I have come to understand the usage of "slop" as possibly the sloppiest thing of all: Something that looks like critique, if it were not so entirely devoid of content.
Yeah, arguments about “slop” have definitely devolved lately. Maybe it’s strange (or just typical human behavior), but using “AI = slop” as the only reason to dismiss something and refuse to engage in a discussion clearly parallels the way some people use AI to spam feeds.
So let’s encourage more slop at an accelerated pace? That’s our answer to everything huh. We’ve been doing “arguably bad thing” X, so let’s amplify it.
Let the fire burn through everything, it's fun to watch. That until it consumes the land under you. Well, this is metaphorically speaking.
I have no problem with AI tools per see, however what bothers me is the flood of sloop that is inescapable. If things were tagged AI and I could opt out when I'm not looking for that kind of content I'd be totally fine with it, it's just a took after all.
Makes online scams more realistic, which are predominantly targeted at the elderly.
Makes journalism even more useless, ruining democracy for the rest of us.
Decimating all other artistic livelihoods, putting more strain on society.
Sure all these things have already been happening. But again, I am dumbfounded that a lot of people are actually saying “yes, let’s make all of that worse exponentially. Being able to do “fun thing” at the speed of thought is worthy tradeoff”.
Everyday at $work me and my colleagues put a lot of effort into deciding what tool/framework/architecture to use, listing all tradeoffs and deciding the most appropriate one. I’m sure a lot of people on this forum do this every day too. I don’t understand why those same people don’t put the same effort to make the same thoughtful decisions on the thing that _actually_ _actually_ matters.
There are already royalty free drum samples for days, and infinite possibilities of drum synthesis. No producer is hurting for snare samples. Why would I pay money for something I already have.
Tweaking drum sounds until they sound good is one of the more satisfying activities for a beat producer, and one of the primary ways I demonstrate my value. I’m not paying to turn that over to someone else.
I don't oppose synthesis or samples. But arguably Suno songs typically goes way little beyond that. If you didn't chose the samples, didn't chose the words, didn't chose the voice, but vibed for a few mins what you did is not made a song, you heard a song. And the songs suck.
Don't bother, the slop line has been drawn in the sand and people will stay on their side. I also think that slop is low effort and/or low/zero iteration output, but beyond that the sloppiness fades away, but good luck convincing the hardcore slop hunters to see things in a nuanced way (in before ocean boiling, that's usually where that argument goes next).
So you're saying your perception of what is or isn't art is ideologically motivated? That seems like the worse "tactical" argument.
Why don't we scrap anything that uses ableton because it makes art sterile [1][2]. Or maybe anything that uses autotune [3]. Maybe we can have stickers that say "AI free". Or maybe the fact that suno is a distribution platform that doesn't encourage creation of the _form_ of art that that I like is the problem [4].
It's a tool. Your view that art exists in some purist state and isn't for people to enjoy is extremist. This war has been fought and lost, continuously, about every innovation in music. People want to enjoy things. You can tell by their pattern of consumption.
If you are against most uses but want to introduce nuance, my argument is that doing so normalizes the use for the majority of cases you do oppose and makes it harder to organize opposition.
If you’re cool with AI in all cases we don’t have much to talk about.
I have thoughts on when AI is appropriate, but the conversations I want to be having is ‘how do we oppose AI’ and not ‘why is my specific definition of what is Ok better than your very similar one’.
Also, once Any AI is allowed, each step beyond that will be barely worth fighting for because it’s only just beyond acceptability.
Turning conversations away from nuance and towards black/white thinking is precisely why we're in an increasingly polarized society.
You may see it as a means towards the collective action you'd prefer, but your argument is that sheep are easier to herd towards a goal you've already determined is "right" without inviting critical thought or analysis when you don't allow for nuance.
Even if true, I disagree with both your assertion that "organizing against AI" is the right path forward, and the approach to engaging in discourse.
I mean, you have AI in your name, of course you don’t :p
I also don’t really think the problem with society is that we’re ‘polarized’, a viewpoint which believes that there are merits to “both sides” of human rights issues.
I don't think I'm a hardcore slop hunter really. Suno was fun to play with, what comes out feels icky though. Perhaps that is because it is low effort though, my attempts certainly were.
