Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to love it too.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
40 points (93.5% liked)
Hacker News
4860 readers
334 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
"Art" implies that the images generated are a conscious use of skill and creative imagination^[1]^.
I prefer to use the term "AI-generated images".
You conveniently skipped over the first definition pointing out that art is learnable. Consciousness is not a requirement. Animals, insects, and even natural events create things that feel artistic. AI models imagination as a mix of learned patterns and controlled randomness. I see what it generates as a result of a machine that never experienced the world and yet attempts to recreate observations from it.
Thats like saying EDM isnt music, its just noise. REAL music takes the conscious use of skill to play a REAL instrument. Not just make noises with a computer.
This is different. Don't forget, ~~they're~~ there's also AI music slop that's polluting all streamers.
Edit: damn, sorry for the confusion
Saying its different doesn't make it different. That exact argument was made when techno first came out.
Its not even an accurate argument in most cases as both AI art and AI music still take creative input from the end user to make in any meaningful way. I've heard some really funny AI songs people have made by inputting their own lyrics in and tweaking the results until the AI generated song was what they had pictured in their head. Same goes for AI generated art. I've seen some funny ass AI generated memes.
Don't get me wrong, AI generated slop is definitely slop worthy of mockery but not everything AI generated is slop and some of it takes real effort to make.
AI generated "music" is also not art, and not comparable to what some people said about a specific human made music genre at some point. It is a pretty simple concept: AIs can't generate art, because it just regurgitates stolen human made music. Only humans can make music.
Computers cant make art. DUBSTEP isnt comparable to what some people said about techno at some point. Its a pretty simple concept: computers cant generate music because it just generates sounds stolen from REAL instrument made music. Only humans playing on instruments can make music.
Damn, you woulda fit right in with the early 90's techno hate crowd or the late 2000's dubstep hate crowd.
Yea they do, to be fair there is legit reasons to hate on AI art......however there is also a place for AI art. Hating AI art just because its generated by AI is just bandwagon behavior from low IQ losers.
Defending Big AI, Now that's some low IQ loser shit right there
"Not defacto hating everything AI == defending big AI" is exactly the kinda low IQ take I was talking about.
Is the "big AI" im defending in the room with us right now?
How's them boots tasting? You can stop whiteknighting billionaire oligarchs, they are not going to reward you for it. They will never even know you exist.
Did you have a stroke and respond to the wrong comment or something? Here is an AI generated picture of you having a stroke and responding to the wrong comment:
No, there is no place for AI art. Primarily because it doesn't exist, AIs cannot make art.
This is AI art I made of you writing this comment. Seems like i found the perfect place for AI art. 
You made that? Then how is it ai art?
I made it with AI.
I came up with the prompt all on my own.
So when I ask a baker to make a cake, I made the cake?
Are you arguing that the AI is its own conscious individual?
So AI a tool used by humans then?
Why are you avoiding my question? I asked you if you asked a baker to make a cake, did you make the cake?
A hammer is a tool. If you told the hammer to build a house and it builds the house on its own, did you build the house?
Im not avoiding the question. Im illustrating the logical conclusion of your argument.
Can a hammer build a house on its own? You can tell a hammer to build a house until your blue in the face but it wont because its inanimate. It is not alive.
If the "baker" in question is my oven that's doing the baking then yes, I baked the cake.
If the "baker" in question is another human that is using an oven to do the baking then no, I didn't bake the cake.
So either a human using an inanimate tool like AI to create something counts as the human making that thing and therefore ai art is art because it is made by a human using a tool
OR
AI is its own living conscious individual self and the art it creates isnt made by the human telling it to make the art.....in which case your argument is that AI is alive and the art it creates isnt art because ONLY humans can create art(animals and potential alien life be damned).
So which is it. Is AI a tool used by humans or is it alive?
You avoided the question. You didn't answer it directly but asked a counter question. This is avoiding to answer.
You can tell an oven to bake a cake until you are blue in the face but it won't because it's inanimate. It's not alive.
You argument is flawed and falls apart the second you think about it.
You didn't make art. Because making something includes making the thing. You told another entity to make something.
Now who's avoiding.
First things first, my oven is voice activated. Point one, me.
So, just so we are clear here....your position is that AI is its own living entity and therefore NOT a tool.
Neat
If that's the case then in your view, no. I didn't make it. The "alive" ai I instructed to make it did.
In my view tho, the AI isnt alive and therefore is a tool I used to make the art.....which means the only "flaw" in my argument is that you beleive AIs are alive.
So, when you gonna start advocating for AI rights? Or do you think AIs should stay enslaved to humanity?
You are making a fool out of yourself.
The method of activation has nothing to do with it. the point is that your oven won't make the whole cake just by telling it.
And here you just claim that I have that position and start talking as if its true without confirming. That is just embarrassing.
No ai isn't alive. The little robot that cleans isn't alive either. I'm astounded at how simple minded you are.
You have to lie, offensively bad because the conversation is there to read through and confirm that it isn't my position, just to... I don't even know what you tried to accomplish with that.
If you would put more time into actually learning something maybe you wouldn't need to redefine "I made" to have something to be proud of. But I guess you know that you are so utterly skillless and unimaginative that you gave up already.
And the part that is completely unbelievable is that, even in an environment where pretty much all the work is done for you your output ist still bad.
The only one making a fool out of themselves is you. Im not claiming anything about your position that you didn't clearly state yourself.
The little robot that cleans is a tool. Only a fool would claim it is anything else.
When I turn on a vacuum and push it around I am using a TOOL to clean my house.
When I turn on the cleaning robot to clean my house, im using a TOOL to clean my house.
When i set a pre-programmed schedule for that little autonomous cleaning robot to clean my house every Wednesday I am STILL USING A TOOL TO CLEAN MY HOUSE.
Your argument is that there is some imaginary arbitrary % of work done at which the tool is no longer being used to fulfill a task and it somehow magically becomes an "entity" completing the task all on its own.
I dont need to lie about your position, I spent several comments pinning it down with various questions to make sure it was properly fleshed out before I broke it down and addressed it.
The part that is ACTUALLY unbelievable is that you are getting mad at me because you dont fully understand your own position on the topic and you are clearly incapable of extrapolating the conclusions of the arguments you are putting forward.
EITHER:
Ai is a tool humans use to complete a task in which case I used ai to make this art
Or
Its its own living entity completing tasks on its own, of its own free will in which case I didn't make the art
There is no "third option" where AI is both a tool used in completing a task and also an entity that completes a task all on its own like you seem to want so badly to believe.
I'm convinced you are a bot, a person can't possibly be this dense. I refuse to believe that.
Cool ad hominem.
Ok, ill make this simple.
Did I use AI to generate this art?
Yes or no?
You bet your ass I'm avoiding.
For you pushing a button on a entity the going out and coming back to a clean floor is the same as pushing a button on an entity and have to shove it around, manage the cable, go down to reach spots under stuff and so on, is the same.
You are like the dude who wanted to talk about covid and then said he doesn't believe in aids. Thats the signifier that there is a lack of a fundamental understanding or knowledge. It doesn't make sense talking to you. You are a waste of time. I want you to know that.
You and I both know why you are avoiding answering the question.
You arnt fooling anyone with your ad hominem attacks.
Be honest, you're the kid who took his ball and went home the moment he started losing growing up huh? You know, the kid no one wanted to play with because he thought being a pandantic contrarian was a personality.
Don't worry, you dont have to answer.
Its obvious.