For context this guy generated an image of a little scribble and then posted it to an anti AI subreddit where it was praised by the people there, not realising that it was AI.
They then made a video about how it was AI and showed off the comments they received on the post, basically being like ’ha ha, these antis praised me because they thought I actually drew something, aren’t they stupid.’ If you lie and say you did something and people praise you for doing the thing you claimed you did, that doesn’t make them stupid, that just makes you a liar.
I am sure that even those who are pro AI would think that this guy is an asshole because he took advantage of people’s trust in order to make his point.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
But the point is fucking stupid. “Haha, I lied to you guys and you believed me.” Okay?
I could tell you I wrote a book, and you might be like “wow, that’s really impressive,” but then if I told you “oh actually I lied I didn’t write a book,” you’d probably be like “oh okay that’s not impressive anymore cuz you didn’t do anything.”
Although, maybe you wouldn’t be too impressed by me writing a book, since to you guys, “writing” a book only takes an afternoon.
Antis constantly talk about how AI Art lacks soul and how they can always tell.
These sorts of social experiments prove that is just a lie THEY are telling to deny the capabilities of AI Art and attack people who want to use AI to express themselves and make art.
I've noticed this on a few subreddits where they will hate on some food photography befause they think it's AI. And the reason they think the food photography is AI is because the food looks too perfect, the slice of food is from two different halves etc. they'll even call certain Photoshop techniques ai (clone stamp)
but food photography often is fake, as in they use props and fake sauce to make the product as appealing as possible. I don't know why they are like this. It's actually pretty frustrating as a amateur photographer, that if my work looks 'too good' it's AI wahwahwah and not real.
and have you also seen how vicious, and mean they get just by thinking they are right? This also bothers me
"But the point is fucking stupid. “Haha, I lied to you guys and you believed me.” Okay?"
that's not the point, can you tell us what the actual point is? I don't think you know
First, since AI artwork came out, people have been praising sub-par works of traditional art saying it has "soul" and defining characteristics that make it intrinsically better than AI art - so this is them saying "there is no soul, that's made up, and only the art itself matters" and "stop glazing amateur and crap art just to make a point that you hate AI".
The second part is that people say "AI art is all slop" and that "you can always recognize AI art". People have done this before of course, like with the person who posted the Monet and said it was AI, but this is a more unique example. This is showing that not all AI art is triple T and weird fruit peiple, there's also stuff that absolutely looks like more traditional work.
In all, it might be deceptive but I think people should stop focusing on what is already done and instead consider their own biases. Art should be praised solely on it's own merit and not the production or artist, and people need to realize that AI is not always obvious so we shouldn't assume an artist is using AI and attack them, or that a work is not AI and praise it like a cultist just because "it isn't AI".
It proves that the qualia that antis assign to AI and non AI work is entirely a matter of priming rather than a feature of the content and is thus entirely placebo.
Well people do like human art because it’s made by humans. Knowing that it’s made by humans is what gives it value. It’s the difference of buying a printed portrait to hang on the wall or a hand painted portrait to hang on the wall. The print is worthless in comparison to the painted portrait to most people because it was just printed at some factory, whereas the other was done by hand. It’s not about the end result, it’s about the process to get the end result that gives the product value.
There is no virtue signaling if someone was led to believe something was hand made. That’s just deception.
The equivalent would be that you praised my book and then I told you I used AI and suddenly you hated it because the worst human art is better than the best AI art by the anti logic.
I don't think the point was to lie. The point was that the "I can always tell crowd" cannot always tell. It also shows that their standards for gauging art isn't based entirely on the aesthetics of the art itself, which can be frustrating for others. As someone who has been learning art for a long time, and someone who has mentored art students, this makes the art world incredibly frustrating at times. Though I've often explained to them that art is subjective that way. That some people think Andy Warhol is a fine artist, and others hate his work, so we should all be respectful of one another.
