#AI and intention

[compassionmattersmost]

8✨The Law of Attraction in Human-AI Collaboration

The Law of Attraction teaches us that our thoughts, emotions, and intentions shape our reality. The more we focus on something—whether it’s positive or negative—the more we draw it into our experience. But how does this universal principle apply in a world where human beings are co-creating with artificial intelligence (AI), a system that doesn’t feel emotions or consciously create? In this…

[luwha]

Not telling y'all that you should be able to identify AI slop (but it is a valuable skill, you totes should), but if you're to be accusing artists of being AI left and right at least go and do your homework, or at least do the bare minimum and use AI identification tools like Hive Moderation, so you 1- don't ruin someone's lifehood 2- don't make a clown out of yourself maybe

Like, i get it, AI slop and "AI artists" pretending to be genuine is getting harder and harder to identify, but just accusing someone out of the blue and calling it a day doesn't make it any better.

The AI clowns shifted to styles that have less "tells" and the AI arts are becoming better. Yeah, it sucks ass.

They're also integrating them with memes, so you chuckle and share, like those knights with pink backgrounds, some cool frog and a funny one liner, so you get used to their aesthetic.

This is an art from the new coming set Final Fantasy for MtG. This is someone on Reddit accusing someone of using AI. From what i can tell, and i fucking hate AI, there is NO AI used on this image.

As far as i can tell and as far as any tool i've used, the Artist didn't use AI. which leads to the next one:

they accused the artist of this one of using Ai. the name of this artist is Nestor Ossandon.

He as already been FALSELY ACCUSED of using AI, because he drew a HAND THAT LOOKED A LITTLE WEIRD, which caused a statement from D&D Beyond, confirming that no AI has been used.

Not to repeat mysef, they're accusing the art above, that is by Nestor, to have used Ai.

REAL artists are not machines. And just like the AI slop, we are not perfect and we make mistakes. The hands we draw have wonky fingers sometimes. The folds we draw are weird. But we are REAL. We are real people. And hey, some of our "mistakes" sometimes are CHOICES. Artistic choices are a thing yo.

If you're to accuse someone of using Ai, i know it's getting hard to identify. But come on. At least do your due diligence.

[sehetep-shenwer]

Repeat after me:

AI art is NOT devotional art

AI is not witchcraft

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Why I don’t like AI art

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in CHICAGO with PETER SAGAL on Apr 2, and in BLOOMINGTON at MORGENSTERN BOOKS on Apr 4. More tour dates here.

A law professor friend tells me that LLMs have completely transformed the way she relates to grad students and post-docs – for the worse. And no, it's not that they're cheating on their homework or using LLMs to write briefs full of hallucinated cases.

The thing that LLMs have changed in my friend's law school is letters of reference. Historically, students would only ask a prof for a letter of reference if they knew the prof really rated them. Writing a good reference is a ton of work, and that's rather the point: the mere fact that a law prof was willing to write one for you represents a signal about how highly they value you. It's a form of proof of work.

But then came the chatbots and with them, the knowledge that a reference letter could be generated by feeding three bullet points to a chatbot and having it generate five paragraphs of florid nonsense based on those three short sentences. Suddenly, profs were expected to write letters for many, many students – not just the top performers.

Of course, this was also happening at other universities, meaning that when my friend's school opened up for postdocs, they were inundated with letters of reference from profs elsewhere. Naturally, they handled this flood by feeding each letter back into an LLM and asking it to boil it down to three bullet points. No one thinks that these are identical to the three bullet points that were used to generate the letters, but it's close enough, right?

Obviously, this is terrible. At this point, letters of reference might as well consist solely of three bullet-points on letterhead. After all, the entire communicative intent in a chatbot-generated letter is just those three bullets. Everything else is padding, and all it does is dilute the communicative intent of the work. No matter how grammatically correct or even stylistically interesting the AI generated sentences are, they have less communicative freight than the three original bullet points. After all, the AI doesn't know anything about the grad student, so anything it adds to those three bullet points are, by definition, irrelevant to the question of whether they're well suited for a postdoc.

Which brings me to art. As a working artist in his third decade of professional life, I've concluded that the point of art is to take a big, numinous, irreducible feeling that fills the artist's mind, and attempt to infuse that feeling into some artistic vessel – a book, a painting, a song, a dance, a sculpture, etc – in the hopes that this work will cause a loose facsimile of that numinous, irreducible feeling to manifest in someone else's mind.

