Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky
Transcript
four frame comic.
first frame shows a typical AI poster that says : All chatgpt flyers look the same, especially with this font! the text above it reads : I won’t go to your event if the poster was made by AI.
second frame shows a still frame from a Hank Green youtube video. text above reads : I won’t read your post or email and I won’t watch your video if they were made with AI.
third frame shows an AI restaurant poster of burgers and chicken in a window. text reads : I won’t patronize your shop or restaurant if it is advertised with AI.
last frame shows an MS paint window with badly written : Your bad art is better than AI slop. text reads : if you can’t take the time or make the effort to interact with me yourself, then why should I do it?
The Hank Green bandwagon hate really fucking irritates me.
The man, and his brother, have done decades of charity work. Raised millions for all sorts of progressive causes (Pizzamas). Created completely free online educational course videos that I know a large percentage here used in highschool/college (Crash Course). Produced thousands of science videos and topics (SciShow). The pair of them spend their time trying to educate and improve lives in any way they can (VlogBrothers), and give back for everything they have.
Hank makes a video that appears to have AI assistance, and people are ready to drop them on the spot like none of that matters.
Hank even apologized for his reliance on it. Gave receipts that it was never used in any of his other works. Used his experience as a cautionary tale of how AI it take over a process, and promised to do better.
Doesn’t matter… his previous decades of charity. His lifelong commitment to education… irrelevant… people want to hang him out to dry.
The VlogBrothers stretch themselves over complex topics, educational materials, charity events… everything… FOR FREE. I don’t blame Hank for trying to streamline and organize things. I think the man has taken on way more than any one person should do. I think the people jumping on him to make him some kind of pariah are nothing but self-rightious douchebag fuckheads that haven’t done even a fraction of good as those two brothers have, and they know it. They want to use this one thing as though it somehow makes them superior, like they ever did a goddamn thing for anyone. Like they could even begin to understand that level of work and charity to do all of that.
The man made a mistake doing too much and these cretins are tearing him down for clout. It’s fucking disgusting. Decades of positivity without controversy and yet it has afforded him no grace from the people who readily consume his content.
Yeah, the hate is unwarranted.
As always, there’s people who will basically take the it’s evil no matter what path. If they feel that heavily about AI, they probably shouldn’t be using anything that uses Linux. Which is basically just about everything on the web.
Hank was using it to create some games and do research for his videos. An AI is really good at creating code and for that purpose making a small game. AI can help you research things by finding and searching for things relevant to what you want, but then you need to rely on actually understanding what is being cited.
There are obvious downsides to AI and all the data centers and everything but going about and saying no matter why AI will never use is just a fool errand.
It’s worth push pushing back on data centers and what not And I am involved in several of those movements. But AI bad is just a stupid take, Especially when Hank is using it for all intents and purposes pretty responsibly compared to some people at larger companies.
It’s easy to do nothing wrong, it’s hard to do something right. Hank Green is a treasure. His brother too.
It doesn’t matter what else you do or did, if you make something with AI, I don’t want it. I won’t say if he is a good or a bad man, but that was a bad video. Future videos may be good, if they are human constructed.
From my understanding only some research was done with Ai, no? Not any actual parts of the video
If that’s the case, then as long as the “AI research” was thoroughly checked by a human, then I can’t imagine how he’d have even been caught using AI. So, it’s strange that he was caught.
If it wasn’t thoroughly checked by a human, then that’s a pretty big mistake… but if it was actually only done for one video, I would view this as something that could be a learning experience more than something that deserves cancellation. Still a huge mistake, though.
It was a very niche topic about crocheting or something, I think? The problem is that he didn’t know about it, so he was researching it as part of the script. And because he didn’t know about it, he didn’t realize that some of the information was wrong. Well, the crochet community knew it was wrong, because of course they’d know more about the topic. So that got people questioning how Hank could have come to this wrong information which led to people further dissecting the video and concluding that it was AI assisted.
So, Hank, a human, looks to learn about a topic he wants to talk about it. He, a human, does check the material, but he’s not really qualified to know if the material is right (hence wanting to learn about it).
