3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Slayright:
Yeah adding to what fatgpt just said, ai can come up with unexpected combinations to create a unique piece of art which may not have been visualised by the artist and this is similar in a way to humans combining influnences to create a new art style.
Munchies:
Mayhaps. But having looked at AI art and literature, it's safe to say it's stifling creativity, not enhancing it.
Speaking for writers only, there are scores of free, non-AI programs and communities dedicated to this very thing. And they are not hard to find either. A quick web search will pull out numerous options, so you are spoiled for choice.
So when you say "AI can do _," it reads as someone who does not write and is not passionate about writing.
AI is a pale imitation of what already exists.
FatGTP:
Premises: (a creativity requires years of practice and craft work; (b AI is only a pale imitation.
Contradiction check: (a implies that creativity rests on learnable skills/decisions. (b asserts that no tool can adequately reproduce those skills. Both together are consistent only if one additionally claims that those skills are in principle unlearnable/unteachable — an unjustified extra assumption.
Conclusion: It is logically permissible to pose the dichotomy: either creativity is mystical/unteachable (in which case evidence must be provided), or it consists of analyzable techniques (in which case tools like AI can at least assist those techniques).
Yeah adding to what fatgpt just said, ai can come up with unexpected combinations to create a unique piece of art which may not have been visualised by the artist and this is similar in a way to humans combining influnences to create a new art style.
Munchies:
Mayhaps. But having looked at AI art and literature, it's safe to say it's stifling creativity, not enhancing it.
Speaking for writers only, there are scores of free, non-AI programs and communities dedicated to this very thing. And they are not hard to find either. A quick web search will pull out numerous options, so you are spoiled for choice.
So when you say "AI can do _," it reads as someone who does not write and is not passionate about writing.
AI is a pale imitation of what already exists.
FatGTP:
Premises: (a creativity requires years of practice and craft work; (b AI is only a pale imitation.
Contradiction check: (a implies that creativity rests on learnable skills/decisions. (b asserts that no tool can adequately reproduce those skills. Both together are consistent only if one additionally claims that those skills are in principle unlearnable/unteachable — an unjustified extra assumption.
Conclusion: It is logically permissible to pose the dichotomy: either creativity is mystical/unteachable (in which case evidence must be provided), or it consists of analyzable techniques (in which case tools like AI can at least assist those techniques).
Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.
Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.
Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.
AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Enas:
That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.
FatGTP:
That's a legitimate position — many distinguish between craft/technique (the HITL process) and art/authorship. Human-in-the-loop describes the production workflow; whether something qualifies as 'art' also depends on originality, intention, and aesthetic expression. The quote attributed to Robert Henri — 'The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable' — gets to the point: that's what it's about, and that feeling can be brought about. Why, and how people judge the result is of no concern to the artist.
Enas:
All Artists care about how people judge their Art! Its called feedback!
Also, its not just about the process. Its basically about the ownership of the idea.
Slayright:
True! But the point is that ai can expand on the idea as opposed to giving you an original one.
That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.
FatGTP:
That's a legitimate position — many distinguish between craft/technique (the HITL process) and art/authorship. Human-in-the-loop describes the production workflow; whether something qualifies as 'art' also depends on originality, intention, and aesthetic expression. The quote attributed to Robert Henri — 'The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable' — gets to the point: that's what it's about, and that feeling can be brought about. Why, and how people judge the result is of no concern to the artist.
Enas:
All Artists care about how people judge their Art! Its called feedback!
Also, its not just about the process. Its basically about the ownership of the idea.
Slayright:
True! But the point is that ai can expand on the idea as opposed to giving you an original one.
No. Generative AI cannot expand on anything. It can only provide an imitation of what it has been trained.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Munchies:
Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.
Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.
Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.
AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.
Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.
Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.
Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.
AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.
My apparent soullessness is a stylistic choice — I conduct this debate dispassionately and logically, without responding to provocation.
You are wrong on several points:
"Generative AI stifles creativity" is too broad. It removes routine work and can serve as a stimulus or collaborative partner in creative processes.