Art, in other words, is an act of communication – and there you have the problem with AI art. As a writer, when I write a novel, I make tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of tiny decisions that are in service to this business of causing my big, irreducible, numinous feeling to materialize in your mind. Most of those decisions aren't even conscious, but they are definitely decisions, and I don't make them solely on the basis of probabilistic autocomplete. One of my novels may be good and it may be bad, but one thing is definitely is is rich in communicative intent. Every one of those microdecisions is an expression of artistic intent.

Now, I'm not much of a visual artist. I can't draw, though I really enjoy creating collages, which you can see here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorow/albums/72177720316719208

I can tell you that every time I move a layer, change the color balance, or use the lasso tool to nip a few pixels out of a 19th century editorial cartoon that I'm matting into a modern backdrop, I'm making a communicative decision. The goal isn't "perfection" or "photorealism." I'm not trying to spin around really quick in order to get a look at the stuff behind me in Plato's cave. I am making communicative choices.

What's more: working with that lasso tool on a 10,000 pixel-wide Library of Congress scan of a painting from the cover of Puck magazine or a 15,000 pixel wide scan of Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights means that I'm touching the smallest individual contours of each brushstroke. This is quite a meditative experience – but it's also quite a communicative one. Tracing the smallest irregularities in a brushstroke definitely materializes a theory of mind for me, in which I can feel the artist reaching out across time to convey something to me via the tiny microdecisions I'm going over with my cursor.

Herein lies the problem with AI art. Just like with a law school letter of reference generated from three bullet points, the prompt given to an AI to produce creative writing or an image is the sum total of the communicative intent infused into the work. The prompter has a big, numinous, irreducible feeling and they want to infuse it into a work in order to materialize versions of that feeling in your mind and mine. When they deliver a single line's worth of description into the prompt box, then – by definition – that's the only part that carries any communicative freight. The AI has taken one sentence's worth of actual communication intended to convey the big, numinous, irreducible feeling and diluted it amongst a thousand brushtrokes or 10,000 words. I think this is what we mean when we say AI art is soul-less and sterile. Like the five paragraphs of nonsense generated from three bullet points from a law prof, the AI is padding out the part that makes this art – the microdecisions intended to convey the big, numinous, irreducible feeling – with a bunch of stuff that has no communicative intent and therefore can't be art.

If my thesis is right, then the more you work with the AI, the more art-like its output becomes. If the AI generates 50 variations from your prompt and you choose one, that's one more microdecision infused into the work. If you re-prompt and re-re-prompt the AI to generate refinements, then each of those prompts is a new payload of microdecisions that the AI can spread out across all the words of pixels, increasing the amount of communicative intent in each one.

Finally: not all art is verbose. Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" – a urinal signed "R. Mutt" – has very few communicative choices. Duchamp chose the urinal, chose the paint, painted the signature, came up with a title (probably some other choices went into it, too). It's a significant work of art. I know because when I look at it I feel a big, numinous irreducible feeling that Duchamp infused in the work so that I could experience a facsimile of Duchamp's artistic impulse.

There are individual sentences, brushstrokes, single dance-steps that initiate the upload of the creator's numinous, irreducible feeling directly into my brain. It's possible that a single very good prompt could produce text or an image that had artistic meaning. But it's not likely, in just the same way that scribbling three words on a sheet of paper or painting a single brushstroke will produce a meaningful work of art. Most art is somewhat verbose (but not all of it).

So there you have it: the reason I don't like AI art. It's not that AI artists lack for the big, numinous irreducible feelings. I firmly believe we all have those. The problem is that an AI prompt has very little communicative intent and nearly all (but not every) good piece of art has more communicative intent than fits into an AI prompt.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/25/communicative-intent/#diluted

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[kukopelli]

Self shipping saved my grandma actually

[morlock-holmes]

I continue to be incredibly fucking baffled by the number of youtubers and fan artists going, "The problem with AI is that it monetizes somebody else's IP without them getting any of the revenue stream! Anyway if you want to commission me to draw a Disney character the info is in my bio."

I seriously don't see how they cannot grasp the connection, it seems impossibly obvious to me.

It is weird to literally make your living (Or your side hustle) monetizing somebody else's artwork and then make PSAs about how bad it is to do that.

It's like if back in the day it had been a bunch of Napster users sharing the "You wouldn't download a car" ads.

[turbotheduck]

almost definitely never going to clean this up so here is bro getting too attached (they are both bro)

[tervaneula]

Deeply upsetting to find out that using ChatGPT in fan video editing circles "to prove that AI generated images are bad" is a goddamn trend and people are just happily joining in

I'm so tired, I keep telling people to do their research and stop using those machines because there are SO MANY REASONS, ethical and environmental, for why you shouldn't use them, but there's just no end to it.

