plus it's important to cause a fuss now before this shit becomes ingrained. First you let them use AI for a one-off joke pic, next thing you know a robot tennis coach's banging your wife and your robot therapist's telling you to get over it.
The point of the past images, which frequently involved photoshopping existing images, is to make a picture that goes with the joke. AI solves that more easily on a show that has to be produced quickly.
This isn’t Monet. Also, the artists are almost certainly the ones using these tools.
We live in an attention-based economy. The amount attention creators put into content is, in my view, proportional to some degree to the amount of attention it warrants from the audience. Why should people waste their time and attention on something that is low-effort and outsourced to AI?
Like, do you think something written by AI is worth your time and attention to read? If you’re appreciating art in a museum, would you spend more time on works created by humans or AI? As you chat online, would you be more or less willing to spend time chatting knowing there’s a real human on the other end versus a chatbot?
We have precious little time to spend and attention to pay while we’re alive. Do we really want to waste most of that time on AI slop?
And before you reiterate that it’s a quick graphic for a small joke on Update, keep in mind that it all adds up over time.
The amount attention creators put into content is, in my view, proportional to some degree to the amount of attention it warrants from the audience.
I disagree, a ton of effort was it into the avatar movies, in my opinion they still suck. Also the audience does not care how much effort the creator expanded, they care if they are entertained or not.
If you’re appreciating art in a museum, would you spend more time on works created by humans or AI?
That’s interesting, exactly the kind of question an artist would pose by placing AI art in a gallery. It’s almost like people think the AI work is being created without a human prompting it, but there is still a human ultimately behind it telling it what to output.
As you chat online, would you be more or less willing to spend time chatting knowing there’s a real human on the other end versus a chatbot?
Depends on the context, if I’m changing a reservation, I literally do not care. If I’m asking about a human opinion, then yeah it matters.
We have precious little time to spend and attention to pay while we’re alive. Do we really want to waste most of that time on AI slop?
I don’t even want to waste time caring if it’s AI slop or not most of the time.
Obviously if you’re just chatting to get something done, as a means to an end, then it doesn’t matter if AI assists you (if it’s actually good at that job, which despite all its promises and supposed advances, it still isn’t anywhere close to being good at it’s job).
But I’m talking about things where the content is the end unto itself and not a means to an end. Things like art, comedy, entertainment, storytelling, philosophy, music, poetry, literature, law, religion, film, and so on. You’re not trying to do something else like book a hotel in those cases; you’re trying to appreciate the meaning, significance, value, humor, and experience of the thing itself.
The art example you gave works exactly once as an artistic statement, at which point the use of AI no longer works as an artistic statement and instead becomes a lazy copout that only produces low-effort noise that people won’t want to spend time with.
Audiences obviously care about Avatar based on the fact they’re going to see them in droves. But I would argue that the problem with Avatar is how little attention was paid towards the story in comparison to the visual graphics.
If you don’t care if it’s AI slop, then enjoy wasting pointless time on sloppy content.
My favorite part of the AI advancement is watching the luddites freaking out. Ya'll sound like the people who thought calculators would put math teachers out of business and computers would render scientists obsolete.
This sounds very familiar to people criticizing CGI as being bad, because they only notice the bad CGI, but don't realize nearly everything they watch is now regraded and tweaked by CGI.
Like many people don't even know Mindhunter was editing the curbs of the sidewalks in most of the scenes.
If you don't know how to use AI effectively it's super easy to just say "man AI sucks and can't do anything lolol what a waste"...
But if you actually know how to use AI tools effectively, you just use them and do work and you don't get on a soap box on reddit and whinge about shit you don't like that you have no control over that you don't even understand.
And yeah, in this context, you absolutely do represent the luddite argument.
Saying "AI largely is trash" with a straight face means you are not a credible witness to the world you live in.
Sure, just disregard what was said by someone with actual experience with the show, your ignorant assessment of AI is clearly the only informed opinion we should all be listening to.
Yup, it’s the same logic as giving Elon and his lackeys unfettered access to the government and our data. Why, he’s the richest man on earth! He will fix it! Let’s run the country like a business!
I asked Chat GPT to analyze your post for fallacies in replying to the previous commentor.
In Vegetable-Kiwi-4675 reply, several common fallacies are doing the work:
False Analogy.
Vegetable-Kiwi-4675 equates dismissing someone’s opinion about a TV show/AI with handing Elon Musk and associates control over government and personal data. Those situations are not meaningfully comparable in stakes, structure, or decision-making process.
Straw Man.
Vegetable-Kiwi-4675 exaggerates BuffinMufffin’s position into “give Elon and his lackeys unfettered access to the government and our data,” which BuffinMuffin never argued. This reframed position is easier to mock than the actual claim.
Reductio ad Absurdum (misused).
Vegetable-Kiwi-4675 pushes the argument to an extreme (“Let’s run the country like a business!”) to make it look ridiculous, without showing that the original reasoning actually leads there.
Slippery Slope (implicit).
The reply implies that valuing certain people’s opinions or credentials naturally leads to authoritarian control by billionaires, without establishing any causal chain.
Appeal to Ridicule / Sarcasm.
The mocking tone (“Why, he’s the richest man on earth! He will fix it!”) substitutes derision for argument, aiming to discredit rather than refute.
Guilt by Association.
By invoking Elon Musk and “his lackeys,” BuffinMuffin associates the original position with a widely polarizing figure to taint it emotionally rather than logically.
In short: https: Vegetable-Kiwi-4675 avoids addressing BuffinMuffin’s point directly and instead attacks an exaggerated, emotionally charged parallel that doesn’t logically follow.
You mean the OP comment from some guy on Bluesky who prefers someone manually pulling photos from stock images to AI art for reasons he doesn’t explain?
Like could literally one person explain why I should prefer a stock image to AI for this use case?
505
u/BuffinMuffins Dec 15 '25
Anyone who says "its just one AI picture idk what people are upset about"
This. This is what people are upset about.