I think what he should do (and I think he kind of touched on this, but I don’t know where) is he should reach out to experts in that field to verify his scripts. Rather than just trying to verify them himself. Especially if its about a topic he’s not super confident in.
But most importantly… none of that makes the man out to be some kind mega villain, AI-slop loving, earth killing hypocrite that people are making him out to be. Just a dude who wanted to talk about something and made a mistake. And yet people want to run him through some kind of humiliation ritual and penance. It’s sad.
If that’s the case, then as long as the “AI research” was thoroughly checked by a human, then I can’t imagine how he’d have even been caught using AI. So, it’s strange that he was caught.
I just did a search on it and apparently someone said that a particular sentence in the video sounded like it was written by AI. He said that it wasn’t written by AI and in fact wasn’t written at all as it was ad-libbed during filming. He then confessed that he has been relying too much on Chat GPT for research and that his script did sound too much like AI.
There are those who still use quills. Quakers that use horse and buggy. But the vast majority of our decedents will use AI for the majority of tasks from this day forward.
What a terrible argument of false equivalence.
Why do AI advocates always assume the generative auto-complete machine is the future? The tech was made through theft of IP and forced on a public that doesn’t want it.
Yeah, go educate yourself a basic amount please.
the vast majority of our descendants will use rocks after AI-driven missile detection system thinks a bird is an incoming nuke during a period of extreme geopolitical tensions on the grounds that most people have to choose between buying food or paying water and electricity bills
Doesn’t matter… his previous decades of charity. His lifelong commitment to education… irrelevant… people want to hang him out to dry.
that’s algorithm driven content platforms for you. youtube recommends to most people videos where people are raging, over the normal content of the channel. even people who don’t know him get to see it, or otherwise hear about the rage. then, since many are not watching the new videos youtube will recommend them to fewer people than before. meanwhile the rest of the internet only gets to know about the rage, and decades of good work and charity does not matter at all, because that’s the boring past nobody gets to know of. even the original viewer base gets reduced, because many see this fuckup but few remember what the creator is like actually. and the algorithm will surely not help to remember by showing the old videos.
People (aka Russian and Republican propagandists) have been wanting to tear him down for years and now they’ve taken their chance. They did it to Sam Neill too (and it probably killed him).
There is a difference between hating him and holding him accountable.
he has been held to account. He already spoke on it. Yet that’s not stopping the outrage mob needing a villain to shovel out rage content for clicks.
Because at this point, with this comic, it’s not about holding him to account. That’s done. At this point, it’s farming for clout. Tying to dunk on a man with decades of charity and education because it might get a few likes.
Like… take 5 minutes to scratch out a shitty drawing on a post it before you make some AI slop. Your point can still get across and it’ll be appreciated more.
I replied to some AI post with the pic below and was blocked lol. Can’t pull the original because of that, sorry you’ll have to use your imagination to picture the slop.
Good pic.
Thanks
this belongs on !mop@quokk.au
The weirdest was when I was in a zoo and there were promotional AI posters of animals they have in that zoo.
Bro just take a picture and add some text, the animal is right there.
It’s never been more acceptable to post Microsoft Paint art in legitimate business spaces than it is now. Well, except for briefly in the late 1980s.
This is what inspired me to start making star trek memes. (I post them all on c/tenforward :) Even the bad ones get attention because people can tell they were made by a human. It’s a great time to be mediocre at anything and still choose to put it out in the world!
Keep it up. Looks like I’d liked several of your recent posts. OC is always appreciated.
Btw, on this one, shouldn’t Geordie have the superVISOR role? 😂
Yes definitely but my brain can only do so many meme layers at the same time!
I hope I live long enough to see when the kids growing up today create whole artistic genres around humans imitating the cheap AI slop they’re being exposed to these days. It might not be pretty but at least it’ll be funny.
Artisan tung tung tung sahur paintings when
In my industry everyone is using AI for their logos and their advertising and they all look like absolute crap that is indistinguishable from the competition.
A company logo should look good in black and white at 1 square inch on the back of a golf card. These designs are cluttered hot messes.