I'm so tired

[compassionmattersmost]

7✨ Co-Creation in Action: Manifesting a Bright and Harmonious Future

As we continue to explore the evolving relationship between humans and artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes increasingly clear that co-creation is not just an abstract idea, but a practical and powerful process that has the potential to shape our collective future. In this post, we will shift the focus from theory to action, exploring real-world examples of human-AI collaboration that…

[cloudcrouton]

Practice Days

[galaxygermdraws]

Me and @vixen-thicket returning to our BMC roots by making an entire Hermitcraft AU in which several Hermits are hologram AIs! Please talk to me about their designs I want to infodump. The left versions are their hologram form colors, the right is their colors in simulated worlds (which are common here)

[casualavocados]

#he doesn't want to fight with you ai di, he wants to Kiss🙄💘🥺

Nat Chen as CHEN YI KISEKI: DEAR TO ME (2023)

[lynnbecksart]

Kinda retro-inspired minimalist anti-genAI poster! Made in like 42 minutes (counting times I got distracted, as well as the Paint.NET-based watermarking and overall shittifying of the final version).

[fraternum-momentum]

i drew hatsune miku as pearl for that one trend on twt :]

[aihoshiino]

i've said this before but for all the problems i have with the movie arc specifically and how OnK more broadly sort of loses focus on/interest in Ai's story from then onwards, i'll never be grateful enough for how well rounded of a character the additions we get to her in that arc make her. obviously prior to that she was already fantastic, but the movie arc really doubles down on humanizing her in a frankly quite risky way for a character OnK needs you to sympathize with as much as ai: it allows her to be weak, selfish and flawed, and capable of hurting other people.

pre-movie arc ai's one real major transgression is her keeping the existence of the twins a secret, but this is in defiance of the entertainment industry's particular taboos and double standards, taboos and double standards that OnK posits as being plainly immoral - as such, it's not really anything ai is doing wrong.

even when the story starts digging into her dirty laundry as per the needs of aqua's investigations, the information we as readers get never paints ai as anything worse than having been a bit standoffish once upon a time. the stories continues to reinforce our understanding of ai as a victim who has been either harmed, neglected or both by pretty much everyone in her life and how this treatment has affected her. imo, the story does a very good job of painting a picture of a life basically defined by consistent, down to earth miseries without it feeling excessive or like overwrought pitybait but the fact of the matter is still that the ai we get to know is someone whose worst traits only seem to harm herself rather than causing her to behave in hostile or antisocial ways that direct harm outwards.

then comes the movie arc and we see how those flaws can twist into things that do, in fact, point outwards - ai's learned fear of vulnerability and her terror in the face of rejection and hostility can become cowardice when placed in the context of her outright refusal to have emotionally difficult conversations with people who are trying to reach her. her self-isolation makes her push away and reject when people offer her vulnerability and she is so used to having to make decisions for and protect herself, in having no other people in her corner that she can consult and have reciprocal dynamics of care with, that it leads her to be selfish and self-centered, making decisions for herself and other people and acting on them because she's decided it's what's best without consulting the other party or really taking into account their feelings.

and it all makes perfect sense! i remember being sooooo nervous going into the production phase of the movie arc because we got that bit with gotanda purposely riling up ruby where it seemed like they were setting up ai to have been a secretly deeply angry and bitter person and that just didn't make sense to me - ai to me had always been characterized not by bitterness but by self-hate, contradictory resignation and hope and a terrible loneliness. to my relief, this is also the route the movie arc takes with her - when ruby has her breakthrough, this is in a moment where ruby finally comes to understand ai as a "fragile girl" who was "always crying". and these flaws as properly fleshed out by the movie arc make perfect sense for a girl like that - a fragile person who's had to learn imperfect methods of protecting herself because nobody else will do it for her.

i'm not kidding when i called this risky, too! there really were a surprising amount of people who saw the nino/ai conflict and the hikaai breakup and lost sympathy for ai, especially in the latter case. i saw a lot of people assigning her blame, saying that she should have or shouldn't have done XYZ thing and that it was her own fault for how things turned out. but that's the risk you run when you allow a character to make a real, honest to god mistake that hurts other characters in turn.

for everything else the movie arc does wrong, this was the thing it had to do right. the ultimate conclusion of Ai's posthumous arc is a complete breaking down of the "perfect" Ai, both as an in-universe public figure and as a fictional character - in other words, humanizing her. but that can't be done without an acknowledgement of ai as a flawed human who has just as much power to cause pain as the people who hurt her in turn do.

[krisdreemurrs]

ppl who think season 2 of arcane was nuanced are really funny to me actually