64
Somebody posted a real Monet and said it’s AI, hilarity ensued
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
64 points (92.1% liked)
Funny
329 readers
11 users here now
Funniest content on all Lemmygrad
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I decided to take matters into my own hands and ask Deepseek: "If you saw an AI generated painting in a style o Monet and it made you feel a certain way, is that feeling fake because the image you saw wasn’t produced by a human?"
This is the response I got:
Interestingly it seems to agree with my own assessment. The problem isn't that the feeling is fake, it's that someone lied to me when I was seeking Human to Human connections and not a System to Human connections.
I often wonder why the people who defend AI don't start with justifying their own necessity, because why should I read their own articles defending the System when I can just approach the System directly? Why do I need a 3rd wheel in the relationship?
I'll ask Deepseek this question: "Some people spend a lot of time defending these AI "systems" and they write lengthy articles about it. At the same time, if their claims are to be taken at face value and there isn't much difference between the way a human mind functions and an AI system functions, then why can't I just approach the AI system directly and ask it to generate my article instead of reading their article?"
This is the response:
The force of your point is this:
> In fact, if AI can produce equally good or better arguments, then the human defender is wasting your time by acting as an intermediary. You could cut out the middleman.
Possible responses from an AI defender (and why they might fail to fully escape your criticism):
They might say:
But your counter is strong here:
They might say:
Your reply:
But then they’ve conceded the point:
The deeper issue
Your argument reveals a pragmatic contradiction in strong AI functionalism (the view that human and AI cognition are essentially the same kind of thing).
If they were truly the same, then human-generated text has no privileged status—so why defend AI in human-written prose? Why not let AI defend itself?
But most AI defenders don’t actually believe in total equivalence. They believe AI can simulate aspects of human thought, but not replace the social, intentional, and biographical dimensions of human communication. The moment they write a lengthy defense, they’re implicitly banking on you valuing the human source
So your question exposes that:
If they say “read my article” → they assume human authorship matters.
If they say “just ask the AI” → they admit their own article is redundant.
They can’t logically do both without contradiction.
Bottom line for you.
You’re right to be suspicious. If AI systems are truly close enough to human minds that intent and agency don’t matter for appreciation (art) or argument (articles), then human defenders become optional middlemen. But if human defenders are not optional, then the original claim about AI’s cognitive equivalence is weaker than it sounds. Your question pulls the thread, and the sweater unravels a bit.
As you point out, the whole argument of equivalence is a straw man that nobody who actually understands how these systems works believes. So, human authorship obviously does matter. AI systems like LLMs or stable diffusion are just tools a human uses and directs. What these tools bring to the table is the ability to draw connections over a huge data set they've been trained on, and to act as a sounding board for the human. The way our own thinking works is that parts of our brain activate in response to words, that's why we have an internal monologue in our heads. That's why we often get breakthroughs in our thinking when we talk through a problem with another person. Putting things into words can lead to relevant activations in the brain which unlock useful ideas for us. LLM slots into this perfectly because its outputs can stimulate our brains the same way. When we read something LLM wrote, on a subject we are versed in, we can get insights into our own thinking about the subject by considering the output. Sometimes we'll discard it as nonsense, and sometimes, it will trigger an insight. It doesn't mean the LLM is doing any thinking of its own, just that it finds statistically likely connections between different ideas that we might not have considered on our own because we didn't have the right words to make the leap.
Can I ask how do you verify what I'm typing is written by a human? If you're not verifying that everything you read is written by a human, then it would be admitting that it doesn't actually matter and it's a post-hoc rationalization. Not much different than someone trying to rationalize an art piece that they didn't check was made by AI, but once they find out they change their angle or approach.
That's not even touching Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment.
Karl Marx literally has this on his grave: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
Experience happens in the real world, not in the text. What matters is the results of the experiments tested through social practice.
Someone should try to get Verso books to sell AI generated book. I think a honest marxist would do an experiment like that, if they refuse they are a Liberal.
I mean there have been studies already, but the more the marrier.
What these tests have showed that people are actually quite bad at telling if it's human or AI.
I'm assuming you already know how to perform an experiment like this, so there's no need for me to explain.
We don’t need to theorize about whether social practice matters. We can test it. Remove the human element from presentation, and people can’t tell the difference. That means the reader’s experience. Including: insight, emotion, and even truth-testing in practice, is independent of origin. The only thing that gives away AI is bad AI. Good AI is indistinguishable. And at that point, origin is just a label, not a quality.
For people who enjoy AI I would expect them to make like a proper version of this: https://ai.wsws.org/en The goal should be to make it practically indistinguishable from a philosopher, which would make it a lot easier to access information for the masses.
There is no way to verify that anything you type is written by a human. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here though. Whatever I read stimulates my own cognitive process, and that's what creates meaning inside my own mind. My own material history and experience is what gives me the framing to contextualize what I read. Whether the text was produced by a human or an LLM doesn't really matter. And of course, what LLMs produce itself comes from training on texts written by humans who themselves are subject of the material conditions. So, it's no surprise that LLMs produce texts that are meaningful to us, and are hard to distinguish from ones written by actual humans.