I'm very bullish on AI, but low effort outputs just lobbed over the fence in my direction (be that code, music, text) irk me to no end. And that's not even considering if something is tasteful or kitsch. So yeah, for me it's definitely that. Someone who puts in real work, and produces output with intent, I might still not like because it's not my taste, but at least I don't consider it slop.
Funnily enough, slop AI video I still get entertainment value out of, just because it's often so bizarre and absurd.
That is an interesting point. I am not sure how to define Slop. I am 100% sure you could use Suno for something that doesn't feel horrible. I tried and failed bad. But maybe it is possible. Typically I just hear on the surface song like audio but without anything to make me care about the song at all.
I won't disagree that most use of AI is slop - Just like most people in a 'sips and strokes' class make slop.
The issue I raise is that we can critique the users of it without discarding the tool as used by an artist who produces something that is not slop with it.
Because if you can’t do that, and effectively articulate why AI media can’t be art when used as a tool by an artist to achieve their creative intent, I would claim the win on this. one.
You were going to claim the “win” on this one no matter what anyone says. That’s one of the features of being arrogant.
I have zero desire to get into a semantic argument over this. That would be very boring and is a poor refuge for anyone trying to have an honest discussion.
It’s not a coincidence that nearly all the people today with actual artistic talent universally despise AI. Meanwhile it’s all the talentless tech bros who won’t shut up about how they’re now incredible “artists” that love AI.
I don’t see prompting an AI as creating art in the same way that commissioning a painting doesn’t make you an artist. In this example, it’s the AI model that is the artist creating the “art”, but since AI models aren’t sentient (yet) then what they create isn’t art anymore than a sunset is despite being aesthetically beautiful.
Your “it’s just a tool” argument is especially ridiculous when you consider that the “tool” can create the same “art” in its entirety without you. It would be like if I googled the Mona Lisa and copy pasted it into Paint and then called myself an artist because I used Google and Paint as my tools.
In the case of AI models anything you can think to prompt is already embedded in the model so it’s not like you’re even creating anything. It’s already there. If you have infinite monkeys on a keyboard prompting AI they can generate every single possible image an AI is able to generate. Where is the artistry again?
I'll note I used no pejorative terms to describe you in order to make my points. I don't need to cast you as a villain or "unwise" individual to argue against the statements themselves.
--
Your framing of AI presumes that my proposal is prompt in >> art out. False frame.
You also state "near universal" disdain of AI from people with "actual" talent. A bold claim to make with little data, and at least for me, clear examples of being false.
I know award-winning directors, iconic creatives, and career/professional artists who are all excited by the technology, exploring ways to use it, and learning how to composite it into their work.
Perhaps you would propose that they have no talent and are not "true" artists! This is why I ask for the definition of art. It's not a "poor refuge" for an honest discussion, it's something that is the fundamental term upon which your argument is hinged. You can't gatekeep "art" without defining what the gate is.
The OP talks about Suno Studio - A DAW experience with recording, editing, generative tools, and generative restyling. This is, objectively, a different level of tool than a "prompt to music" generation experience.
Something that is composited through multiple decisions made by a human, toward some end that only they see, through an iterative process...
I think I finally see what we’re clashing on. Where do you draw the line between “this is a tool assisting me in creating my art” and “here is my AI film I stitched together with 10 Sora prompts”?
The songwriter for K-Pop Demon Hunter’s Soda Pop used AI to help them write the lyrics - fine. The hacks on X calling themselves incredible artists because they can prompt Dall-E - slop.
Yes - If you're willing to allow that AI might be a tool in the artistic process if it is used in conjunction with intent and effort, then we are at a reasonable position -- That stating "all AI is slop" is as inarticulate and insufficient as the claim of "look at what I made, I'm an artist!" coming from someone who typed in a four word prompt.
The majority of people using AI believe that production itself is art. They produce slop because they have no craft, no taste, and no innate talent.
Artists recognize that art requires the development of craft and taste - and there are many that see AI as a tool that can be used in that process.
So you must really hate collage artists. All they are doing is cutting out images and pasting them into new images. Picasso really produced some slot I guess. You seem to have a very rigid definition of "art".
I'm not an animator and I made that with a few simple tools.
It has a lot of errors and mistakes that I didn't take the time to correct since it was just a silly meme, but do you see how accessible all of this is?
When people with intention and taste use these tools, the results are powerful. I won't claim that the above videos demonstrate this, but I can certainly do good work with these tools.
I don't see how this is anything short of revolutionary.
