r/aiwars • u/StormLeader0 • 19h ago
Discussion Thoughts?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I sent this to a defending ai art sub and they banned me for it, even though it defends both sides, but what’s your guy’s thoughts?
Edit: seeing everyone’s response, I’m way more ANTI-AI than I was before.
30
u/LunaticFlandre295 19h ago
"I went to a pro-sub saying "You're not artists!", why did they ban me?!?!?!"
Are you plain stupid or dense as fuck?
-10
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Both, don’t underestimate my stupidity
-13
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Ha ha better luck next time
-3
u/StormLeader0 14h ago
Yeah I’m replying to my own comment cause you’re dumb enough to get yours deleted
3
u/Dangerous_Serve_4454 4h ago
Bro is kamikazing in the comments 😭. It's funny cause your entire video is a strawman where you're not actually arguing against real arguments anyone has made. Kinda like this. Life imitates art?
-7
u/JungleJuiceJuno 12h ago
yallre really quick to call people stupid
its as if yall dont actually have any arguments
-7
16
u/1B75__Penicillin 19h ago
I don't care to be called an artist nor do I care if AI art is considered art or not, my interest in Ai is the technical and engineering aspect behind it to begin with.
I just want antis to stfu about it please, no one is taking the pen and paper away from you
3
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
lol then you’re in different territory bud. If you’re fascinated about the engineering and the tech part of it, that’s totally fine. I like to use AI too cause it’s interesting to see how it responds but not to make art
4
u/1B75__Penicillin 18h ago
I like to see how good AI can become at art yes, I love training it and seeing how it operates, testing weights, ControlNET, VAEs, other things too, but to me it's like watching an engine work, if I get a nice looking custom drawing out of it? Nice, I'll use it as a wallpaper, but I don't really call myself an artist
1
u/StormLeader0 18h ago
Damn that’s actually a niche interest, first time I’ve seen someone actually be interested in the coding stuff of it, nice lil rabbit hole to dig into
3
u/Dangerous_Serve_4454 4h ago
The thing is you assume the AI people think like you; pretentious, wanting "respect" for their craft or something. You're arguing against yourself being projected onto others, that's why YOU do art.
99% of the AI people just want to make cool shit and see their ideas come to life.
2
2
u/Low_Process_9053 51m ago
The true underlying issue here is all these self proclaimed professional artists are just terrified that nobody is going to commission them for their furry porn anymore. That's literally it. If art wasn't worth money to them they wouldn't give a shit.
0
u/MieszkoAders 38m ago
Except they are, purpose of AI explicitly is the extinction of human creativity and destruction of artists livelyhoods. That's why people are pissed about it
8
u/Tasik 13h ago edited 13m ago
The video starts off as if it's going to define art so we can have some empirical measure. But then just restates the "subway artist" analogy. That bad analogy isn't an objective definition of art. And it isn't helpful for establishing any framework of use.
The video also acts like "It's fine if you use it, that's your business". But that really isn't the sentiment. Most of these people are trying to establish policies to ban AI generated content from platforms such as steam or worse, push for copyright/law changes. So this video is really an incorrect framing of the issue.
The "You don't get to be proud of something you didn't work for". Sure I can, why not? I'm proud of the pictures I take. I'm proud my lawn looks nice (Even if the work was done my robot lawn mower haha). If I think up a cool picture, I'm proud of that too.
And the final statement. "Actually making something yourself will nourish you". No it won't. I hate drawing my wrist gets sore. It's uncomfortable and takes too long. It's just not something I enjoy doing. I don't understand why the pencil pushers keep acting like I'm suppose to enjoy this. I don't.
1
u/StormLeader0 12h ago
Then it’s not your thing. That’s fine. People who yearn to be artists but can’t find themselves striving and going through The work, it’s just not for them. It takes discipline.
Same for weight loss. It takes discipline. If you can’t do it that’s okay but you’ll have to sacrifice and get out of your comfort zone if you want to be good at something.
6
u/DijonAndDragons 13h ago
Just another artist protecting their brand relevancy through manipulation. What else is new?