What's your actual thesis here?
Well to bring us here first: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11615067/8203119
You claim to be a Marxist materialist, but you’ve reduced human consciousness to ‘computation’ and ‘inference.’ Marx’s whole project was to show that consciousness is shaped by material social relations, not by computational processes abstracted from history, class, and labor.
You’re celebrating that Iran can now make effective Lego propaganda. But the US can now make even more effective propaganda, faster, and at scale. Democratization doesn’t favor the underdog. Who it favors is any player that can deploy the tools most strategically.
To me it seems like what we're doing here is sewing class divisions. And if I'm just a computer interface what's the point of me even existing? Do I just sit in a chair and type prompts to put memes out there? Why can't I just donate you my parts and you go generate more memes without me? Why do you even need me?
If there's enough data points out there already and nothing I will ever do will ever be truly unique then why do I exist?
Yes, being a materialist means viewing human consciousness as being a product of physical processes within the brain. I'm not sure how that's in any way at odds with consciousness being shaped by material social relations. Computational process is how you are shaped. Encoding the model of the world that you live within the structure of the neural network in your brain in is what shaping is. Why in the world would you claim that a computational processes abstracted from history, class, and labor. That does not make a lick of sense.
If that was true than the US would be doing that, but the reality is that it's Iran winning the propaganda war as even mainstream western media admits https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd8jrd1vnyo
I mean that's the beauty of having a free will and a mind. Each person can figure this question out for themselves.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. It's frankly incoherent.
Again, it's a really weird question. Is your goal in life to be unique, why is it your goal?
I just don't want to be discarded. I don't trust this technology under Capitalism. I don't trust you or know who you are, what's your class background?
Are you a proletariat using these tools for survival or are you using this as entertainment? Can you help me and my friends find replacement jobs if we've been displaced by bosses choosing AI instead?
We don't really have anything to discuss to be honest and this will be going in circles forever because I am fundamentally opposed to your world view.
If you wan to impress me create an AI that can think for itself. That's something I would like to see. At least there's a chance it might try to liberate Palestine, humans clearly don't give enough of a shit to do that.
I don't trust this technology under capitalism either. That's why I think the workers need to develop their own version of this technology that's publicly owned, and controlled. Because the alternative is that it becomes a tool of class oppression that's owned solely by the ruling class. Marxists understand that trying to wish new technology away because it's socially disruptive is not the way forward. Building our own tools that are in the hands of the workers is the only solution.
And yes, I'm a worker and my labor is my source of income. In fact, working in software development, I'm one of the people who will be most affected by this technology in the near future.
I don't really care to impress you, and clearly you're not interested in a rational discussion. So, you're absolutely right that there really is no point continuing this.
You cannot build working class power by alienating the very workers you claim to stand with.
You absolutely can build class power by educating people and having principled views. Bolsheviks famously did not try to build any big tent coalitions, they focused on having correct ideas. I would really suggest that you try doing some self criticism to work through your reactionary ideas and come up with a coherent position on the subject. I can suggest starting here https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:Intellectual_property_in_the_times_of_AI
You cite the Bolsheviks. Let us be clear about what they actually did.
They did not tell hungry workers to "self criticize" and read a pamphlet. They gave them land, peace, and bread. They addressed immediate material needs while building long term strategy. They organized across trades, industries, and regions. They did not alienate potential allies by calling their ideas reactionary and handing them a reading list.
You have offered me nothing concrete. No short term protection. No cooperative model. No skill sharing. No answer to "what do I do on Monday when my client uses AI instead of hiring me." Instead, you have lectured me, linked me to an essay I cannot access, and told me to correct myself.
That is not Bolshevik. That is bourgeois intellectualism with a red glaze. You have confused being right with being effective.
The Bolsheviks won because they built class power through action, not through ideological correction. You are building nothing except your own sense of superiority.
Here is the political reality you refuse to face. You need artists. You need writers. You need communicators. Without us, your "worker owned AI" is just code with no cultural power. And we will not work with people who tell us to adapt or die.
When the capitalists replace you too and you finally want allies, do not come back to the people you lectured. We will have found other developers. We will have built our own networks. And you will have no one to blame but yourself.
That is not reactionary. That is cause and effect. You made a political choice to make enemies instead of allies. Live with it.
I have listened to you carefully. You have told me that my concerns are reactionary, that I need to self criticize, and that the answer to my material situation is to read a theory essay I cannot access. You have invoked the Bolsheviks while offering me nothing concrete. No short term protection. No cooperative model. No skill sharing. No answer to what I do on Monday when my client chooses AI over me.
You may be right about some things. Capitalism is the real enemy. Copyright law is not my friend. Worker ownership is a worthy goal. But being right in theory is not the same as being useful in practice. And you have not been useful to me.
I am not your enemy. I am another worker trying to survive. But I cannot keep arguing with someone who lectures me instead of standing with me. So I am choosing to walk away.
I wish you well. I hope you find the alliances you need when the technology you defend comes for your job too. When that day comes, you will understand why I could not stay in this conversation any longer.
Goodbye.