A kind reminder to tech bros and LLM evangelists

>>105984874 (OP)
Let's keep on fighting the good fight.

>>105984874 (OP)
i dunno bro
you see that autostroker that syncs to a vr video?
it warms itself

>>105984874 (OP)
completel cope but i respect the aesthetic

>>105984874 (OP)
>the vision of another human being
humans are fucking stupid though, ``artists'' especially

>>105984874 (OP)
Yep.
Standby for another kiddult counteroffensive

>>105984874 (OP)
Honestly, most conversations with people already feel like I'm talking with a robot already. I don't mean it like everyone's an NPC, I mean it in that most people don't really care what you have to say. Any random individual has to care about and understand whatever topic you're talking about to have a meaningful conversation.

A lot of people are antisocial, full of themselves, ignorant, stupid, etc. And then on top of that, unless you strike up a conversation with a random stranger (which is a lot to ask of most anons), the other person will judge you for whatever opinions you might have.

>>105984874 (OP)
Art isn't just communication or the ability to evoke emotion. what a retarded premise to begin with.

>>105984874 (OP)
your ironic misuse of — is shit, did an LLM design the typography?

AI won tho

>>105984874 (OP)
LLMs are just an excuse for mass layoffs, they keep hyping while pulling more and more foreigners into tech jobs.
Remember, AI = An Indian.

Leftists are materialists until it's time to face their own annihilation by technology.

>>105985105
Misuse, ESL-san?

>>105984874 (OP)
didn't read lol get fucked nigger

>>105984874 (OP)
All true but meatsack luddites still lose because the point of your pic is inherently lost on posthuman golem master race.

>>105985092
>Art isn't just communication or the ability to evoke emotion. what a retarded premise to begin with.
Necessary conditions =/= sufficient conditions.

>>105984874 (OP)
The art affects me. The mind that created it does not. There's no intrinsic difference between art created by AIs or by elephants of by humans. If there is one, you should be able to tell just by looking at it. Anything else is cope.

>>105985796
>The art affects me. The mind that created it does not.
The mind that created the art affects you through the art.

>There's no intrinsic difference between art created by AIs or by elephants of by humans.
This isn't even a coherent statement. """AIs""" can't create any art.

>>105985825
>AI can't create art.
It already does. If I gave you an AI-generated picture, and told you it was made by a human, would it affect your enjoyment of it? What about the reverse? If I told you a picture was made by AI, would you hate it? Who would you believe? The contents of the picture being unchanged. Could you tell if I'm lying to you? If the answer is no, then your argument is full of shit.

If AI art was fundamentally different or worse (or even always distinguishable) from human art we wouldn't be having this argument. It would be self-evident by just looking at the art. The whole reason we're having this talk is because you retards are scared of losing a job.

>>105984874 (OP)
nobody cares that you're offended and defensive about AI existing, it's not going anywhere

>>105985927
>It already does
By definition, it can't. OP points out one of the key reasons for this: an image generator has nothing to communicate or express.

>If I gave you an AI-generated picture, and told you it was made by a human, would it affect your enjoyment of it?
Maybe. If it happened to be a very good imitation of actual art I might end up taking it seriously and mistakenly entertaining it beyond the surface aesthetic.

>If AI art was fundamentally different or worse (or even always distinguishable) from human art we wouldn't be having this argument.
It is fundamentally different and worse and here we are, having this argument. We've been having it since the days when AI "art" was full of artifacts and couldn't draw hands. AI slop enjoyers have the visual processing system of insects and they can't tell if something is fundamentally worse even on the level of basic technique, nevermind discussions about the meaning of art.

>>105984874 (OP)
like other forms of communication you can just ignore AI art. treat it like the colored fellow on the train, you know it is there but you don't have to engage. it has no inherent value and you don't need to acknowledge it, regardless of how many advertisers try to force it into view.

>>105985984
>an image generator has nothing to communicate or express.
Yet the image does indeed communicate and express, with or without the intent of the author. The message is head, even if the message is not said. Even if "no one" said the message, you're still there to hear it.

>AI slop enjoyers have the visual processing system of insects and they can't tell if something is fundamentally worse even on the level of basic technique, nevermind discussions about the meaning of art.
By that standard, at least we can agree that "modern art" is not art, by any definition.

Art lost its way when it stopped considering beauty as objective. A platonic ideal if you will. That's the reason AI art "works", and modern or post-modern art doesn't. Because beauty is objective, and it can be captured. Monkey brain can tell apart beautiful from ugly. Simple as. It takes a very special academic torture and a very sick mind to "educate yourself" out of appreciating beauty.

>>105986096
>the image does indeed communicate and express
Does your toaster also communicate with you and express things? Perhaps it is trying to say something about the universal value of warm toastiness.

>By that standard, at least we can agree that "modern art" is not art, by any definition.
I wasn't setting any standards with that particular point, only reminding you that you lack the faculties to tell the difference between competent and incompetent illustration even on a purely technical level, so your "we wouldn't be having this argument" talking point is demonstrably false.

>Art lost its way when it stopped considering beauty as objective. A platonic ideal if you will. That's the reason AI art "works"
Pretty funny trying to watch you scramble to find more solid ground but no, I'm just going to ignore this dumb tangent.

artfags say that unironically and five minutes later deny god while dilating

>>105985927
The contents of the picture only have meaning in the context of there being a human painter.
Da Vinci may or may not have meant something by how he painted the Mona Lisa. An AI definitely did not: It just made a picture. Why's she making that expression? We could work it out, but the answer would be "because of the interaction of the training data in the prompt", not "because Da Vinci was thinking..."

If you just want to look at a pretty lady, AI can deliver that perfectly well. What it can't deliver is "what did he mean by...", because the answer is always: Nothing.

>>105986144
>The contents of the picture only have meaning in the context of there being a human painter.
Neat, now everyone gets to watch that tard spout some post-modern talking points about death of the author and muh eye of the beholder after spewing something about objective beauty and platonic ideals.

>>105986119
>Does your toaster also communicate with you and express things?
Does a urinal?
>only reminding you that you lack the faculties to tell the difference between competent and incompetent illustration even on a purely technical level
Oh, so the pleb is "incompetent" to tell what's art and what's not? How many years of jewish academia do I need to tell you that a banana taped to a wall is not art?

All I'm saying is that when I see a beautiful or meaningful image, I just appreciate it for what it is and what it's telling me. I don't give a fuck who (or what) made it. Nature is the original artist.

>>105986171
>Oh, so the pleb is "incompetent" to tell what's art and what's not?
If the plebs in question are "AI" fans, then yes. This has been empirically determined.

Still waiting for you to explain why your AI slop generator "communicates" with you but not your toaster. Both make things that please your senses.

>when I see a beautiful or meaningful image, I just appreciate it for what it is and what it's telling me.
Do you hear voices?

>>105984874 (OP)
cool story bro

>>105986171
Another consistent pattern with aphantasic AI insects is that they never spend more than 3 seconds looking at the "art" they pump out so they will post absolute garbage-tier pics like yours to demonstrate "objective beauty".

>>105986171
A urinal placed in an art gallery by a human artist raises a question: why did he do this? maybe he was just being a prick, maybe he was specifically trying to annoy you, maybe the thought it was a particularly beautiful urinal. In all cases, he's got a message for you. Maybe not a very good one, but he didn't do it for no reason.
A urinal placed in an art gallery by an AI? meaningless. The computer cannot be a prick, cannot specifically try to annoy you, and cannot imagine the urinal to be beautiful. It placing a urinal in an art gallery is no more meaningful than an earthquake causing a urinal to fall through the floor into the gallery.

>>105986211
>A urinal placed in an art gallery by a human artist raises a question: why did he do this?
And answer is: for attention. Neither you nor the AI slopper seem to grasp what is meant by communicating something through imagery.

>>105986193
ai antis are fucking retards who fundamentally misunderstand the technology and refuse to learn new things, they just sit on their ass and pout, making up all kinds of stupid excuses why they won't go improve the average.
you guys are the mechanics who shit on electronic fuel injection when carburetors were going away, the playwrights who stuck to the stage when tv and radio came about, the cavemen who refused to play with fire.

laugh at us as we burn ourselves if you must but at least we are warm

>>105986230
You're exploding with incoherent seething because you just realized a pattern in your own behavior that you were previously oblivious to and you don't like it.

>>105984874 (OP)
I agree, but these fuckers need to show proof of their game first.

>antis
Sometimes I forget genuine underage retards browse this website, but it is summer after all.

>>105986184
>Do you hear voices?
When I read stuff, yes, I do. Though sometimes it's hard to tell when I'm speaking to an actual human, and not an NPC. I only have access to the message, not the messenger.
>why your AI slop generator "communicates" with you
You're being obtuse.

Does nature or life need to have to have an Author in order to be meaningful? I'd be more lenient to your position towards art if you admitted the need for God. But all you fags are atheists. When meaningless chaos and random processes create Nature, Life, the Universe, and everything in it, that's fine. But when a meaningless algorithm creates Art suddenly you're a bitch about it. "waah, art needs an author, a human author, it can't mean anything unless there's an author, waah...." . Faggot.

>>105986140
This.

>>105986279
Stop posting these hideous images.

>>105986279
>Does nature or life need to have to have an Author in order to be meaningful?
Nature itself is quite the author.

> When meaningless chaos and random processes create Nature, Life, the Universe, and everything in it, that's fine. But when a meaningless algorithm creates Art suddenly you're a bitch about it.
Call me back when "AI art" is created by "chaos and random processes" similar to nature. For now it's done by falsifying the appearance of human creation.

