4 ms·

For every AI snob that's not reading an article because they see an AI image, there's 10 non-snobs who appreciate a decent usage. If you're creating complete s

For every AI snob that's not reading an article because they see an AI image, there's 10 non-snobs who appreciate a decent usage. If you're creating complete slop, no one is reading your article in the first place. Full stop. The image doesn't matter. As with anything, it's about what you created, and creating at all - not the tool you used to create. The snobs and haters will continue to b!tch and moan. They always have. Always will. Your two cent elitist opinions are still only worth two cents.

egypturnash 2mo ago
A slop image header is a signal that the text is probably also slop. Why should I waste my time on the off chance that your text is not actually slop?
sunrunner 2mo ago
> it's about what you created But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
- derektank 2mo ago
  There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.
  - sunrunner 2mo ago
    > There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.
  - righthand 2mo ago
    Oh yeah I can just remember all those famous renowned collages that everyone associates as art. A director does a hell of a lot more than select what goes in a frame and then sit back and watch it come together.
    - RandomLensman 2mo ago
      A collage made by Picasso is not associated as art?
  - byronturncoat 2mo ago
    There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.
    - orangedog 2mo ago
      Writing a blog post is a creative effort, selecting a few pieces (generated or not) is creative, too, whether it is up to your standards are not. The gatekeeping on this is crazy. I really wonder how artists discussed photography and other advances.
      - byronturncoat 2mo ago
        If you write a blog post, yes that is creative. If an AI does it, it's no longer creative, it's derivative (by definition). Selecting AI images for one's blog is technically creativity (akin to decorating), but in the most hollow way possible. If you compare this scenario to photography and art, it's pretty clear you've not actually participated in that community
        orangedog 2mo ago
        Somebody still has to prompt it, there is a creative task. Somebody still has to curate it, that too is a creative task. I was comparing this to when photography first came onto the scene not today, but I'm tired of the gatekeeping (which you retreated back into) which says this isn't art when as with every creative process, it is derivative and creative. People already splice together videos of generated clips. Is that not creative? It's just gatekeeping. People in a few years (or already) or in a generation won't be this pedantic about it.
        byronturncoat 2mo ago
        If you use the definition of "creative" in that someone creates, sure, you can make your argument. Most people, however, include a level of imagination and effort in their qualifications of whether something is creative. An AI prompt does not meet the bar of "creativity" for most people. Curating AI slop similarly does not meet this bar. Your personal bar may well be on the floor, but that is not representative of most people, in my experience. You're using your definition of "creative" and "art" interchangeably, which lacks nuance and respect for art. The reference to the arrival of photography similarly lacks nuance and respect for artists and art. Art and creativity have a human element, they evoke emotions. As soon as you delegate the process to an LLM, you've disrespected that human element if you try to pass it off as creative or art. You can call it "gatekeeping" if you want to, but I see it as basic respect for other humans and human imagination and effort.
- tempfile 2mo ago
  I think they would obviously be happy with the alternative wording "it's about what was created" or just "it's about the product". I don't think they care about any aspect of how it came to exist.