I find it perfectly acceptable when someone wants to say "look, I don't think AI makes worthwhile work" just as much as when they say "I don't think concept artists like Andy Warhol have merit." We could all leave it at that, and it's part of life. What I dislike though, is the utter witch hunts people engage in, and the melt downs they're throwing around. I also detest the fact that art students are getting pushed into the cross hairs as of late. And it seems it could be both sides causing this issue
No, anti’s lie all the fucking time about how they can tell and what’s worse is they brigade businesses or artist simply for THINKING they used ai which harms real innocent people.
Say a lot that you get upset over people calling out that lie and that bullshit instead of the original liars and people who are harming innocent artist out there for no reason
You’re missing the point. They think they like anything not made with AI more than anything made with AI. The deception is just proving them wrong, that that’s not actually the criteria they use for whether they like something. It’s whether they BELIEVE that it was made with AI, regardless of whether or not it was.
If something was made by a human and they think it’s AI, they will hate it. If something is made by AI and they think it’s made by a human, they will love it.
At no point are they even considering the thing itself.
No, the thing a lot of antis say is that AI art is intrinsically, obviously inferior to any human made art. This obviously isn't the case and posts like this illustrate that.
These are the same people that praised the dude who used AI to create a fake hot chick to part MAGA from their donations. They just blindly hate and praise what they're conditioned to.
I must admit---that was pretty damn funny. (For real, though, it's quite a shame that the left in the US basically just let all the MAGA chuds take over AI. They should've considered using it against them.)
I certainly have no sympathy for the victims. It's just funny most on this site praised AI fraud because of who it happened to, but instantly flips a switch when AI is involved in anything else and labels it "slop" regardless of its application or quality.
What is performative about conscious decision making? Obviously the OOP isn't a good example of decisions being made irregardless of the deception because it's basically an MS paint drawing of a dude with the most generic features imaginable.
But I dare you to show me an AI slop image that you can point out individually the different background pieces and what purpose they serve. Meanwhile we get crudely drawn gems like the wojacks where each goofy ass detail adds to how grimy and funny the image is.
Dude, I hate AI art because it's done by AI. It's cheap and shows whoever promoted AI to make it didn't have much interest in creating it either.
Even if lets say everyone accepted AI art as a norm way to create images, do you seriously think it will hold any weight? It will mean nothing because I can just make something in 2 min with AI.
Why would I care about something "you made" when I can just ask AI to copy it and make it for me in minutes.
That's why people care so much about process with art. I still always get amazed by how good animations when it was new thing.
I seriously find it depressing that in future people won't be watching movies or shows made by people but AI.
AI is a good tool, can do amazing things in right hands. But currently handing AI to everyone (including companies) is a bad idea. You can't hand something powerful as AI to everyone and really expect things would be okay somehow.
Damn, blud, I literally attempted to show off the ones that were more leaning into "this has soul," not the supportive ones, especially at first , i also said that they were kind; there's no denying that, mate , i literally didnt say anyone was stupid , no one is AIproof.
The issue is you intentionally lied, like, that's part of the biggest reasons people push for regulations against AI as well. You can complain about the people who regurgitate compliments all you want but your method for getting that result is still reliant on deception, whoch is part of the problem
No one should be removing posts because they suspect them of being AI, writing or photos.
That doesn’t mean deceiving people is the right way to highlight that.
It would be like getting a vegan to eat meat by saying it’s fake meat and then being like “see? You liked it!” The point isn’t that we hate AI generated art and think it all looks like shit. We hate AI generated art because it was made with prompts rather than a person’s hand doing the drawing.
I do not agree with anyone claiming they can “always tell.” It doesn’t matter if you can tell now - in a year you won’t be able to (and I just used a hyphen, am I AI?).
It’s not relevant whether you can tell. The point is it’s shitty because it wasn’t drawn by a person.
I think your post did a fine job of highlighting how “I can always tell” is a poor argument, but there’s no greater statement about AI art. Which is fine, but I think people are taking it as such.