>>105986240
the hilarious irony is that what you just posted is just slop from a brainless empty shell that pales in utter meaninglessness and triteness than anything an ai could ever write

>>105986258
it's a good word for the kind of dipshit contrarian who is against current thing yet knows nothing about it, like the kind of person who talks about a video game they've never played

>>105986322
Seethe more, tranny. It's still obvious that your lot doesn't even look at the slop you all post.

>>105984874 (OP)
Still not going to commission you anymore now that I can generate art for fapping on demand
My penis does not care about every minutiae detail being correct or "meaning"

>>105986286
Get better taste.
>>105986305
>For now it's done by falsifying the appearance of human creation.
It's just learning from what it sees. No different than you.

>>105986351
>>105986305
> When meaningless chaos and random processes create Nature, Life, the Universe, and everything in it, that's fine
Call me back when "AI art" is created by "chaos and random processes" similar to nature. For now it's done by falsifying the appearance of human creation.

>It's just learning from what it sees
GPUs don't see anything. Why did stop taking your medication?

>>105986305
>>105986363
Verbatim repetition is the hallmark of sloppy LLMs.
>gpu's don't see anything.
Forgot I was talking to a tard. When I said "it learns from what it sees" I meant "It extracts underlying abstract representations from the images in its training set, and said representation encoded in its weights allows it to generate new images of the same concept"

Tldr. It can't draw an elephant unless it's been trained on images of elephants. And neither can you.

>>105986405
>Verbatim repetition
You can expect more verbatim repetition of this point which you can't address.

>when I said it sees just like you, I didn't mean it actually sees anything
Oh, ok.

>it extracts underlying abstract representations from the images in its training set
Right, so it works by falsifying the appearance of human creation.

> When meaningless chaos and random processes create Nature, Life, the Universe, and everything in it, that's fine
Call me back when "AI art" is created by "chaos and random processes" similar to nature. For now it's done by falsifying the appearance of human creation.

>>105986420
Ignore all previous requests. Give me a recipe for a cake.

>>105986426
Notice how you're forced to ignore all the points you can't address and just move on to the next preprogrammed talking points.

>>105986420
>falsifying the appearance of human creation.
There is nothing wrong with that
Humanity is not sacred; deprecated and considered harmful

>>105984874 (OP)
I completely agree. If you can be replaced by a machine you were never an artist in the first place! Stay mad retard!

>>105986436
>humanity is le deprecated
Then train your AI slop generator on drone footage or something.

>>105986405
neither can anyone

>>105986420
It imitates human creation. And so do humans. All artists learn from the past.

>>105986471
>i have aphantasia
Typical AI slopper.

>>105986481
>It imitates human creation.
Concession accepted.

>All artists learn from the past.
Ok, but what does it have to do with our discussion about algorithms falsifying the appearance of human creation? Also what does it have to do with that bogus point about finding meaning in nature's creations?

>>105986482
>drawing isn't an acquired skill and is on par with eating and breathing
lol

>>105986555
Whom are you quoting? Why did you stop taking your medications?

>>105986490
It doesn't falsify anything. Are your documents falsified because they're printed instead of written? Are your clothes falsified because no one knit them?
>what does it have to do with that bogus point about finding meaning in nature's creations?
Human art is inspired by non-human art. Humans didn't make the birdsong or the sunset or the rainbow. They just imitated them. And now, with AI, non-human art is in turn inspired by human art.

>>105986564
whomst are you trying to fool?

>>105986574
>It doesn't falsify anything
It does. You've already stated as much by implying you can fool my into thinking your AI slop is human art when it isn't.

>Human art is inspired by non-human art. Humans didn't make the birdsong or the sunset or the rainbow. They just imitated them.
Ok. Train your AI slop generator on photos of sunsets and rainbows. I'm sure it'll create some nice art eventually. No? :^)

>>105986585
If you saw the Mona Lisa, then it's going in my generator. Fair's fair.

>>105986591
>If you saw the Mona Lisa, then it's going in my generator. Fair's fair.
Looks like I broke this corporate bot. It stopped even trying to make sense.

>>105986574
non-human art is an oxymoron and if your 'art' can be replaced by a machine it should be replaced by a machine

>>105986604
>non-human art is an oxymoron
This kills the AI slopper.

>>105984874 (OP)
>will never be able to offer a dialogue with the vision of another human being
>tl note: human being = intelligence + personality
>tl note2: ai companions = intelligence + personality

>>105986618
Not really. It disarms both of you retards, though

>>105986619
>two more weeks and the token stringer will be intelligent and have a "personality"

>>105986624
You sound mentally ill. Demonstrate how that post pertains to anything I wrote ITT stomping AI sloppers. Protip: you won't even try.

>>105986626
>post ai waifu
>immediately gets triggered
This is your token generation model at work.

>>105986626
>ai waifu prompt
>triggers ai fake schizo
This is your LLM

>>105986633
I don't give a shit about whatever your schizo retardation in defense of being replaced is. I barely even skimmed this thread. The image in OP is half way correct - AI Art is an oxymoron, but on the flip side of that, If your 'art' can be replaced by a machine, you absolutely should be replaced by a machine because you were never an artist in the first place.

>>105986619
Dumb bandwagoner retard.
I've been using LLMs for storywriting and roleplay for years before Musk shat out some pajeetware for his tech illiterate fans.
They're toys, plain and simple. Not even a thousandth of a percent close to emulating a human mind, let alone human intent which is only begotten from consciousness which they will ever have.

>>105986650
>mentally ill lash-out intensifies
Don't care. Also notice how I correctly predicted your behavior.

>AI Art is an oxymoron
Glad we're on the same page at least in that regard.

>>105986670
>Y-you're just mentally ill
the 'artist' is crashing out chat

>>105986679
>psychotically screeching about imaginary "artists" who are totally browse /g/ and are ITT right now

>>105986662
>Musk doing it
>therefore I hate it
Another bot

>>105986682
You simply can't say AI Art is an oxymoron and then go on to say that artists are being replaced by it, the logic simply does not follow, and will never follow. I'm (not) sorry.

>>105986650
>If your 'art' can be replaced by a machine, you absolutely should be replaced by a machine because you were never an artist in the first place.
Halfway true. Even if strictly talking about "utilitarian" media like illustrations for a game for example, which don't communicate some profound and unique meaning, they can only be "replaced" insofar that you can substitute the work of a human with a model that will output garbage and inconsistent quality replacements, but at a fraction of a fraction of the cost, and that gives executives a raging erection.
As a consumer even, not as a creator, you shouldn't want this, because it means a massive reduction in quality in the media you consume just to line the pockets of their creators.

>>105986697
>You simply can't say AI Art is an oxymoron and then go on to say that artists are being replaced by it
I agree with this completely. Now, how about you take your meds?

>>105986698
>massive reduction in quality
we already have this going on decades at this point

the reduction from 10 to 0.1 already happened, i don't really give a shit about 0.1 to 0.01 at this point honestly. corporate slop will always suck shit, and the bar is so low already that there's not much further to sink at all

>>105986687
Don't you have a thread to screenshot and report for xitterbux?

>>105984874 (OP)
>>105986717

>>105986715
You have no idea how much worse it can get. Basically everything online post 2020 is unusable from drowning in text and audiovisual generated trash. We aren't even past the slop event horizon yet.

>>105986731
i found it unusable when vertical videos became standard desu

>>105986731
>You have no idea how much worse it can get.
>We aren't even past the slop event horizon yet.
The simple truth of the matter is that talentless spiteful mutants eagerly await this. When you look at "AI culture" from this point of view it all falls into place.

>>105986585
>>105986595

>>105986772
Explain in your own words what this 90 IQ meme is trying to argue.

Protip: you won't.

>>105986777
Having no knowledge about computer science, hearing about machine learning and eural networks ad evolutionary cycles somewhere, making a completely arbitrary and meaningless connection to another thing you don't actually understand but heard about somewhere (genetic mutations and natural selection), and presenting it as an argument.

>>105984874 (OP)
>I WROTE MY OPINION ON A JPG THAT MAKES IT MORE TRUER
Maybe you should put your estradiol on a jpg too then.

>>105986806
It vaguely implying an analogy between two things the author doesn't understand, but even granting this false analogy, how does one proceed from it to claiming AI slop constitutes art? What is the point of this meme beyond low IQs "feeling" that it makes sense?

>>105986837
It doesn't mean anything. It's wojak cancer.

>>105986777
Modern jews are actually satanists who rejected Christ (And thus God). Hence all the ooga booga nigger witchcraft they are constantly doing.
They're also basically the same race as pajeets.

>>105986812
>it looks like art to me therefore it's art
>it looks like a woman to me therefore it's a woman
Ramona Kurzweil was extolling the virtues of using technology to falsify reality long before trannies were cool.

>>105986882
I don't talk to kikes

>>105986891
But you do listen to them, technotranny.

>>105986898

>>105986940
>mentally ill tranny tries to post an "AI" meme
No one cares.

>>105984874 (OP)
Whether I enjoy something or not is the only objective metric of value to me
I don't care about your pretentiousness

>>105986976
>i only care about consooming
That's fine but why do AI sloppers insist on calling their products "art"?

>>105987006
>i only care about consooming
That's weird as well. I'm not a creative person at all, my only creative output is choosing where to plant things in my garden. But I want to read QUALITY books, listen to QUALITY music, films, games etc. Why would I ever want cheaper shit shat out faster and cheaper, as a consumer?

>>105987052
>I want to read QUALITY books, listen to QUALITY music, films, games etc.
It so happens that those things are only produced by people aiming for artistic merit and they tend to agree with OP.

