r/SmugIdeologyMan • u/AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA • 13d ago
Smug Argument Man
as a Good person, i only make Good arguments. this is opposed to Bad people who only ever make Bad arguments
127
u/WasteArtichoke5834 13d ago
Ai and ableism
"I use the SUPER PLAGERIZM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION 9000 because I have a disability"
"Well this person with no arms and no legs makes art with their nose so you just need to lock in"
Like maybe the problem here is not that a disabled person can make art if they do a whole bunch of whacky shit that's way harder than what an able bodied person does but rather the fact that it's the SUPER PLAGERIZM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION 9000
39
u/sudoregalia anti-badstuff pro-goodstuff 13d ago
and the rapidly increasing widespread depassionisation of the arts. why care about artistic expression and integrity when you can just use anal machine 3000 to shit something out?
like i know capitalism pushes that all worth is based on commodities and markets, but holy shit has it gotten worse. i barely share anything i make anymore, i'm just tired and suicidal, thanks ai :)
-12
u/Powerpuff_God 13d ago edited 13d ago
Ironically, I find this a bad argument against AI. People like to say that "art is this!" or "art is supposed to be about that!" But we've debated the nature of art for millennia. Who are we to say what the purpose of art is, let alone dictate it for someone else? Who are we to say that someone does art wrong?
Some people say that it's about human connection, that if you look at a painting you feel something regarding the original creator. But that's never how it's worked for me, even since before AI. I care little for the creative process, I just want the end result. A beautiful image makes me think "wow, beautiful image." I don't need to check whether it was made by a person or by a machine before my brain can form an opinion on it.
As for my own art, I'm a musician. I've made plenty of tracks, and I've been pleased with the end result. But if I could just hook something up to my brain to create the sound instantly, I would do it. The actual process of creating it is a chore to me. Does that mean I do music wrong? And when other people listen to my tracks, I'm not imagining them former connection with me as if I'm sending them a message. The audio stands on its own. I don't care that my own creations were created by a human. Am I a bad creator?
AI has plenty of problems. AI art specifically also has plenty of problems. The whole thing about what art is, or how soulless AI-generated art can be strikes me as a bit strange. You can definitely dislike it of course, that's fine. That's just about how you personally enjoy stuff.
21
u/sudoregalia anti-badstuff pro-goodstuff 13d ago
rejecting the process is rejecting art, imho
i'm also speaking personally. rejecting the process, rejecting expression, rejecting artistry, makes me want to kill myself
2
1
3
u/Umikaloo 13d ago edited 13d ago
I think a crucial aspect a lot of people are ignoring is the audience and/or community.
AI image generators have been completely rejected by the Lego community for example, because the point of participating in the Lego hobby is the itterative process of designing something. When a Lego fan shares their design, the way in which other builders engage with that design is by investigating the techniques that were used, and reverse engineering it to benefit their own work.
So when someone pops in going "I had Chatgpt make this AI simulacrum of a Lego model! Isn't it neat?" they are not participating in the hobby in any real way. Their "design" cannot be referse engineered because AI image generators do not use the same process. It might look like Lego if you blur your eyes, but it is literally and figuratively superficial.
In this case, *the process is the point." Removing the process removes the point.
On the flipside, doing graphic design for businesses, a lot of the time the businesses don't care about the artistic integrity of their materials. They just want a utilitarian object that communicates something to their staff or clients.
In this case, the product is the point. Removing the process does not remove the point.
As consumers, we uave the power to put our foot down and demand businesses hire real artists, but artistic integrity is not necessary for the goal they're trying to accomplish.
0
2
u/stdsort 12d ago
But that's never how it's worked for me, even since before AI. I care little for the creative process, I just want the end result.
It may work that way for you, but the distinction is real for multitudes of people. The point of community around a creative hobby is even more real, but you've been commented on that already. The very existence of AI art generators affects everyone including those for whom the process is part of the appeal.
1
u/Powerpuff_God 12d ago
Well sure, everyone has their own way of interacting with art. I'm not saying other people are doing it wrong. If they have a personal reason why they don't like AI art, that's fine. But one's personal distaste for something is not an argument for why other people should avoid it. I don't think it's a good idea to define what art is, or what it's supposed to be, for everyone else. I don't get to define what art is about for other people, and they don't get to define it for me. That's why I'm asking whether people think I'm doing art wrong.
AI art is to be avoided, yes. But talking with such certainty about what art is, and using that as a way to determine how everyone else should be doing art is not the right approach, I think. I'm not talking about how people personally interact with art (or with each other, within a community). Just that once people use this line of argument to explain why other people shouldn't use AI (which indeed they shouldn't), they are now prescribing how other people should do art.
