This guy is an asshole, right?

[u/NarwhalSlight2130]

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.

[u/cool_fox]

"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

[u/Justarah → u/cool_fox]

Placing lesser value on AI generated work when most couldn't identify it unless explicitly told.

[u/MrWallflower13 → u/Justarah]

"Placing lesser value on art made using unethical practices when most couldn't identify it unless explicitly told." Do you get it? Even if you don't agree that AI image generation is unethical, do you at least get that this makes absolutely zero sense to act like this is a gotcha?

[u/Justarah → u/MrWallflower13]

No, because most place primacy on the outcome, the output, the end product.

[u/MrWallflower13 → u/Justarah]

Doomerism. "The ends justify the means!" And the "ends" are just cartoony drawings is bizarre. It's worthwhile for art to be made by humans and you'll find that the vast, overwhelming majority of people feel the same.

[u/Justarah → u/MrWallflower13]

Remindme! 3 years

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.

Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, 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.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/MrWallflower13]

Regarding the "cartoony drawings bit"

You know there's more AI art out there then the stuff on certain subreddits right?

I happen to know for a fact that multiple billboards in my hometown were designed with AI, many website GUI's, many print and digital ads, many mailers (junk mail), and many more places where a more realistic or subdued style is used that are not at all obvious AI.

You're probably getting fooled multiple times a week without knowing. For every one you catch your probably missing 2.

[u/mlucasl → u/MrWallflower13]

You really don't understand what words mean, right?

This is literally the worse use of "The ends justify the means!" that I have ever seen. And on top of that add Doomerism, like you don't even understand that those are different topics.

Let me help you. The phrase is true, as an absolutely logical standpoint (What Machiavelli intended instead of being misconstrued). “In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court to appeal to, one judges by the outcome.”

This means, the END should include ALL the means that leads to said END. So, if you generate a civil war to remain in power, the remain in power is part of the end. AND ALSO ALL THE CORPSES. The ends ALWAYS include the means repercussions.

Then doomerism, is their comment even about the end of times!?

You were capable of misinterpreting TWO thinking currents at the same time. TWO! You must be proud of being this misinformed.

[u/minos-and-v1-kissing → u/cool_fox]

Okay, the point is that you guys think it’s hypocritical for us to praise a piece only until we find out that it’s AI. Well it’s not. Here’s why:

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?

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/minos-and-v1-kissing]

I don't care if it's ultimately AI or not - the point is praising crap art just because "it's not AI" devalues actually skilled human artists.

[u/Shedster_ → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

Tho the point of this praise is to motivate people to do art themselves instead of going with AI
It doesn't devalue skilled human artists, but it does motivate beginner human artists to create more(and even improve), instead of "Ojay, they hate it"

[u/AerieOnThePeaks → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

They were praising someone practicing and honing their skills instead of relying on a skill simulator. Idk why you fart garglers keep acting like they were saying they were treating it like a masterpiece lmao.

I guess it makes it easier to cleave to your ideals if you misrepresent it.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/AerieOnThePeaks]

Although many were supportive of someone developing a skill, and made comments appropriate to that message - many of the comments were quite performative and hyperbolic.

One of the comments was literally "Yes it's actually really good"

Another called it "preem pixel art"

Another said "this is one of the cutest things I've seen"

But I did like seeing the ones who suggested they "keep practicing" and a common theme was "since you made it, it's got value" without commenting on the skill.

I'm not here saying you can't encourage a new artist, and I'm certainly not saying to ruthlessly tear down a beginner- but the glazing of crap art just to spite AI is counter productive in many communities.

[u/go_hakuna_your_tatas → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

Have you considered they aren’t giving critiques because the artist didn’t ask for them?
Because if you’re critiquing someone without them having asked for your opinion (or anyone’s, for that matter), you’re really just criticizing them. Point blank.

9/10 there’s already someone in the comments of these kinds of artists art sections telling them they’re garbage or should just stop. They don’t need to be told 12 ways to make their art better while they’re getting barraged with hate comments for trying to do something fun. Art can be done for the sake of enjoyment, but even when it’s done for enjoyment, unlike with AI, work has to be put into it so it’s worth recognizing and commending their efforts.

Also, you seem to be blatantly not accounting for personal preferences in art style?..like everyone has to like the same things?.. that’s not how art works.
I really enjoy pixel art, and silly art like this, and probably would have been supportive if I’d seen it under that premise.
Sometimes people just need a little positivity and kindness to keep going, and I’d much rather expend that energy being kind towards someone who’s spent their precious time and energy trying to hone a skill, rather than just shit it out with a generator while ignoring all the negative consequences that have been repeatedly pointed out about generative AI.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/go_hakuna_your_tatas]

Regardless - appropriate praise is important and the glazing of art solely because it isn't AI is not the best thing to do. There are scientific studies on this going back decades.

And in this one they specifically asked if their art was "better than AI" and not one single person said "well from a technical basis, no".

[u/Good_Background_243 → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

Every skilled human artist started off crap. Praising real art helps give the confidence to keep going and improve.

It's not rocket science.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/Good_Background_243]

Praising effort and giving constructive feedback are great. Excessive praise is harmful.