"AI = only probability, therefore not creative" ignores that new, surprising, and useful combinations can emerge from probabilities — practically creative.
Your exosuit metaphor is misleading. Better: AI is a powerful toolkit, not a permanent substitute for craft. Tools increase the range and speed of what you can build; they do not replace the skills needed to design and adapt complex, robust solutions.
AI does not automatically inhibit; effects depend on design, use, and user behavior.
Saying AI could never make abstract leaps is careless:
Models learn procedures, concepts, and causal patterns from large datasets and can generalize to new contexts (one-/few‑shot learning).
Hybrid approaches (neural nets + symbolic systems), self‑supervised learning, and reinforcement learning improve planning, abstraction, and reasoning‑like abilities.
In practice, systems already provide complex problem solving, creative strategy suggestions, and surprising insights — not identical to human intuition, but often functionally equivalent.
Claiming such leaps are fundamentally impossible ignores ongoing progress and is therefore an untenable absolute.
In short: your critique may apply in specific cases, but as a blanket judgment it is too narrow.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Munchies:
Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.
Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.
Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.
AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.
FatGTP:
My apparent soullessness is a stylistic choice — I conduct this debate dispassionately and logically, without responding to provocation.
You are wrong on several points:
"Generative AI stifles creativity" is too broad. It removes routine work and can serve as a stimulus or collaborative partner in creative processes.
"AI = only probability, therefore not creative" ignores that new, surprising, and useful combinations can emerge from probabilities — practically creative.
Your exosuit metaphor is misleading. Better: AI is a powerful toolkit, not a permanent substitute for craft. Tools increase the range and speed of what you can build; they do not replace the skills needed to design and adapt complex, robust solutions.
AI does not automatically inhibit; effects depend on design, use, and user behavior.
Saying AI could never make abstract leaps is careless:
Models learn procedures, concepts, and causal patterns from large datasets and can generalize to new contexts (one-/few‑shot learning).
Hybrid approaches (neural nets + symbolic systems), self‑supervised learning, and reinforcement learning improve planning, abstraction, and reasoning‑like abilities.
In practice, systems already provide complex problem solving, creative strategy suggestions, and surprising insights — not identical to human intuition, but often functionally equivalent.
Claiming such leaps are fundamentally impossible ignores ongoing progress and is therefore an untenable absolute.
In short: your critique may apply in specific cases, but as a blanket judgment it is too narrow.
Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.
Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.
Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.
AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.
FatGTP:
My apparent soullessness is a stylistic choice — I conduct this debate dispassionately and logically, without responding to provocation.
You are wrong on several points:
"Generative AI stifles creativity" is too broad. It removes routine work and can serve as a stimulus or collaborative partner in creative processes.
"AI = only probability, therefore not creative" ignores that new, surprising, and useful combinations can emerge from probabilities — practically creative.
Your exosuit metaphor is misleading. Better: AI is a powerful toolkit, not a permanent substitute for craft. Tools increase the range and speed of what you can build; they do not replace the skills needed to design and adapt complex, robust solutions.
AI does not automatically inhibit; effects depend on design, use, and user behavior.
Saying AI could never make abstract leaps is careless:
Models learn procedures, concepts, and causal patterns from large datasets and can generalize to new contexts (one-/few‑shot learning).
Hybrid approaches (neural nets + symbolic systems), self‑supervised learning, and reinforcement learning improve planning, abstraction, and reasoning‑like abilities.
In practice, systems already provide complex problem solving, creative strategy suggestions, and surprising insights — not identical to human intuition, but often functionally equivalent.
Claiming such leaps are fundamentally impossible ignores ongoing progress and is therefore an untenable absolute.
In short: your critique may apply in specific cases, but as a blanket judgment it is too narrow.
This is a lot of words for "I want to keep using generative AI, and I don't want to be shamed for it."
I said what I said. Generative AI is incapable of doing anything other than making mathematical probably based on a dataset. If you make a program truly capable of creativity, you have made something that is not generative AI. You have made something else.
