100% emotion-based nonsense. AI shouldn't replace jobs. That's the only sensible thing said here. But art isn't beautiful because "muh feelings", it's beautiful because the end result is beautiful. A painting of a beautiful meadow isn't beautiful and charming because the painter put his heart into it. It's beautiful because the thing depicted in the picture is beautiful itself, and the painter did a good job of making his painting look like the actual thing due to good hand-to-eye coordination. Artists are really just sniffing their own f@rts because they think their work is somehow above the other jobs. There is a lot of crappy AI art out there, but even those aren't crappy because the machine did not have emotions.
Art isn’t simply the creation of something visually appealing; it’s not 'art' just because the result is beautiful. A painting of a meadow, however lovely, isn’t art if it’s created only to depict beauty. True art is about infusing meaning, intention, and emotion into a work, giving it depth that goes beyond surface appeal. Art transforms the ordinary into something profound-it doesn’t just make things beautiful; it brings beauty through insight, expression, and connection. That’s why a machine can’t truly create art; it can replicate beauty but can’t impart meaning
@@t_Heisenberg Word salad. Everything you said is without actual meaning and is only meant to invoke some empty shallow emotion that makes people all fuzzy inside.
@@t_Heisenberg *A painting of a meadow, however lovely, isn’t art if it’s created only to depict beauty* Yeeeeah, and how exactly do you confirm by looking at art if if was created "only to depict beauty" or not? How do you determine if it was meant to be "infused with meaning, intention and emotion", or it was simply done by a guy who's good at painting to make a quick buck? You can't. No matter how much artsy people claim otherwise. A good actor can phone in a great performance even it they care not for the role at all. And you can't tell unless they tell you.
@@stunningbrave5819 Yep. All meaning is derived from the experience of the end user, not the artist. AI generated art evokes responses just like any purely human generated art. Without any tell-tale signs of AI generation, to the end user there is no difference. All beauty and meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
@@stunningbrave5819 “Yeeeeah, and how exactly do you confirm by looking at art if it was created ‘only to depict beauty’ or not?” I don’t need to confirm that. The point isn’t about proving whether a piece was created with deep meaning or quickly for profit. Even when a skilled painter creates something “just to make a quick buck,” they’re still making choices-drawing from personal experience, skills, and tastes that only humans possess. Every brushstroke reflects human decisions and perspectives, even if it’s ‘just a job’ to the artist. Human-made art might be seen as ‘unthoughtful’ or ‘bad,’ but that judgment is always subjective; regardless, thought and intention still went into it. With AI, there’s no such thing as genuine intent, experience, or even taste. AI doesn’t understand beauty, meaning, or context; it’s just following patterns and mimicking styles. This is why AI can’t create “good” or “bad” art-it can only generate images based on data, without personal intention or true creativity. Art is a fundamentally human process, shaped by human experiences, thoughts, and emotions. AI can replicate the look of art, but it will never truly create it. And a separate point: all the images that AI generates are based on vast datasets of actual artists’ work, often scraped without consent. AI isn’t producing original work; it’s remixing and repackaging human-made art.
Are humans really creating anything, or much like AI does our brains just recreate variations of things we've seen, heard, or felt?
Your most interesting and honest video.
I absolutely, 100% agree.
100% emotion-based nonsense.
AI shouldn't replace jobs. That's the only sensible thing said here.
But art isn't beautiful because "muh feelings", it's beautiful because the end result is beautiful.
A painting of a beautiful meadow isn't beautiful and charming because the painter put his heart into it.
It's beautiful because the thing depicted in the picture is beautiful itself, and the painter did a good job of making his painting look like the actual thing due to good hand-to-eye coordination.
Artists are really just sniffing their own f@rts because they think their work is somehow above the other jobs.
There is a lot of crappy AI art out there, but even those aren't crappy because the machine did not have emotions.
Art isn’t simply the creation of something visually appealing; it’s not 'art' just because the result is beautiful. A painting of a meadow, however lovely, isn’t art if it’s created only to depict beauty. True art is about infusing meaning, intention, and emotion into a work, giving it depth that goes beyond surface appeal. Art transforms the ordinary into something profound-it doesn’t just make things beautiful; it brings beauty through insight, expression, and connection. That’s why a machine can’t truly create art; it can replicate beauty but can’t impart meaning
@@t_Heisenberg Word salad.
Everything you said is without actual meaning and is only meant to invoke some empty shallow emotion that makes people all fuzzy inside.
@@t_Heisenberg
*A painting of a meadow, however lovely, isn’t art if it’s created only to depict beauty*
Yeeeeah, and how exactly do you confirm by looking at art if if was created "only to depict beauty" or not?
How do you determine if it was meant to be "infused with meaning, intention and emotion", or it was simply done by a guy who's good at painting to make a quick buck?
You can't. No matter how much artsy people claim otherwise.
A good actor can phone in a great performance even it they care not for the role at all. And you can't tell unless they tell you.
@@stunningbrave5819 Yep. All meaning is derived from the experience of the end user, not the artist. AI generated art evokes responses just like any purely human generated art. Without any tell-tale signs of AI generation, to the end user there is no difference. All beauty and meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
@@stunningbrave5819 “Yeeeeah, and how exactly do you confirm by looking at art if it was created ‘only to depict beauty’ or not?”
I don’t need to confirm that. The point isn’t about proving whether a piece was created with deep meaning or quickly for profit. Even when a skilled painter creates something “just to make a quick buck,” they’re still making choices-drawing from personal experience, skills, and tastes that only humans possess. Every brushstroke reflects human decisions and perspectives, even if it’s ‘just a job’ to the artist. Human-made art might be seen as ‘unthoughtful’ or ‘bad,’ but that judgment is always subjective; regardless, thought and intention still went into it.
With AI, there’s no such thing as genuine intent, experience, or even taste. AI doesn’t understand beauty, meaning, or context; it’s just following patterns and mimicking styles. This is why AI can’t create “good” or “bad” art-it can only generate images based on data, without personal intention or true creativity. Art is a fundamentally human process, shaped by human experiences, thoughts, and emotions. AI can replicate the look of art, but it will never truly create it.
And a separate point: all the images that AI generates are based on vast datasets of actual artists’ work, often scraped without consent. AI isn’t producing original work; it’s remixing and repackaging human-made art.