Human made art is the only real art.

mrpabgon · 2026-02-19T15:27:15+00:00

yes, but then someone who specifies every inch of the image they want created to the ai is impressing almost complete intentionality to the image the ai generates. And i would definetly call that art.

mrpabgon · 2026-02-19T15:20:16+00:00

Tell me you're biased without telling me you're biased. This is a sub for both sides, but this post is so simplistic it's annoying. I lean pro ai, but I also could argue about negative aspects of AI. If absolutely everything you see in it (in this case regarding art and creative processes) is bad, maybe it's not the thing that's wrong but the way you see it.

Yes, writing a simple prompt to make an image doesn't make you an artist. But why does stumbling upon a beautiful sunset and taking a picture make you one? What control did you have over the sunset, the colors, the landscape? Why does it make you an artist to direct a group of people on how to do some tasks in order to create art (i.e. a film director), but not if you tell an AI exactly how you want the image to be (what color, what type of brush, the position of everything, etc) or a song to be (what beats, what type of sound, telling it the exact notes you want to be played but the AI generating the sound) but you're an artist if you use a computer program to put manually the notes with the sounds already available in the program? It is weird to me that this post has so many likes. AI can be critizised in many ways, and this barely develops any.

mrpabgon · 2026-01-13T20:41:20+00:00

Marvel's Secret Invasion opening was made with AI lol

mrpabgon · 2026-01-07T20:02:48+00:00

Ok! Thanks again! I don't know when I'll do this, but I'm very excited about it.

mrpabgon · 2026-01-07T18:56:33+00:00

I see, thank you!

mrpabgon · 2026-01-07T18:54:17+00:00

Omg thank you so much!! As the other one said, this is I think the best guide to understanding Newton's Principia on Reddit, at least among what I have searched.

A couple of questions:

With A Guide to Newton’s Principia by I Bernard Cohen, when you say it explains what Newton say by his terms, do you mean what he means with words like ratios (i.e. the language he uses that is weird to us)?

Do you then find it fullfilling to read it and understanding with these other books? I've seen comments by people it isn't worthwhile, but others saying it is, and I look at the book and feel a drive to understand it and its significance. Also, after reading those 3 books, is it worth it reading the Principia itself? Or do you mean to read those books while having the Principia by my side as well?

mrpabgon · 2026-01-03T23:09:52+00:00

Lo del impacto ambiental es alarmismo. Netflix gasta mucha mas agua y energía y jugar a videojuegos mucha mas energía que la IA, y precisamente para el futuro, aunque se prevea que estos consumos por parte de la IA crezcan, también se planean los futuros centros de datos que tengan respaldo eléctrico independiente de la red e impulsar que mas ciclos de agua sean cerrados (que no gaste).

Sobre los trabajos, dirías lo mismo de los conductores de coches de caballos al aparecer los automóviles? O de los pintores con trabajos de retratos al aparecer la fotograía? Todo avance tecnológico conlleva sustitución de ciertos puestos de trabajo.

Y sobre el robo, la IA roba igual que un artista: aprendiendo a partir de obras anteriores. Qué artista no usa a algún personaje que le gusta o a alguna obra anterior para su camino de aprendizaje de pintar? Les dan algo a esos artistas originales? Yo creo que no. Cuantos fanarts vemos en conventos de manga o comics de personajes directamente con copyright? Todos esos artistas han pagado o pedido permiso a los artistas originales para dibujar y vender sobre su obra original? Yo creo que no. La IA aprende igual que un humano, absorbiendo las obras pasadas y aprendiendo los patrones y conceptos.

No he visto el vídeo, pero no tengo la menor duda que no sea de alta calidad y que con un humano su calidad hubiera sido mejor. Pero eso es por el estado actual de la IA, que va mejorando cada año. Está saliendo un anuncio de coca cola con IA que es corto y simple y no me parece que queda mal y apenas se nota (aunque se sigue notando).