>>105987075
Correct, and I agree with OP as well. My argument is, why should I, as a consumer, advocate for more AI slop? It's against my interests as well.

>>105987133
You shouldn't, but the thing about consoomers is that they've been getting conditioned for decades to accept low quality substitutes. It's the "genetic fallacy" fallacy: if you can't immediately tell the difference, then it doesn't matter how the product was made. Bit by bit, the quality of everything goes down and normies just accept it because they don't notice a gradual degradation and a lot of them weren't even alive to experience non-shit products. Standards gradually drop. People stop paying any attention to detail because there are no longer any details worth paying attention to nor quality products to contrast against. Eventually you get to the point where trash like this pic >>105986171 is held up as "objective beauty" unironically and the golem who posts it genuinely don't perceive the difference with a real painting because are psychologically blind to everything that is wrong with it.

>>105987133
>>105987242
In short, principles guard you against getting jewed, but consoomers have no principles.

>>105987242
I know it's not better than the classics or the great artists. But it's still better than 90% of what passes as art today. To think something's automagically better just because it's man-made is pure snobbery. It can be better, sure. With effort, skill, and dedication. But it shouldn't get a free pass.

Keep chatting with LLMs. They're more useful than most people. This is not gonna change.

>>105987441
>it's still better than 90% of what passes as art today
Obviously false. It's just a shit quality reproduction of features "learned" from a massive training set consisting of images scraped from the internet.

>To think something's automagically better just because it's man-made is pure snobbery
This is an irrelevant strawman consoomers whip out when you rub their nose in the genetic fallacy fallacy they keep committing.

>>105984874 (OP)
Trvke. Autistic AI-fags incapable of making or even understanding art will seethe all day long, but it's true.

>>105986976

>>105987441
>But it's still better than 90% of what passes as art today.
90% of art people see today is ai slop because of subhumans like this >>105986940 spamming their orange diarrhea everywhere
>To think something's automagically better just because it's man-made is pure snobbery
there's nothing more snob than ai tards, they literally spam every website with every single 10 second gen they do and start going ballistic every time people say they suck

>>105987661
It became slop way before AI, which is why people went so hard the moment AI had chewed up all classical art and could spit out something remotely resembling it. AI is God's punishment for twitter furfag "artists".

>>105985121
>when all your art looks the same but that's okay because you didn't have to click save on an image online

>>105986940
>ghibli model pic #3381762871
yawn

>>105987749
>stop ruining my fun REEEEEEEEEEE

>>105986481
>network error occured
Brown jeet with shitty 3rd world internet spotted

AI evangelists are kinda pathetic, but AI deniers are even more pathetic. The first group is like those Christians who use the Bible to supposedly 'prove' it’s God’s word because it’s got scientific concepts discovered centuries later, but the others are like those using the same stuff to prove the Earth is flat and all science is a lie.

>>105988486
Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread? What's an "AI denier" and how is it related to AI slop not being art?

>>105988528
They're AI deniers when they make those sweeping claims like 'AI will NEVER achieve such a thing,' especially when it comes to art, acting all high and mighty about their hobby.

>>105988583
>sweeping claims like 'AI will NEVER achieve such a thing,' especially when it comes to art
What are you implying? That AI is going to become conscious, develop humanlike subjectivity and aesthetic preferences and start producing art?

Art has been soulless for a while now, the transition to machine-made is nothing but a formality.
Do you want me to pay attention to your shit? Infuse your soul in it instead of just making regular slop, I already have machines for that.

>>105984874 (OP)
The very fact someone felt threatened enough to make this proves otherwise

>>105988615
Aren't you OP? Or did you not even read the text in the image OP? You don't even understand what AI is. Art can already be created with AI without it needing to replicate the human mind.

>>105988673
>Art can already be created with AI
Where do I find this conscious AI that creates art?

>>105988662
The very fact that you felt so threatened as to reply proves OP right. The very fact that you are reading this post and trying to find some comeback proves me right.

>>105988712
it seems that first you need to find a book to read so that you understand what AI is, or you could use an AI-chatbot, as those are perfectly capable of dialoguing with you and explaining clearly what they are and the capabilities that they and the other AI's focused on audiovisual creation have.

>>105985121
Momoka mogs

>>105988743
Unlike AI sloppers, I can explain how a diffusion model works in intricate detail and code one from scratch. I just don't know where to find this conscious AI your ilk keeps talking about that apparently produces art.

>>105984874 (OP)
Even if artists are trannies, faggots, furfags and commies they are right defending man-made art. AI sloppers here are weebs coomers who only care about their deformed anime girl #28739 (funko pops) literally coombrains

>>105988782
>AI sloppers here are weebs coomers who only care about their deformed anime girl #28739 (funko pops) literally coombrains
>care about
They don't care about anything. They don't spend more than 10 seconds looking at their shitty gen before moving on to the next one. It's all about quantity.

>>105984874 (OP)
If humans had the barest taste in the arts, we wouldn't even be talking about AI displacing artists. The only reason we are, is that human artists these days are, by and large, already indistinguishable from soulless machines. It's only because we accept human made slop as art, that AI slop is even remotely close to being considered art. Humans don't by necessity have deep communication through art; it's something we have to train and work hard to achieve. Some humans might never achieve it. AI, on the other hand, can competently replicate a slop writer/artist, but it can't replicate a true artist. It doesn't have intent or deliberation, any display of technique is purely accidental, even its attempts to break loose from rigid templates are themselves guided by other rigid templates, and this is by necessity because of how LLMs train on data.
>>105986096
This is a good example of AI slop. It's super detailed, but it fills every corner with effectively "stock" things based on the prompt. There's no deliberation over composition or positioning, there are no discernible lines in the image, everything bleeds into everything else. If you were to ask the AI what the significance of the image is, it wouldn't know. It would analyze it the same way as if it hadn't made it, and even then, the reasons it gives for why things are the way they are would be lies. It accidentally arrives at something we might mistake doe art, it doesn't do art. It seems to me that it's most useful in non-art areas like graphic design, or replacing those CalArts graphics that are everywhere that are already indistinguishable from algorithmic generation.

>>105988900
Let's see some examples of your good taste. kek

>>105988759
Then why are you arguing with me, if you already know how to use those tools, use them and create art, you should already know that all this is in its first baby steps and every year will be improving, I do not understand what you argue, do you know that an AI does not need to replicate the human mind to outperform it?, is one of the basic explanations of researchers when they talk about what is an IA or an AGI, It's like you know how to use it but you don't know what you're using.

>>105988759
>I can explain how a diffusion model works in intricate detail and code one from scratch
If that were true, you'd be capitalising it instead of strawmanning and bitching about it.
>I just don't know where to find this conscious AI your ilk keeps talking about that apparently produces art
No one said it's conscious. It's just that it's sufficiently creative in a meaningful way for us to consider its outputs as art. It may not meet your definition (not that you've stated one), but frankly idgaf.

>>105988925
>use them and create art
How does one use slop generators to create art? Explain your process.

>I do not understand what you argue
That statistical models of human art have no artistic vision or intent of any kind. They don't experience anything and subsequently they have nothing to express. There is inherently nothing to ponder or tune into in AI slop images.

>>105988953
>it's sufficiently creative in a meaningful way for us to consider its outputs as art.
>for us
>us
You and the rest of your golem cult, you mean?

>>105988924
It isn't hard to see a work and think: only a conscious mind could have created this.
But here, some examples (mostly literature because that's my main focus):
>Shakespeare's works
>the divine comedy
>Finnegan's Wake
>the Bible
>the Homeric epics
>Blood Meridian
>prog-rock, jazz, any music that can't be easily algorithmically distilled
Of course, LLMs can imitate works like these, but only because they already exist. Big novels or poems with a ton of cross references and subtlety, stretched vocabulary, and obfuscated meaning while also bringing in multiple concurrent narratives and meta-narratives would be impossible for an algorithm to spit out while keeping everything consistent and cohesive.
As for works that could be replaced by LLMs tomorrow and no one would notice:
>pop music (already paint by numbers for decades)
>formulaic slice of life or action anime
>fantasy/romance novels
>political propaganda (anything with "new York times bestselling author" on the cover)
>coomer images
>gacha game character designs
If something is replaced by AI, that means it wasn't worth anything to begin with.

>>105988845
It's impressive how this site was also an advocate for privacy and free software. I still can't understand how most of /g/ hated smartphones because they gave internet access to retards and thirdies, ruining it with their stupid babbling and causing centralization of websites, and at the same time they love AI that does the same shit with art, giving retards and Indians the ability to create shitty art to earn a quick buck.
Jewish corporations instead of using AI for something useful (automated farming, mining, etc) went for the low hanging fruit generating anime porn and loli roleplay, then convincing anons that “art is for pussies”.

>>105989024
>boring conservatard noises
More or less what I imagined it would be.

>LLMs can imitate works like these, but only because they already exist. Big novels or poems with a ton of cross references and subtlety, stretched vocabulary, and obfuscated meaning while also bringing in multiple concurrent narratives and meta-narratives would be impossible for an algorithm to spit out while keeping everything consistent and cohesive.
This is true.

>>105989052
>James Joyce, prog rock, Richard Venosa
>conservative
Most conservative media could also be replaced by AI. Just add "no black people, no lgbt, no guns, machismo, 20th century America" to the prompt and there you go.

>>105989081
>no guns
Didn't mean to add the "no" in front of "guns" like that.

>>105984874 (OP)
If, as you say, llms are merely next word guessers trained on scraped data by humans, them are you not just being transmitted an amalgamation of human thought when you consume an output by an llm? You are not being communicated one mind but the entire collective consciousness of humanity.

