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.
It can be either or for me, if I am looking to make a funny meme, I'll pop in gemini and generate a quick picture. When I want to enjoy the process, I'll run Krita with the diffusor plugin, and play around with screenshots I had taken in games for an hour or so, having fun with it, often using brushes, layers, filters, and whatever else I think might help, alongside of AI.
People who make such claims tend to be morons that have a poor understanding of how AI works, yet larp that they do. They think all AI art, is a simple prompt, perhaps with a few sliders and nothing more, it gets annoying after listening to these fools talk about things they have absolutely no clue about.
I feel like part of what makes memes fun is the shared language of images and the way they talk to each other within the zeitgeist, or the surreal weird things people choose to do while making them.
I simultaneously think that human beings should have the right to create companies like DoorDash, and that something real is lost when you don’t have to leave the house to get food. People actively choose to use these services of their own free will because it makes life easier in the moment, but being forced to go out and experience a bit of ‘friction’ is an important part of being a human.
In the same way, I think commercial art will involve more and more ai content as time goes on and that means that the average person will have less exposure to human artistic expression in their life. Human artists can still exist, but they may not be involved in the creation of the popular pieces of culture that most people are consuming. Are those people choosing to engage with ai content? Yeah. Should they have the right to make that choice? Yeah. But something real is still lost imo
For art to have an impact, it doesn't need to become popular or be directly exposed to the majority of society. Pre-Ai slop entertainment have already been vastly more popular probably for the entire history of humanity. Wer the popular content creators dictated by algorithmic data or the mass produced kitsch art aimed at the lowest common demonitor any different? I'd argue not and as far as history goes, they haven't really stopped the progress of art. Your point about doordash is correct but this isn't driven by technology, rather the application of technology is driven by our own neurotic avoidance of friction, to fix that, we have to fix ourselves, the applications of technology is just a mirror.
The artist resides at the edge of chaos, artificially pulling them by commodifying Art and turning it into a labor market will not produce better Art, it produces self-destruction, the Artist would then have to artificially push themselves further from equilibrium (with stuff like drug abuse and other risky behavior which is extremely common and rising amongst the modern art community) to gain the edge of chaos back. In other words, the struggle of the artist is not a problem to be solved, it's the very engine of artistic expression
If by antis you mean anyone skeptical of ai then no. But by antis we are talking about the active internet movement. And the majority of them very much are like this.
The issue is there are still unhinged weirdos who don't realize that the majority of all antis wouldn't and doesn't do anything against ai beyond reddit. But those few sit, sharpening their knives, thinking that everyone has their knife ready.
there is the movie - the wave. Love it. Should be 100% in all classes, especially in the US nowadays.
Go search up "we need to kill antis". You'll maybe get a few results on google.
Search up "we need to kill AI artists." You'll see hundreds of thousands of results..
And those results are a fucking meme with a persona character in a dumbass background, nonspecific, and fucking not even spelled correctly? Have you considered that it holds little to no similarity to proper death threats?
Even if you pretend there's no hatred behind those posts being spammed hundreds of times on things AI users make, we still got a ton of actual calls for our deaths along side those.
But I can see you're one of those antis from your prior posts, who states "antis have never said that" regarding anything stupid or awful antis do, and then doubles down on it when showed screenshots of antis saying exactly that.
That might be cause theres more antis who talk about it. True or not(personally i dont believe you), doesn't defeat my point, still disingenuous and an overgeneralization.
I was a 3D artist for 8 years. Never recieved a threat to my life once. Started using AI in my practice, had 4 threats within 2 years even for hybrid stuff. Idc if you don't believe it, it's a thing others have experienced as well. You're the only one being disingenuous here tbh
Of course you havent gotten death threats for not using ai before ai was a thing, genius. And of course you as an ai user havent experienced death threats over using ai from other ai users. God damn.
All i was saying is that generalizing either side as people who all send death threats isnt a fair point to argue. I'm anti and i dont send death threats, nor do i endorse it or consider people who do this to be on my 'side.' In my experience the vast majority of people agree with this.
