this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
538 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

76071 readers
2564 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think AI art serves a different purpose from the art we talk about when we say "real art has heart" or "the process of creating the art affected me when I looked at it".

I think about how I feel when I'm scrolling through pictures in some app on my phone - some will be memes, some will be cats, but then some will be there for artistic purposes. As I'm scrolling through, such a picture will spark a brief glimmer of emotion - "huh, that looks neat" for example. I'm not looking close and examining the brush strokes, not thinking about what troubles the artist went through, and not thinking about the process of its creation at all.

In that context I don't think it makes much difference that it's AI-generated. I'd kind of like to know, and I don't want to see a dozen different outputs of the same prompt because whoever hit the button couldn't even apply the modicum of effort require to pick their favourite, but AI-generated images are just as able to instigate that glimmer of "hey that looks cool" that any image can.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds like you're not very skilled at art appreciation.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's zero need to throw insults around; I made the context absolutely clear in my comment and it has nothing to do with what I do when at an art gallery or something.

Maybe some people are having an experience like they are looking at a Rembrandt when they scroll through /c/pics or something, but I'm not. Do you also shit on people for being unable to appreciate music because they put something on in the background? Is it only OK to go to concerts and immerse yourself in it? If you're in a shop and a tune you like comes on, do you park your cart to really appreciate the depths of emotion it's inspiring in you?

Of course you don't.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you think that it was an insult then that shows what shame you have for your lack of skill, not an intention on my part.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Seems like you're not very skilled at responding meaningfully.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

Well I'm not going to slap you on the back and praise you for saying the equivalent of "I just eat potato chips anyway I don't care if the new chips are made of styrofoam they still got flavor blasted".

Also, I totally disagree with you. If I see a neat picture someone took from getting dropped onto earth from low orbit, I'm gonna think that's way cooler than an ai image trying to emulate the same thing, even if I'm only looking at it for a second. I'm going to think a crudely drawn parody of a meme is funnier than an ai generated imitation of a meme, even if all I'm doing is making that little exhale with the nose instead of laughing.

There's a difference. You can tell. If you're so Internet addled you genuinely are saying you don't think there's a difference, then you've got like, negative skills in art appreciation.