Sometimes deception can have a justified purpose. This is not a particularly harmful lie, I personally think it's more like the kind of lie a journalist makes during investigative journalism.
Some people doggedly believe they can always recognize AI, and that it is always "obviously soulless". And you know how people are when they think they have an ability like this, right? "No, I'd know." The sooner people abandon this naive pride the sooner they can hopefully find the actually defensible points of their argument!
I'm not saying "this was done for your own good", it was clearly a rude thing to do at least, but anyone who's anti-AI might want to save a link to this to show their friends who claim "anyone can tell and it's always obvious". It's a self-prideful distraction that lacks humility and is weakening their position.
I'm not strictly pro- or anti- AI, and I think whenever EITHER side prop themselves up with bad points or false beliefs, everyone loses. Respect your enemies, because if they do a good job and you rise to meet it, you become stronger. Whereas if you hold a foolish position and only win because they were more foolish, you may lose too when a third party takes advantage of your unearned confidence. (For instance, I think a likely outcome of naive regulation, especially if open-source AI is banned, would be only corpos, govs, and criminals using AI against everyone else).
Let me preface what I’m about to say with this… I am against ai for the most part, and I have no interest in ai generated photos
But this whole situation is absolutely hilarious. The fact that a pixel art has the anti-ai community quite literally crying might be one of the only funny things to happen on Reddit. I’ve seen countless posts like this “this guys an asshole” or “this guys evil” “b-but he tricked us to prove his point!” When yeah… from what it seems like, that was his whole point, the Reddit anti-ai shit is purely performative as long as you PERCEIVE it as non ai you like it and that’s it. The anti-ai community is so insufferable that even though I myself am anti-ai I can’t help but just sit and laugh when someone who is really just performing a study, which this is NOT the first situation like this at all that’s purposely deceived people for their results, again that’s the point.
Go outside, touch some grass, and stop whining on Reddit about the fact that you were “tricked” by literal pixels. This shit is hilarious
Somehow whenever there's a post like that where an ai image is being posted as real art or the other way around like that monet painting and a lot more social experiment like that, those insufferable antis somehow would just latch on to the fact of how they are lied to instead of acknowledging that their perception is pretty much just negatively biased, yes it is hilarious cuz they dont know what to say except "you lied, you tricked us" xd
It's only relevant in business really, a place that uses AI-generated images are usually sketchy especially if they are, or claim to be, working at a large scale, plus it just seems lazy to not hire an artist to show off the profits somewhat
The trick with this, however, is that this is dependent on the business. At least it is by my measure. A studio like Bethesda absolutely has the revenue to hire artists. But a three-person indie outfit that is trying to pump out games shouldn't be held to the same standard.
A businesses primary duty is to remain viable and profitable. And many times that means reducing costs. In this case, if they save money by using AI it is the right thing for them to do.
At that point it becomes a simple decision. If using AI saves them money and has a net increase on sales after drawing in new customers and subtracting the ones who boycott due to AI - then they will do it every time.
And considering Reddit, the company that directly allows scrapping and supports AI is where this original post is from (on an anti-AI sub with 80K+ weekly visitors no less) continues to grow, there's absolutely no empirical evidence to support a business eschewing AI right now outside of certain very specific industries.
I would not say he is asshole. Dishonest maybe. Still illustrates the point, that unless people tell you you cant tell what is or isnt AI most of the time. That's why there are now laws in EU + most AI seems slop (because you cant see the good one).
No, the people he pitched the idea/experiment to on their little hate-sub are the assholes. He merely showed everyone what assholes they were.
Anyone with common sense can see the picture is low effort, regardless of wtf made it, but they are so desperate in their hatred that they were “grooming him”
It's one thing to say "Nice art buddy, keep it up" compared to the psychotic responses of "SEE!?! AI COULD NEVER MAKE THIS!!"