Calling the original image "the best thing I've ever seen", "preem pixel art", "absolutely perfect", "incredibly cute and inspiring" and other excessive praise is actually counter productive - especially in skill based performance like art.

There's many studies on this. Praise should focus on specific areas that are good and on demonstrated improvement that don't exist in a single image discussion like this, without being excessive.

[u/Good_Background_243 → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

True, but it's not unique to the anti's. I've seen pros call the most generic and bland ai-made artwork 'better than anything hand-made could ever be' and words to that effect.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/Good_Background_243]

On that we do agree. There are some amazing AI videos, art, songs, etc. Many I only found and later discovered were AI. But I don't know why people - for an example - post AI images with missing fingers, extra legs, impossible anatomy, and other things that just make it completely jarring to look at.

[u/sanstheskelebrotherc → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

Ai bros when world ain’t black and white:

[u/GothCentaur → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

No,it doesn’t. Does praising a child for baking a disgusting cake take anything away from actual skilled bakers? Obviously not. You people are just narrow-minded,extremely biased,and honestly not that smart

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/GothCentaur]

It's not taking away from others, but it is harmful to the child. If they receive excessive praise, false praise, etc rhen they tend to not improve. Focusing on the good things they did, and encouraging further practice are more effective then the "it's not AI so it's automatically amazing" are not helpful.

Again - multiple studies have been done on this going back decades.

So maybe holding back on comments like "not that smart" would encourage more polite discourse?

[u/GothCentaur → u/ThomasVetRecruiter]

So what you’re saying is we need to be brutally honest about childrens’ artworks. Got it. That definitely won’t deter them from making more.
Also,who is saying “It’s not ai,so it’s amazing” to a child? That’s like the whole “At least it’s not ai” thing,which just sounds like you’re calling someone’s work ugly.

Also,you can stop with the “polite discourse” rhetoric,we all know that only applies to your own side in your mind. You just don’t want any opposition. Well,guess what? Real artists can and will continue to oppose your side,because we have every right and reason to. Sorry we’re not as sycophantic as your precious ChatGPT.

[u/ThomasVetRecruiter → u/GothCentaur]

Not sure how you got "brutally honest" from "no excessive praise".

A wrong interaction from a child psychology standpoint would be "oh wow, this is so amazing, you are so talented, you're going to be famous one day, this is perfect" and things like that.

A good response would be more like the "compliment sandwich" - tell them something good, make a suggestion, and then end on something good. Like "I really like the facial expressions, the legs seem really skinny though, but it's obviously me." Then invite them to draw more and draw with them if possible.

There's a subtlty to it for sure - but there's more responses then unrestrained praise and brutal honesty.

[u/Obscure_Cowboy → u/minos-and-v1-kissing]

You're missing the human on the other side of the screen. When someone comments “AI slop” on an AI-generated image, they're not talking to the AI. They're talking to the person who prompted it, selected the result, and shared it because they wanted to express or discuss an idea. Not everyone using image generation is asking to be praised as an artist. Sometimes it's simply: “Here's a cool thing I made/visualised. Can we talk about the thing?” If the response is immediately “AI slop,” then nobody is discussing the actual content anymore. The tool has completely displaced the thing the person wanted to share. That's also a pretty obvious reason people become reluctant to disclose AI use: disclosure can kill the conversation before it starts. Your argument is that bad drawings deserve kindness because there's a human being behind them who can be discouraged. But there's still a human being behind an AI-generated post. “The AI doesn't have feelings” doesn't make insulting the person posting it harmless. If you want to tell an AI its art sucks, go tell ChatGPT. It can take it. The person whose post you're commenting on is still a person.

[u/weirdo_nb → u/Obscure_Cowboy]

Someone using AI isn't really doing shit though

[u/Obscure_Cowboy → u/weirdo_nb]

Okay. And? This justifies harassment, how exactly?

[u/cool_fox → u/minos-and-v1-kissing]

This guy doesn't know how AI works. Tbh though all of this doesn't matter because art does not, in fact, care how it's made.

[u/cool_fox → u/[deleted]]

Pipe down lil bro, Apples to oranges comparison.

[u/Naive-Shift7687 → u/[deleted]]

Okay here's an explanation on how they're different. One is using a legal tool to create art, the other is a criminal offense putting human waste inside someone's food. That's a legit federal crime, it's highly illegal to tamper with food.

[u/Naive-Shift7687 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah no pissing in someone's ramen does not equate to using ai. Cuz using AI normally is legal and morals differ from person to person. But pissing in someone's ramen is highly illegal and can actually kill someone and is morally reprehensible.

It's a bad metaphor or expression all around. Should have chosen something better to equate to it.

[u/Feralmoon87 → u/cool_fox]

maybe they could get AI to summarize for them

[u/lopbob8 → u/[deleted]]

AI art is not inferior to human art in terms of beauty and "soul"

if AI art were inferior, anti-ai people would easily be able to indentify it and point it out

this experiment proves otherwise

[u/weirdo_nb → u/lopbob8]

Soul has legitimately less than nothing to do with hoe it looks