this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
703 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
10305 readers
2148 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Artist's depiction =|= AI slop
≠
!=
Why? They’re right. There wasn’t an artist involved in making that.
If typing a prompt into a plagiarism machine makes you an artist, why doesn’t paying a real human to make art for you also make you an artist?
If someone said they were the artist of something but it turns out they just paid someone else to do it, would you think they were a talentless jackass or an artist?
They weren't calling themselves artists, they were saying the AI/model is the artist.
Your comparison is a strawman.
Art is made by artists, who are human, and your argument is the fallacy fallacy.
The artist is the neural network
The plagiarism machine vomits out the visual equivalent of text prediction. It isn’t an artist any more than the text prediction on your phone is an author if you hit the next predicted word enough times, people are artists and authors. Image generation is at best a Xerox machine.
Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, it’s based on knowing the difference between a tool and a human being 👍
I know plenty of human beings who are tools
Bro, it’s not a person and it doesn’t think. This is embarrassing for you. This is like thinking there are little people in the TV.