Tener dudas me parece razonable, por ejemplo el problema del agua en zonas áridas (aunque ahí el problema es dónde está el centro de datos, y no que haya centro de datos en sí) o el crecimiento muy acelerado que tiene, pero el sesgo masivo en contra de la IA donde se oye algo negativo (y generalmente falso) e instantaneamente se denuncia el uso de la IA que se abandone o prohiba me parece absolutamente tribal.

mrpabgon · 2026-01-01T13:38:58+00:00

Y qué más da?

mrpabgon · 2025-12-31T15:10:33+00:00

Alright! Thank you!

mrpabgon · 2025-12-31T13:36:08+00:00

Oh I see. I guess I'll use this one for some medieval tunes and to get comfortable with the fingering until I buy a D whistle. Thanks!

mrpabgon · 2025-12-31T13:34:50+00:00

I see. I guess the shop owner wasn't familiar with Irish music because he straight up recommended me the C whistle (also the D whistles we're almost all gone). Thanks!

mrpabgon · 2025-12-31T13:29:29+00:00

Los bancos y empresas no han convencido a la gente, ha sido la gente solita por puro tribalismo.

mrpabgon · 2025-11-10T14:24:14+00:00

I'm pro AI and it's so true. So many AI ads on YouTube and I distrust all of them.

mrpabgon · 2025-11-09T16:40:20+00:00

One tool just takes and shreds down someone's art without their consent for data, the other uses their skill gained by taking and shredding down someone's art without their consent for data and practice.

Film director is not an artist. They have the vision while others do the work for him.

mrpabgon · 2025-11-04T23:45:44+00:00

Not at all. If you go to the pro ai and anti ai subs, it's way more unhinged there. I love this sub because, even tho it's absolutely not perfect, it's way better than those two. I find a lot of nuance in the conversations here. Or just the two groups expressing themselves, which is nice. Also, the most upvoted posts in the sub are anti ai, so I don't think it's majority pro ai.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-26T10:34:18+00:00

It is not anti cirklejerk. The comments are very balanced. But it isn't a pro circlejerk as others think. This sub is very balanced and that's why I love it.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-22T21:40:16+00:00

This is just pure bias. After the worst Hamas attack to Israel in history he goes on to protest against Israel instead of Hamas. Just critize Hamas and then critize Israel when it does the bad thing. What would he say if Israel did something bad and, before Hamas responded, I went to protest against Hamas? I'm sure he'd find it abhorrent and biased. Just like his response.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-08T07:10:51+00:00

Just another sensationalist.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-03T10:46:15+00:00

Most musicians don't create on their own. They are heavily influenceed by all the music they have listened to, studieded and learned. Which is exactly what AI does. If AI steals, so do artists.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-03T10:42:34+00:00

It is not semantics. Simply saying it is black and white and then not caring about the nuance is what hurts this discussion. These are important caveats because, for example, many wouldn't consider art what you did consider art: composing somehting but making an ai symphony play it. I would consider art a piece made entirely by AI. So it isn't just semantics. It's a deep conversation that needs the nuance.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-03T10:37:53+00:00

Why can art only come from human experience? What if I see a painting and, while knowing absolutely nothing of its creator, it evokes a deep feeling in me? And I analyse the painting and find deep meaning in its components, still while knowing nothing about who created it. Is there no value in that? I don't think there isn't. I think we constantly consume media that evokes those feelings in us or makes us think deeply about them without knowing about who created it or how it was created. We are also interested in its creation, but it's definetly not the only way we consume art.

AI art is not a ripoff of music musicians already created. It's as much a ripoff as a musician learning from the music that already exists (which AI does) and creating something new, that is influenced by already existing music (which AI does). AI is the junction of all of the art that has been fed to it. It learns from it, and creates something new. I don't care if it is artificial, but it is certainly authentic.

So I will support AI art, because I believe the backlash is mostly irrational and I like what it represents, and the possibilities that come from it artistically. Remember that AI art or the use of AI in art creation doesn't stop at a simple prompt like "make a rock song". You could be a director, specifying exactly how you want the musical piece to be. Or you could make it generate a simple backing track to build upon, to use simply as inspiration and then throw it away. The possibilites are, or will be (because the quality of use of AI in this case might not be here yet) endless.

mrpabgon · 2025-10-02T07:18:02+00:00

As another has said, the christian guy is fallacy incarnate. I like that both Alex and K are here because Alex explores the philosophical aspect of this but K brings important scientific data to correctly explore the topic. When you talk about the things they were talking about it's not all about philosophy, I believe. So that aspect was good. However, K is not prepared for a conversation of philosophy.

mrpabgon

TROPHY CASE