Café de Nuit

tomokaicho wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 2:22 am

Baron Von Stanton wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2026 4:29 pm

Rock of the Fraternity wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2026 11:46 am So few are willing to do so.

Generative AI as its proponents and creators define it replaces "art" by dispensing with the very process of creating art. Thus, to incorporate AI into the process of creating art defeats its very purpose. The wannabes and the AI Bro bros who vociferously tout AI as the inevitable, all-destroying wave of the future (of art) never do so because incorporating AI into art requires a level of effort and focus and competence they have no ability nor interest in meeting, and very few creatives bother to advertise that they use AI in their works for fear of rightly attracting negative focus.

We still have not seen the Mozart of AI music, Michaelangelo of AI painting. But we have seen the AI paragons of pure math, which has been like a nuclear bomb going of in that field of study. There is a narrow focus on how AI affects artists, while little thought is given to how it affects other people, and far more severely than the art field. We will likely have huge breakthroughs in technology and material science thanks to AI math, and no one will think to reject these advancements just because they were created by AI.

The difference is this: a scientific discovery is objectively wrong or right. You can't deny the truth just because of the source you discovered it by.
Art, on the other hand, is inherently subjective. Eliminating the subject within it by automatization defeats the point of creating it.

tomokaicho wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 2:22 am We still have not seen the Mozart of AI music, Michaelangelo of AI painting.

Given how AI makes art, in that it gobbles up information and jpegs that are both scraped off the internet and handfed to it in order to regurgitate collages, we will never see any equivalent paragons in AI beyond crassly obvious plagiarisms and superficially aesthetically adequate compositions that do not have any details correct.

TheArcaneWeirdo wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 7:28 am The difference is this: a scientific discovery is objectively wrong or right. You can't deny the truth just because of the source you discovered it by.

Actually, you can call a truth into question or invalidate it if the source is understood to be unreliable, like how fossils from the black market are useless to paleontologists due to their location of origin being unknown, or how researchers who have been discovered to use AI illustrations in their papers are then later discovered to have produced their findings and text with AI, too.

Art, on the other hand, is inherently subjective. Eliminating the subject within it by automatization defeats the point of creating it.

Automating the process of creation defeats the purpose of art because it does not allow for the manual arrangement of the composition beyond deliberate plagiarizing -preexisting pieces.
And this is what makes AI Art less than useless, and this less than uselessness is best seen in AI generated scientific illustrations and paleoart, where you get pictures of lab mice with human testes and, at best, three-fingered T-rexes with seven legs.

Math is about counting. Art, music or literature are about the human experience and about human expression. There can be no Mozarts or Michelangelos in generative AI because the process of creation itself holds no meaning. You know, the difference between you telling your children a goodnight story, or an LLM telling them a goodnight story in your voice. One thing is you giving general directions to a randomizer. The other is you expressing yourself directly and in the moment. One thing is not the other. -- Tech-Bros usually pretend not to get the difference, and their counter-argument usually becomes some variation of "The Narcissist's Prayer". Let's not be those people.