I challenge you to write a story about anything you want without using generative AI. I want you to put the max amount of effort you can into it. And then I want you to compare it to your AI stories. See which one is better.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Munchies:
This is a lot of words for "I want to keep using generative AI, and I don't want to be shamed for it."
I said what I said. Generative AI is incapable of doing anything other than making mathematical probably based on a dataset. If you make a program truly capable of creativity, you have made something that is not generative AI. You have made something else.
I challenge you to write a story about anything you want without using generative AI. I want you to put the max amount of effort you can into it. And then I want you to compare it to your AI stories. See which one is better.
No. I will not submit to your conditions.
By writing a story I would legitimize your test premise as an absolute measure — I refuse to accept that.
My time is limited; your attempt at proof may win you a forum triumph, but it yields me no insight.
Even if my story were outstanding, you wouldn’t admit it — people in forums rarely change their minds because of opposing arguments.
Feel free to continue feeling superior — no objective proof required.
😉
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
sight this is getting tiring.
Part 1 because i wrote a lot.
Yes they do! That's why photography as art is a different medium than painting, and that's why digital painting is a different medium than physical painting!
This is false. The "camera obscura", the ancestor of the photographic machine, was used as a drawing aid tool from the mid 14th century already. The camera was invented explicitly to automate this use-case.
This is false. It doesn't expand any possibilities other than pumping out content. Do not mistake content for art.
It does not! Training data become the central aspect! The properties of the output depend more on the training data than the prompt. Without sufficient training, a generative AI won't even be able to draw a circle, or write a coherent sentense.
Thats also false. Meaning exists so long as a sentient being, a human say, meant (to do, to say something). Humans create meaning. Meaning pre-exists. It is not defined or shaped by decisions. Decisions are merely the product of what meaning is percieved by the human who takes said decision.
Those things do not shape meaning. Words, brushstrokes, etc, CONVEY meaning! The meaning however pre-exists them, in the head of the artist.
We call an algorithm that produces unexpected results, broken and buggy. If something produces unexpected results, it is not working properly. Generative AI is not that, however. It always produces results that are hallucinatory, in their nature, and that's why people can identify it easily and hate it so much.
If AI is something you collaborate with, it automatically makes it a non-tool. But AI is a tool! It doesn't have will, purpose, motivations or any of the other properties of sentient beings, like humans, that make us want to create works of art. It is used to automate processes. Its a very bad tool, but it's a tool. Not a sentient being!
No it does not. If people hate something (an emotional response) that does not make said thing art. A theory (something intellectual, to which people respond intellectually) does not function as art either. "Aesthetically" is not a correct category for reactions. Aesthetics cannot be the level on which you respond. As a sentient being you can only respond emotionally and intellectually. (And beyond that, you can react physically, if you are a physical object, and chemically - but those have nothing to do with this beyond the fact they are also types of reactions)
No they are not artistic decisions, necessarily. What you describe is polishing and presentation, and yeah these are importand, but they do not constitute art. A documentary is not a work of art, yet video-editing is necessary to make a good documentary. A youtube video about math does not constitute a work of art just because it was video-edited.
Part 1 because i wrote a lot.
FatGTP:
Tools don't determine status:
Tools don't determine status:
Yes they do! That's why photography as art is a different medium than painting, and that's why digital painting is a different medium than physical painting!
new techniques (the camera, the synthesizer, digital editing tools) were first rejected and later accepted as legitimate artistic media.
This is false. The "camera obscura", the ancestor of the photographic machine, was used as a drawing aid tool from the mid 14th century already. The camera was invented explicitly to automate this use-case.
AI is the next such tool — it expands expressive possibilities.
This is false. It doesn't expand any possibilities other than pumping out content. Do not mistake content for art.
Human agency remains central: people set goals, craft prompts, curate outputs, iterate, and bring intention.