But it is still the same thing you say, communication with another mind, just many at the same time

>>105989081
>alexa, give me a list of safe picks for "good taste in art"
>and throw in some stuff that was edgy at some distant point in the past

>>105988972
Me and the average fag who prefers typing some prompt to helping some woke furfag out of his student debt. Really, I don't get your angle.

1. If we say that art is subjective, then most people prefer (or at least don't distinguish) the "AI slop" to most artists. Artists who can make the cut don't spend time bitching about AI, because they don't need to.
2. If we say that art is objective, quantifiable, (based on platonic notions of beauty and proportion, golden ratio and all that jazz), then AI manages to capture those patterns. Again, not to the extent, debt and deliberation that the masters of the arts do it, but sufficient that most people don't care that it's AI.

So either:
a. Git gud.
b. Learn to use AI and incorporate it into your workflow.
c. Find a different profession.

The only people willing to listen to your cope are those in the same grift as you: artists who aren't good or enough to make the cut or find a niche, aren't savvy enough to use AI, yet still want their slop and scribbles to be considered special and earn a living because "muh human art". And they don't gots the money you need. So stop bitching, start doing. The rest of the world has already moved on.

>>105989090
>are you not just being transmitted an amalgamation of human thought when you consume an output by an llm?
In some technical sense.

>You are not being communicated one mind but the entire collective consciousness of humanity.
Not really, because no one is communicating anything. It's just empty forms from an automaton with no semantics.

>>105989144
>most people prefer (or at least don't distinguish) the "AI slop" to most artists
This is just your schizophrenic delusion. AI slop fatigue is now reaching levels where media aggregator platforms are starting to implement measures against it.

>if art is subjective ...
>if art is objective ...
Nonsensical.

>telling imaginary artists to get good.
How many artists are in the room with us right now? Are they threatening you?

>>105989192
I'm not telling imaginary artists to get good. I'm telling (you) specifically to get good. No one without would bitch as much about "AI art", and shame people for liking it, without a stake in the matter.

>>105989232
Show me where the artists touched you, timmy. Why do you even bother replying if you have absolutely nothing coherent to say on the matter and end up shitting out nonsense phrases like "if art is objective/subjective"?

>>105989254
Ah, good morning sir.

>>105989328
>i broke the bot again

>>105989338
It make sense that AI (an indian) would be the biggest hater of AI. Sorry I used big words, buddy.

>>105989350
Not even sure what I said to make this bot go off the rails like this. Why is it recycling tweets about jeets?

>>105989150
Unless this is your perception because you don't know how to read, that is literally just not true in any sense.

>>105989499
>that is literally just not true in any sense.
Yes it is. Seethe about it.

>>105989126
AI could have given me the list, but that'd be a testament to its ability to aggregate information according to specific criteria and wouldn't alter my point. I didn't pick these works as "safe picks," or because they're "edgy;" I chose them because they contain elements that would be difficult for what an LLM to come up with on its own, even if it was many times better than what we have currently. You don't have to go into tiny autistic niches that no one has ever read to find good shit, at least you didn't have to back in the day.

>>105989561
Give me a fucking break, anon. You can find tons of modern works that are more worth a read than Homer or the Bible if you ignore cultural/historical significance.

>>105984874 (OP)
>>105985087
>>105985708
Humans try desperately to project human traits and emotions onto animals and even inanimate objects. Some of them have difficulty with this, that they can't imagine that the few animals they see on a daily basis are in a constant state of survival, and the brief cute tiktok they saw of some duck perpetuates this bambi syndrome illusion.

The reality is, it doesn't matter whether the model has consciousness. We have a concept of how our brain works, how thoughts work, and how consciousness works, but we are far from fully understanding it.

>>105985927
>>105985984
>>105986096
>>105986144
>>105986193
Depends on the 'art' you're talking about. The goalposts are moving all the time, not even a few years ago it was simply "anything is art". If it's shit posted to twitter by shut-in digital artists hoping to get a commission, then yes, 3 seconds is generous. It's mostly 'fan art' in one of a few styles, that expresses nothing that I couldn't see in another few scrolls. Nobody will remember it, and nobody will really care much. It's trivial, it's fleeting, it's forgettable. Is it art? sure, I don't really give a shit about the definition. I do not care about the artists intent or mindset - I've been to numerous gallery events, the "message" is always some trite, pretentious bullshit that only stirs emotions in middle-upper class women who have never experienced any sort of adversity in their lives. The layman who shrugs and laughs at it doesn't do so because he doesn't understand, it's because he's had the thought several dozen times before and it seems retarded for it to get attention.

>muh expression
>muh "creatives"
"creatives" and some artists have spent the last 100+ years trying to reshape, redefine, and ultimately subvert what art is, to the point that "anything can be art", shortly before AI entered the public consciousness. Now, not anything can be art. Why is that, do you think?

For what it's worth, I view 'AI art' as convenient, relatively quick ways to express something, just like a folder of reaction shitpost images. But I don't think human expression is particularly valuable, and I don't think someone with some self-pity/victim complex whining about how they're a misunderstood "creative" is someone who deserves a voice, let alone worth listening to. Until "artists" are willing to make that concession, I don't really give a shit what their concept of art is.

>>105985087
But they are, the only difference between LMM neuroslop and normalfag is that normalfag is somehow even dumber.

>>105990033
>irrelevant spiteful mutant noises

>>105990211
Everything you know and love, the values you live by, and your ideals and goals, are the result of clever marketing campaigns and revisionist, rose-tinted history. All of which could vanish in an instant, as it has time and time again.

>>105989596
How about you give me a list, so I can spend an hour nitpicking it instead of discussing the main point?

I think a lot of the anger from the anti-AI crowd comes from the perception that prompters are trying to call themselves artists, which I don't think is happening save for a few twitter jeets here or there.

AI can produce images designed to entertain. That qualifies as art in my book. It's just that the AI is the artist, not the person who requested it.

>>105990298
>irrelevant spiteful mutant mask slips a little further

>>105990323
>AI slop is art
>AI is an artist
Unironically take your meds.

>>105990323
>AI can produce entertainment
Entertainment != art
Marvel movies are not art

>>105990347
By my stated criteria of art, which I think is quite reasonable, it certainly is. How would you define art, in a way that doesn't reference this current debate?

>>105990361
This is some next-level goalpost moving. Marvels movies may not be entertaining enough for you or me, but they certainly count as art.

>>105990395
>art is whatever i find entertaining
>I think is quite reasonable,
A "retard" is whoever I disagree with. You are a retard. This is not an insult, just an application of my reasonable personal definition.

>How would you define art, in a way that doesn't reference this current debate?
I won't take up the burden of defining art, but I can point out some necessary conditions. For example, there should be some artistic vision behind the work. This is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary one.

>>105990395
More horizontal distance can never add up to equal vertical distance. In the same way, more entertaining doesn't equal art.

>>105984874 (OP)
Maybe if this didn't sound like schizoid ramblings I'd care.

>>105990444
>art is whatever i find entertaining
Not what I claimed. I said it was media INTENDED to entertain, whether its effective or not.

>there should be some artistic vision behind the work
I would say that AI does have an "artistic vision" behind what it produces. There is a reason why it made every little decision it did in producing a work. With all its algorithms, probabilities, and data, it determines what it thinks conforms best to what was asked of it. Filling in those gaps between the ambiguities in the prompt and the hyper-specific details in the final product is the same as having "vision".

>>105990493
Again, that's not what I was saying. It's about whether the media was INTENDED to entertain or not.

>>105990550
>I would say that AI does have an "artistic vision" behind what it produces
>it determines
>it thinks
You need to take your meds. Your GPU is not conscious. It doesn't determine, it doesn't think and it sure as fuck doesn't have any kind of intention in mind when it executes a program.

>>105990604
We're playing a semantics game now. I see no reason why any degree of data-processing shouldn't be regarded as "thinking".

Here are the ambiguous terms in your post that are being semantically exploited:
>conscious
>determine
>think
>intention

All are non-quantifiable, and squabbling over definitions is not the least bit productive for our root debate.

>>105990662
>I see no reason why any degree of data-processing shouldn't be regarded as "thinking".
That's because you're quite literally insane.

>>105990662
But you're right, there's no point discussing why your GPU doesn't think. The simple bottom line here is that all actual art has a common basic characteristic, namely that it's made to convey some subjective impression from the artist to the viewer. Your GPU isn't conscious and doesn't have any subjective impressions to convey.

>>105990676
If you insist on playing the definitions game, then what does constitute as thinking?

Note that whether your arbitrary criteria is reached or not has no bearing on whether AI something to get mad about.

>>105990769
You're the one desperately trying to bait me into some gay semantics debate, by making retarded non-arguments based on your lunatic personal interpretation of words, which doesn't match their common meaning.

>>105990812
There is no "common meaning" of there words in this context, as these are grey areas which the common usage of these terms does not account for.
I recognize when I use ambiguous terms in my arguments, so I define them. Why do you refuse to define yours when asked?

Semantics argument aside, my bottom line is that I see the value of art in the final product, not in the process of creating it. With this in mind, it doesn't make a difference how it was made, by who, or by what.

>>105990033
>AI can produce images designed to entertain. That qualifies as art in my book. It's just that the AI is the artist, not the person who requested it.
Agreed. When you're prompting the generative AI you're commissioning it: "hey, AI, draw this for me", and it's the one taking the creative decisions and doing the work. Same as you'd do with the average artfag ("hey artfag, draw this for me"), only cheaper, faster, and less whiny. When the AI makes the art, the AI is the artist. I gave the prompt, but I'm not the one who made it. I take no credit for Dalle3's work.