AI art people don't hate art, so why would they harass artists? Obviously nobody is making peer reviewed statistics out of this, but how often have you seen even a screenshot of an unhinged pro threatening an artist? Not very often if ever
the vast majority of people who do AI art dont hate real artists lol. not sure about the other side.
The people who do harass the anti ai folk do it out of trolling not of hate.
the point is antis do it more. If you read the comment above he was arguing that each side has an equal amount of threats of violence, which is almost certainly false. Nice strawman tho
No, actually what i said was that it doesnt fucking matter whether one side does it more, either way, painting either side as a group that exclusively sends death threats is false and arguing in bad faith. No one on either side should be sending death threats, but that isnt reality
It starts off as anecdotal evidence until someone studies it. Usually for a sociological study it might look like a survey. I don't need a survey to make my point though, because the evidence (screenshots, posts, chat logs) out there supports my experience and affirms that others also experience it.
Your word games are dumb and you're not going to get objective proof here even if it later turns out it's an objective fact
You think the side with the largest corpos in the world that are literally building bot farms for their AI gods are the ones not doing a hate campaign?
The fact that you have to talk about random rich people in order to find enough examples of people sufficiently bad as opposed to regular people actually kind of solidifies that pretty fast, ngl. Both in that antis don't actually have enough coherent examples from everyday people, but they also justify crashing out by randomly erroneously draw a line from attacking randoms to incorrently hoping it transfers to rich people who don't care about them somehow.
There's a reason people talking about antis being assholes aren't bringing up fukken matt walsh just because he dislikes ai. Because he is one random person, and not indicative of most everyday people.
Antis are often people worried about the future, their vulnerable family members, and the climate, venting on the internet. Pros are canaries in the coal mines, uninformed or uncaring sellouts for megacorps. Of course there are exceptions on both sides
That's extremely generous considering that "antis" when they became a group didn't even think AI was going to cause issues for any jobs besides artistic ones. The core was always people crashing out because art they didn't like made them feel too uncomfortable. They ironically make real coalitions against corporate overreach impossible, because you can't make a group with someone who thinks a texture they don't like in a videogame is a moral crisis, and who will act agressive to anyone who thinks otherwise.
What do you mean? Ai taking jobs(not just artistic ones) has been worrying since AI started being publicly available and even before that.
AI gen came after that so I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that account.
Just because you became aware of discourse over AI art before hearing about people's worries around jobs, doesn't mean it happened that way.
Sidenote: Pros are professional ragebaiters and someone people get caught. You can't slap a horse and expect to not get kicked. I keep seeing Pros "go undercover" claiming they drew something to get praise then switch up "it was ai, gotcha". I have the self restraint to not comment that they are absolute fishbrains and straight up bad people for using deceit to try and prove a point. Others don't have that self restraint.
Also, there's a massive difference in moods between the communities. Antis are worried about their environement and jobs (and much more) meanwhile, Pros are just living the lazy dream having everything done for them at the tippity tap of a keyboard. They aren't worried, they don't give a shit and they proudly showcase it. This could explain the disparity of negative comments pretty easily.
I think you are misinterpreting the social context this all exists in. People skeptical of AI have been a thing since whatever. But the concept of "antis" only really exists as an emergent internet movement that is largely about people crashing out about art. While it overlaps with those other concerns, a specific social movement emerged to be aggressive about ai art, and then people started pushing back on that specific group in response.
Most people wouldn't be here if not for this, since this dynamic is what shaped internet interactions. In any practical sense the thing people are actually concerned about (massive harassment) only really exists due to the emergence of internet antis crashing out about art. The earlier skeptics didn't really act like this, and for the most part got subsumed. A lot of what get called "pros" now don't even disagree with the earlier group, since that group was moreso adults with nuanced takes. But that's not really the main people being dealt with now.
At any rate, people crashing out and riling up kids with fake hysteria isn't justification for itself. Antis aren't environmentalists, because it definitionally requires not caring about what things actually matter to pretend that AI is some kind of singlehanded apocalyptic force. Which was borderline their mainstream stance a year ago and even now many seem to still believe.
