I'm not sure I agree but I'm happy to discuss! 😀

Why are you calling my statement "selective memory" (am I intentionally excluding something?), and what do you mean by "way worse"? Do you consider unskilled art as not art at all (i.e. "so-called")?

What I was trying to say, is that on social media, skilled artists formerly dominated attention (likes, upvotes) because viewers wanted well-constructed, pleasing-to-the-eye artwork. I wasn't trying to say that they were the only art posters (sorry for my wording!). Continuing, now that AI is in the arena, "technically-decent" art is no longer the lower bound for pleasurable-to-see -- now, viewers are more partial to knowing that a human was vulnerable when they expressed themselves with art.

It's an intensification of internet-ugly aesthetic, which Douglas (2014) called "an imposition of messy humanity upon an online world of smooth gradients, blemish correcting Photoshop, and AutoCorrect” (p. 314). Now, online, handmaking art at all is a declaration of humanity, because you could corporately fake something full-colored and intricate, but arguably soulless, with lower effort.

Of course, I'll try to take it from your perspective. I've seen really bad human art (I like art!), and I've seen less-artifacted AI art (have you ever seen Even_Adder's generations on lemmy.dbzer0? they don't have the overshading issue at all). Of course, some may disagree that the latter is art (is art only human expression?), but supposing I do consider the latter art, my point still stands -- viewers are more on the lookout for genuineness now.

Happy to see what you think!

References

• Douglas, N. (2014). It’s supposed to look like shit: The internet ugly aesthetic. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(3), 314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914544516

Sorry for the wall of text again c:

:::spoiler (CLICK HERE FOR BIG WALL)

AI text as a whole is usually structured, neutral-positive to positive shallowness. It's called slop because it's easy to make a lot of substanceless, nutrientless goo. One common structure is

Introduction

Since the dawn of time, ethics has been important.

AI Structure: Hidden Secrets Revealed

1. Being considerate: Being considerate can help relationships.
2. This structure: is untrustworthy. Be suspicious when you see it.
3. Lots of broad statements: that don't say anything—often with em-dashes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while ethics can be hard, it is important to follow your organizations guidelines. Remember, ethics isn't just about safety, but about the human spirit.

What do we spot? Sets of three, largely perfect/riskless formal grammar (grammar perfection is not inhuman -- but a human might, say, take the informal risk of using lotsa parentheses (me...)), uncreative colon titles, SEO-style intros and conclusions, an odd corporate-style ethics hangup, em-dashes (the long —), and some of the stuff in that reddit link I mentioned are often giveaways.

Here's some examples in the wild:

• Playing Dumb: How Arthur Schopenhauer Explains the Benefits of Feigned Ignorance. PeopleAndMedia. has useless headings and the colon structure I mentioned. There's also phrases like "Let's delve" and "unexpected advantage" -- ChatGPT likes pretending to be unconventional and has specific diction tics like "Here's to a bright future!" One interesting thing is that the article uses some block quotes and links -- this is rare for AI.
• Why is PHP Used. robots.net. This is from a "slop site", one that is being overrun by AI articles. Don't read the whole thing, it's too long. Skim first. See how many paragraphs start with words like "additionally", "moreover", "furthermore", like a grade school English lit student? Furthermore (lol), look at the reasonings used:
  

  The size of the PHP developer community is a testament to the language’s popularity and longevity.

  PHP boasts a large and vibrant developer community that plays a pivotal role in its continued success and widespread adoption.

  
  ChatGPT-esque vocabulary is used (this is something you unfortunately get a feel for), and the reasoning isn't very committal. Instead of evaluating some specific event deeper, the article just lists technologies and says stuff like "PHP has comprehensive and well-maintained documentation, providing in-depth explanations, examples, and guides." So what if there's docs? Everyone has documentation. Name something PHP docs do better or worse. Look at this paragraph (SKIM IT, don't read deeply):
  

  CodeIgniter is known for its simplicity and speed. It is a lightweight framework that prioritizes performance and efficiency. CodeIgniter’s small footprint makes it suitable for small to medium-sized projects where speed is crucial. It provides essential features and a straightforward structure that allows developers to build applications quickly and efficiently.

  
  It doesn't actually SAY ANYTHING despite its length. The paragraph can be compressed to: "CodeIgniter has a light footprint". It doesn't even say whether we're talking about comparative speed, memory usage, or startup time. It's like they paid someone (openAI) to pad word count on the ensmallening I mentioned.

Before reading something, check the date. If it's after 2020, skims to be too long and not very deep, and has too many GPT tics (tricolons, vocab like "tapestry/delve", the SEO shit structure), then it's AI slop. Some readers actively avoid post-2020 articles but I can't relate.

edit: clarified that perfect grammar is humanly doable, but GPT-style riskless formal grammar is still distinct from grammatical human text

:::

Your 2nd paragraph is just a lie made up in your own head.

AI isn’t a tool, a brush is. A brush or any other tool lets humans create. an IGA (image generation algorithm) often mislabelled as AI doesn’t let you create instead it TAKES what other humans already had created and shushes it together without regard for any artistic expression, since as a computer program, it’s incapable of art. It’s plagiarism with extra steps.

Ai as a thing only exists today because it’s in the interest of corporations to replace humans with machines in order to funnel more wealth to the owning class.

However in a society with class equality AI would be worthless. It cannot “make” anything without someone else already having made that thing first, it’s a waste of time and an erosion to society, a cancer.

You will never change because simply put, you’re not smart enough to. You’re incapable of understanding how and why you’re wrong because you lack the intelligence, education and desire to grow.