this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
453 points (95.4% liked)
Comic Strips
18495 readers
1742 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
A computer-generated "Van Gogh" is not art any more than a mass-produced coffee mug is artisanal, no matter how "realistic".
This has all happened before. Take photography. People thought it was the end of visual art. If anyone can take a photograph, why would anyone spend years learning to paint?
Artists answered by pushing the medium beyond the limits of realism. Impressionism. This did not make photographs go away. But when I see a picture of someone's cat, I don't usually go "art!" – even though 200 years ago the mere existence of a photorealistic picture would have implied very impressive artistry.
The work that clankers are very quickly taking over is that which does not require art. Visual filler. Lorem ipsum. Corporate communications. Out with artisans, in with industrial machinery. This is the same story that has already happened to almost every artisanal trade, from scribery to pottery to smithing. Visual artists and writers thought themselves exempt from the industrial revolution; they aren't. It will be a worsening socio-economic crisis. But it won't "end" art. Clankers definitionally cannot, and will never do art. Not until they gain a conscience of their own.
+100. I wish I could pin this.
That being said, I think AI Bro existentialism and singularity hype has a lot of people on particular edge, beyond what the camera and other past innovations triggered, since it's pushed at such high levels of our world. But (speaking a fervent local ML tinkerer), the proof is not in their puddin', as professional, foundational researchers would tell you as well. Not just because of technical limitations, but because corporate enshittification is already taking effect.
People on the more spiritual side of things thought that being photographed meant trapping a part of your soul into the camera. It was a more existential creation than we give it credit for. Before then, nobody had ever stopped time.