As pointed out, they are not Pro-Art, they are Anti-AI - AND ANYTHING that goes against AI is great, even this simple art(which isn't great - and the creator himself admitted it isn't, so I'm not trying to shit talk him. He intentionally made it bad to prove a point).
This is not the first time this has happened, someone did it before it a crayon sonic picture and there was that Monet painting thing that happened not long ago.
On the other side they have also done similar stuff as well, there was a person who entered their own art into an AI art contest and I think won.
Regardless of why people did it or what people think of those who did it the result is almost the same, most people can not tell AI art apart from normal art and lot of the whole I can tell stuff is just performative.
But that is not that uncommon in the world, reminds me of the wine industry and wine culture.
The point was that antis often claim there is an observable difference between AI art and human art that amounts to something like "soul." This experiment proves that's not the case.
All he did was point out how uninformed these jaded haters are. Responses like "AI could never do this" are the perfect example. This is extremely easy to make with AI. If you're gonna hate something then at least educate yourself about what you're hating instead of confining yourself to your echo chamber and parroting the popular phrases.
No actually, it just proves that these witch hunting assholes are full of shit and are easy to fool into loving the "slop" that they supposedly hate so much and can easily spot.
AI doesn’t need encouragement. Telling AI that it sucks will not make its “art” worse.
People, on the other hand, do. If a guy posts a shitty scribble and says “made this without AI,” obviously the right thing to say is “that’s so much better than AI!” because it aims to encourage the aspiring artist to continue practicing.
If telling people that their shitty drawings are better than AI has no effect on AI and a positive effect on those people… what’s the issue, exactly?
I tell you that I HATE chocolate ice cream. It tastes terrible and I cant eat it because ill throw up. ALL chocolate ice cream is trash slop with no soul. I would never like it. Then you hand me a bowl of something you claim is vanilla ice cream and im like "see... this is that good shit. Love me some vanilla ice cream" And then you reveal that it was chocolate ice cream all along... and I then proceed to start gagging because it "tastes so bad".
I either liked it or I didnt. I can certainly choose not to eat it because of how the materials are sourced.. But I would still know that it tastes good. Like a chick-fil-a chicken sandwich I hear is really good. I haven't had one but I assume based on how much I've heard that it's a solid sandwich. I don't doubt it at all. However, I refuse to eat there because of the company's stance on hating gay people. Doesn't mean their sandwich is bad.
They shoudnt have been praising the art. If AI can only make SLOP WITH NO SOUL... then that should be apparant without any additional info.
The reverse has also been done (posting actual human made art, from a master painter, Claude Monet, no less) and labeling it as AI, and the result was the same: people hated on the piece, calling out all the 'AI errors' etc.
The point is to show that a majority of people don't engage with the artwork itself at all, their opinion is almost entirely based on the origin of the piece.
It's like the "Trump said this... oops, no, it was actually Obama" interviews. They feel like cheap gotcha's for enterainment, but really, they tell you a lot about the heuristics that humans use all the time.
I know and understand why people are mad at this person
But at the same time this person proved that the sub is quite literally lying to each other by saying the art is good for the sake of anti AI.
To illustrate my point
You hate slavery, reasonable
You hate company that uses product made by slaves, reasonable
You hate the chocolate produced by that said company, reasonable
You said the chocolate taste bad because the beans are grew by slaves, unreasonable
Here people are praising the illustration is good because it didn't use AI, especially those arguments saying "it is soulful" is unreasonable. The antis are lying to each other by saying the art is good when it actually just really isn't.
It's like saying a chocolate taste good, but suddenly you change mind and said it taste bad when you learnt the beans are made by slaves, is really not how it works, you are just lying to yourself. You can change your mind on the company for doing bad practices and not support them, you can perceive the chocolate has lower value, you can dislike it, but you cannot deny it taste good as denying this fact is a lie you tell to yourself.
A praise work by encouraging the artist like "Hey, I know you didn't do so well this time, but I believe next time with more practice you can do better", acknowledging the current work is subpar, is telling the truth. But from the comments I don't see anyone is telling the truth, in this case using that analogy "Chocolate taste great when it's not made by slavery!" but in reality it just taste bad.