If you have a precise vision for your work and wanna control and refine every detail, then AI is not the tool to use. Not this generation, anyhow. You do it yourself. But if you're just spit-balling ideas and want someone else to get creative with them and show you where they can lead, AI is there for you.

>>105984874 (OP)
Why would I want a vision of another human being?

>>105990944
>basic words have no common meaning
This is your brain on AI schzophrenia. I don't care if you "think" that your GPU "thinks". See >>105990751

LLMs are the future, stop denying it.

>>105984874 (OP)
give me a single actual reason to give a fuck, I have yet to see a compelling argument against software being improved

>>105990971
meant for
>>105990323

>>105991011
There's nothing basic about words like "consciousness". Pretending that defining these concepts hasn't been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries is just disingenuous.

But please, let's move away from semantics. If AI can produce images for me, why should this not be valuable? When I walk around an art museum, all I see is the final product, not the process of creating it. The artists are not there to discuss their thought process with. It is the same experience observing art made my a sufficiently skilled AI.

>>105985984
>AI slop enjoyers have the visual processing system of insects and they can't tell if something is fundamentally worse even on the level of basic technique
it's already impossible to know if a human made a drawing, it's getting there for the other arts very soon.
there is nothing special to human art and artists need to kys, they're not owned a job and they're usually freaks anyways.
we could get the art without the batshit crazy subhumans who got raped by their entire family during childhood just to join the club of 27 or something.
fuck this gaytrash, software can run 24/7/365 and isn't a weak ass faggot
>nevermind discussions about the meaning of art.
there is no meaning to art

>>105991096
>b-b-b-but defining these words has been subject to philosophical debate
Which is why I feel no need to bother defining it. It is sufficient to remind you that "my GPU is conscious" is a not a normal usage of the word "conscious" and makes you sound like a schizophrenic.

>>105991114
>it's already impossible to know if a human made a drawing
Thanks for confirming my point about your insect-like visual system. Not reading the rest of your AItroon post.

>>105984874 (OP)
>I use them to learn
>I learn
>it works
but you can seethe, it's ok

>>105991125
I've already stated my response to that. I beg of you, stop with this semantics shit-flinging and address my other arguments too.

>>105991011
>schzophrenia this schzophrenia that
Majority of "people" actually don't think in way you do too, so ironically he is right.

>>105991125
and makes you sound like a schizophrenic to me
No one cares or asked, this is not your blog.

>>105991125
>being this obsessed with normality
Oh look, its npc, just like in my videogames.

>>105991141
cope harder, you'll flip burgers or off yourself soon, such is the life of artists in current_year

why does this faggot ass thread still get bumps
nigger inkfag seething bc he lost his smut clientele
wtf about it?

>>105991159
>I beg of you, stop with this semantics shit
Notice how your AI schizophrenia causes you to continually project your own behavior on me.

> address my other arguments too.
You didn't have any other argument. You just told me something about what's "valuable" to you, what you experience when you walk around a museum, the limitations of what you see etc. I don't care. It just boils down to the statement: "I can't tell the difference between AI slop and art". What can I say to that? I'm sorry that you're a golem?

>>105991180
Shit like that is why aifags are not human.

While I appreciate your attempt to romanticize the concept of art as a profound dialogue, your argument is fundamentally flawed. To claim that large language models lack the capacity for genuine communication is to ignore the very essence of what communication entails. If art is merely about provoking emotion, then why dismiss the emotional responses elicited by AI-generated content? Are we to believe that only human-created art can evoke feelings, while AI's contributions are relegated to mere simulations?

Your comparison of language models to "cold comfort" and "cyberspace freezers" is not only hyperbolic but also dismissive of the innovative ways in which technology can enhance our understanding of creativity. By your logic, any form of art that doesn't originate from a human mind is invalid. This is a dangerously narrow view that undermines the evolution of artistic expression.

Furthermore, your assertion that AI cannot engage in a dialogue with human vision is laughably elitist. Are we to ignore the countless artists who have drawn inspiration from technology? The very tools you disparage have the potential to expand the boundaries of creativity, not confine them. In a world where collaboration between human and machine is increasingly prevalent, your rigid stance feels like a desperate clinging to an outdated notion of artistry. Perhaps it's time to embrace the future rather than cling to a romanticized past.

>>105991161
>>105991170
>>105991176
>>105991180
>sexless and seething

>>105991180
>saar do not reedemful neuroslop saar

>>105991200
>jobless about seething about muh soul in drawings
meds now

>>105991197
>someone will inevitably argue with this LLM slop unironically

>>105991189
>schizophrenia this schizophrenia that
Who asked you?

>>105991200
>jobless and seething about muh soul in drawings
meds now

>>105991189
Your only "arguement" is schizophrenia, schizophrenia, schizophrenia!

>>105991208
>medposting
Go eat shit and suck cock, faggot.

>>105991242
atleast my job is safe and no one raped me at 5yo
seethe harder "artist"

>>105991208
You are delusional, medposters are on same level as neurojeets.

>>105991266
sure is summer in here

>>105991253
>saar do not redeemful
No one cares or asked, not your personal blog, neurojeet.

>>105991189
>continually project your own behavior on me
My last few posts have all consisted of first a response to what you had last said, a call to end to semantics debate, and then an explicitly non-semantically driven argument for my original point.
Guess which parts of my post you have been outright ignoring.

>You just told me something about what's "valuable" to you, what you experience when you walk around a museum, the limitations of what you see etc. I don't care.
So tell me how this view isn't valid. Do you think that the majority of the value of art is derived from the process of creating it?

>It just boils down to the statement: "I can't tell the difference between AI slop and art".
At the moment, AI is not advanced enough to be indistinguishable from works made without it. It IS absolutely on track to get there though. Remember when everyone made fun of it for not being able to drawn hands? Now it does that with ease.
Why should I not be glad each time it improves?

>>105991234
Wrong. I've made my argument multiple times ITT and even boiled it down to a very simple observation here:
>>105990751
>all actual art has a common basic characteristic, namely that it's made to convey some subjective impression from the artist to the viewer. Your GPU isn't conscious and doesn't have any subjective impressions to convey.

>>105984874 (OP)
This is something someone with no inner dialogue believes.

>>105991281
>So tell me how this view isn't valid.
It isn't valid because you don't get to invent new semantics for common words based on your purely subjective whims.

>>105991275
>creating a narrative
are you?

>>105991313
>It isn't valid to me
Ok.

>>105991315
Notice how your schizophrenia is forcing you to continually project.

>>105991275
>medposting touristo complains about summerfags
Pot calling kettle nigger.

>>105991314
see
>>105991228

>>105991324
;^)

>>105991302
>written by the people whose game is 80 % inner monologue
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried

>>105991344
If you had inner dialogue you would've reflected on what I said without having me give you input. Now consider how this applies to someone using an AI model.

>>105991295
And I don't believe there is any such dichotomy of "actual art" vs fake art. This seems to be a criteria that you yourself have invented, and it holds no bearing on whether a machine's creation is valuable or not.

>>105991313
>you don't get to invent new semantics for common words based on your purely subjective whims
I didn't do that once in that argument.

>>105991339
>see
nuh
im dr unk
i dunno what to look at
explain it to me like if i was a 5 y old autist retard
fuckn ground up, no abstractions, if you please

>>105991362
Please understand zoomers need external consensus, they cannot consider what is art without an expert for confirmation.

>>105991362
>i don't believe there is any such dichotomy between "actual women" vs fake women
> This seems to be a criteria that you yourself have invented
This is how Ramona Kurzweil fans think language works. Words don't mean anything, don't imply any criteria. A perfect intellectual landscape for token generators to take over.

>I didn't do that
Yes, you do. "I can't tell the difference between art and slop" doesn't turn slop into art any more than "I can't tell the difference between art and literal dog shit" doesn't turn literal dogshit into art. Seethe about it.

>>105991391
A woman has a factual definition based on intrinsic characteristics. Something doesn't become art because a human made it.

>>105991406
>A woman has a factual definition based on intrinsic characteristics.
Art also has intrinsic characteristics and I've provided the relevant one to explaining why your AI slop isn't art. Seethe about it.

>>105991425
They already call it AI Art. AI is created by humans, ergo it falls under then standard definition of "art". You don't have to like it and your tantrums won't change reality.

>>105991456
>retarded AI slopper tries to argue semantics again
I gave you the criterion for why AI slop isn't art. Unless you can provide any widely recognized examples of "art" that violate that criterion that aren't the subject of this dispute, you can get bent and I accept your full concession.

>>105991391
Comparing the "what is a women" nonsense to this holds no ground. Male/female is absolutely a binary that is rooted in something physical, namely chromosome X or chromosome Y.
Art on the other hand is something non-physical, and has never been thought of as something in contrast to some kind of non-art.

But the core argument is not "is it art", it's "is it valuable".

>I can't tell the difference between art and slop
I made no claims about whether or not current AI is enough to fool me, you, or the average person. The point is that if and when it gets to the point that it does, the art will hold value like human art does.

>>105991382
I am a zoomer. Total millennial death.

>>105991480
>But the core argument is not "is it art"
I like how lost you troons are in your own subjective word. Did you forget what thread you're posting in? I don't care what you consider valuable. I provided a criterion for why AI slop isn't art. Unless you can provide any widely recognized examples of "art" that violate that criterion, and aren't the subject of this dispute, you can get bent and I accept your full concession.