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  Getting an AI to create the imagine you want isn't necessarily easy.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2mo ago
  But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    Don't forget photography. Photography is going to destroy art, don't you know.
  - sunrunner 2mo ago
    You probably put a fair amount more effort and intention in than from just writing a text prompt, I'd wager. All of those examples would require you to at least have some kind of idea about your intended output.
    - dahart 2mo ago
      > at least have some kind of idea about your intended output. Isn’t that what a prompt literally is?
    - ModernMech 2mo ago
      Why do you presume people who use AI don't have some kind of idea about the intended output?
  - atomicfiredoll 2mo ago
    These statements are factually untrue or overly broad to the extent of being nonsensical. Hopefully, you can see how that would come off as incredibly disingenuous. [E.g. what did they autotune? What did they Photoshop? Probably some creative work that they or somebody else made.] [Edit: Further, these don't really line up with what the comment you're responding to is saying. If all you did was write a prompt for an image, it gives the impression that you may have done the same for the text. At that point, if I care about what the AI has to say, I can just write a prompt to an AI myself.]
zorked 2mo ago
People have heuristics. My heuristics is that AI slop in images -> slop in the text, whether AI or not. It will be wrong sometimes, but mostly it's not. OP has a point.
GPerson 2mo ago
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a hater and a snob.”
nhinck2 2mo ago
Hmm, I wonder why you're taking this so personally...
bonoboTP 2mo ago
Indeed, including some AI generated things is becoming a costly signal that you're not bound by the neoluddites and the online anti-AI mob / redditor hivemind. I'm starting to like this signal, but it has to be distinguished from the simply being-lazy signal that indicates the content may not be all that interesting of valued by the author. If you have an otherwise high quality site where you aren't afraid to use AI for some elements, that makes me like it more. It's a start of a barber's pole of fashion. Like when it became desirable to wear torn jeans even if you can afford proper ones. But you can only safely do it if you won't be confused with an actual hobo. It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. So same with AI use. Don't play to the pearl clutchers, but don't be a hobo either. Shower but have somewhat torn jeans.
- mosura 2mo ago
  A key part of this is it has to be conspicuously deliberately AI.
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago
  > It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. Pre-torn jeans signal being a poser, wanting the torn jeans look without having the lifestyle that results in torn jeans, or even having the agency to tear your own jeans So it's an apt analogy for AI users I guess. People who want to build creative works without ever putting in any effort to learn how Modern society rewards taking shortcuts way too much
  - bonoboTP 2mo ago
    I mostly agree but here my analogy was reversed compared to yours. In my analogy the nicely dressed church lady is the professional, politically correct, climate conscious, anti AI redditor. The torn clothes punk hobo is the lazy rulebraking AI shoveler who makes the shared spaces dirty, and the smart iconoclast contrarian rebel artist poet ignoring schoolmarm rules is the person who uses AI but also makes otherwise high quality content. (don't get hung up on the climate thing - I'm not arguing on the object level. A Christian believer can also be annoyed by the Karen-like peal clutcher no-fun-allowed church lady archetype).