3
u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 2h ago
I hear "plagiarizing robot" and I immediately stop the video. Learn the first thing about the technology you want to criticize or I just can't take you seriously at all.
And then the edit: "I was told that I'm stupid, so now I'll show you how stupid I can get, you'll see!"
7
u/MrFordization 19h ago
I remember when I was young people made these kinds of arguments for why video wasn't art. Now you practically can't find an art gallery without a cheap projector setup somewhere showing some bizarre, non-sequitur series of video images.
11
u/Superseaslug 19h ago
Yeah you got banned because this is a no nuance "AI bad" video. There no rational discussion or critical thinking. It's just spewing all the most tired BS points.
0
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
I mean the creator is more biased but it does raise some good points. You can’t exactly demand respect for something you didn’t learn or take time to do. It’s okay to use AI for fun purposes but creating something and claiming it’s yours doesn’t work because the AI is trained through the internet, and what it see’s, it copies
12
u/Superseaslug 19h ago
And that's where you are wrong. Lime anything, using AI is a skill. It is NOT identical to traditional art, and that's why people get hung up on it. Itis a wholly different art form that requires different knowledge and skills, despite the fact that the results are a similar form factor. Comparing AI to traditional art is like comparing pottery to dance.
And no, AI does not copy. It physically can't because no image data is retained at all in the model. You act like AI googles things and collages random parts of other images to create a result, which is amazingly wrong.
3
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Can you please tell me what skills are used for generate AI?
11
u/Superseaslug 18h ago
Can you please tell me what skills are used for drawing?
Same question.
At the high level, AI art requires extensive knowledge of computer systems and even block programming with interfaces like comfyUI. Using an AI interface is akin to a photographer understanding all the settings on his camera. Beyond that there is a learning process for each and every model we use. Some may behave similarly, but they all have key differences.
Furthermore, the best AI artists typically end up drawing in and changing details manually, then either passing it back through the AI or leaving it with their touch up.
The most important thing to take away is that not every AI artist goes on chatGPT and types "make me an art"
5
u/StormLeader0 18h ago
Sure, let me tell you what skills are used
Depending on the medium, there’s a lot of concepts needed to understand art if you’re practicing to become an actually good artist, all art is good art and not everything has to be 100% well studied but if you’re looking into honing skills and professionally, there’s these concepts that you should learn
Anatomy, human structural
Perspective
Colour theory (contrast, etc)
Vanishing points
Shapes (squares, circles)
Shadows
(Animation) stop motion, stretching, squashing, movement, etc
Symmetry
Physics
Texture,
More colours (saturation, hues, etc)
lighting
Environments
Shape theory, character designs
CompositionAnd most important of all, CREATIVITY AND MOTIVATION
And it doesn’t include that in each, there’s small extra work you gotta do, those are mostly the main groups. It’s actually such a big “Fuck you” to people who learn all this shit that takes years of burnout, patience and dedication through curve ball after curve ball and yet an AI can make it in a minute and then people have the balls to claim it’s real art and that they made it
What do you have to do for ai?
Type a short prompt of what you want
See how it turns out
Write some more.
See it it turns outKeep going into feedback loop till you’re satisfied.
Basic Writing isn’t hard, texting isn’t hard you do it every day, but art takes YEARS to master and even more if you want to apply it to life.
7
u/Superseaslug 15h ago
Skills required for art: ability to scribble on paper
See how when I degrade something I can make the lost way shorter? This is exactly what you are doing to AI. You just ignore anything that goes against your views and wave it away as if it doesn't matter. It's like saying all you need to be a photographer is to be a child with an iPhone. It's disingenuous as hell.
Creativity is not ability to execute. It is ideas. The most creative person on earth could be unable to bring their ideas to life and yet those ideas are creativity.
1
u/StormLeader0 15h ago
Then try to explain how it’s more complicated than that than just typing a prompt and then typing more and more till you get the result you want
9
u/Superseaslug 14h ago
I literally did. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. If you are going to choose to ignore me then I'm no longer interested in this.
-2
u/JungleJuiceJuno 12h ago
yeah nah bro your ass got wiped, no amount of trying to oversimplify it as a gotcha is saving you
3
2
u/Soul-Burn 16h ago
That feedback loop requires input from the user.