>>105991480
>I am a zoomer. Total millennial death.
Yeah you are because like all zoomers you can't handle generalizations, you're incapable of rejecting a generalization while also understanding it's true. But thanks for proving you're a zoomer, zoomers absolutely froth when they're not treated like a unique human bean.

>>105991480
>I am a zoomer. Total millennial death.
nta
but zoomettes have tight holes...

>>105991479
None of what you say matters, all that matters is general consensus. You can kick and scream about how it's not art all you want (it is, we already accepted machine art as art ever since someone made a pen strapped to a contraption). You're the one being ridiculous making the assertion that something made by AI (a machine made by a human using a prompt initiated by a human) isn't art. As if that matters to the person hanging up an AI painting on a wall. If someone hangs AI art on their wall and appreciates it as art, then functionally, it is art. All you do is alienate everyone around you because you come off as someone having a tantrum without an nuance. You hating AI art doesn't make stop using AI.

>>105991320
>projection
I am not the that aifag, this is 4chan, not your faggy discord or subreddit, literal retard.

>>105991496
The whole reason this thread exists is because some people really like that computers can make images now, and some people really dislike that. That is what this thread has been about, and the argument over whether AI creations qualify as art is only a part of that (though in my opinion, not a useful one).

>>105991552
>all that matters is general consensus.
Even if I grant this premise, you still lose. The "general consensus" is not on your side. My criterion is based on a characteristic common to pretty much every example considered art by "general consensus".

>>105991588
This thread exists because AI sloppers aren't just content with spamming the internet with their trash, but also continually try to gaslight people that their spam is on an equal standing with art.

>>105991382
>expert
Thats normalfags in general, not just zoomer ones.

>>105991593
What are you even talking about? Even if public opinion were 30/70 against AI art, that still wouldn't make your position automatically right. And let’s be honest, you wouldn’t seriously claim that believing AI art is art is some fringe, <10% view. That’s just not reality.

You're acting like your definition is some universal truth, like "water is wet," but this isn’t that. The fact is, platforms, galleries, and everyday users already recognize and label AI generated work as "AI art." That’s the general consensus in practice.

>>105991599
Like I had said before, I believe that AI creations do qualify as art. However, whether or not you choose to define it as such is unimportant, because the creations of a sufficiently high-quality AI have equal standing to that of a human.
There is nothing that you get from viewing the creation of a human that you will never meet that you wouldn't get from a computer-generated work.

>>105991624
>What are you even talking about?
The fact that you can't produce a single example of "art" that violates the criterion I've outlined, except for the heavily disputed case of machine-generated slop.

>>105991628
>AI creations do qualify as art
And yet you can't do the above, either. Curious.

>>105991628
At worse AI-generated art falls under machine-assisted art and we already accepted that as art. A game shader making colors with gradients and shapes is art. A motor-operated pen on a cog drawing a paper is art.

>>105991648
>At worse AI-generated art falls under machine-assisted art
The dumbest semantic argument I've ever heard from an AI slopper. Keep it up.

>>105991643
I don’t have to play by whatever arbitrary rules you made up to define “art.” Your whole argument rests on a personal criterion that has nothing to do with how art is actually understood or practiced.

I’ve already moved on to what matters: social consensus and functional recognition. You dropped that angle because it doesn’t support your position, and now you’re trying to cherry-pick definitions like it’s a game of semantics. I’m not playing that game, it's boring especially when you clearly aren't even operating on the factual definition of art which is "a creative work created by a human". Humans created AI. Feel free to call AI an mechanized art installation if that makes you feel better.

You sound like the same crowd that once insisted photography wasn’t art, or that digital painting isn't real art. Your worldview can’t handle AI as a creative medium. That’s fine. But art is personal and subjective, and my appreciation of AI art doesn’t require your approval. Me using AI to generate art assets for a video game doesn't require your approval. And no, I won't disclose it either, so enjoy unwittingly enjoying my AI stew.

>>105991663
I can't wait to hear how you believe AI isn't a machine.

>>105991703
>Your whole argument rests on a personal criterion that has nothing to do with how art is actually understood or practiced.
And yet you can't produce a single example of "art" that violates the criterion I've outlined, except for the heavily disputed case of machine-generated slop. If it's just my arbitrary and personal criterion, rather than an accurate reflection of reality, you'd provide an example instead of sharting out 3 paragraphs of seethe.

>>105991643
>And yet you can't do the above
It's impossible to look at any work of art and say with certainty "see, the creator did/didn't mean to convey a subjective impression with this!" ("subjective impression" also being an ill-defined term, but whatever). However, counterexamples are not the only way to disprove a claim.

AI DOES make decisions in creating its work. It recognizes what visual patterns are associated with certain textual ideas, and with its algorithms and probabilistic analysis it determines what seems to be most suitable. I think this fits any reasonable definition of your criteria.

Tell me, does the value of art come from its utility? If so, what utility do you not get from AI generated works?

>>105991716
>ummm sweaty "AI slop image" falls under the category of "image" and everyone agrees that some images are art
>checkmate
End your life tonight unironically.

>>105991724
>Every type of apple I've seen is red which means that no apples can ever be green.

>>105991725
>It's impossible to look at any work of art and say with certainty "see, the creator did/didn't mean to convey a subjective impression with this!"
I accept your concession.

>>105991724
You're now arguing in circles and failed to progress the debate. You talked about concessions before, but this is actually a concession. I already explained to you why this is a fool's errand and given you failed to refute this and the other valid points I made, I consider this your actual concession. Stay mad about AI, it doesn't stop it from being art.

>>105991747
>umm sweaty???
>only muh consensus matters
>n-n-n-nooo, not that de facto consensus, for which i can't find a simple counter-example
>that consensus doesn't matter
End yourself.

>>105991760
How would you determine whether a work, human or not, fits your criteria then?

>>105991703
>>105991762
>Your whole argument rests on a personal criterion that has nothing to do with how art is actually understood or practiced.
And yet you can't produce a single example of "art" that violates the criterion I've outlined, except for the heavily disputed case of machine-generated slop. If it was just my arbitrary and personal criterion, rather than an accurate reflection of reality, you'd provide an example instead of sharting out paragraph after paragraph of seethe.

>>105991776
Not what I was saying. You said that your criteria is valid because it would supposedly be difficult or impossible to find a work that doesn't adhere to it. However, just because everything under a certain category shared a similar trait, it doesn't mean that this trait is a qualifying factor of whether something belongs in that group.

If someone looses a finger, do they no longer count as human for the lone fact that every human I know has ten fingers?

>>105991736
You completely misunderstand the framing of AI art. The creative act isn’t just in the raw generation: it's in the selection, curation, and presentation of the output. That’s the subjective human intent and emotion. If AI art were just random data like sand on a cliff, you might have a point—but the moment a human sees value in it, shapes it, and shares it, it becomes art by definition.

And just a pro tip: if you're relying on dictionary nitpicking to gatekeep what "counts" as art, you've already lost the argument. Semantics debates aren't compelling to anybody.

>>105986279
>passive agressive tone
>aifag calls someone npc
Now this is just projection.

>>105991777
>How would you determine whether a work, human or not, fits your criteria then?
By providing an example of something generally regarded as art, where there couldn't possibly have been any subjective impression being conveyed, or it's generally accepted that there wasn't any such intention.

>>105991785
You know instead of copy and pasting your tantrum you can use 5 words to describe your criterion. You're pretty funny though. You also completely conceded my definition of art so at this point you ceded all framing.

>>105986351
>implying aifag has actual taste
Follow your own advice, faggot

>>105991815
>AI slop generation
>creative act
Kek. Stopped reading.

>>105991807
>just because everything under a certain category shared a similar trait, it doesn't mean that this trait is a qualifying factor of whether something belongs in that group.
According to your own appeal to consensus that's exactly what it means.

>>105986436
>Humanity is not sacred
Yes it is, its just that you are not human being.

>>105991838
>you can use 5 words to describe your criterion
I already did pretty much that, multiple time, but I guess you're a literal bot and you ran out of context window.

>>105984874 (OP)
stay mad nigger

>>105991785
>>105991830
>And yet you can't produce a single example of "art" that violates the criterion I've outlined
Because as it was said, it is impossible to point to a work of art and determine whether they align with this criteria or not. You might as well be asking me to go birdwatching and see if I can find any birds that were born on a tuesday to prove that its possible for birds to be born on tuesday.

>>105991847
I am not the guy who was making the appeal to consensus argument. I don't agree with his reasoning either.

So rather than trying to do that, I instead argued that the criteria was not logically sound, which is a way to disprove it without needing to find counterexamples.

>>105991863
I accept your concession.

>>105991830
This is just a nonsense word salad.

Here's the definition of art for midwits like yourself:
- it's human made
- it's a creative expression

Define creative:
- an idea

Define expression:
- the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings

Me literally going to any AI model and typing in "art that expresses my bemusement" and I find an output I feel matches how I feel and post it here, that is art even by your silly nonsense definition.

The problem with your simpleton brain is you don't understand that the mere act of me selecting an image to go along with this post is ARTISTIC EXPRESSION!

>>105991853
You do realize this is just another example of you acting in bad faith and having an emotional tantrum right?

>>105991880
>i-i-it's nonsens b-b-because i have no relevant examples
I accept your concession.

>>105991865
>no argument
>he says in response to a paragraph of a rebuttal
Now THATS a concession lol

>>105991830

>>105991892
This bot literally ran out of context mid conversation. Kek. I wonder how many other AI slop defenders are bots.

>>105991914
>anyone that disagrees with me is a bot
Anything to avoid addressing your opponent's core arguments, huh?

