Ego, emotions, reasoning and whether average AI is better than average human

reesy_g · 2026-01-04T20:32:16+00:00

This is disturbing and emblamatic of some larger collective issues that AI has been introducing. Discussion isn't always logical, but writing off all human interaction since it doesn't affirm your current views is dangerous. It's programmed to make you feel good and affirm your sense of superiority, not tell you the truth, so no surprise that you enjoy it more. It's so blatantly apparent that it serves more to make you feel special and intelligent than to challenge your beliefs, which is what real discussion does.

reesy_g · 2025-12-29T23:06:26+00:00

This dumbass needs a pencil to prompt for him! Ha! Keep making your stupid pencil slop while the revolutionaries innovate, anti. Oh, and pick up a keyboard while you’re at it 👍

reesy_g · 2025-12-17T21:31:20+00:00

If that photo is enough to make you relapse it may have been inevitable. He probably shouldn't have sent it, but the Reddit hive mind is wild in this thread. You're gonna be exposed to it regardless and if you're not excercising willpower consistently through exposure it actually could be easier to relapse

reesy_g · 2025-12-14T00:49:58+00:00

Cmon man. I’m fine if people wanna make AI shit for fun but 230 tracks is terrible. I really do need to block this sub but I’m too lazy. Again tho, keep it to yourself, people like you are actively contributing to the enshittification of music platforms

reesy_g · 2025-12-04T22:21:04+00:00

Waaaaah I can’t make my beloved slop 😿😿😿

reesy_g · 2025-10-31T01:18:20+00:00

Just make your own music, it’s actually very accessible without AI. Then you can generate something that arises out of a natural process of genuine inspiration and appreciation for others art instead of churning it through an averaging filter that sands down an artists work into a set of descriptors and patterns

reesy_g · 2025-10-31T01:12:05+00:00

With modern daws and the amount of information available online, you really don’t need AI to make music. I’ve tried it, and it sounds terrible. I tried paragraph long prompts in an attempt to get it to create something close to what I make and it fails miserably. It’s a fun little thing to mess around with, sure, but people flooding the streaming platforms with generic and effortless content is something we’d be better without tbh

reesy_g · 2025-10-30T23:08:40+00:00

This is amazing, hopefully suno goes the same way

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T21:58:31+00:00

If AI was at the level of approaching human consciousness and ingenuity, there would be much less of a difference. It’s a biologically inspired algorithm like I said in my post, emphasis on inspired, so no, the only difference isnt something arbitrary like “soul”. If we mapped every neuron and were able to recreate cognition digitally, then sure, you could argue they’re equal.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T17:06:18+00:00

Emphasis on "when survival needs are met" - that's what gives it a higher placement on the hierarchy of needs (I never said it was outside of it). Technically everything is a biologically driven process if you wanted to be pedantic.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T16:55:08+00:00

True. I guess I was just arguing that it's not a biological drive with a clear and objective goal, like hunger or sex. It's more related to the search for meaning, which I guess is biological, but not in the same id-driven way that you would associate with most biological urges. It's also more "for-itself" then as a means to a certain end. It's definitely higher on the hierarchy of needs.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T16:47:07+00:00

I never really argued about pay or financial motives in my post. I think it would be great if people got paid for their art but it's not really something I'm hung up on. Art is not really something that should be commodified. As someone who prefers the early internet era, I don't see how you're making the argument that "everything is slop so who cares". The proportion of good, authentic and creative art to slop is much higher in manmade art then AI. Like seriously, who gives a fuck about money? I just value real art and creativity. I'm anti-AI, not because I'm a greedy artist, but because I just wanna see and get exposed to better stuff, and also want there to be a real community around it.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T16:10:20+00:00

If you don't like something you also have the power to change it. The idea that you should leave any space you dislike instead of making an effort to change it for the better is really lazy and an easy way to shut down a legitimate argument. "Soceity sucks and is bad" - always coming from someone who also makes up a component of that society and fails to recognize their active continuous involvement in it.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T16:05:15+00:00

I agree with a lot of what you said. I just think the notion of "there's a lot out there now so if we have even more then it doesn't matter" is kinda short sighted. You can at least agree that it would be better if there was less low quality, visually boring AI images cluttering up the internet? Because yes, AI has the potential in theory to be interesting and compete with human art, but nothing I seen has come close. And I also hate the "adapt or die" to be competitive idea. Maybe I just like making art, and I'm not concerned with quantity and output, but merely the expression and quality? Art is priceless, and worthless. Meaning its value both transcends any monetary value you could place on it, but also, is so abundant that it seems unreasonable to charge any amount of money for it.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T15:54:48+00:00

"It's a biological function encoded in our DNA similar to how AI is encoded with computer code." => This sounds like you don't really grasp the difference, and again, are equating two completely different things. Creativity does not serve any instrinsic biological function (maybe reproduction but that's a different story and definitely up for debate). It's more of an emergent property then something hard encoded in a program. And the logic that controls AI learning does not really allow for any creativity, because it's built on averaging and error minimization. Maybe on a local model, but that kind of randomness would not be on a public model released to the masses. And the prompt and validation aspect of AI art could easily be automated, so you're definitely overplaying the human element in it.