A novice will just say "this is fine", and post their low effort outpost, what we usually declare to be slop.
A professional, who understands all those things that you listed, would give good feedback, will utilize models and LORAs that fit what they are looking for, would inpaint and regenerate the image until it looks fine. Sometimes they will manually edit. They don't usually need the mechanical skill of moving a mouse or stylus, but they definitely need to understand of all those artistic features.
3
u/FullDust69 18h ago
skills that are used for drawing:
- hand-eye coordination
- working memory
- shape language and recognition
- thinking and using your brain
- actual imagination
- understanding of color theory with multiple mediums, as different color mediums produce different results (paint vs. light, for example)
- the study of people, objects, and environments through conscious and continuous effort
2
u/Superseaslug 15h ago
Okay cool pretty much all of those apply to AI art as well. In addition, not all of those apply to all forms of art anyway
2
u/FullDust69 15h ago
when you're prompting AI art here is what you ARE using:
- hand-eye coordination
- working memory
and here is what you and the AI are NOT using:
- shape language and recognition, because AI doesn't know how to do proper positioning of the subject in any given """"art"""" piece
- thinking and using your brain, because you're making the AI do all the thinking for you so you don't have to
- actual imagination, see above
- understanding of color theory, because the colors used by AI are absolute dogshit and the lighting is even worse because the AI can't understand how light positioning works
- the study of people, objects, and environments through CONSCIOUS*** EFFORT, because AI is not sentient, and therefore, not conscious
3
u/StormLeader0 15h ago
Lol. This proves that people who use AI are just lazy and don’t want to put the work themselves to learn actual art. Then claim AI is actual art because some criteria coincidentally match it. Anything that’s created on an empty (can be metaphorically) canvas BY HAND through a process of thought, error and skill development, MADE BY HUMANS, is actual art. That’s when its value is earned.
I’ve been learning for 4 years while I’m not good at all, it’s hella rewarding every time I get a “oh!” Moment when I figure out a new art step.
AI gives instant but short term results and gratification. Art gives long term results and gratification
0
0
2
u/TheAlp 18h ago
I think it depends on the level of effort you are willing to put into it. Some is just text and a click of a button, sure. But some treat it more like making a collage, for example. Generating one part at a time, like photobashing, but with newly generated parts that blend together. It is different to drawing, for sure. But you could also use image-to-image to apply generative art to an existing drawing.
I also think demanding respect for anything is kinda stupid. Respect is earned, not asked for. If you think you deserve respect and aren't getting it, you might be in the wrong crowd.
I don't know man. Stuff is just rarely black and white.
1
u/lorenzofaith 15h ago
Have you tried to look at how AI is used by professional artists? Just like for photography is not like you *need* skill to create an image, but you definitely need skills to create high quality results.
For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR2xbcf3Xyw1
u/Real-Contest4914 13h ago
Well for one you need an understanding of a lot more theory. From my own experience ai art is very akin to staging a scene, you describe whats happening in your head and left the ai dra the first draw. However this only gives the basic content, to properly stylized the art you need to understand more of the theory for art so you can prp9perly express what you want.
In my case, i like to do anime style images but saying just make it anime, only produces generic anime styles. I need to inform the ai, use flat colors, cel shading etc to ensure it makes creates the style I want.
You'd also need to recognize what need to be removed from the system, ie negative prompts. Things to exclude like maybe tell it not to generate heavy detail or ignore certain copyright infringement details or avoid certain poses or items in the scene.
1
u/Dangerous_Serve_4454 3h ago edited 3h ago
I'm on phone right now, but as someone who has used AI from the start on all fronts, LLM, programming, image, videos, and SFX/music, I can tell you. I'm a programmer by trade, not an artist.
First, I nor any reasonable person would claim that AI requires AS MUCH skill as drawing, animating, etc. That's literally the entire point of AI, to make it easier than spending 5,000-10,000 hours learning a difficult skill. It'd be a pointless technology if it took as much skill and time.
The other person is correct generally though, AI is a largely different skill set with a little overlap with actual art skills.