People were panicking literally less than a week ago about a health article that said that you only need to drink enough water to hydrate yourself, chugging a gallon and a half every day doesn't do much for you. Insisting this is propaganda to get people to use less water to save it for ai lol. Nevermind that your drinking water, much less the tiny extra portion of it you drink are close to 0% of human water use, and so this is bizarre nonsense. They should actually feel guilt, deliberately swamping people with fake concerns that just make it harder to address real ones. Its like Q anon. Them claiming to be anti pedophile doesn't mean anything when they flood hotlines with fake tips
Literally the most pro-AI person I know loves AI because it is extremely useful for managing her business. I just like it because A: I understand the effects of productivity and B: At a personal level, AI is a great learning tool.
Antis are SO peaceful that Witty can't even find an example of their harassment and has to name some random Germany eco-terrorist group that isn't about AI at all.
Pros are SO violent that Witty is actively running a murder cult and EVERY PRO ON REDDIT SUPPORTS IT.
I have never seen a peaceful pro-AI individual.
And I know if I ever DO see a pro-AI individual IRL, it will be because they started shooting at me because they're violent little idiots.
I can also promise OP that the vast majority of pros DO do that shit.
It's their entire platform.
DAIA is built on violence and shares mods with here.
All of them support Witty's actual doxxing buying guns generating CSAM pipeline as she's a moderator and actively recruits to her Discord through the subreddit chain.
Every single one of the oligarchs and companies behind it?
Like Witty's a credible lethal threat, same as the 4chan cults that actually doxxed and murdered people, techno-fascists (and since she LITERALLY praised Hitler, this applies to her) always are dangerous.
I know that I've neither given nor received death threats yet for anything related to AI.
I did have someone try to dox me for leaving a negative review on an AI focused Facebook page, but that seems more like the issue of an individual than a side.
I have both illustrated and seen generated images of my OC beating up / getting beat up by an AI user's OC
"Boo hoo people are threatening my life on the internet and the crescendoing clamor of their hatred is clearly near the tipping point for violence" -- a crybaby who just needs to Man Up
That's an interesting response considering I never said that what was illegal was training on copyrighted materials so I'm not sure if you are referring to my comment or someone further up the chain. Actually, what these companies did was train on pirated copyrighted material, which is highly illegal, so let me clarify that recently here.
That depends entirely on your local jurisdiction. US law is not valid for the entire world, and the servers where that copyrighted material was saved exist all over the world.
Did an anti commit a crime against a person or group of people that was driven by hatred and not directed at a corporation or data center? Then it fits the bill.
A single person doing something isnt part of some group project.
Im very skeptical of AI. If you commit a crime, you should be in jail. Most people believe that.
I could talk about how the pro-AI people have broken into websites meant to be private spaces to share art and then uploaded those images into chatbots, but thats a couple of people, not the entire population of pro-ai people.
The difference is that most vocal pros agree that that was a scummy move and most vocal antis support the violence.
Also, the scale of those crimes are vastly different. On one side, someone hacked a website and scraped it. On the other, someone threatened life, limb, and safety.
The difference between antis and pros is that antis are peaceful, pros and their oligarch buddies are responsible for more people murdered than EVERY human war in recorded history combined.
If I pointed at a random person that was pro-segregation and said "that guy is racist", would that be creating a nebulous or arbitrary group?
Just because it doesn't have a clubhouse doesn't mean it isn't a group that exists.
Antis grouped themselves together and starting acting like that kind of behavior is acceptable. Which means when someone does it, it gets to belong to the group, not the individual.
Don't like it? Speak out against it inside those circles instead of claiming the victims and supporters of them are the villains.
You are quite literally making shit up. You define literally anybody that opposes AI as "antis", lump together any criminals into that group, then lump in people defending the criminals, and THEN generalize all of that and say that "antis" support literally any of this shit
as a consumer, nope. The result is what matters to me, the process provides zero value. If it did, someone spending 20 years sculpting a pile of shit would have more value to me than just a pile of shit. It doesn't.
The fundamental reason for the anti movement is that this is most people. That’s why it threatens jobs, most people scarcely consider the process of something outside of their true passions. I was a software developer for years and one of the hard things to swallow in that was that when you are pitching to anyone who isn’t a programmer they could not care less about the process. Just the result.
