3 ms·

> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad. That's prejudice.

by qarl 7d ago

paulhebert 7d ago
The definition of prejudice requires the judgment to be unfair. Do you think it’s unfair for people to dislike AI generated art based on their principles?
- qarl 7d ago
  Unfair in this context is judging the art without even looking at it.
  - paulhebert 7d ago
    You don’t think it’s fair to factor how art was created into your judgment?
    - qarl 7d ago
      Factor? That's not what was described: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else." And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
      - HelloMcFly 5d ago
        Art is not evaluated based solely on the isolated output. Intent, context, and human effort are fundamental parts of why people value a work. People calling an AI piece "bad" by default are responding to that lack of human agency and intent. The process is part of the work, so factoring how it was made into your judgment is entirely fair, even as the primary deciding factor. A fair retort is that holding every creative output to this standard, like a flyer for a community fair, is needlessly critical. That is not an unreasonable position. Still, I think it is fair for one to believe that using an AI image is a clear low-effort signal that strips away the human element that makes community events appealing in the first place. And for commercial products: if your ad is low effort, why should I believe your product is not?
        qarl 5d ago
        Soley? Factoring? Again, that is not what is being described here: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else." > And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
AndrewKemendo 6d ago
Which is extremely socially acceptable currently and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
- qarl 6d ago
  HEH. Well... so long as you agree it's prejudice... that's a good start.
  - AndrewKemendo 6d ago
    Biased evaluation is the default human behavior so it’s not saying as much as you think it is
    - qarl 6d ago
      All I'm saying is that it's prejudice. And it is.
      - necovek 6d ago
        As GP perhaps implied, "prejudice" is "biased evaluation" with a negative tone — if you are looking to be fully objective, a different term might be better.
        qarl 6d ago
        Ok... ? It does seem biased (judging the art without even looking at it) and it does seem negative (it's shit) so I don't understand where I'm missing the boat? Can you elaborate?

> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad. That's prejudice.

by qarl 7d ago

> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad. That's prejudice.

The definition of prejudice requires the judgment to be unfair. Do you think it’s unfair for people to dislike AI generated art based on their principles?

qarl 7d ago
Unfair in this context is judging the art without even looking at it.
- paulhebert 7d ago
  You don’t think it’s fair to factor how art was created into your judgment?
  - qarl 7d ago
    Factor? That's not what was described: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else." And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.
    - HelloMcFly 5d ago
      Art is not evaluated based solely on the isolated output. Intent, context, and human effort are fundamental parts of why people value a work. People calling an AI piece "bad" by default are responding to that lack of human agency and intent. The process is part of the work, so factoring how it was made into your judgment is entirely fair, even as the primary deciding factor. A fair retort is that holding every creative output to this standard, like a flyer for a community fair, is needlessly critical. That is not an unreasonable position. Still, I think it is fair for one to believe that using an AI image is a clear low-effort signal that strips away the human element that makes community events appealing in the first place. And for commercial products: if your ad is low effort, why should I believe your product is not?
      - qarl 5d ago
        Soley? Factoring? Again, that is not what is being described here: "knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else." > And no - I don't think it's fair to call the art bad when in fact what you mean is you don't like the way it was made. Saying "I don't like AI art" is not the same as "This piece is shit", which is how it is almost always framed.

AndrewKemendo 6d ago

Which is extremely socially acceptable currently and I don’t see that changing anytime soon

qarl 6d ago
HEH. Well... so long as you agree it's prejudice... that's a good start.
- AndrewKemendo 6d ago
  Biased evaluation is the default human behavior so it’s not saying as much as you think it is
  - qarl 6d ago
    All I'm saying is that it's prejudice. And it is.
    - necovek 6d ago
      As GP perhaps implied, "prejudice" is "biased evaluation" with a negative tone — if you are looking to be fully objective, a different term might be better.
      - qarl 6d ago
        Ok... ? It does seem biased (judging the art without even looking at it) and it does seem negative (it's shit) so I don't understand where I'm missing the boat? Can you elaborate?