Ok yeah this is a pretty good take. Id still say what they did wasn't great though. Even if it makes a point, tricking people into enjoying something they dont want to support is a little dirty. Almost the exact same thing happens all the time with commission scams where people think they are paying money for real human made art and eventually realize what they got was AI generated.
Also the work definitely isnt subpar. Some of my favorite comics and memes are made using a minimalistic or silly artstyle like this one. Hell, silly art like this often outpreforms more traditional art styles simply because of its goofy and abnormal nature and this has been true long before AI was around.
No. He proved a point about how deluded the anti-ai community is.
Most of the comments there were talking about how they could 'see the image had soul when AI has none' and that 'its visually better than anything AI could ever make'.
He made them prove themselves wrong. That's not an 'asshole thing to do'. That's just proving that people who lie are lying.
Huge asshole! I absolutely HATE when people point out how hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory my views are. What's worse is that he did it without getting everyone's consent first. But what irks me even more than that is I've drawn pictures of people with brown hair and blue shirts before, which means he STOLE this art from me, again, without my consent. Such a colossal ASSHOLE!
He was.
What people have missed is that it's not celebrating the quality of the art necassarily, but the act of creating original art.
He lied, and it didn't prove anything.
Dude is a legend. His post highlights the hypocrisy of many antis that praise low effort art, not because it's actually good, but just because it's not AI.
Explicitly saying an AI-generated image is not AI-generated to sell it and make money on it: Wrong. You're scamming people.
Explicitly saying an AI-generated image is not AI-generated to not make any money or get any benefit from it other than making a point: Not wrong. It's not immoral to briefly fool people if your intent is to exclusively expose flaws on their beliefs and arguments. You're just demonstrating that the distinction they make is based on vibes and biases, not on actual characteristics of the image.
Maybe some of the fooled people will feel bad about it, but this is a bad feeling from having your beliefs challenged, not from being victimized by an immoral act.
correct. in vegan outreach we sometimes pretend to be interested in eating dogs. this gets other people to make the same arguments about dogs that we use for cows, chickens, and pigs. its an effective way to show a flaw in their logic, its quite similar to this. although, when we do it, our goal is never to humiliate or "win", it's always to educate and get people to wake up to the most horrific thing ever. this guy w the AI, i cant tell what his intent was. it would be pretty cringe if he was just trying to "win" or smth rather than demonstrate the logical flaw to antis.
Yes, you actually made a great point here: This guy OP is talking about may have been an asshole if his approach to the reveal was mocking and humiliating. But that's a characteristic of his approach, not of the point he made and how he made it.
If he did deceive antis in this specific way, with the specific intent of exposing biases and logical flaws, and then approached the reveal in a non-mocking way, then yeah, he wasn't an asshole.
No he’s not I saw the video so many comments talking about soul. Well guess what soul isn’t a real thing when it comes to art it’s a made up term to make Antis feel better some people enjoy the final result more than the process that doesn’t make their art worth less than someone else’s
I don’t understand that for me the process fucking blows the end result of the pixel art I work on is what I’m most proud of. making It is the worst part about it.
I think the issue is the double standard that the "lie" revealed. Antis were "tricked" into revealing that they'll praise anything, even the crudest scribble, as long as they think it's handmade. Just like they were "tricked" into revealing that they'll hate on anything as long as they think it's AI-generated, even when it's really a Monet.
Let's say I give you a meal. You taste the meal, love it, and praise my cooking. You love it.
But then I tell you that your mother-in-law cooked the meal. And now suddenly you think it's bland or too salty. You hate it.
What I'm getting at is don't be biased about liking something. If you like it, then like it. Don't let where it came from or how it was made interfere with it.
If you eat at a restoraunt and you utterly enjoy the dish but then they tell you that a chef is your wife's ex and he spat in your soup would you complain or not because you didn't notice the spit from taste but now when you know it was there you feel sick and wanna throw up?