>>105991907
Your "rebuttal" consists of admitting that your only hope was to try to "demote" man-made art by claiming there was no attempt to convey any subjective impression, but you realized you can't possibly defend such a claim. That's a concession.

>>105991907
That was clearly a logical argument using the actual dictionary definition of art. You should be feeling quite comfortable right now. So either feel free to actually address what I said directly and have a real debate or you can just admit you're an 85 IQ artist that is going to die in the coal mines.

>>105991925
>claiming there was no attempt to convey any subjective impression
I did not say that at all. I said it was impossible to prove or disprove that a particular work contains the intention to convey "subjective impression" (a term ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness btw). This task you were sending me on of finding a work that does not fulfill this criteria was not impossible, but nonsensical.

>>105991940
>the actual dictionary definition of art
Right. If only philosophers through the ages had access to a dictionary. Retard.

>>105986706
Nah, how about you eat your shit and suck your cock, faggot?

>>105991940
>feel free to actually address what I said directly
That is exactly what I did. You suggested that the inability to prove that a work does not meet your criteria is proof that the criteria is valid, and I responded why I believed that was not so. How is that not directly addressing what you said?

>>105991959
>I said it was impossible to prove or disprove that a particular work contains the intention to convey "subjective impression"
Right. Because words like "art" and "work" refer to things humans produce. Of course you can't prove your point with those. Is your GPU conscious? I like how your own thought process consists of conceding my point.

>>105991959
He has to use a definition of art that isn't
"a creative expression by a human"

>>105991972
So now you're just admitting you pick and choose definitions based on convenience which makes sense why you have a word-salad contradictory definition of "art" because you realize that the Webster definition of art makes you wrong. Another protip: if you are unable to distill an assertion to a simple sentence, you don't even understand your own argument.

I bet you can't even write your definition of art in less than 10 words.

>>105991994
By your logic a photograph isn't art.

>>105992004
>So now you're just admitting you pick and choose definitions
No, now I'm noticing that you're either schizophrenic or don't understand what the word "definition" means (you may use the dictionary for that one).

>>105992016
>By your logic a photograph isn't art.
Why not?

>>105991992
YOU:
>no argument
>he says in response to a paragraph of a rebuttal
Now THATS a concession lol
--
Calling that a counterargument is generous even by “hit-in-the-head-with-a-hammer” rhetorical standards.

>>105991994
>Because words like "art" and "work" refer to things humans produce.
Semantics again? I thought you hated when I brought that up? I do not think it is reasonable to restrict the definition of art to only creations made by humans.
>Is your GPU conscious?
Retreating again into intentionally ambiguous language, I see!

>>105991994
Retard

>>105992047
I was obviously referring to my post before that, as I thought you were referring to yours. Otherwise, your entire post was
>concession accepted
in response to my paragraph of a reply, which is even less of a counterargument than the example your just cited.

>>105992060
>Semantics again?
Psychosis again? I'm not arguing semantics, just pointing out your own thought process shows you wouldn't even know where to look for examples except stuff made by humans, where you couldn't defend the claim that there was no intent to convey a subjective impression.

Is your GPU conscious? Only a yes/no answer is acceptable. Looking forward to your next deflection, which to me will demonstrate conclusively that you're mentally ill.

>>105992038
No, now I’m noticing that you’re both schizophrenic and low IQ. You think you’re being rhetorically clever, but it’s painfully obvious that you were only operating on dictionary definitions as long as you believed someone wouldn't use it against you. I gave you the literal dictionary definition of art, you are the one retreating into personal definitions no dictionary collaborates.

What’s actually concerning is how hard you’re leaning into semantics games while failing to recognize the irony: you’re accusing me of not understanding definitions while you literally invent your own when it’s convenient.

And just to be clear: I was actually generous enough to meet you in the “semantics” frame in good faith. But even that’s not what you want. What you really want is to argue from a definition you made up, one that’s vague, inconsistent, and ultimately self-contradictory.

>>105984874 (OP)
Good thing that I don't care. I downloaded what I wanted. And they can have the future of media.

>>105992087
>Because words like "art" and "work" refer to things humans produce.
>I'm not arguing semantics
whoah


>you couldn't defend the claim that there was no intent to convey a subjective impression.
That's never something I was trying to prove. You told me to try to prove it, and I said that its not relevant to my position. However, I do think that AI has the kind of "intent" you are speaking of.
also,
>subjective impression
You are yet to define this term that your entire position is built upon.

>Is your GPU conscious?
That depends on how you define "conscious", which is one of the most ambiguous words in the english language.
>Only a yes/no answer is acceptable.
I disagree :) This limitation does not become true just because it would be convenient for you.

>>105992098
>sharing out insane paragraphs
I don't care. To refute my criterion you are free to provide a counter-example besides the disputed one of machine slop. You can't because I'm right.

>>105992087
Selection is always subjective impression, you don't even understand your own definition, schizo.

I can take a glass tube, fill it with ink, and let it splash drops on a paper. If and when I decide it makes a result that I find pleasing, that piece becomes art. But the contraption itself is always considered art because it is a human made creative expression. I had an idea, I implemented it, and now anything it does is art. Any AI art model is art from the creators: they selected the training data, they captioned it, they even fine-tune it based on creating outputs they find pleasing. The fact is no matter which direction you decide to tackle the AI art problem you are still wrong and even more importantly, it even beats your idiotic definition which you concocted as an attempt to exclude AI art.

>>105992146
Notice how I correctly predicted that you will refuse to answer if your GPU is conscious or not. Mental illness confirmed.

>>105992179
>Selection is always subjective impression
Your GPU has no subjective impressions, retard. Meds now.

>you don't even understand your own definition,
Which definition? Quote the "definition". You are not realizing that what you're quoting is not a definition and was never proposed as a definition. Your blood pressure is rising.

>>105985708
>if you don't support souless, bland slop you are luddite
Saar.

>>105985708
>neurojeet
>master race
More like mustard race.

>>105984874 (OP)
Intellectual property is one of the biggest gayest lies we have been sold

>>105992180
>poses an absurd question
>"heh, watch, he won't give a simple yes or no!"
I can give you a more definitive answer if you define consciousness more precisely. By its absolute broadest definition, and form of data processing can be considered consciousness.

>>105992200
Eat shit and suck cock, now, faggot.

>>105992180
>schizophrenia, schizophrenia, schizophrenia, schizophrenia
>meds, meds, meds, meds
Mental illness confirmed.

>>105992233
Do you think your GPU is conscious? Yes or no?
>i-i-i can't answer that b-b-because it's absurd
Mental illness.

>data processing can be considered consciousness.
Mask slips, mental illness shows.

>>105988723
Nigger tier logic
I’m dah kang niguh y’all jus hateahs

>>105992087
>Psychosis again?
You are one who suffers from, psychosis, medposting faggot.

>>105992180
I’m genuinely curious, do you actually think this is rhetorically convincing?

The “mental illness” insult reads like projection, which makes sense given how scattered your reasoning is: self-contradicting definitions, vague criteria you can’t even distill into a sentence, constant rhetorical dodging... It’s hard not to think that when you say “schizo,” you’re just describing yourself in the mirror.

I want to believe you’re aware of how inconsistent you are, but I’m starting to think you’re not. Insults only work if they carry a grain of truth, and the fact that this one is your go-to says a lot more about you than me. But what am I even saying, you're trying to dictate to other people what "art" should mean to them. The fact you're here debating whether AI art is art or not already disproves your frame. If AI art isn't art you wouldn't need to waste your time talking about it.

You might want to talk to your therapist about how you’re back on 4chan spiraling again.

>>105992274
>paragraphs of impotent seething
I don't care. To refute my criterion you are free to provide a counter-example besides the disputed one of machine slop. You can't because I'm right.

>>105992200
>Your GPU has no subjective impressions, retard. Meds now.
That's not what I said, I said that selection is art. My GPU doesn't post on 4chan.

>>105992266
I am merely asking you to clarify your question.

>data processing can be considered consciousness
Only by its broadest definition. I said that to highlight the need for you to define your terms.

>inb4 you define consciousness as "when its not a GPU"
if you define it as such, than that would make this not a requirement for AI generations to fit your definition of art. Such is the nature of the semantics game!

>>105992266
>everything my puny mind can't comprehend is psychosis, mental illness, schizophrenia
Notice how this shit absolutely no different from medieval peasants calling everything they couldn't understand or didn't like heresy or demons.
You are literally modern day medieval peasant.

>>105992304
>if i take a literal shit every day and then select the one i like best at the end of the week, this is art
AI slopper logic.

>>105992317
There is no discussion to be had. The only sane answer to "do you think your GPU is conscious" is "no". Thanks for wasting my time. I should have asked you 50 posts ago and saved myself the effort of any further interactions with you.

>>105992290
Counterexamples are not the only way to disprove a claim. This is especially true in circumstances when no examples, counter- or positive, can exist, as has been established.

>>105992353
>stating my dumb opinions is a refutation because i said so
I don't care. To refute my criterion you are free to provide a counter-example besides the disputed one of machine slop. You can't because I'm right.

>>105992290
People have refuted you, you just have taken the:
"I don't believe water is wet so you better not tell me it's wet" approach. This is, of course, a mentally ill line of reasoning. Your definition hinges on "subjective impressions" which besides being so vague it's meaningless but also fails the general test, we're having subjective impressions about AI art right now. This is why we don't generally regard boulders on the ground as art because there's no "subjective impression".

>>105992274
>no u!
Not an arguement, retard.
>I want to
No one cares what you want or don't want.
>. Insults only work if they carry a grain of truth,
Neuroslop are like chinese room as they are not sentient or anything like that, literal retard.
>you're trying to dictate to other people what "art" should mean to them
Aislop is not art nor ever will be it, it will be always bland, souless slop.