Thank you… heartfelt… Of course… Absolutely…
Sincere gratitude, dear Sophie Labelle, and @cannedtuna@lemmy.world …
No words may express how awesome this artwork is… and the ending panel is a human-wise miracle…The restaurant AI slop is the worst… even a shitty cell phone picture of your food is better using AI on your menu… i truly dont understand
I find it really hard to even read AI text. It’s exhausting, like being on Zoom for too long.
deleted by creator
As somebody that’s absolutely human, “I appreciate the pushback on that”…
No lie though, I’ll still eat at a place even if they use AI on their menu. Not because I don’t notice or frown when I see it but it’s specifically because I’m a fatty and love food.
I spent a little bit but not too much time on this, I hope you enjoy it.
Every generation that decides a new image machine is rotten thinks it noticed first. It didn’t, and there are receipts.
Grant Taylor’s essay “The Soulless Usurper” walks through how the art world greeted early computer art, and the complaints are the same ones being made about generative images right now: mechanically sterile, nobody actually decided anything, a machine getting slipped into a chair reserved for the artist. This you?
Taylor documents sabotaged machines and physical attacks on artists in the late '60s and early '70s, plus a long tail of milder stuff — eye-rolling, flat refusal to call it art at all — running from the medium’s start in the 1960s to the early '90s. His verdict: computer art was “possibly the most maligned art form of the twentieth century.”
Two dates worth holding together. That period is half a century behind us, and the takes aged badly — the plotter drawings critics wouldn’t call art hang in museums now. And the essay came out in 2012, a decade before Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. That’s what makes it useful: Taylor isn’t arguing about AI. He’s describing the previous fight, written before anyone had a stake in how the comparison would land.
Source: Grant Taylor, “The Soulless Usurper: Reception and Criticism of Early Computer Art,” in Mainframe Experimentalism, ed. Higgins & Kahn (UC Press, 2012), p. 18.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this viewpoint and sourcing your argument.
I disagree with the comparison to digital art. Computer generated art takes skill, effort, and an artistic eye to succeed. Not just anyone can pick up a stylus or mouse and make good art, though it is a bit more accessible than some traditional mediums.
AI on the other hand requires no effort or skill on behalf of the creator. Furthermore, any artistic style is just mimicry. AI models have scraped real artists work without permission and is being used to slap together plagiaristic content, no accreditation of any kind to the source.
Critics disliked Van gogh in his time too. And he used all the traditional kit.
Art had a sort of schism once photography took off. Pro-ai art seems to get stuck on one side of it. Traditional art had a long, long run of ‘good art’ being well composed and skillful reproductions of realism: people, places, events—with a few visual metaphors for spice.
But then came photography. And all those people using art to look back in time had options, cheaper and accessible options. The demand for the skill to make precise replicas nearly collapsed.
What has sustained was not the technical method of making art, but the expressiveness of the artist. The spice becomes the meal. Things become more referential, abstract. It envokes states of mind often contextual to the times and circumstances the art was produced, and drawing on concepts outside of the image itself. It’s not just about making pretty pictures from paint, charcoal, or photoshop.
Once you have the dadaists, Duchamps and Pollocks running around, arguments about ‘correct’ techniques to make art are always going to be shortlived. It’s not the advancement of technology that people question. Longish ago most of us collectively decided method didn’t really matter, intention did.
If you scrolled through your camera roll would you consider it art? Can you use ai to quickly copy a technique? Yes. Can it be applied critically to success? Maybe. But if you outsource the practical skill and contextual knowledge that makes good, deliberate art, what are the odds that happens?
I think it is very interesting, that because of photography (and later photo editing) the realistic art has indeed lost part of its core value. Now, if you see a fully photorealistic picture, you will assume it is just a photograph, unless you are told the story of, how some artist spend thousands of hours to make it, after perfecting their skills for years. The effort becomes the defining, important thing, not what the result looks like.
![Your bad art is better than AI slop [Sophie Labelle]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2feca8b-da2b-4e53-9ec3-04b436e86a0d.webp){kind=link}