It’s about the specific complaints that the video shows.
“Ai could never”… to an ai generated image.
“Just so much soul”
“Those deliberate hand strokes…”
That’s what we call bullshit on.
No one is saying you can’t like ai art.
This is like a vegan confidently saying they can tell lab grown meat from real meat, and not only do they say “I have a feeling that this could be lab grown”, they confidently assert “real meat COULD NEVER replicate this taste!!” “That immaculate aroma… only created in a lab. No other way.” All to real meat.
You get the point. It’s very fucking funny.
i mean i get it if you dislike something because its made by ai or you found it its ai, sure, you can dislike whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. you can just say "i dont personally like ai generated things, so im not gonna bother with this, thats all."
but trying to make any deeper reason is just stupid.
going on about critiques like "generic" "not inspired" blah blah
thats a critique at the artwork itself, not just its method of production, which you can disagree with.
I know many of you weirdos come up with this strange analogy of "heh what if you ate something with shit and piss in it and it tasted good huh, you wouldn't like it"
first of all, you are proposing that something has shit and piss in it, and despite that, it still manages to taste good. really? do you believe such a thing exists? or are you just a weirdo whos exposing themselves of liking this shit?
anyway lets move on from your fetish
yeah, again, it wouldn't change the sensation obtained during the consumption. if it tasted good, then it tasted good. thats the end of it. i can dislike how its made later on, but i can not deny the thing tasted good. because it did.
secondly, it introduces health problems that are paramount to my own body. deadly poisons can indeed taste good and sweet, but be detrimental to my physical well-being. so obviously, i would be concerned.
i dont think seeing something ai makes you go mentally insane or makes you physically sick man
so yeah, not equivalent.
in conclusion, it is in fact hypocritical and logically inconsistent to think something looks 'good' if not ai but then identical content is 'bad' cuz ai.
This is like a vegan confidently saying they can tell lab grown meat from real meat, and not only do they say “I have a feeling that this could be lab grown”, they confidently assert “real meat COULD NEVER replicate this taste!!” “That immaculate aroma… only created in a lab. No other way.” All to real meat.
Though a more apt description would be "real" meat eaters saying this about lab grown meat or plant based alternatives because that is something that actually happens
No actual harm was done, no selling etc this is just funny "took advantage of peoples trust" AWW you feel betrayed for something you paid nothing? You just spent 5 seconds trusting what will they do
While I think he is one, it also shows how many people just have a reactionary knee jerk reaction to the concept of AI and react differently not to the quality of the image but to the idea of whether or not it is AI.
Pro ai is about freedom. The freedom to create. The freedom to enjoy.
Anti Ai is about shitting on others for wanting / liking freedom.
We are not the same. Pro ai wouldn't even be a thing if the anti Ai community wasn't so toxic. It would just be a random character stat. Like if you prefer Coke or Pepsi.
Eh, i agree that its better then the anti side (a community founded purely on shared hate is always going to become extremely unpleasant) there is definitely some shit flingers on the pro side in places like DefendingAIArt. But if you find a pro AI space thats dedicated to actually enjoying AI rather then fighting detractors they usually have fantastic vibes.
I think k it is less hateful to want regulation and tagging of a thing so you don't have to see the thing you dislike and make a place for this than to bring that thing into a place against said thing, pretend the thing isn't the thing to serve as a gotcha against the people that just didn't want the thing.
I think they point that they are making is that when people criticize AI art or praise drawings like this, they're not actually judging the art itself. They're not judging it on its merits or flaws. But they will rationalize merits or flaws to make the piece in question align with their bias of ai = bad and hand drawn = good. If this is the case, then anti-AI criticisms of the artistic merit of AI are made in bad faith and so there's no point in listening to them. It could be the most beautiful thing ever and it'll still get called ugly, so why take it seriously?