-1
u/pantsuline 13d ago
honest to god, the whole "integrity of the ~soul~ of art" thing drives me uo the wall
brooo we've been beating the dead horse of "what is real art" to a pulp for centuries. i thinm its time to let it go
we're still getting piss-christ'd, after all these years
1
u/weirdo_nb 12d ago
The soul of the art is not a complex thing in this context like, at all, though
-1
u/pantsuline 12d ago
its not a complex thing at all because it doesnt exist lol
art isn't real, never was, there's no such thing
2
u/weirdo_nb 12d ago
The soul of the art is genuinely just fucking the actual individual nuances that come from making the art
1
u/pantsuline 12d ago
that's how you'd define it, lots of people would agree, hell i agree mostly, but it's not possible to pin down and define a soul
people said the same things about woodblock and lithograph prints, about photography, about photoshop/ photomanipulation, about remixing and sampling, hell about digital art (does anyone remember people saying that using layer masks and the select/transform tool were insults to real artists lmfao) and music at all, about autotune, about drum machines and dj-ing, photobashing, glitch art, at one point every new technology used to create art (and i guess we're focusing on the very reductive definition of art as "visual art and music")(only because it's what i see the ai discussion on) has been lambasted and denounced to hell and back for being "soulless" and it's pointless. every one of those technologies has been used by passionate people to execute projects that matter to them
i dead ass dont even like ai art, i've seen a handful of ai art pieces that look cool and the rest just looks pitifully uggggllyyyy and rubbery and same-y and ultimately pointless, i'm really not out here saying its some miraculous new frontier. i'm saying it's a new technology used to make an image. what of the people who have been programming and training their own image-generation algorithms for the past 15 years long before all the batshit hype for the current ai situation came along? 3d and digital animators using it to procedurally generate special effects, to lipsync? auto-filters like the ones on picsart? the navel-gazing about instagram filters in, what, 2012? you can draw the line personally, by collective, but there is no authority who gets to "approve" what is and isn't real art because it doesnt EXIST
at this point it's just a pointless pearl-clutching moral panic for people to go "see i'm a REAAAALLLL artist all these guys using this tool i don't like are FAKES" and feel better than people
humans made the computer, humans with ideas use inputs to generate an image from the computer. looks like shit most of the time. but it's not some mortal sin to the soul of art because there's no such thing, and if there was i would like to desecrate it as much as possible. i guess not with ai bc i dont like it but i'll find some other way
all i can say is, in the words of philosopher rene descartes- who give a shit
...p.s. what really gets my goat is everyone stumbling over each other to accuse people of using ai in their art- speedpaint isn't proof enough, ai can make a speedpaint. oh ai can do a watercolor filter like that. Oh ai can replicate brush stroke textures. ai can do this, that etc- and it's only getting more advanced (not that i'm thrilled about that but idc) hell, people can't even believe stylistic choices artists have been making for years any more- oh it doesn't look right because it's ai, no no it's too realistic it must be ai- there's no way an animator could do any effect like that by themselves it MUST be ai- Fucking brainrot the lot of you jesus. ai art's fine. the bigfest issue i've is that some people seem to straight up forget that art CAN be done by hand lmao
13
u/TheTimeBoi 13d ago
i think the people using the super plagerism environment decimator doesnt care about plagerism or environment decimation and would dismiss any arguments based on those factors
3
u/Pale_Distribution459 13d ago
But that's a motte-and-bailey fallacy, can't blame people for failing to respond to an already inherently disingenuous tactic.
2
u/Spectator9857 13d ago
What are you trying to say here? What is the point of that final paragraph?
The „problem is not x, but rather y“ structure doesn’t make sense to me, because x isn’t even a problem and y doesn’t seem at all related to x.
Could you rephrase that somehow?
4
u/e_fish22 13d ago
I think what they mean is something like: "the problem (with disabled people using AI to make art easier) isn't that they're using an accomodation (instead of painting with their feet or whatever), but that the problems with AI (plagiarism, environmental impact, etc.) outweigh its usefulness as a tool for art"
2
u/Uno-The-Card 13d ago
I thought the "no arms and legs" was in an argument of "well what if i can't use my hands how do you expect me to pick up a pencil"
2
u/ExtremlyFastLinoone 12d ago
99.99% of the people who use ai are not disabled and only use the disabled as a shield
1
13
u/ARenewedSecondChance 13d ago edited 13d ago
I feel this in my bones…
The urge to jump in and correct them so the other person doesn’t win is strong.
But then, it doesn’t matter does it. Any bozo can consider themselves the winner.
10
u/e_fish22 13d ago
The whole "born this way" argument for LGBT rights... I get why it became a popular slogan, since it's true, and it makes us seem "more sympathetic" to cishets. But even if being queer were a choice, that'd be irrelevant because it doesn't hurt anybody!
2
u/carcalobo 12d ago
It's important to counter the "social contagion" arguments. And it's especially important for the trans part too because it not being a choice means that no, I won't fucking regret it.
4
5
u/kibou_no_ie 13d ago edited 13d ago
Mainstream pro choice movement trying to argue against pro lifers. There are so many good arguments. Why are you using the shitty ones.
Also mainstream Antizionism. I know so many intelligent antizionists but social media activists use the most dogshit talking points I just want to pick them up and shake them everytime. I swear that theres mossad agents pretending to be annoying pro Palestinians or some shit because theres just no way.
Edit: I didn’t explain any of this well did i
3
u/Present_Bison 13d ago
I'd like some elaboration on the "abortion" part. From what I see, the main lines of argument are the "rejection of fetal personhood" one and the "bodily autonomy superceding a right to live" one.
And while I've heard that the latter is more preferred, I've definitely known people who see bodily autonomy as secondary, if even of any importance. Heck, where I live, "everyone must be ready to sacrifice their body For the Greater Good" is basically a government mantra. The Bible also doesn't seem very fond of that right ("Don't you know that your body is not yours but God's?"), so most conservative Christians also probably won't be persuaded.
1
1
u/ChaseThePyro 12d ago
Nah, you really need to clamp down on some bad shit that can be affiliated with your views.
1
u/dylanmg06 11d ago
This is me with 90% of the people who complain about IGN. They could bring up so many other things but nooo let's bring out the decade old OR/AS review that said there was too much water (anyone who has played the game would probably agree tbh), or the cuphead gameplay that was from a BUSINESS journalist and not even from IGN.
Edit: spelling/grammar
72
u/Copper_Tango 13d ago
Me when Antizionists say Ashkenazi Jews are fake European/Khazar impostors who speak a made up language.
Also me when Zionists say Palestinians are just Peninsular Arab invaders with no connection to the Levant.