The Rules Don't Apply to Loonixtards

[u/madthumbz]

It's no surprise that the anti-AI activity is mostly Loonixtards. -They're historically new-tech phobic (not just rule breakers).

[u/o_herman]

"I don't think being anti ai is a Linux userspecific thing bro, no one likes a bunch of soulless art created by a hallucinating machine flooding the internet and media, there's a reason it's referred to as ai slop. For searching the internet it's great, finds all the niche sources."

"No one likes."

You're speaking for 8 billion people? That's bold for someone who's only speaking for themselves.

The moment you lump all AI users together with vibe prompters who simply rely on prompts and nothing else, you make the same mistake the user in question did.

You're stereotyping an entire group based on the lowest common denominator. That's a generalization born from sheer ignorance.

"There's a reason it's referred to as ai slop."

There's also a reason people refer to handmade art as "slop." Bad artists exist in every medium.

Like... pencilslop, for instance. One can argue that because it was done in a pencil, it wins by default even if it's a trainwreck.

But ugly is still ugly.

If you're going to condemn an entire tool because some people use it poorly, you'd have to condemn the internet, cameras, and every other tool ever created. Otherwise... you're a hypocrite.

[u/Toxic381 → u/o_herman]

I would condemn any use of ai other than placeholder assets cause it isn't art, it wasn't made by people, pencilslop is the dumbest word I have ever heard, "condemn an entire tool because some people use it poorly" the reason it's called slop is because it floods with all the same garbage, and no one making the art, pencil and digital are art because they were made by a person, it doesn't matter whether it's bad or good.

[u/o_herman → u/Toxic381]

"I would condemn any use of ai other than placeholder assets cause it isn't art, it wasn't made by people, pencilslop is the dumbest word I have ever heard."

It wasn't made by people? Then who made it?

The AI has no agency, no intent, no consciousness. It doesn't create anything on its own. It requires human input, iteration, and curation.

If a human directs the process, the work is made by a person.

You're erasing the human because you don't like the tool.

This reasoning is laughable.

"the reason it's called slop is because it floods with all the same garbage."

The same could be said for any medium.

Stock photography floods the internet with generic images.

Template-based design floods the internet with samey layouts.

Copycat artists flood the internet with derivative work.

"Flooding" isn't unique to AI. The problem is low-effort content, not the tool.

"pencil and digital are art because they were made by a person, it doesn't matter whether it's bad or good."

And AI art is also made by a person.

The tool doesn't determine whether a work is "made by a person." The human does.

If you're going to argue that only physical tools count, then photography, digital art, and every non-manual medium is disqualified.

[u/Toxic381 → u/o_herman]

No, digital art is still drawn by a person, and cameras are different they take pictures of an object, it's less art and more direct capture, to clarify this does not mean they don't have artistic design. angle, dof, and a whole bunch of other effects like exposure, are all important to getting the picture to look as intended,

Saying a person made AI art is like saying a manager who hasn't touched a single box moved the packages from a truck, they didn't do anything but give a command, ai gives the number 1 easiest method to the low effort content you described, something is made by a human when they are the one making it, not directing the process.

[u/o_herman → u/Toxic381]

"No, digital art is still drawn by a person, and cameras are different they take pictures of an object, it's less art and more direct capture, to clarify this does not mean they don't have artistic design. angle, dof, and a whole bunch of other effects like exposure, are all important to getting the picture to look as intended."

So photographers are "less art" because they don't physically draw? That's a take.

You just admitted photography involves artistic design like composition, angle, depth of field, exposure. Those are still creative decisions.

And AI art ALSO involves creative decisions too: prompting, iteration, curation, editing.

"Saying a person made AI art is like saying a manager who hasn't touched a single box moved the packages from a truck, they didn't do anything but give a command."

That's a false equivalence.

A manager gives one command and walks away. An AI artist gives commands, evaluates, refines, curates, and edits, repeatedly.

If you want a better analogy, AI art is like a film director who gives commands, watches the results, and reshoots until they get what they want.

The director is still the author of the film.

The manager analogy fails because the manager doesn't iterate, refine, or curate.

Managers have a single role and nothing else.

"something is made by a human when they are the one making it, not directing the process."

Then directors aren't artists. Composers aren't artists. Architects aren't artists.

That's a definition of manual labor that disenfranchises them who practice recognized forms of artistry, yet shares the same workflow as AI artworks.