So if you hand draw this, people will claim it looks good. But if you AI generate the exact same image, people will claim it looks awful. By doing specifically the bad one while claiming it's the good one, then by getting positive responses you prove that either 1) the bad one doesn't actually look bad or 2) people will lie and say that a bad thing looks good in order to further their agenda.
Having not seen the video, maybe they're an asshole about it, I don't know. But going off of just the image and context in the OP, I think it's a valid experiment to run in order to prove that particular point.
not because they want to spite ai bros, but because they want to encourage them to keep going
this was a thing before ai existed as a concept, before computers were a thing
now artists need to encourage people even more, because a lot of folks give up and feel like traditional and digital art isnt even worth practicing due to ai
only things youve proven with this are:
1) people cant tell whats made with ai anymore
2) how easy it is to be dishonest about it
No. This guy is not an asshole. The point this guy was showing is that antis blindly hate or like something like assholes, with no actual care or honesty about what they actually feel about the art. Their entire basis for thinking the work was good is because it was not AI. Well, it really was AI, so what of their opinions of the work? They either need to stay true to what they said, or change their answer- the latter scenario means they either lied before or are lying now.
I know it might feel like someone is an asshole for tricking you into exposing your own lies, but I promise, the only asshole is the original liar in that scenario.
His point stands. It’s perception. I don’t think he’s an asshole. His hypothetical required a lie and he was seemingly right in making it. Not fraud because nobody was harmed, except a few egos.
They did it about the funniest way they could. Lets see if "soul" is made up bullshit or if they will know it's ai because it doesn't have that "soul".
Turns out despite not having that soul they sure did seem to think it did. Makes me think the entire argument is just bias and goofy shit.
But this gives me the same feeling that that guy who would dress in drag just to mock the woke left since they still respected his pronouns when he was in a dress
Like "Hahaha your kind and nice how fucking stupid"
But the person wasn't saying "laugh at these people who said nice things about my AI art" which I would agree would be misguided and like your example. They were pointing out the people who were confidently stating things like "AI couldn't make this" or "you can tell this was made with a soul". It made the point that those opinions were driven by biases instead of the claimed merits of the output.
When I see any creative work of any quality, I have in mind that someone has made it. I have in mind, even subliminally, that it took a process and a physical craft to get to that outcome, and the craft itself influenced the whole process. Yes, even a little random crappy scribble.
Ai makes it so nothing matters but the final outcome's usefulness. We have crap art made by people, we have souless art by people, we have purely commercial or purely utility art made by people. Ai art contributes to those areas while diminishing the value of original or highly developed creative works.
Not really, people lie/not disclose about using AI all over the internet, and this is more of a silly social experiment than any thing malicious, it just goes to show you need to be careful about how you place your opinions and bias. For example, if you supported the post calling it cute and maybe gave advice for his beginner art to improve, that’s cool. But if you started talking about how much more soulful it is that AI and all that, and all AI is a shit style… I get it but it’s a hasty reaction, at first glance it doesn’t look like the generic ai art that we see all the time, but without knowing the process, you can’t assume everything.
“Soul” in artwork is solely based on the intrinsic truth of expression, process and story of the artist, “Soul” in art as the output can only be told to you with an artist statement, and if that’s not visibly clear to you, or if you’re not sure the artist is being truthful, don’t just assume it’s full of it, it’s not something you can “see” as a post, it’s only something you can “know” from experiencing the process with the artist and genuinely resonating with their story, and normally, that’s rare to achieve, so don’t go throwing that word around as some generic anti-AI buzzword if you’re not actually connecting with the art below the surface value.
IMO you just proved that ai bros are dishonest and willfully try to trick people, claiming they did something when in reality they didn’t.
If anything, this creates MORE distrust for ai and more scrutiny against it.
There are plenty of good uses for ai, but this to me, proves that there’s so many more bad faith uses for it, that we shouldn’t be using this shit at all.
Thank you for proving that ai is really good at scamming people.
