[krustyburger]

“No, I didn't know about the exhibit before that day. And then I saw the Al piece and it was just—as an artist myself, it was insulting to see something of such little effort alongside all these beautiful pieces in the gallery. It shouldn't be acceptable for this "art," if you will, to be put alongside these real great pieces.”

What an impulsive fellow.

[jackyinger]

In art one often follows impulses. Art is about expression after all.

Plus, if these were really AI creations new copies can be printed. Unless the human “co-creator” did something like paint on the work after printing, not much has been damaged.

[notahacker]

Someone, somewhere is disappointed they didn't think of the idea of videoing someone eating AI art as an art exhibit first...

[aimor]

Don't take him to the MoMA he'll need his stomach pumped.

[LinuxAmbulance]

The MoMA has some of the best art pieces I've seen out of the hundred plus museums I've been to.

It also has by far some of the absolute worst art pieces I've seen in my life - in person, or otherwise. One of them was literally a pile of trash.

I used to think that art shouldn't have any gatekeepers, but I've begun to wonder if maybe it should.

[chente]

They're right and this also reminds me of the banana that was sold and eaten at Art Basel.

[numpad0]

It's just garbage in garbage out. AIs reliably induce rage and negativity in humans. Humans become angry and violent if shown AI generated data. It's just a fact at this point.

And it's not even like software engineers are special in that regard. Everyone here is quick to spot and express their opinions on use of AI in articles and everyone seem to like to have their words on rampant vibecoded pull requests.

Freedom of thought and speech means you're free to expect people to thank you for spitting on them, and also that nobody else than you would be responsible for that insanity of yours.

[ronsor]

> AIs reliably induce rage and negativity in humans. Humans become angry and violent if shown AI generated data. It's just a fact at this point.

This is more conditioning from moral panic mobs than an innate trait. One could also say that TV makes humans angry and violent, or we could simply stop watching cable news.

[user205738]

They're definitely alarmists. In my environment, people are either neutral or positive about the workings of neural networks.

The reason is that they don't read articles critical of AI, and they don't even know about the existence of forums like reddit, for example.

[lbrito]

>One could also say that TV makes humans angry and violent

It does

Anderson and Bushman (2002) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11440811_The_Effect... Evidence is steadily accumulating that prolonged exposure to violent TV programming during childhood is associated with subsequent aggression.

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004004 Results showed positive and significant correlation between TV violence and aggressive behavior

Ironically I used Gemini to look those up. Being a social studies thing, of course there is no absolute proof of this, there are many caveats and ways of looking etc.

Tangential - "find meta-analysis to back up my point" is ridiculously easy with AI, and it can be used on both sides. I could just as easily negate the ask and get compelling results.

I would hate having to write a dissertation right now.

[ronsor]

I think you're agreeing with me. My point is that TV does not inherently induce negative emotions, but the content of it can. Similarly, AI content does not have to do the same, but poor quality AI content can.

[lbrito]

Yeah. More importantly though, AI seems to be a novel way to pry open the crazy out of some people, with sometimes disastrous results.

Or putting it more charitably, some people seem to be more vulnerable, for whatever reason, to multiple different kinds of mental breakdowns (like the psychosis described by the "artist" "victimized" by this "crime").

While I personally don't get it (how some people are so entranced by AI as to have mental breakdowns), it does seem to be a thing, with some catastrophic results[1]. Granted in some cases the persons involved had prior serious mental health issues, that seems not to always be the case. In other words, be it not for AI, those people could reasonably have expected to live normal lives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots

[numpad0]

You would not be disagreeing with me, actually. I should have clarified that the problem is somewhere in current implementations of generative AI(Google Transformer derivatives), in my opinion, and is not necessarily the case to every shape and form of AI.

But nearly every single implementation of generative AI data generators appear to exhibit this behavior, with Google Nano Banana(tm) implementation as potential sole exception or lesser offender. Something in it is rage and/or derangement coded, NOT in artistic way that rock or metal music recordings are. Maybe this was what supposed "toxicity" of LLMs discussed heavily as chatbots rolled out remedied by extreme sycophancy to the point that LLMs don't literally flip out people and drive them into state of psychosis. But whatever it is, it's insane that everyone supportive of AI is tone deaf on a phenomenon that obvious, reproducible, and widespread.

All it takes to turn anyone into anti-AI Luddite is to show them a piece of text, image, code, any data that they are familiar with. That's not a simple moral panic.

[hulitu]

> One could also say that TV makes humans angry and violent,

yes. It does.

[publicdebates]

> It shouldn't be acceptable for this "art," if you will,

He didn't even will. Why did he encourage others to? Misguided etiquette.

[jollyllama]

Maybe he was hungry.