Alt Text

A X/Twitter screenshot that reads:

Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex: In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

Spectro @Spectromachina: Pope, would you please shut the fuck up about matters you do not understand? You’re not an Ai influencer, no one elected you, and you have absolutely no weight in this debate and you’re being used as a mouthpiece to sway public opinion. how many local models do you run?

  • dismay3915@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    3 hours ago

    Absolutely agree with the guy. Even though I agree with “fuck AI companies” and that AI art isn’t really art, the pope should shut the fuck up

    • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
      41·
      1 day ago

      We could debate how fair that election is, but that’s a lost cause with churches anyway. It also certainly isn’t an open, democratic election by any stadard, but again, transparency and democracy have never been their mission statement. I’m also on board with treating the cardinals as nobody (important), but that’s not a literal “nobody” either.

      So, yeah, he is elected, and by one of the strangest procedures I’ve ever heard about.

      • nihilomaster@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        23 hours ago

        It’s basically the same as a board of directors electing their CEO. You not liking the catholic church doesn’t make the election any less valid.

        • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          4 hours ago

          Are the directors also isolated from the outside world, strictly sworn to secrecy, with only a subset of members of the board eligible for election by a two-thirds supermajority, unless the last CEO changed the voting rules again?

          It absolutely is an election, I wasn’t disagreeing with that. It’s a particularly ritualistic one, which also isn’t a discredit, just an observation about the singular nature of it.

          But if you want to defend the legitimacy of the papal elections, I suggest finding a less openly corrupt analogue than corporate leadership. At least the pope has to know about the faith he’s supposed to lead; CEOs only need to know how to manipulate markets to make numbers go up and pretend they can go up infinitely.

  • Janx@piefed.socialEnglish
    61·
    2 days ago

    Spectro, would you please shut the fuck up about matters you have a financial stake in? You’re an Ai influencer, no one elected you, and you have absolutely no impartiality in this debate and you’re being used as a mouthpiece to sway public opinion. How many fascists do you pay fees to every month?

  • mEEGal@lemmy.worldEnglish
    96·
    2 days ago

    “you’re not an AI influencer” got me barfing

    “noone elected you” : ok so this dipshit doesn’t know the second thing about popes

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    2 days ago

    “AI influencers” are incredible idiots even amongst idiot influencers. Like said below, using that term as some kind of respected title is beyond ridiculous.

    I’m pretty into the local ML space, and I can’t name a single “influencer” that isn’t a shameless scammer or totally unhinged. Or both. Not one that posts anymore, anyway.

    Even if they’re talking about some early researchers who Tweet, if you actually listen to them, they’re calling out transformers LLMs as dead ends and have moved to other spaces in ML.

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    2 days ago

    The dumbest thing here (and it was a tough competition) was using the term “influencer” to imply expert authority.

  • edgemaster72@lemmy.worldEnglish
    138·
    2 days ago

    Only an “AI influencer” can weigh in on the use of AI? Gee, I’m sure that will lead to nothing but a reasonable, balanced, and nuanced consideration of the issue 🙄

    also, lol @ “how many local models do you run?” as if those aren’t also trained on millions of stolen images. Do you even lift run local models bro?

    • BooBees@fedinsfw.appEnglish
      28·
      2 days ago

      Ironically as you stated the do you even ai bro is likely using a model he didn’t build that some company based on stolen material, when the Vatican actually does run several private models they actually trained themselves, based mostly on texts in their extensive private library, formed to assist in translations mostly. Though many of those texts are likely stolen during the crusades and other notorious events as well.

    • TheEmpireStrikesDakEnglish
      15·
      2 days ago

      Bro didn’t even write his reply using an LLM. Do you even use AI, bro?

      !(Writing this comment made me feel a little sick)!<

    • Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      If any group should have exclusive opinions about LLM generated images, it should be human artists

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.comEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, the topic here is really art, so if anyone should have the say about it it should be artists. Art is also subjective though so anyone should be able to have their opinion and I agree with the Pope on this one.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      “how many local models do you run?”

      This makes me think this guy is just a troll. It’s just too on the nose to be real. Combine that with his edgy profile pic and my bullshit alarm is ringing.

  • nullspace@lemmy.worldEnglish
    831·
    2 days ago

    You can hate on the church for many things, but you can’t deny that they’ve been one of the art world’s biggest patrons for thousands of years.

    • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      48·
      2 days ago

      Well that’s mainly because of all the satan statues they commission being too sexy—leading them to have to pay a new artist to tone it down. Except the new statue comes out even sexier, leading them to commission a new artist to…

    • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      24·
      2 days ago

      No matter how much I abhor the bs that comes with it, I can still find myself in some awe in a grand cathedral. At least I can attribute that to something someone did with their hands, and not a raindrop in a cloud of staggering uncare spewing forth into the mouths of people who aren’t interested in tasting the slopfest

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 days ago

        Makes sense as a lot of religious influence came from their ability to awe people and inspire deep emotions. It’s why for hundreds of years they had a monopoly on music being performed.

        • incompetent@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          15 hours ago

          for hundreds of years they had a monopoly on music being performed

          Interesting. I don’t know much about the history of the Catholic Church so I’d never heard about that. Which centuries did they have a monopoly and what was the punishment for performing without the church’s permission?

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      111·
      2 days ago

      To be fair, they patronized artists from tithes collected from the population. So it’s hard to say how much art didn’t happen because there was less free time available.

      It’s like how Rockefeller got a plaza named after him for his philanthropy after being a monopolist. We see the help they did but what was lost is invisible.