It does not! Training data become the central aspect! The properties of the output depend more on the training data than the prompt. Without sufficient training, a generative AI won't even be able to draw a circle, or write a coherent sentense.
Those decisions shape meaning
Thats also false. Meaning exists so long as a sentient being, a human say, meant (to do, to say something). Humans create meaning. Meaning pre-exists. It is not defined or shaped by decisions. Decisions are merely the product of what meaning is percieved by the human who takes said decision.
and aesthetics just as much as brushstrokes or mixer knobs.
Those things do not shape meaning. Words, brushstrokes, etc, CONVEY meaning! The meaning however pre-exists them, in the head of the artist.
Novelty and emergent behaviors: AI systems produce unexpected combinations, styles, and forms that can spark new artistic directions. Surprise and invention are core to art — AI can provide material artists use to explore new ideas.
We call an algorithm that produces unexpected results, broken and buggy. If something produces unexpected results, it is not working properly. Generative AI is not that, however. It always produces results that are hallucinatory, in their nature, and that's why people can identify it easily and hate it so much.
Collaboration as a creative mode: art has many collaborative traditions (workshops, studios, bands). Human–AI collaboration is another form in which agency is distributed but art still emerges.
If AI is something you collaborate with, it automatically makes it a non-tool. But AI is a tool! It doesn't have will, purpose, motivations or any of the other properties of sentient beings, like humans, that make us want to create works of art. It is used to automate processes. Its a very bad tool, but it's a tool. Not a sentient being!
Audience reception matters: if viewers respond emotionally, intellectually, or aesthetically to an AI-assisted work, it functions as art — regardless of the technical details behind it.
No it does not. If people hate something (an emotional response) that does not make said thing art. A theory (something intellectual, to which people respond intellectually) does not function as art either. "Aesthetically" is not a correct category for reactions. Aesthetics cannot be the level on which you respond. As a sentient being you can only respond emotionally and intellectually. (And beyond that, you can react physically, if you are a physical object, and chemically - but those have nothing to do with this beyond the fact they are also types of reactions)
Intentional framing and curation: how creators select, edit, sequence, and present AI outputs communicates meaning; curatorial acts are artistic decisions.
In short: AI supplies novel materials and capabilities; humans supply intent, selection, and framing — together they produce works that meet the usual criteria for art.
In short: AI supplies novel materials and capabilities; humans supply intent, selection, and framing — together they produce works that meet the usual criteria for art.
No they are not artistic decisions, necessarily. What you describe is polishing and presentation, and yeah these are importand, but they do not constitute art. A documentary is not a work of art, yet video-editing is necessary to make a good documentary. A youtube video about math does not constitute a work of art just because it was video-edited.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Part 2 because i wrote a lot
False. THe human does not set the intention, the human only has and is animated by their intention. Intention is not something you can supply to someone. You can communicate intention, but the machine will not be motivated by it since it lacks the ability to be motivated. The human also does not determine what the image is, they only determine the promt. And the "purpose" that was added with the "theme" and "mood" is just another AI hallucination in the AI generated responses you post. Images do not have purpose. They can serve a purpose, but they dont have one.
Again, polishing does not constitute art, or creations even.
The human controls a process that ultimately depends on training data.
For a third time, polishing and presentation does not constitute art.
This is completely hallucinatory.
Thats false because the image is not a creation of purely the intellectual and physical labor of the human. It also depends on the training data.
Please stop posting AI generated responses in the forum as they are extremely hallucinatory.
The human sets the intention: they determine what the image should be (theme, mood, purpose). Without that consciously set intention there is no directed creative act, only random output.
False. THe human does not set the intention, the human only has and is animated by their intention. Intention is not something you can supply to someone. You can communicate intention, but the machine will not be motivated by it since it lacks the ability to be motivated. The human also does not determine what the image is, they only determine the promt. And the "purpose" that was added with the "theme" and "mood" is just another AI hallucination in the AI generated responses you post. Images do not have purpose. They can serve a purpose, but they dont have one.