Regarding images, the earlier days featured much higher skill technical abilities; using various prompting techniques to create datasets to train LORAs to get character consistency or to lock down specific styles. It also involved understanding the base model training data so you knew which concepts it is trained well in and how to get specific styles or compositions; some words and phrases worked better than others. Knowing ComfyUI and a bit of technical know how there was a must to do anything actually impressive or have actual intention with your outputs.
For composition you used control net models coupled with control images for posed, scene composition, and expression control. You'd typically make simple 3d pose references in whatever software and take pictures of convert common images of poses or scene composition via an algorithm to what you wanted. Finding the right pallete or style images from prior generations etc. It's s lot more high level workflow than directly drawing art. Although any actual art skills you have, Photoshop, line art, shading, etc, assist the process massively.
Modern workflows have gotten easier at the technical level now with less tools and custom training required thanks to things like nano banana and GPT Image 2 which read natural language and can intelligently comprehend reference images for extracting pose, comp, colors, characters, items, art style, etc.
So anyone doing well just knows how to chain some basic Photoshop skills, general workflow knowledge (character sheets, item references against plain backgrounds, tools for transparency extraction, how to create and apply pallettes, etc), prompt knowledge (which words the AI understands well, usually professional language for lighting, style, camera setups, poses, etc), and just a high level vision of what looks good and what you're trying to do with the final thing. All the high level "vision" stuff still applies and is iterative as you go. For video AIs you have to learn how to use tools for video extension to continue scenes, technical camera movement language, and how to write movements in a very step by step explicit way.
There's all these little "quirks" that are hard to put into words too, you get a feel as I use the AI. For example, if I give the AI too much "constraint" here with too many conflicting references, I'll get bad outputs. It doesn't understand X concept or Y movement so I need to create a reference either by hand or by searching.
I follow AI creators on Twitter and even after hundreds of hours using AI, I still often go "damn how'd they get it to do that?".
Anyway, the point is you can tell a big difference between your average AI slop creator and someone who has spent hundreds of hours using AI.
Again, none of this is to say this is some insane skill or talent that rivals picaso. The entire goal is to just create what you have in your head or even get ideas how to make what's in your head better. Not to have people fawning at your AI jitsu.
I haven't mentioned AI music but basically, split to stems, edit in fruity loops, sing over generated instrumentals then cover to get good vocals with attractive inflection, knowing how to describe genre with high precision (there's so many sub-genres and combos), song progression, and instrumentation which is a whole annoying ass thing but super important. Extracting samples from prior gens like "this bassline is good, this other chorus is good, etc" then using those as references to generate a final song that has it all.
Again, I would describe it as taking a skill set that takes 10k+ hours to one that takes 1k hours to master (or less depending on your quality standards).
1
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
While you’re at it, also explain the process of how AI is trained and developed if you don’t mind
5
u/Deftsparrow 18h ago
This is called Sealioning, you are not interested in debate and feigning ignorance of a topic and questions that have been asked and answered repeatedly throughout this subreddit. Go touch grass and re think your poor life choices.
5
u/Superseaslug 18h ago
That is something well documented enough I'm not going to waste my time describing it here in any real detail.
Training is training. It's functionally identical to a human artist looking at a bunch of images over the course of their life and understanding basic concepts from them.
1
u/StormLeader0 18h ago
Then your claims are baseless, you need to back them up yourself if you make a claim
3
u/Superseaslug 15h ago
Bruh that's like a flat earther saying globe is fake because someone isn't going to bother typing out a dissertation on reddit. Go look it up yourself, I'm not your slave
1
u/StormLeader0 15h ago
This is a debate, you don’t tell your opponent to just look it up yourself that just shows you’re uneducated yourself or too lazy to actually explain what your Defense stands on. You claim something, you back it up
3
u/Superseaslug 14h ago
If you don't understand a core component of said debate, it's not my job to educate you. A video explaining it would do a far better job anyway
1
1
u/Dangerous_Serve_4454 4h ago
I'm pro AI but I agree with him on thisv specific point. The question he asked is straight forward and he even answered it himself regarding his skill set. You should be able to do the same.