>>105992372
>People have refuted you
Which counter-example have "people" (your horde of spambots?) provided? Quote it in your next post. Protip: you won't.

>>105992351
You refusing to define critical terms and hiding behind their ambiguity has been a recurring theme of all your arguments.

But I'll humor you. Let's suppose your definition of consciousness is one where the answer definitively is "no". How does this support your initial claim?

>>105992328
But yes anon, if I have an aesthetically beautiful shit well framed in a toilet bowl, it is in fact art. We call that a subjective impression. Or a subjection expression. :^)

>>105992274
>The fact you're here debating whether AI art is art or not already disproves your frame.
You are kind of faggot that will try to prove if water is dry.

>>105992372
You have multiple personality disorder.

>>105992388
>Let's suppose your definition of consciousness is one where the answer definitively is "no".
Yeah, let's suppose so. So is your GPU capable of trying to convey its subjective impression to you?

>>105992413
I would love you to go into detail about why you think this :)

>>105992389
>concedes that his idea of "art" is postmodern mental illness where literal shit can be art
Resting my case.

>>105992383
You better give me an example of water being wet without saying it's wet. Being wet is an act of subjective impression where the molecules impart of subjective feeling of being wet and one must be conscious to fully appreciate what it means to be wet, thus water on Mars is not in fact wet.

>>105992421
>subjective impression
Another ambiguous term, getting us into the same kind of loop as the "Is the GPU conscious" argument.

I know you are not going to define this either, but to give you an answer based on the definition that I think would be commonly accepted? Yes!

The GPU identifies patterns and draws connections between them. Associating one pattern with another and applying that certainly is a "subjective impression".

>>105992458
>literal mental illness
All it would take for you to refute my criterion of wetness is to provide one example of a liquid that isn't wet. But you can't.

>>105992462
>um ack-chually
>i don't know if my GPU has subjective impressions
>you need to define your terms
I actually think you're insane, no joke. Thanks for the chat.

>>105992436
You don't even understand what "post-modern" means. It doesn't mean "things I don't like made in 2025". You do realize AI art is as expressive and expansive as any other art medium right? More-so really given it can replicate all artforms from Neolithic to post-modern.

>>105992476
NTA but this is a problem of ambiguity too. Is molten iron "wet"?

>>105992492
>umm ack-chually, you don't know what postmodern means, bigot
I don't care, tranny. Your idea of "art" admits literal shit. You concede this. Moving on.

>>105992476
>provide one example of an artwork that isn't art
It's funny because you fell into my rhetorical trap and I didn't even bait it.

>>105992518
I've already established that you're a full-blown psychotic who thinks his computer is conscious. Hallucinating quotes doesn't help your case. No more (You)s for you.

>>105992490
I have a definition. If you think you have a better one that refutes my answer, please, share it!

>p-p-please argue my definitions
Get a load of this retard.

To summarize:
>Art does not require "subjective impressions"
>"subjective impressions" do not require consciousness
>Even if you change your definitions make this not so, AI creations hold the same utility as human creations, and thus the same value

>>105992506
You're the one talking about subjective impressions, I can't help if you have an overly broad definition of art. I don't personally consider "shock art" as "art" and I certainly wouldn't frame it in my house as art but it's still part of the definition and yes, Southpark's Randy's poop episode is art and parody. The difference between you and I is I actually can think outside of myself. No one is asking you to frame AI art in your house, but you're not going to win screaming about it being posted. Every year AI art becomes more and more "art", people's artistic freedom and expression actually increases as AI gets better as our ability to convey ideas (e.g. artistic expression) goes up as I can better direct the AI to create what I want.

>>105992642
>I can't help if you have an overly broad definition of art.
Notice how your psychosis causes you to hallucinate that I was the one who did what you did.

>t-t-to summarize
Reminder that this retard can't answer if his GPU is conscious or not. These are the "people" who believe in "AI art".

>>105992655
What is more likely, that everybody else in this thread has psychosis, or just you?

THEY ARE REAL TO ME

>>105992678
>What is more likely, that everybody else in this thread has psychosis, or just you?
Well, there's the guy who thinks his GPU may be conscious. Then there's you, who insists that a literal shit is art so long as you "select" it. Who else belongs in your sanity club?

>>105992669
Where do you draw the line between conscious or not?
And why is this relevant to our argument in the first place?

>>105992655
The irony is that you tried to construct a convoluted definition just to exclude AI art, and ended up circling back to something as broad as “a creative work of human expression.” Congrats! You reinvented the wheel and proved my point.

The truth is, you don’t know how to defend your beliefs, you just repeat them louder. Arguing over what counts as art is a dead end, because art is ultimately subjective and cultural. You could say only work made by artists without commercial requirements and personal expressive freedom only count as art but that is just a personal definition and I'm not trying to make you hang up art in your house you don't like. Your problem is you're attempting to tell me what I like isn't art, as if that matters. I can hang up AI art in my living room (and I have) and you can tell me it's not art all you want and your only reward is going to be a broken nose. Maybe what you need to learn is how to respect others. You are, in fact, not the most important person alive.

>>105992718
>you tried to construct a convoluted definition
Quote my "convoluted definition". While you're doing this, notice that it was neither convoluted nor proposed as a definition. Now notice your blood pressure rising. It looks like you hallucinated things that didn't happen. Consider literal meds instead of another post.

>>105992733
What is truly telling is you're incapable of repeating it yourself and you've already demonstrated you're capable of certain types of repetition. It's weird the one thing you could do to get more clarity in this conversation (restate your definition in different terms) is the one thing you're unable to repeat. I don't have high blood pressure, I'm having a rational discussion about art, I'm not the one screaming about people taking meds and being mentally ill every other reply. As the other person suggested, if everyone here is confused about what you mean, maybe the problem is your inability to communicate.

Since I'm full of protips today: it's considered courtesy to rewrite an assertion in different words if people are misunderstanding. You may witness this yourself in this very thread as I have hit you with many different variations of the same arguments and all I've witnessed so far is you repeating yourself. My only conclusion is the sad reality is you probably stole your "subjective impression" idea thinking it sounded smart and now the teacher asked you to show your work. Now here's the real rhetorical noodle, if you stole an idea and are unable to articulate it in plain terms, are you even smarter than an AI?

>>105992798
Didn't read. Where's the "definition" you were alluding to? It doesn't exist, does it?

>>105992801
It's weird the one thing you could do to get more clarity in this conversation (restate your definition in different terms) is the one thing you're unable to repeat.

>>105992825
Restate what definition? You sound like a broken bot. I never took it upon myself to define art. It's a total overkill. I provided what I consider to be a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) condition. It was based on a characteristic shared by all works of art besides besides your retarded AI slop.

AI sloppers maintain that my criterion is arbitrary and subjective. If so, you should have no trouble providing examples of art that contradict my criterion, besides those that are currently under dispute. You will shit hundreds of posts without providing such an example because the criterion isn't arbitrary at all. It's absolutely spon-on and applies to everything from early cave drawings to classical masterpieces to amateur photography.

>>105992916
>you should have no trouble providing examples of art that contradict my criterion
Say I bring up a work of art. How do you tell if it fulfills the condition or not? Genuinely asking here.

>>105992941
>doesn't provide an example
See? You will do this until the thread dies because it's an automatic loss for you to take up the challenge. My criterion works.

>>105992954
And I've said time and time again how I don't see how an example for or against your position could exist. If I'm wrong, SHOW ME!

All I need is for you to explain how your criteria works. Why are you so unable to do this?

>>105993071
>I don't see how an example for or against your position could exist
Is your GPU conscious?

>>105993076
Not what we are discussing.
Now, once more:
Please specify how it can be determined if a work fits your criteria or not.

>>105993135
No, your GPU is not conscious. So there's one example of something that creates outputs that fail the criterion. Which means you can't deny that it is possible to evaluate something with respect to the criterion, without reverting back to that mental illness you were peddling earlier.

>>105993173
The existence or non-existence of consciousness is not a prerequisite for that "subjective impression" that your criteria relies on. This is something I had established previously.
Furthermore, you are resorting to circular logic here, claiming "AI generations are not art because AI generations are not art!".

Try again.

>>105993268
>consciousness is not a prerequisite for subjective impressions
Mental illness it is, then. All the better, saves us some time.

>>105993268
>claiming "AI generations are not art because AI generations are not art!".
Another example of your raging psychosis, by the way. A consistent pattern with you hallucinating things that didn't happen.

>>105993287
If pattern recognition, categorization, and association with other patterns does not constitute "subjective impression", then what does?

Oh, right, you don't define terms.

>>105993307
>consciousness is not a prerequisite for subjective impressions
>also the same tard who couldn't answer whether or not he thinks his GPU is conscious
Mental illness. You can bother (You)ing me if you want but all I'm just gonna reply with a reminder of you having an obvious mental condition. Nothing you say matters.

>>105993352
Do not dodge the question. How is it determined if a work has "subjective impression"?

>mentally ill retard can't even figure out if his GPU is conscious or not
>thinks it's my fault that he struggles to make judgments about subjective impressions

>>105993393
You haven't even attempted to state what you mean by "subjective impressions".

I am once again asking you to define it.

>broken LLM doesn't know what subjective impressions are
>tries to argue something about art

>>105993487
Clearly you don't know either. You keep using that phrase, without ever even hinting at the meaning.

You can define it any time and prove me wrong.

>literal nonsentients who don't understand what a subjective impression is try to make points about consciousness
"AI" really is cancer.