this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
706 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
9083 readers
1283 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I want to take it one step further.
And no, I don't care if there's good reason to believe that Tyrannosaurs weren't fluffy like owls, I still want a decent artist's depiction of a T. rex with owl-level fluff.
A giant murder sparrow would be horrifying as fuck, ngl.
Horrifying AND cuddly.
Anyone who thinks feathered dinosaurs are somehow less terrifying need to be locked in a room with a cassowary
Or just look at depictions of terrorbirds. They actually coexisted with early humans.
They still do if you're antipodean
Came for this, not disappointed
They might’ve really had feathers! It’s funny how Jurassic Park colors our perception
Artist's depiction =|= AI slop
≠
Neeeeerrd
May I marry you
I’llAllowIt.gif
Yay
I should warn you my wedding dress will have spiked shoulderpads with Warhammer style spikes
ill_allow_it.gif
!=
Get off your high horse
Why? They’re right. There wasn’t an artist involved in making that.
If you acknowledge that producing a fake image of an imagined idea is art, why is the neural net that produced this picture not an artist? What is your definition other than a thing that produces art?
How about comparing to the Campbell's soup can. Is that not art? And yet it's mass produced.
If your objection is to the quality, what specific aspect of this image vs the others in this thread, or in life, makes it low quality.
If typing a prompt into a plagiarism machine makes you an artist, why doesn’t paying a real human to make art for you also make you an artist?
If someone said they were the artist of something but it turns out they just paid someone else to do it, would you think they were a talentless jackass or an artist?
They weren't calling themselves artists, they were saying the AI/model is the artist.
Your comparison is a strawman.
Art is made by artists, who are human, and your argument is the fallacy fallacy.
The artist is the neural network
The plagiarism machine vomits out the visual equivalent of text prediction. It isn’t an artist any more than the text prediction on your phone is an author if you hit the next predicted word enough times, people are artists and authors. Image generation is at best a Xerox machine.
Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, it’s based on knowing the difference between a tool and a human being 👍
I know plenty of human beings who are tools
And why is that different from a human? Explain in physical, measurable terms.
Give we don't know how our own brains work, I don't think you can.
And if you cannot, you have to use the things that are measurable, which are external.
If I were asked by a person to draw me a fluffy trex, first thing I'm gonna do is go look at pictures of trex and pictures of other dinos with feathers, maybe some fluffy birds.
And then I'm gonna plagiarize, because art is theft.
Tdlr: get off your high horse
Bro, it’s not a person and it doesn’t think. This is embarrassing for you. This is like thinking there are little people in the TV.
Define think
I'm talking about the machine being the artist, reread my message.
Nvmd other guy got it
Feathered tyrannosaur of Asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus
Feathered tyrannosaur of North America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuqsaurus