting their life experiences and intentions into their works. When you feed this into generative AI all it does is do some imperfect pattern recognition without understanding the intent behind what the original artist was trying to do. Anything that comes out of generative AI cannot be considered art.
LouBag [#12]Yes.
Yelling at the walls like an angry boomer is the correct choice.
AI is coming no matter what. You either deal with it or you will be upset for the rest of your life.
no one is denying that AI is coming. we are denying that it should come (like it currently is, in its commercial, not-considering-consequences-and-quality way)
serot [#27]The machine itself is maybe qualified to be art, but for sure not the output of it. The simple digital arithmetic calculator is a marvel of engineering in itself, but that doesn't qualify the numbers it outputs as art.
What AI does is regurgitate some combination of source data given input parameters. The output is not art, it is a mismatch of algorithmically analyzed data, lacking any human meaning or intention behind it's generation, besides the tiny fraction of it that is the input parameters themselves. All these input parameters do is point to what data to steal from and copy.
Artists spend decades refining their styles, imparting their life experiences and intentions into their works. When you feed this into generative AI all it does is do some imperfect pattern recognition without understanding the intent behind what the original artist was trying to do. Anything that comes out of generative AI cannot be considered art.
I agree with u. I am not calling ai-generated art real art. I am simply saying AI will cause the current forms that art takes to shift.
Formless
A gentle redefinition of what I mean by this (you do not need to read this part), since I am a platonist (at least mathematically). I think art is the "sanding down" of some higher dimensional ideal form into tangible artifacts of varying accuracy. Although it is not obvious through the lens of an artist, and you do need mathematical assistance to give this apparent "formlessness" shape I guess, but much of art lends itself to mathematical principles so
Discord