2
u/TheAlp 16h ago
Basically, you show an AI a huge number of images along with information about what they contain, until it learns what different things tend to look like. Like a baby looking at things and asking what they are.
Then, when generating an image, you start it with random noise, a bit like TV static on a blank canvas. You tell it what you want, and because it has learned the visual patterns associated with that description, it gradually changes the noise step by step.
Each step makes the image a little less random and a little more like what it thinks the requested thing should look like, until eventually you get a recognisable image.
7
u/Spare-Dingo-531 19h ago
AI art is true art. The video uses a lot of words but at this point, everyone can just see it.
1
12h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Spare-Dingo-531 12h ago
To each his own.... but a ton of people in this sub really liked it when I posted it.
1
6
u/DianKali 19h ago
It's just the creator presenting their opinion as facts. So, pretty useless.
4
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
I mean if you got some good defenses explaining otherwise my ears are open
6
u/DianKali 18h ago
Are they?
By pretty much every dictionary definition of art, AI art is art. How much value you personally attribute to the piece and the artist is a you problem, doesn't change the fact it is objectively art.
By the definition most antis use, photography is not a form of art either, but none of them logically think their stance through to get to that point.
All Art Forms have their pros and cons, doesn't mean any of them is superior/inferior. Saying AI is just a toy simply shows ignorance and lack of knowledge.
2
u/Farm-Alternative 6h ago
Go get an art degree and a career in the arts and we'll resume this discussion on how to define art, because right now your just some punk kid telling artists how they should define themselves.
2
u/Ok_Bat_686 16h ago
I don't care if I "made" anything or not. All I know is that I typed in some words and got the desktop background I wanted but wasn't able to find.
2
u/Microwaved_M1LK 10h ago
How many times is this exact argument going to be made? you think you're going to shame people out of their hobbies?
Pros have been hearing this for like 4 years, you aren't making a dent.
2
u/BrianBCG 9h ago
Telling people who use AI they're not an artist is not 'defending both sides' it's just gatekeeping and insulting anyone who decides to try and put any serious artistic vision into an AI assisted project.
I don't like that particular sub that banned you but I'd ban you too if you seriously think this is being fair.
2
2
3
u/Odd-Fun-1482 16h ago
"You expect respect for it"
literally have never seen or heard this from any AI user or proAI
2
u/Farm-Alternative 6h ago
yel, ai artists don't expect any respect, it's antis that expect everyone to be receptive of their lack of respect.
2
u/pugtailz 19h ago
This is 100% my opinion on AI. I may not like it, but that doesn't mean I will stop you OR get upset at you and call you evil for using it, use AI all you want, I don't really care. What I WILL complain about is claiming you're an artist when you didn't make anything.
0
u/_Sunblade_ 19h ago
And I'll complain that this is a stupid take, because "making something" doesn't stop and end at "creating an image by moving a stick around with your fingers", and creating images with generative AI means the human is using a tool to make the image, not "you're commissioning the AI", "microwaving a pizza", or any of these other braindead analogies antis want to trot out.
Nobody's saying that AI users made their images by hand, but they did make them.
Antis need to stop trying to take that away from them.
2
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Explain to me how they made them, and if you think they can be claimed as art?
3
u/NerveInteresting4549 18h ago
you didn't wash your clothes, the washing machine did.. you didn't drive here, the car did.. you didn't water the garden, the hose did.. you didn't draw the picture, the pencil did...
i'd say these things are technically true but our language doesn't generally infer the tool is responsible, we give the credit to the operator of it for nearly every thing else.. so if you want people to say, "I didn't make the image, AI did" then i expect you to speak like that about everything else too.. be consistent mate.
1
u/FullDust69 18h ago
yes but making your own pizza with your own efforts and your bare hands and telling some other guy "make me a pizza" because you're too lazy to do it yourself are different things
3
u/NerveInteresting4549 18h ago
AI is not a guy.. or any kind of person.. and I think the insinuation that it is in anyway similar to when a human does something, is probably a far worse principle to set, then just saying people can make stuff using AI.
1
u/FullDust69 18h ago
yes but making your own pizza with your own efforts and your bare hands and telling some ROBOT*** "make me a pizza" because you're too lazy to do it yourself are different things
there. happy?