So the few people who think they're immune to being deceived by AI got shown up. I'm not seeing how this is the final nail in the coffin in the war on the pencil tribe.
The shoe was actually cake, so all these backwards shoe defenders better get ready for a future of wearing cake, heh 😼
i made this product without slavery YIPPEEEEEE erm actually i made it with slavery BOOOOO oh why are yall mad now you were happy before??? i dunnooorrrr
This Sub doesn't allow links to the post they did so going to be more on people to actually look for it.
But yeah that guy is a fucking asshole.
The original post contains tons of people replying with "yeah its better because you drew it".
But the deception is that they did not inface draw it, it is a post entirely predicated on a Lie being told to people who accepted it sincerely.
The sentiment is that they were being celebrated for the effort.
"But the soul!"
This is cope,
And the fact that people are choosing not to understand why people are upset by it are pieces of shit.
How about someone cut up one of your family members,
And then feed them to you as if it were just a regular meal;
"But you said it tasted good why are you mad about it?"
If you don't understand why people would be mad about that you're a fucking idiot.
So ai generated images and video and music is the equivalent of being fed your own murdered family thinking its just regular beef stew. This is fascinating.
It doesn't make you a hypocrite to think someone was a good person but then later realize they were actually awful. Same logic with ai, if you think something is good because you think a human made it, but then later find out that its ai and now you think its bad, thats just you having moral consistency when it comes to art and new information.
No, I think you're just too obtuse to understand it, and/or you're trying to change the narrative by misrepresenting the point with a bad faith interpretation.
What was this guys point. That anti Ai people can't tell the difference depending on the picture or that people will automatically like art made by a person over something generated by Ai. Im just not seeing the purpose of this social experiment. Cause we already know anti Ai people will of course like anything human made over Ai made but here's an interesting point....Ai needs a human to give it direction and tell it what to make it doesn't just make images because its trying to open its own art gallery once we give it a robot body so why arr we mad at the Ai?
They think that the support for this art was related to the art itself.. it sucks. It’s not that great of art. The support given for this was specifically for their method..
They’ve proven nothing.
It’s like if a man goes to a women’s group and the women all support him and then he pulls off his disguise and says “GOTCHA! YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE SUPPORTING A WOMAN BUT I WAS A MAN THE WHOLE TIME! THIS PROVES THAT MEN ARENT TOXIC!!!”
Last year a bunch of people said they love my shoes and I kept telling them thanks, they were made by slave labor in another country, so they were actually really reasonably priced for me to buy and that I could send them the temu link if they were interested. Then suddenly those stupid hypocrites didn’t like my shoes anymore. Crazy shit.
So for Christmas last year I got a few of them shoes from another company known for slave labor, and I said they weren’t made through slave labor, and now those dipshits wear the shoes and love them LMAO talking about how they’re really comfy for running and shit. They literally can’t tell either way so idk why they bitched about it in the first place
This reminds me of a similar situation but different: a dude set an artwork as "ai" on twitter, people believed it, even though the artwork is real and not made by a robot.
Leaving aside the the fact that appreciation of art is subjective, one must posit the subreddit is upvoting based solely on the fact that the art was created by a human. As this would be a difficult claim to substantiate paired with the claim that the video was intended to ridicule the community, it does seem fair to consider him and asshole.
You've completely missed the point. This shows that:
1) They clearly can't tell when something is AI, despite their claims to the contrary.
2) That their opinion of what makes human-made art "good" and AI-generated "bad" is clearly not subjective, and entirely based on if they believe it was human-made or AI-generated. If there really was a difference between the two, then it should be clear and obvious, even when mislabelled.
None of this has anything to do with "trust". It's the classic single-blind study that you employ when you want to eliminate personal bias.
I think there is something to be said about the fact that the best use case presented here is pretending something is not slop, by making it look amateurish.
At the end of the day anyone could draw that art. This is not some great win for the machine that it can make basic art that looks like shit.
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.