Comment on A cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inman

• FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  There’s zero need to throw insults around; I made the context absolutely clear in my comment and it has nothing to do with what I do when at an art gallery or something.

  Maybe some people are having an experience like they are looking at a Rembrandt when they scroll through /c/pics or something, but I’m not. Do you also shit on people for being unable to appreciate music because they put something on in the background? Is it only OK to go to concerts and immerse yourself in it? If you’re in a shop and a tune you like comes on, do you park your cart to really appreciate the depths of emotion it’s inspiring in you?

  Of course you don’t.

  source

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If you think that it was an insult then that shows what shame you have for your lack of skill, not an intention on my part.

    source

    • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Seems like you’re not very skilled at responding meaningfully.

      source

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Well I’m not going to slap you on the back and praise you for saying the equivalent of “I just eat potato chips anyway I don’t care if the new chips are made of styrofoam they still got flavor blasted”.

        Also, I totally disagree with you. If I see a neat picture someone took from getting dropped onto earth from low orbit, I’m gonna think that’s way cooler than an ai image trying to emulate the same thing, even if I’m only looking at it for a second. I’m going to think a crudely drawn parody of a meme is funnier than an ai generated imitation of a meme, even if all I’m doing is making that little exhale with the nose instead of laughing.

        There’s a difference. You can tell. If you’re so Internet addled you genuinely are saying you don’t think there’s a difference, then you’ve got like, negative skills in art appreciation.

        source