ATProto Browser
Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
He replied, but my reply to him is not showing up on the video (though I COULD find it in my Comment History), and no new posts from me are showing up. I do at least want to post the response here. (In two parts, for the sake of alt-text.)
May 7, 2025, 3:32 PM
{
"uri": "at://did:plc:obhgbrewwohekxxcygbphabx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lolprufbnk2e",
"cid": "bafyreifkfkodbizlwpnxkwb6755dujr7zzqxu766f2yq5gqy45bzvqi5oa",
"value": {
"text": "He replied, but my reply to him is not showing up on the video (though I COULD find it in my Comment History), and no new posts from me are showing up. I do at least want to post the response here. (In two parts, for the sake of alt-text.)",
"$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
"embed": {
"$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
"images": [
{
"alt": "Alex's Reply:\n\n@KaiserNeko I state in the video that most AI art is an aesthetic void and that most \"AI artists\" don't engage with any of the thoughtful, aesthetic, political or social context of their work in the way that usually gives art meaning. But I don't think this is the only way to use AI, and point to good use examples such as the artist team on Cuco's work who used AI to automate certain processes, while incorporating their handdrawn work and animation to train the model to their projects vision. I also pointed to artists from the AWAY collective who use their programming skills to fine tune AI model's parameters in search of specific output, similar to generative art movements which have been around since the 70s. Do you think these examples or the idea behind them would not qualify under most traditional definitions of art such as yours? \n\nI also never dismissed complaints of consent simply because they follow a \"capitalist mindset\" (I don't believe I used these words in the video at all). I dislike the material consequences that the lawsuits and legislation will have an art, copyright and speech, and how these legal efforts will consolidate power in the hands of Big Media and Big Tech. \n\nLet me know if that fails to address your concerns!",
"image": {
"$type": "blob",
"ref": {
"$link": "bafkreightb3ifnizz6ailbv3brhc4xshv7rzeuvnz2wzp5b5fpjekufrqu"
},
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"size": 331775
},
"aspectRatio": {
"width": 1756,
"height": 466
}
},
{
"alt": "My response to his reply:\n@alexander_avila It's not about the aesthetics or the quality, to be clear. It's that the tool itself can only exist by taking and repurposing art without the consent of artists to create a dataset for a program meant to produce facsimiles of art. It's about how I'm fucking sick and tired of seeing that garbage, having to second guess all of the time whether or not what I'm seeing was made my a human being or a fucking machine. And yes, the second is -- and will continue to be -- inherently meaningless to me, part of a system that is degrading to art and the artist process. While there ARE use cases for A.I. as a supplementary tool, it's literally impossible to create a dataset large and varied enough to create the sort of art we're currently being seen made by asking for the consent of every artist. You cannot make that happen, and any dataset that exists where the creators claim that they did is either INSANELY limited to the point of it being damn near useless, or they're LYING.\n\nThis absolutely includes Cuco's teams. Yes, I'm calling them either ignorant or liars, because no. You cannot create the various assets they presented based off of 60 hand drawn illustrations. That's not how that shit works.\n\nAnd you absolutely dismissed artists concerns of how their work is being appropriated, by claiming that their concerns primarily are rooted in the capitalist perception of the value of art re: commodification and intellectual property. This, again, ignores the personal concerns of their work being used to create the datasets without their consent. Which, I'm sorry, I absolutely believe is a valid reason to be offended and upset. Especially if you think generative A.I. anti-art and anti-human. Which, I do.",
"image": {
"$type": "blob",
"ref": {
"$link": "bafkreihqbukft5jrq6fry75g4d6i2salytopakqbhrmcswgbw5cwbufngi"
},
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"size": 448352
},
"aspectRatio": {
"width": 1761,
"height": 447
}
},
{
"alt": "I actually genuinely appreciate the section of your video where you elaborate on companies utilizing intellectual property laws to their benefit, though. A l l of that was deeply illuminating, valid, and important. Same with your condemnation of exploitation under capitalism, and how a lot of the arguments against A.I. sometimes distract us from the underlying issues that are inherent to the existing system. Frankly, if your entire video had been more centered around those topics, I'd have shared it around without question.\n\nAlso, the comparison of A.I. 'art' to photography is inherently flawed. Photography was never trying to emulate traditional art. A.I. art inherently is. I'm begging you to tell me what great liberation comes from A.I. 'art?' Not just tools that help streamline the process, but inherently replace the process. Because artists have, and will continue, to make deeply personal art, regardless of the existence of A.I. All A.I. 'art' will do is muddy and complicate how people encounter that art, and lead many young would be artists to indulge in cheap, easy facsimiles, instead of actually engaging in and pursuing the artistic process.",
"image": {
"$type": "blob",
"ref": {
"$link": "bafkreidfxo7lhzonqohp7vgm635n45ps4xth72lzdzyollyrb6vm53sdz4"
},
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"size": 282721
},
"aspectRatio": {
"width": 1750,
"height": 301
}
}
]
},
"langs": [
"en"
],
"reply": {
"root": {
"cid": "bafyreihrku2y6fxk7aeljynokpaffsomoxv36eq5p4fkchuwh3ejzb6ytm",
"uri": "at://did:plc:obhgbrewwohekxxcygbphabx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lojtdxkifs22"
},
"parent": {
"cid": "bafyreihrku2y6fxk7aeljynokpaffsomoxv36eq5p4fkchuwh3ejzb6ytm",
"uri": "at://did:plc:obhgbrewwohekxxcygbphabx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lojtdxkifs22"
}
},
"createdAt": "2025-05-07T15:32:08.417Z"
}
}