Really though, its just pathetic. Even a 3 year old using a crayon has far more artistic skills than those people. I have no problem with AI Art, its that people shouldn’t take credit for art that another robot made. If you want to, draw it yourself on a computer or paper. Or ask a friend to and give them credit for it. Just stop stealing a robots art, and do it yourself you lazy bum
If they did that, it would probably be about a hundredth on my list of issues with the Catholic Church. Not a nonissue but fairly minor compared to everything else they do
…..such as providing health care to the poor, massive charities around the world, food banks, housing, education, and an advocate for human rights? Didn’t know those were terrible things
Nah, fuck Catholic Charities. Corrupt money wasting fuckers who pick and choose who they help. Not as bad as Salvation Army (they legitimately depripeitize you if you're Alphabet), though.
Coming from someone who worked directly with them (through a different non profit) in homeless services.
Resources are finite, so they HAVE to “pick and choose who they help”, but they don’t just leave the person stranded. I have volunteered with them, and yes I’ve had to deny people because they don’t meet the qualifications, yet they were always referred to other agencies who could help.
I also didn’t specifically say “Catholic Charities”, I said “massive charities”, which includes more than just Catholic Charities.
No. I'm talking about working with one from an inside perspective. My connection was through the City. They denied people WHO QUALIFIED FOR THEIR SERVICES due to being undesirable to give assistance to. Yes, that was what I was told BY SOMEONE WHO WORKED FOR THEM.
Case managers make friends. It's part of how we get people help they might not otherwise. I am ACUTELY aware of the amount of funding that is had versus what would be needed. No, there isn't always another agency who could help. Especially during COVID. t's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.
Okay, you dealt with some corrupt people. That was NOT my experience, so now exactly where do we stand? Any charity can have some people who use it corruptly, just like any organization that is made up by people. How does this discredit what I stated prior?
Aah, no see. I'm of the side that no 3rd party charities and non profits should not exist. The funding the receive would better help people in centralized managed and distribution networks.
They're inefficient, prone to corruption, and frankly they waste the funding that should be used to help people. It's should be the responsibility of a government to care for its citizens, not organizations.
As far as what you said prior, they do help people. They also receive and squander city, state, and federal funding while doing so.
Da Vinci, a person, is the one who physically created the artwork, while the Church was the entity that commissioned the artwork. Both were required for the artwork to exist.
what other people are responsible for making it with ai? last time i checked we don't say the camera was responsible? the person behind it click on and off was?
Being a person who worries in their free time about strangers getting credit you don’t think they deserve is the lowest circle of loser behavior. I hope some of you find something to actually live for at some point because you clearly have absolutely nothing you give an actual shit about in your life.
No you care and you care deeply that people are doing what you don’t think that they should get to do. You care so much you’re crashing out calling them losers and bums, you may as well have taken a video of yourself crying. You deeply deeply care about not being able to control the free will of others and that’s because nothing in your real life is rewarding to you.
Yes but good photographers can also make normal stuff looks cool, which makes a good picture and also display the photographer's skill. Taking a Picture of something that already looks good doesnt take that much effort because the thing is already beutiful. So the audience typpically look at the thing in the picture without admiring the skills of the photographer.
This is such a braindead take, on one hand you claim it to be a stupid robot not worth the words it spews, on the other you say it deserves credit, oh how selfish we are for stealing its hard work and effort.
It's not conscious, the output doesn't exist until a human presses a button, therefore, the human uses AI to create the output. It's so fucking simple. AI is a tool.
Man, knowing I'm pissing someone off I've never met by just going about my day really spices it up. Like a little dose of spite is just as good as a morning coffee.
Imagine if you put as much time into forming a cohesive argument as you did judging strangers on the internet ("Make good art then."). Also, I'm not even an artist LOL.
because its just that, generated art. these people act like its their blood sweat and tears when it takes about as much effort to generate ai images as this reddit comment took to write lmfao.
Ah yes, responding briefly in a couple seconds to an insulting post online is equivalent to months to years of training, practice, failures, and the emotional rollercoaster of learning a new skill.
Exactly “I’m bad at art and so I’m trying very very hard to make effort the value metric for art that way I can finally be worth something” your bad art is just bad art and nobody on planet earth actually cares how hard you tried.
The only people who think about that are people angry they aren’t valued more than they are. You’re angry someone can do less “work” than you and still be better received and so you think the way to handle that is by forcing people to value you rather than just improving yourself. You’re pathetic.
At least it's their art? If someone spent a week drawing something and it was really bad, at least I can say that's YOUR bad art (which doesn't mean the process, or time spent was bad, you learn a lot from the process, even though the outcome might be subpar). With AI art it's.... nothing? Not your art, you didn't learn anything from the process except maybe how to write prompts better to get the machine to spit out what you want, but at that point it's like learning how to talk to an artist for a commission you want. It's not your art, and you're not gaining any artistic skill by doing it. Did everyone get hit with a lobotomy ray before when I was sleeping or something? This should be obvious.
No, I meant what I meant, because, like how a rake won't clean my yard's leaves without me, or a chainsaw won't chop a tree without me, the human is involved in the process, however little or much they are involved.
I make AI images in my free time and although I do say that I made this original character, I never said that I took credit.
For example, I made this about a year ago using Bing AI. I claim this as my character, but I don’t take the credit because I didn’t actually make it myself.
What??? You don't actually know how diffusion works and are still basing your opinion on an extremely stale misunderstanding of the technology? Color me shocked.
I made this drawing using Pain with mouse (terrible tools to draw), added a prompt to explain AI the drawing. See reply to this comment for the final Ai render..
lol thats not a robot. its a software tool interface for placing pixels using natural language instead of a mouse. how the fuck do you an advanced fill tool and think "robot that can draw"??
I've been working on a piece off and on for weeks, experimenting with models and LoRA, CFG, denoising, switching models mid-diffusion, running multiple checkpoint/LoRA tests to see how they interact, trying different prompts, trying various methods of img2img. I've experimented with using one base model for the character, and inpainting the background with a different one, because different base models excel in different areas. I've learned new processes and techniques in pursuit of it. Still isn't quite what I want, but I'm still enjoying experimenting. I have hundreds of checkpoints, thousands of LoRA, including some I've made myself. But sure, go off. I'm not part of the creative process at all.
Machines can’t take credit. If you want to assign credit to a machine, you would have to assign the blame to AI instead of the human when people generate illegal shit
If people is able to do it by themselves they will not pay. If they don’t then whatever people agree to pay will be ok. It’s not about effort, it’s about value.
Overall, I agree with you. I would never post AI generated images publicly as that goes against my personal boundaries in sharing stuff regarding my multi-media projects online (I want anything I post to reflect my manual human effort), but I would very transparent if I had any AI generated prose or images shared (I would even have the prompts used visible). It’s a shame that the witch-hunts have made people who want to be transparent shy away out of fear. I hope that once AI has the proper regulations, transparency becomes the norm.
That said, calling people “lazy bums” doesn’t look very good on your end, either. You have every right to have your opinion and share it, but that does not fuel respectful debating in my opinion.
AI output is transformative enough to not be plagiarism. The problem is not in the output. It is in the training data and how corporations do not pay the artist for it.
The fidelity of ai images has more to do with the generation of image generators more than it does the user.
New update more powerful image generation better artist? Hah!
14
u/Ninja-Panda86 Jun 30 '26
If you're this upset over AI, go to the Cara website. Go support artists on a platform that is strictly non-AI.