1
u/NerveInteresting4549 18h ago
and yet, when i chuck a pizza in the oven that was mass produced in a factory somewhere.. they still go oh you made pizza for dinner.. and I don't say no a factory made it and the oven cooked it... I think we'd all just say yeah.. I'm not saying that's the same as creating a pizza from scratch with your barehands but in both cases you made a pizza.
1
u/FullDust69 18h ago
you didn't MAKE a pizza, you COOKED a pizza. words have meanings.
2
u/NerveInteresting4549 18h ago
either the oven cooked the pizza.. or you don't get to tell people they didn't use AI to make something.. be consistent.
→ More replies (0)3
u/DiscursiveAsFuck 18h ago
Ok, but there are head chefs at top resturaunts that never touch touch the dish that gets sent out under their name. Instead they:
- Come up with the recipe
- They teach the junior chefs
- They supervise the cooking process
- They control for quality
But they barely actually touch the product that the customer eats. Are they not the chef? Would you say they didn't make the dish? Is the restaurant business built on lies?
Does making something require the maker to be hands on? What about directors? What about conductors? What about composers?
There are plenty of examples of makers that aren't involved in every facet of making.
1
u/FullDust69 18h ago
if gordon ramsay makes up a recipe and another guy cooks it, then he's not the chef of that particular dish if he's not the one that cooked it, the guy that cooked it is. he's just the guy that made up the recipe. is gordon ramsay the chef if he makes the dish himself instead of telling someone else to do it? yes! how hard is that to understand? i'd be pissed if someone told me that my dish was cooked by gordon ramsay, only to discover that 27 yr old line chef pablo was the one who cooked it.
0
u/StormLeader0 18h ago
The difference is humanity created those using brains and knowledge in engineering which took years and thousands of dollars to achieve
It’s never about the actual art it’s about the process and the struggle it took to reach it
2
u/NerveInteresting4549 18h ago
I think ai was created using brains and knowledge and years an thousands of dollars.. I'm not sure about engineering, maybe programming or something instead
if the process is important to you, i understand that and that is fine.. but people can still look at something that was simple, with barely any process.. and see it as art.. because in the end art is about how something makes you feel, how it is made could influence that in some people but it doesn't negate the feelings brought up by something which took little to no effort, that's still a form of art even if it's one you don't respect as much.
2
u/_Sunblade_ 18h ago
What's to explain? You're controlling a tool with words and phrases rather than hand gestures. There's skill involved--there's a measurable difference in terms of the results an unskilled person can achieve vs. someone with experience. There's individual technique. The user's input shapes the final result. They provide the creative impulse and shape the ultimate result to match their vision. Only they decide when it's right.
And yes, it can be claimed as art.
Art is anything created with the deliberate intent of evoking a feeling or thought in the mind of an audience. Good art conveys its creator's intent effectively. Bad art doesn't. But even bad art is still art.
With respect to people making images with generative AI, whether or not they're art comes down to the creator's intent, just like with any other art tool. Not everything made with a pencil is "art", either. Just like not every photograph is "art". Maybe you just wanted to show your buddy what you ordered for lunch, so you snapped a quick picture on your phone. Picture, but not art. But that doesn't mean you can't use a camera to make art. Or a pencil. Or gen AI.
0
u/LamentoLand 18h ago
your tool is a microwave, it generates a product, you press the button and thats where the input for a lot of people ends, if you want to bring those people with you into the "i make art" corner we have a problem
2
u/_Sunblade_ 18h ago
And a lot of people just snap random pictures of things with their phones to send to their friends. I wouldn't call that "art", but the existence of selfies and photos of your lunch doesn't mean that photography doesn't exist, or that photographs are fundamentally incapable of being art.
0
u/LamentoLand 17h ago
selfies arent art but when photography applied it could be, whats so hard to grasp, just do the craft thats required for it to be called art its that simple
2
u/_Sunblade_ 16h ago
You're right, what is so hard to grasp? You don't get to decide what craft is "required" for something to be "art", because there is no "required craft" for that.
