/siberia/ - Off-topic

There's no theoretical reason it can't be at least a little interesting or entertaining, but it seems to almost exclusively attract people without the discernment or knowledge to do even that. Ultimately if the prompter can't conceive of anything better than mediocre, the AI isn't gonna do it for them.
Also these kinds of discussions tend to attract people who don't care about art at all but still really want to tell the rest of us how we should feel about it.

>>792620
the conversation was never about whether or not it can be "good" in the sense of
<can I consume this
because the answer to that question was always YES from the start. consume whatever you want, nobody cares. however, if the question is whether or not it's "good" in the sense of
<is this worthy of consumption
then I think most people are going to say no, unless it's used in tandem with a competent artist's unique style or ability to convey something through art. art still requires an underlying human intelligence, and AI at this point merely masquerades as something that can produce that. it is not author, it is a consumer that reconstitutes data in different ways without a conscious understanding of human concepts like aesthetics or whatever.

finally, I will say that the use of AI by itself does not make the prompter an artist, because art is more than just the ability to produce media, it is being able to utilize that media for whatever purpose is relevant to the conveyance of whatever message or ethos or what-have-you that you're trying to produce.

>>792651
> finally, I will say that the use of AI by itself does not make the prompter an artist, because art is more than just the ability to produce media, it is being able to utilize that media for whatever purpose is relevant to the conveyance of whatever message or ethos or what-have-you that you're trying to produce.

Then AI art can be art because a lot of Ai generated media is used for propaganda or to make storylines

>>792660
yeah, alongside a human intelligence. it doesn't produce anything by itself that is art. is a car door that was built to spec by an autonomous machine a piece of art? if you're somehow really interested in doors then the resultant piece is going to be "art" for you, but only because the machine built something that was engineered by the human mind. can the machine produce its own door with specs that it devised by itself? no. can AI produce anything that wasn't consumed as a dataset that is filled with human knowledge and experience? no.

Art is a form of communication, and AI is just a way of obfuscating or adding noise to that communication.

>>792620
I liked the iranian lego videos and the chinese puppet one with the meowtollah

i think ai slop just tore off the facade of what art really was. mass produced industrialized slop. of course "real" artists did like doing it but it was still commodified. and even then artists themselves have been proletarianized in a sense and ai just did commodities better, faster, and just good enough to be acceptable. art was already dead. has it even been alive?

AI has done both a massive service and a massive disservice to gooning
take that as you will

>>792751
This.
People like to whine about “AI” graphics but most of those aesthetic graphics were based on cookie cutter style of cartoon graphics that were manually made

>>792751
>>792753
This is just completely divorced from reality and contrarianism for the sake of it.

>>792753
im not even talking about the aesthetics. im talking about the work itself. altho i still agree

>>792620
If people can find beauty in oil slicks or the natural world which has no creator then sure why not find beauty in an AI dancing cat video.

It's more art than 99% of the slop people make for the mere fact that it causes such deep anger on the slop-makers.

>Nearly every reply supports AI slop

None of you are leftist you are all techbro goyslaves kek nice one have fun with no drinking water while being cucked by r2d2 you robo dick munching faggots

Of course it can even if most of it is aping the style of already existing artists. The people who say otherwise are fandom queers making hideous furry inflation OC for 100$ that think of "artists" as some kind of protected class entitled to praise no matter how dogshit their output.

The unenlightened will say that modern art isn't art, when the whole point of the movement is question what art is at a conceptual.
Yes, it's stupid that a banana taped to the wall is displayed in an art gallery, that's the point.
If anything, I can see it evolving into ai, where instead of questioning what is art, it's questioning "is it art if a human doesn't even touch it?"
However, this question is stupid, because modern ai just scrapes the internet and steals bits and pieces of all images it finds, meaning without human created data sets, there is no ai art in the first place.
Which brings it around again to, "well it must be art, millions of humans were involved in it's creation"

>>792620
I think its decent for porn.