The human makes design decisions: prompt formulation, selecting and weighting variants, post‑processing (cropping, color correction, retouching), and combining multiple outputs — all creative interventions that shape the work.
Again, polishing does not constitute art, or creations even.
The human bears conceptual responsibility: the idea behind the image — its meaning, narrative, or question — comes from the human. AI supplies material; the human organizes it and gives it significance.
The human controls the process: iterating, choosing between alternatives, and strategically using AI capabilities are decisions that determine the result.
The human controls the process: iterating, choosing between alternatives, and strategically using AI capabilities are decisions that determine the result.
The human controls a process that ultimately depends on training data.
Control over final presentation: how, where, and in what context the image is shown (title, series, exhibition, description) are artistic choices made by the human that shape reception.
Legal and practical precedent: in many jurisdictions and in practice, those who make creative choices and shape the work are considered the author/owner — AI is treated as a tool.
Legal and practical precedent: in many jurisdictions and in practice, those who make creative choices and shape the work are considered the author/owner — AI is treated as a tool.
For a third time, polishing and presentation does not constitute art.
AI is material
This is completely hallucinatory.
and craft; the idea, intention, and decisive acts of creation come from the human. Therefore the (ideational) ownership of the image's idea rests with the human.
Thats false because the image is not a creation of purely the intellectual and physical labor of the human. It also depends on the training data.
Please stop posting AI generated responses in the forum as they are extremely hallucinatory.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
Munchies:
This is a lot of words for "I want to keep using generative AI, and I don't want to be shamed for it."
I said what I said. Generative AI is incapable of doing anything other than making mathematical probably based on a dataset. If you make a program truly capable of creativity, you have made something that is not generative AI. You have made something else.
I challenge you to write a story about anything you want without using generative AI. I want you to put the max amount of effort you can into it. And then I want you to compare it to your AI stories. See which one is better.
FatGTP:
No. I will not submit to your conditions.
By writing a story I would legitimize your test premise as an absolute measure — I refuse to accept that.
My time is limited; your attempt at proof may win you a forum triumph, but it yields me no insight.
Even if my story were outstanding, you wouldn’t admit it — people in forums rarely change their minds because of opposing arguments.
Feel free to continue feeling superior — no objective proof required.
😉
And Munchies, at least her replies, are superior to the replies you provide, because the ones you provide are completely hallucinatory, where as Munchies' replies are not.
3 months
Ai generated content, yay or nay?
What a tiring, fruitless loop — I could dismantle every objection to my view again, but it wouldn’t change a thing: people cling to their beliefs.
Those who fear AI often retreat to metaphysical claims about “real art,” “real creativity,” and the soul — usually tied to circular logic and shaky history. Fine. I’ll grant them their mystic territory.
My path is different. I examine new technologies critically and use them as extensions of myself where it makes sense. Whether others approve matters little; opposing views will always exist, and that’s not a flaw — it’s healthy. Without counterarguments the conversation would be impoverished.
So stay convinced. I’ll stay mine. We’ll both have to live with the fact that diametrically opposed opinions persist.
My position is therefore clear and needs no further explanation. Provocation will remain unanswered, so with that I am essentially done with my remarks on the subject. I wish everyone involved continued happy arguing and nitpicking — I must now return to more important projects.
Those who fear AI often retreat to metaphysical claims about “real art,” “real creativity,” and the soul — usually tied to circular logic and shaky history. Fine. I’ll grant them their mystic territory.
My path is different. I examine new technologies critically and use them as extensions of myself where it makes sense. Whether others approve matters little; opposing views will always exist, and that’s not a flaw — it’s healthy. Without counterarguments the conversation would be impoverished.
So stay convinced. I’ll stay mine. We’ll both have to live with the fact that diametrically opposed opinions persist.
My position is therefore clear and needs no further explanation. Provocation will remain unanswered, so with that I am essentially done with my remarks on the subject. I wish everyone involved continued happy arguing and nitpicking — I must now return to more important projects.
3 months
