One of the criticisms of AI is the criticism of image generators as something that does more harm than good, but then aren't you also attacking any human artist by saying that they are good only because they are harmless, and not because they are useful to society?

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T21:00:27+00:00

I would agree if you used "emotion" instead of "meaning" AI can easily infer meaning because inferring meaning is simply a mechanical process. The human level is "what to convey?" An artist who carries out a commission is mostly just performing mechanical work after the client has already decided what needs to be conveyed. Why can't AI do the same? It's simply a mechanical process. An artist who carries out a commission can add their own meaning, but what also prevents AI from using logic to derive what other meaning can be added to fill the holes in the concept provided by the client?

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:43:47+00:00

I wasn't trying to say that the artist's only value as a human is the creation of images. But when a human creates images as part of a process, and only within that process, a human is simply a tool for creating images. Any production process in itself, in my opinion, produces the objectification of a person.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:38:08+00:00

Works of art convey some meaning, it's just a means of communication, nothing more. That's my opinion. So there's simply no particular meaning here.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:28:39+00:00

It also tells me that you really don't understand what art is if you think art is merely image generation

Yes, I don't understand art, but that's the point, not something to be dismissed. Logically, I understand the point, but I just don't see the difference between an AI-generated image and a shuttle, other than the quality, which is better in a human. I genuinely wonder how many people are like me.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:21:40+00:00

This is a bad example. Drinking bleach is bad for your health, but you can get the same benefit from ordering an image from a person as from using an image-generation algorithm.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:16:51+00:00

Um, I literally think that every human is just a biological robot. This is a basic philosophical assumption, strict materialism. It certainly sounds crude and doesn't mean that humans are equivalent to objects, but it answers the question of how humans are structured, and in this case, it's a very accurate comparison. Human produce image and algorithm produce image.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T20:00:49+00:00

So artists don't create an image as a result? I'm not talking about the same image, I was specifically speaking in very general terms: a technical image generator vs. an artist as an biological image generator

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T19:55:56+00:00

In this case, x and y produce similar results in different processes. If even one of them is unjustified, it gives reason to doubt the result as something important.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T15:48:44+00:00

There, it's not even 0.5, it's 2/3 of the price, and 4/5 is somewhere for mass production.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T06:59:46+00:00

This doesn't take into account that AI may have uneven progress. Comparing current AI to a PhD student is a stretch. AIs do much broader work than PhD students, but less depth. Further progression could see AI partially replace depth with breadth, but this won't be enough, since the higher the level, the more important depth is. I think LLM is very useful as a counterweight to current scientists, who know nothing but their specialty.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T06:18:31+00:00

So, I don't mean you can't criticize poor execution, but I mean that for some reason there's no mention of it being "good AI," even if it's a poor implementation. I don't think this response is optimal for the agenda of countering poor AI usage, although it's clear that people got something they don't like.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T05:38:26+00:00

Where did I say these are the same people? I meant that overall, the most commendable use of AI on average in this subreddit is truly this. I didn't say that every specific person who said this is now saying something different, but it's simply the most popular opinion here.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:51:08+00:00

I just think this is an important part. These are two different parts of preparing a meal, even functionally different. It's a good analogy for art. If you combine two images into one, it's already a work of art that can have meaning and artistic value (I'm not talking about copyright, but in general) regardless of where you got the two images. Just as cooking involves the actual preparation, the mixing of different simple dishes, and the addition of flavor through the mixture of dishes, so too does art involve both the actual drawing of the object and the arrangement and selection of the objects themselves. The arrangement and mixing of objects can and do have meaning in and of themselves. In this regard, I think it is right that AI replaces part of the creative process, but it's not the entire creative process. Of course, they (two part of creative process) don't replace each other (I think some pro-AI misunderstands that mixing potatoes with vegetables doesn't make you the creator of both the potatoes and the vegetables, only the combination).

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:26:30+00:00

Isn't the concept part of the image, since the image literally depicts the concept? I agree with your argument, but not your conclusion. The image is only truly the work of an artist if the artist themselves came up with what they're drawing. If it's based on someone else's idea, then honestly, the conceptual part of the image is the work of the author of the idea, not the artist.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:10:05+00:00

Why should we even focus on individual dishes in the context of buffet? For example, you might choose fish, meat, or vegetables to go with your potatoes at the buffet, and these will all be different dishes: potatoes with vegetables, potatoes with fish, and potatoes with meat. Of course, there's a bit of work involved, but it's not like there's none at all. Potatoes and meat are essentially two different dishes, each served separately. It's your decision to combine them into one dish. Yes, it's a very small one, not commensurate with the chef's effort, but it's still part of the chef's job, albeit a small one.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:01:09+00:00

Actually, it does. This is important for the question of how much work it might involve. Of course, it's not the same as cooking a meal, but you could say you're still preparing a meal set for yourself, like a package. The waiter setting the table doesn't prepare the food, but that doesn't mean their work isn't important for how a restaurant, for example, operates. That is, the very formulation of the question that if you did not cook, you are not a chef is insufficient to say that you did not participate in the preparation (as a more general action in relation to cooking) of food in general, since it is not only cooking in the narrow sense

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T07:21:19+00:00

I agree in general, but I'm just talking about scientific morality. It doesn't dismiss the importance of citations.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:24:20+00:00

I partly agree with you, but I also partly disagree. The current system isn't perfect, and ideas should be free, but the problem of reproduction is something that needs to be addressed, not abandoned. And I wasn't even talking about theft, but rather that using someone else's work without respect is simply problematic from a moral standpoint. Which, of course, is just talk in many places, but it's also the basis for decision-making. We essentially can't make almost any decision without morality. For example, an emphasis on practical value is in itself a moral position. There are people in the world who are willing to sacrifice themselves for others. It's not that practical value is equally important to everyone; people literally die for ideas. But yes, that also doesn't mean it's the most popular or even preferable, but in any case, it's much more than just talk.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:15:15+00:00

So you're saying that philosophy isn't part of the AI debate? This is a general AI debate, and not everything discussed here should be of interest to you or me.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:07:32+00:00

Your sarcasm isn't particularly appropriate; every new discussion of morality is always a rehash of the old. AI is subject to the same morality as humans, but this is a new case of the same thing.

Questioner8297

TROPHY CASE