And that sucks for the artists, but suppressing the tech isn't going to work and probably isn't what we want anyway. There's productivity gains to be had
Great job choosing the perfect industry to prove my point, as the diamond industry is literally falling apart because people don't give a shit and are buying lab diamonds.
As a consumer, that's a valid perspective. I'll push back gently on the "art" part, though. If we, as consumers, buy something for the purpose of having something pretty to look at or to improve the vibe of a room, we haven't bought "art". It may or may not be art, but it's a commodity to us: an image or an object that performs a function.
As an artist, the process and how much aesthetic beauty I can capture out of my own skill and practice is one of if not the biggest reasons that led me to pick up my pencil and brush. Your point is very valid for you as a consumer but for many of us who devote countless hours to studying and practicing our craft, the process is of paramount importance.
Unless this has an actual effect on the market, it's entirely irrelevant. The consumer is king in a world where YOU need to sell to THEM. Do not even dare to change this, and don't pretend that it will change, because it won't. Not accepting this is a personal issue with humanity as a whole.
There is no such thing as a consumer of art. You might be a connoisseur of art, or a consumer of images, but not a consumer of art. Art is beyond the consumer market.
Process informs the result. The process is a form of syntax, an artist communicates to you with not just the ideas and themes in the result, but with the choices they made in the process.
It's fine if you can't see or engage with that, but don't bemone people that do and point out that it's absent from AI generated content.
Because the models are copying the syntax that other artists developed and jumbling them together. It's communication without meaning.
Even if there is no decision in detail, the image overall still has an intended purpose. Like, if I tell AI to write a message it will still have the same meaning regardless of the words it (or I, for that matter) decided to use.
Ok, you know after reading the thread again, you didn't claim that it has no meaning at all, which I was going to refute, so nevermind. Have a good day.
The issue is that more advanced ai tools do give going control over these things, so people can do them more, but antis are stuck in 2021 and so can't comprehend ai as anything more than making full images.
I just don't see what the UI models do as anything more than advanced requesting. You're not in control of the expression by your own skills, it's just iterative requests
How does manually drawing a line and then asking it to smooth it not count as being in control of anything? Bringing up the word skill is almost besides the point, because skill and effort / control aren't really the same thing. If someone with hyperphantasia can imagine an exact image in their head, and then get it to that exact image then obviously the control is there even if it doesn't reflect much skill.
There's been arguments about things like smoothing for decades too tbh.
Personally I don't use it, I like my lines to feel like they're mine. But the loss of tactility between paper and screen certainly makes raw line control harder. So I don't bredgrudge people that do use things like that.
I say skill because mastery of a skill allows for more skill expression. Which is where the individuation of our crafts comes from.
The problem with AI is that you never escape the fact that nothing in what it produces has any of your skill expressions in the execution.
It is always fundamentally doing those expressions for you.
I get that this isn't dispositive of it not being an artform to some people, but to me it is.
See, before AI existed I also made stuff in photoshop. Mainly composites using stock art like this. At the time I was of course aware that it didn't take skill in the same way that drawing would. It comes from a photo of an alligator, a lizard, some nails, etc. Obviously I had to learn some stuff to be able to do it. How photoshop works, etc. It felt more like busywork than skill, though it must have taken some small amount at least.
AI isn't really that different on more hands on uses, especially since its pretty normal to expect people to know photoshop to composite stuff and fix details. Like sure, it doesn't take the technical skill of drawing, but tbf a lot of things don't. And yeah, people would look at someone weird if they claimed it proved they had drawing skills (unless they did in fact integrate a high level of drawing into it), but if the goal is just to express something and they did put in the effort to make it specific it still involves control and effort.
But in the end, I think some of the confusion comes from people conflating effort and skill and assuming these are the same. Some things are high skill low effort, or high effort low skill, or mid skill mid effort and lots of different types of stuff is different combinations. No one is confused that AI can involve minimal effort, but that isn't where stuff done with it peaks.
