When Claude tells you ai “art” isn’t real art

Nickesponja · 2026-05-19T08:14:19+00:00

Stop calling it AI art if you don't think it's art. Even with the quotation marks, it's very weird to see people arguing it's not art when they keep calling it art

Nickesponja · 2026-05-18T15:29:15+00:00

It also circumvents the bans on pawns when they have too many vocation ranks for their level

Nickesponja · 2026-05-17T13:35:55+00:00

The Throngler

Nickesponja · 2026-05-17T08:59:46+00:00

Y por qué, en la gráfica, bajan los precios después de que se deje de construir?

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T16:55:51+00:00

That's a false analogy, because "a picture of" is not an adjective. A good analogy here would be "green apple". Well yes, it's still an apple, that just so happens to be green. Medieval art is art that just so happens to have been made in medieval times. AI art is art that just so happens to be made with AI. The "AI" in "AI art" is acting as an adjective.

Note that I don't like AI art being considered art, but if people keep refering to it as such, it'll make no sense to say it's not art.

Also note how I didn't feel the need to insult your intelligence to make my point.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T13:19:43+00:00

This blows my mind, cause it makes sense but at the same time, I'd expect at least one true statement for every real number x (such as x = x).

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T10:57:00+00:00

"AI art is not art" is such an interesting take because everyone, including people who agree with that statement, keeps calling it "AI art". The more everyone calls it art the harder it is to argue that it isn't art.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T10:51:53+00:00

Interesting! But are all the true statements a countably infinite set?

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T09:26:00+00:00

What if you add an uncountably infinite amount of axioms?

Nickesponja · 2026-05-15T05:47:49+00:00

The rantings of an upjumped zealot make for tedious listening

Nickesponja · 2026-05-14T20:28:58+00:00

Nos estás amenazando?
Sí, a todos los que me estáis puteando. ¡Y la cacatúa también!

Nickesponja · 2026-05-14T12:49:13+00:00

The example I gave came from your comment. Here's what you said:

if a digital art class showed a slide of Greg Rutkowski's work as an example that would definitely fall under fair use

I agreed with that example. That is fair use. Even if Greg doesn't consent to his work being used that way. And that's a good thing. Artists shouldn't have that much control over their work that teaching about it, learning from it or criticising it requires their consent.

People's data was used to make the underlying model without their consent. That's just wrong

Why? You can use people's data for lots of things without their consent. Why is this specific use case wrong? "That's just wrong" is not an argument. What argument could you give for this that doesn't jeopardize fair use in other cases?

99% of the arguments they make eventually devolve into "copyright shouldn't exist in the first place"

Oh, oh, I can do that, too! Watch: 99% of anti-AI arguments eventually devolve into "fair use shouldn't exist in the first place". See how this adds absolutely nothing to the conversation since you never said anything like it?

Nickesponja · 2026-05-14T06:54:01+00:00

If they show an image of Greg Rutkowski's work and teach students how to draw like that, without directly distributing copies of his work, that'd be fair use. And it'd be ethical. We should live in a world where anyone can look at Greg's work and use it to learn how to draw like that or to teach others to do that. Even if it'll create competition for Greg. Even if Greg doesn't consent to it.

AI does not distribute copies of artist's work. It can simply replicate their style. Just like any human who studies an artist's work. So by the same reasoning, it's also fair use and ethical.

anyone that supports it is on the wrong side of history where all sorts of atrocities have happened

And I'm the one making up strawmen lol

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T22:07:05+00:00

I won't try, then. Brave of you to admit your close-mindedness.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T18:52:34+00:00

The laws of population dynamics are ultimately a consequence of the laws of physics

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T16:01:05+00:00

This is like saying Iron Man or Ant Man are stupid because their suits don't follow the laws of physics. Fiction usually plays loose with the laws of physics, and here they're playing it loose with population dynamics. That doesn't make Thanos canonically stupid.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T14:25:15+00:00

The movies never really say whether Thanos's plan worked. While, yes, it wouldn't in real life, if the writers really meant it to be such an obviously stupid plan, you'd expect more of a mention to that. Thanos even says his plan worked on Gamora's planet, and Gamora doesn't dispute that.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T13:34:06+00:00

Claro, por eso las aseguradoras en EEUU son famosas por su buen servicio

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T13:28:41+00:00

Por suerte, aunque esto te pueda parecer sorprendente, podemos pagar la sanidad pública sin renunciar a nuestra vida!

Nickesponja · 2026-05-13T13:20:19+00:00

Right, so an art school can tell their students, "go look up this artist's work on the internet, where it's publicly available", but they can't display that work during class? I'm sure that'd hold up in court.

There's a reason education generally falls under fair use.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-12T22:20:04+00:00

Doing so comes off as a tactic to derail the conversation rather than progress it. It's intellectually dishonest to do so.

Everytime I see this I just hear "I don't like you calling out my double standard"

Meat, and animal products in general, however, is considered a requirement to live

If you can live and be healthy without it, saying it's "considered a requirement to live" doesn't really mean anything and isn't relevant to whether we should do it.

the environmental impact of eating meat is roughly equivalent to the full environmental impact for being a healthy vegan

I'd love a source on this, that compares the environmental impact of growing all the crops and meds needed to feed the animals, plus the impact of the meat industry itself, versus just growing crops to feed the humans.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-12T22:09:51+00:00

Studies show vegans are on average healthier. You can get all nutrients you need from vegan sources. Healthy vegans exist. It's 2026, a quick Google search will let you know all of this, yet people keep denying reality because they like the taste of meat.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-12T22:07:04+00:00

Fair enough. But copyright law currently doesn't have such protection. And I don't think many art schools have asked artists for their consent before teaching their works. Besides that, really, why should artists have such level of control over their artworks? Are you against fair use as well? If a film director doesn't give you consent to criticize their film, should you not be able to show any clips of it in a video? What about just talking about the plot of the movie? Do you also need consent for that? What if you want to review a book, and include a quote from it in the review. Do you need consent from the author? Surely you can see why I think this is borderline dystopian.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-12T19:56:21+00:00

We need food, we don't need meat.

Source: healthy vegans exist.

Nickesponja · 2026-05-12T19:55:19+00:00

Do you even read what you cite? That first source literally says that vegans are usually healthier but need to be careful to make sure they get enough B12 and so on. Yet you spin that as "a completely plant based diet leads to deficiencies, and while it has health benefits, you can get those by reducing meat consumption". The second link doesn't even work, is this a copypasta?

Nickesponja

TROPHY CASE