3 ms·
> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad. That's prejudice.
by qarl 2mo ago
> knowing it was AI irrespective of anything else was enough to think it was bad.
That's prejudice.
- paulhebert 2mo agoThe 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 2mo agoUnfair in this context is judging the art without even looking at it.
- paulhebert 2mo agoYou don’t think it’s fair to factor how art was created into your judgment?
- qarl 2mo agoFactor? 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 2mo agoArt 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 2mo agoSoley? 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 2mo agoWhich is extremely socially acceptable currently and I don’t see that changing anytime soon
- qarl 2mo agoHEH. Well... so long as you agree it's prejudice... that's a good start.
- AndrewKemendo 2mo agoBiased evaluation is the default human behavior so it’s not saying as much as you think it is
- qarl 2mo agoAll I'm saying is that it's prejudice. And it is.
- necovek 2mo agoAs 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 2mo agoOk... ? 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?