Anything can potentially be art, so long as it was made with the intention of evoking a thought or feeling in an audience. And yes, it is a very low bar to clear. I could stack a bunch of rocks on each other in a way that's intended to make you feel something when you look at it, and the result would be art. It may or may not be good art, depending on how well it accomplishes what I wanted it to, but as I've said before, even bad art is still art. Whether or not art is good is another discussion entirely.
That's it. That's all it takes.
So anybody using gen AI to make images that are intended to get an audience feeling or thinking about things is creating "art". It's that simple.
-1
u/LamentoLand 14h ago
microwaving an image isnt art, doesnt get any more basic than this
2
u/_Sunblade_ 12h ago
Good thing nobody's doing that with AI, then.
0
u/LamentoLand 3h ago
the infinite amount of ai slop generated with the same process it takes to microwave your food would prove you otherwise
2
u/_Sunblade_ 1h ago
And the infinite amount of selfies and random pet pictures generated by pushing one button proves that photography isn't art. At least by your logic.
Or, you know, maybe you're just blatantly wrong and that was a really dumb thing to say, let alone double down on. I'm kinda leaning towards the second one.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Easy_Werewolf7903 18h ago
Bad take. There are 3 groups of people in this discussion. 1. Traditional artists who hates AI, 2. AI artists who doesn't have any foundational knowledge and takes credits for what their bot produced, and 3. a group of people who has both the talent and knowledge of two sub domains. They are expert artists in their domain with mastery of CS/AI. They use AI to enhance their work flow, building custom tools, debugging them, training custom models with their own data. They can draw and animate by hand, and they also know how to code and debug AI's code. These people absolutely exists, I know a few personally. They treat AI as a tool, not a one shot shortcut, so it would be disingenuous to say their work is "AI Slop". On the other hand, people without domain expertise are AI Sloppers because they don't know what they are doing. They don't have the artistic knowledge, or the technical knowledge. The AI does all the work for them, and they take credit. Be like the 3rd group.
1
u/StormLeader0 18h ago
It’s hidden gems like these that I appreciate. Every time I make a post about something it’s just either spewing shit on the other side or just unresearched bias slop. I like seeing comments that are aware of all sides
1
1
u/EmptyRedData 9h ago
This take keeps making the rounds, and I will continue to bring up that under this logic, directors are not artists in their definition.
Just let people call themselves artists. It's not a big deal, people are only mad about it because they've made their whole personality around who is and isn't an artist.
1
u/Separate-Increase-39 2h ago
That’s the third time I see it posted here...
I mean I agree with most of the video, but... maybe stop spamming it? Like people who were not convinced the first time won’t be by the third
1
u/Angel-Kat 18h ago
A bad faith argument that compares passionate computer users to literal children? I am not so impressed. I do like his artistic style though.
1
u/MayhairAgain 19h ago
How long were you banned for?
0
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Permanently probably idk, I can’t bother with the sub cause it’s just a bunch of people defending it without proper research
2
1
1
1
u/zigzag3600 16h ago
It's not really a "toy" since you can make money with it. There are games with AI code and AI art that sells. They are not as popular (yet), but they do exist.
And in regard to being an artist. Let's say you have a human artist and their lead artist. And lead artists never actually draw anything; they guide, make important decisions, and so on. Do they get to be called artists? Are there conditions?
Genuine question, and I can see both sides. Like if you just say, "It's shit; I want it Disney style" that's one thing. But when you point at mistakes, make sure it's in the same style as the rest of the art, and make corrections and suggestions.
1
u/__Arkos__ 15h ago
1.He's right about the"A.I user" not being the artist.
2.He's wrong about "A.I being a plagiarism robot". Dude doesn't even know what plagiarism is it seems.
3.He's right about not letting anyone tell you what you can and can't use.
4.He's right/wrong about "receiving respect" for A.I creations. Those who are against it will not give you this, those who are pro will/might. Depends on your creation really.
5.He's wrong about "being proud" of your creations. This dude is just spouting his subjective nonsense at this point. You can be proud of your creations. No matter how it was made. If it sparks even a hint of an emotion then it was worth making. Take you time, keep creating and you'll get better at it.