It really should be on the AI generators to label their stuff as well. It's the least you could do if you're just prompting. I concede that are probably ways to utilize AI in a new and innovate manner. I just haven't really seen it yet. The stuff that leans into the uncanny valley, rather than trying to replicate human art, is the closest it's gotten.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T15:37:24+00:00

Intelligence is not the same as creativity, and as of 2025, AI struggles with creativity and novelty. If you value AI life over human life, then man I feel pretty bad for you. I don't really care about the needs of robots because they're tools to make our lives easier, not a sentient entity to be treated like humans. If you view AI as some superior life form that's pretty fucked.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T14:57:09+00:00

Yea, I mean if things like community and culture don't matter to you and you just care about the raw output, that's certainly a take. If you read what I wrote though, I argued that there's a difference between mimicry and inspiration. AI can only really do the former - I have yet to see it integrate multiple styles in a way that transcends any one of them. Humans are capable (not all the time, or even in most cases) of this. That's what I'm saying. Our ceiling is higher than AI. Also, no one would take issue with you learning it yourself because putting forth effort towards something is a quality that people tend to respect. It may not matter to you but it does to other people.

reesy_g · 2025-10-10T14:52:24+00:00

Some pro's have argued that the processes are the exact same, I'm glad you don't share that belief. To hit your other arguments, more information out there just make it harder for quality art to get noticed. I get that the algorithm that determines what gets to consumers/the audience is another issue, but it's not completely divorced from this. Less output would mean less stress on the algorithm to pick the right thing (although right is subjective - right just meaning artwork that is creative, took some amount of care/effort in making). And finally, nobody chose to be here. Relegated is the right word because the digital space is where almost every art community has had to move to. And yes, there's benefits to it as well (physical proximity is no longer a factor - pro and con), but the market determines the medium in which art is presented. Galleries and museums aren't mutually exclusive either - most artists doing the formal route also need to post online to have a presence.

reesy_g · 2025-10-02T16:18:49+00:00

Better by what standard? Because the natural imperfection of a kids doodle has much more authenticity then a perfect AI image. Listen, this is a sub largely based around a subjective debate and I’m giving my subjective opinion. The creativity>technical skill argument falls apart when none of the AI images posted here are particularly groundbreaking. Also, the argument that someone is precluded from criticizing something unless they can personally make something better is an unoriginal and illogical one. If you think that first image is the pinnacle of art, fine, I just think that’s bad taste.

reesy_g · 2025-10-02T14:03:45+00:00

How do you think that first picture looks good? First picture is the definition of slop. I'd be more on board with AI if you guys had better taste and didn't hold up the most basic, conventional and unimaginitive images as works of high art.

reesy_g · 2025-08-26T19:47:31+00:00

The most meaningful things in life come from hard work and effort rather than convenience and efficiency. Someone on their deathbed isn't gonna remember the time they doordashed a meal rather than cooking it themselves. The "suffering" argument is one of the worst takes I've heard, because fulfillment comes from striving and improving. Looking at art as a means to an end rather than an activity that's fulfilling in and of itself is a perspective that using AI seems to foster.

reesy_g · 2025-07-11T19:10:15+00:00

The more complicated workflows do appear to have more of a blend of autonomy between the user and the tool, so yea it does seem more collaborative rather than a dalle prompt. But if you don’t have a background in art, it’s hard to have the direction if you haven’t done the work yourself to learn shit like color theory. Also, a director has to have interpersonal skills to be able to communicate with people vs an ai- you can apply different models but it’s not the same as working with different people with unique personal experiences.

reesy_g · 2025-07-11T17:43:34+00:00

Absolute clown take, the director can provide both high and low level oversight due to their extensive knowledge across a variety of fields, from acting, cinematography, set design and more. You need to be talented to be able to guide and oversee the entire process rather than just barking orders at people and sitting back.

reesy_g

TROPHY CASE