egypturnash 2mo ago

A slop image header is a signal that the text is probably also slop. Why should I waste my time on the off chance that your text is not actually slop?

sunrunner 2mo ago

> it's about what you created But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.

derektank 2mo ago
There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.
- sunrunner 2mo ago
  > There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.
- righthand 2mo ago
  Oh yeah I can just remember all those famous renowned collages that everyone associates as art. A director does a hell of a lot more than select what goes in a frame and then sit back and watch it come together.
  - RandomLensman 2mo ago
    A collage made by Picasso is not associated as art?
- byronturncoat 2mo ago
  There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.
  - orangedog 2mo ago
    Writing a blog post is a creative effort, selecting a few pieces (generated or not) is creative, too, whether it is up to your standards are not. The gatekeeping on this is crazy. I really wonder how artists discussed photography and other advances.
    - byronturncoat 2mo ago
      If you write a blog post, yes that is creative. If an AI does it, it's no longer creative, it's derivative (by definition). Selecting AI images for one's blog is technically creativity (akin to decorating), but in the most hollow way possible. If you compare this scenario to photography and art, it's pretty clear you've not actually participated in that community
      - orangedog 2mo ago
        Somebody still has to prompt it, there is a creative task. Somebody still has to curate it, that too is a creative task. I was comparing this to when photography first came onto the scene not today, but I'm tired of the gatekeeping (which you retreated back into) which says this isn't art when as with every creative process, it is derivative and creative. People already splice together videos of generated clips. Is that not creative? It's just gatekeeping. People in a few years (or already) or in a generation won't be this pedantic about it.
        byronturncoat 2mo ago
        If you use the definition of "creative" in that someone creates, sure, you can make your argument. Most people, however, include a level of imagination and effort in their qualifications of whether something is creative. An AI prompt does not meet the bar of "creativity" for most people. Curating AI slop similarly does not meet this bar. Your personal bar may well be on the floor, but that is not representative of most people, in my experience. You're using your definition of "creative" and "art" interchangeably, which lacks nuance and respect for art. The reference to the arrival of photography similarly lacks nuance and respect for artists and art. Art and creativity have a human element, they evoke emotions. As soon as you delegate the process to an LLM, you've disrespected that human element if you try to pass it off as creative or art. You can call it "gatekeeping" if you want to, but I see it as basic respect for other humans and human imagination and effort.
tempfile 2mo ago
I think they would obviously be happy with the alternative wording "it's about what was created" or just "it's about the product". I don't think they care about any aspect of how it came to exist.
RandomLensman 2mo ago
Getting an AI to create the imagine you want isn't necessarily easy.
onlyrealcuzzo 2mo ago
But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
- qarl2 2mo ago
  Don't forget photography. Photography is going to destroy art, don't you know.
- sunrunner 2mo ago
  You probably put a fair amount more effort and intention in than from just writing a text prompt, I'd wager. All of those examples would require you to at least have some kind of idea about your intended output.
  - dahart 2mo ago
    > at least have some kind of idea about your intended output. Isn’t that what a prompt literally is?
  - ModernMech 2mo ago
    Why do you presume people who use AI don't have some kind of idea about the intended output?
- atomicfiredoll 2mo ago
  These statements are factually untrue or overly broad to the extent of being nonsensical. Hopefully, you can see how that would come off as incredibly disingenuous. [E.g. what did they autotune? What did they Photoshop? Probably some creative work that they or somebody else made.] [Edit: Further, these don't really line up with what the comment you're responding to is saying. If all you did was write a prompt for an image, it gives the impression that you may have done the same for the text. At that point, if I care about what the AI has to say, I can just write a prompt to an AI myself.]

zorked 2mo ago

People have heuristics. My heuristics is that AI slop in images -> slop in the text, whether AI or not. It will be wrong sometimes, but mostly it's not. OP has a point.

GPerson 2mo ago

“Everyone who disagrees with me is a hater and a snob.”

nhinck2 2mo ago

Hmm, I wonder why you're taking this so personally...

bonoboTP 2mo ago

Indeed, including some AI generated things is becoming a costly signal that you're not bound by the neoluddites and the online anti-AI mob / redditor hivemind. I'm starting to like this signal, but it has to be distinguished from the simply being-lazy signal that indicates the content may not be all that interesting of valued by the author. If you have an otherwise high quality site where you aren't afraid to use AI for some elements, that makes me like it more. It's a start of a barber's pole of fashion. Like when it became desirable to wear torn jeans even if you can afford proper ones. But you can only safely do it if you won't be confused with an actual hobo. It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. So same with AI use. Don't play to the pearl clutchers, but don't be a hobo either. Shower but have somewhat torn jeans.

mosura 2mo ago
A key part of this is it has to be conspicuously deliberately AI.
bluefirebrand 2mo ago
> It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. Pre-torn jeans signal being a poser, wanting the torn jeans look without having the lifestyle that results in torn jeans, or even having the agency to tear your own jeans So it's an apt analogy for AI users I guess. People who want to build creative works without ever putting in any effort to learn how Modern society rewards taking shortcuts way too much
- bonoboTP 2mo ago
  I mostly agree but here my analogy was reversed compared to yours. In my analogy the nicely dressed church lady is the professional, politically correct, climate conscious, anti AI redditor. The torn clothes punk hobo is the lazy rulebraking AI shoveler who makes the shared spaces dirty, and the smart iconoclast contrarian rebel artist poet ignoring schoolmarm rules is the person who uses AI but also makes otherwise high quality content. (don't get hung up on the climate thing - I'm not arguing on the object level. A Christian believer can also be annoyed by the Karen-like peal clutcher no-fun-allowed church lady archetype).