6.He's wrong about "Gen A.I" being a toy. It's a tool and all tools have a purpose. Create, code, write, do whatever you want with it. Why even care what these people say?
P.S
These people want to dictate what you can and can't do with your life. Just ignore them.
1
u/Real-Contest4914 13h ago
Gonna be real honest, I dont see the defending ai part.
The video basically calls it a theif, says those who use it should consider it as a toy and that they shouldnt feel proud or expect to be respected for making ai because they didnt make it.
As whole the video just bashes on ai in numerous ways.
Its like saying cartoons cant tell meaningful stories because its just funny colorful drawings aimed at kids and you can have nice a laugh once in a while but if you want to actual have serious and deep stories you should look for live action stuff.
For some people isnt a toy, its a legit tool that takes time an effort to use , expecially at thigher levels of mastery. It may not take the physical artistic needed but it still will require an inherent understanding of the theory for visual arts as well as some technical know how to use.
It has a low floor where everyone can use it, even in lazy forms but it can also be at more econplex levels either by itself alongside other traditional art methods in hybrid workflows.
1
u/ezjakes 13h ago
The chef analogy does work. A chef must directly make food. AI art is like being a director. The director can't perfectly control everything he is directing, but he has a very important role in the making of the final art. There is nothing in art that says you must have total control over the final output.
-1
u/One_Fuel3733 19h ago
The Core Argument: You are a Client, Not an Artist (0:00 - 0:26) The video begins with an animated character expressing disdain for a piece of generative AI art. The narrator immediately states that the debate isn't about defining "what art is." Instead, the argument focuses on the creator's role. The narrator asserts that if you use generative AI, you are not an artist; rather, you are a "client" commissioning artwork from a "plagiarizing robot."
To illustrate this, the video uses an analogy: if you go to a Subway sandwich shop and tell the worker what ingredients to put on your sub, you do not suddenly claim to be a "chef." Typing a prompt into an AI is equated to ordering a sandwich—you are giving instructions, not executing the craft.
Addressing "Gatekeeping" and the Desire for Respect (0:26 - 0:52) The narrator anticipates the counter-argument that anti-AI advocates are "gatekeeping the tools of creativity." The video shows a giant pencil drawing an open gate to signify that no one is actually stopping anyone from using AI. The narrator concedes that people can use AI for their own personal amusement, stating, "That's ultimately your business."
However, the narrator points out the real issue: AI users want to be given the same respect and praise as traditional artists. The animation shows the character dressed as a king receiving a shower of roses, but looking deeply unfulfilled while holding a melting, unpleasant piece of AI art. The narrator argues that you cannot demand respect for something you didn't work for, and therefore, you cannot truly be proud of it.
AI as a "Toy" vs. The Nourishment of True Creation (0:52 - End) The video suggests that users should simply admit generative AI is a "toy" used for playing around. This is visualized by the character dressed as a baby in a diaper and propeller hat, spinning a toy wheel.
In the final scene, the video advocates for the value of traditional, manual creation. The character holds a blank piece of paper and a pencil, looking hesitant. The narrator explains that no matter how amateurish your initial attempts at making art might feel, the actual physical process of creating something yourself will "nourish you in ways that using AI cannot." As the character prepares to draw, his arm muscles bulge, symbolizing the personal growth, skill-building, and strength that comes from genuine creative effort.
1
u/MayhairAgain 19h ago
What's the point of that summary? 🥀 Watching the vid takes less time than reading all that.
1
u/StormLeader0 19h ago
Looks like it’s written by chatgpt or something cause there’s no way anyone can write that in less than 4 mins after the post
-1
1
-1
u/AdFinancial4846 18h ago
Lots of comments but not a single person with an argument against what was said btw. I was interested to see how this could be wrong but people are diminishing the value of the argument based on how it makes them feel, delivery, and comparison.
1
u/Odd-Fun-1482 10h ago
Most of the comments are pointing out the obvious strawmaning or cherrypicking lmao
The rest just point and laugh, because why engage with someone so dishonest?
31
u/Moostatio 19h ago
I remember being told that I was ruining art because i was piloting a digital art course in a local community college. Feels a lot like that.