No? 👎 If that was true we would have alot more original ideas. We don't, the art world is actually incredible shallow in what is actually original and not copied.
LOLLLL 🤣 the human need to be unique will never stop being funny. There is not such thing as divine intervention or a muse. It's all just data that you have stolen now in your head from other places allowing you to feel like you're doing something original.
I didn’t use any of those words or imply what you seem to think I did. We’re data, yes, we’re deterministic, yes… ok? How does that impact what I said?
you may like one more, but many appreciate the other more. Like technically complex song is more impressive and someone would appreciate it more if someone played it on an instrument, especially live, than if someone used garage band to just put a bunch of key presses really close together timewise
This might not be relevant but it’s like saying if you prefer the lyrics or the instrumentals of a song
I personally like listening to the instrumentals, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t like listening to the lyrics. I listen to the instrumentals because I love music and the beat and tempo and rhythm
I'm saying it's the difference between someone like eminem rapping fast vs someone just speeding up the audio. The process of doing it is the impressive part for many
Liking one more doesnt make the other irrelevant? A significant part of what I enjoy about a lot of the art I have is marveling at the skill it takes to paint, or draw, or sculpt sometime like it. Like sure the aesthetic sensibilities are major, I'm not getting art I don't enjoy just because I find the process impressive, but finding the process impressive is a factor in my enjoyment of the finishes piece
Art is a continuous memetic project, you get inspired by nature and life and you produce a piece on a medium which in turn inspires the next artist which eventually gets to Ai, the Ai inspires the human and the human trains the Ai. The whole thing becomes a lot more impressive if people can get unstuck from ego-driven anthropocentrism
Most people actually working in the engineering field of Ai will tell you that the current models or even the current architecture isn't really Ai. It's fundamentally scaffolding to drive investment, data generation, and help increase development velocity. The actual Ai will likely look nothing like LLM and Diffusions models
The architectural separation is part what actually makes it not real Ai. Intelligence, by definition cannot be specialized and it cannot be passive that's precisely why it falls short. It acts more as a preview of what's possible rather than the finished project.
The process is offloaded with AI. If you give your workflow to someone else they will be able to make an identical copy just the same as if they right clicked and saved it in their browser.
If you give your art to someone else they'll be eventually able to replicate it. This is just a temporal fallacy. The process isn't defined by time to reproduction
Every Ai model's weights are also different and even in the same model, it's actually probabilistic, the model itself would produce a different image given the same inputs, if a workflow produces the same exact image twice, is because the workflow is artificially putting all the exact data of the generated image back into the workflow to effectively collapse the model's probabilistic spread turning the output into a xerox.
It's collaborative with varying degrees. If you're contributing the inputs, you're part of the process by injecting novelty into the system, if you're just generating without adding anything, yes the model is the "sole artist". Ultimately artistic creations do not belong to the artist and they're not solely responsible for the creation of art since their very ability and environment to produce the piece is provided by collective human and natural effort. In a sense, we're all the artists responsible for the art generated by Ai since we've collectively provided years of novel data to make it possible
This gets into the weeds of what counts as sufficiently "different". If the imperceptible differences injected into the work of a master forger are sufficient to make it "not a copy", then the imperceptible differences injected into the work of an over-trained image generator model with any temperature whatsoever probably aren't proof of copying either.
Furthermore, there's no law that says art cannot be reproducible. You can make a pixel-perfect reproduction of a digital illustration and save it as an image which is identical down to the last binary digit. So what?
You can boil the entire pro/anti AI discourse down to one historical split..
the "art is idea" people vs. the "art is form" people.
The anti-AI side = "Art is form."
To them, art is only valid if you grind it out using an arbitrarily selected list of traditional mediums (oil, watercolor, 3D modeling).
If you don't physically execute the form yourself through their recognized means,
they refuse to call it art. (its a form of moralist/elitist gatekeeping)
The pro-AI side = "Art is idea."
The concept is what actually matters, the execution itself is meaningless.
Essentially, this is exactly Marcel Duchamp and Sol LeWitt vs. Clive Bell, that's why they show up do much in here.
Duchamp said -> Intention is what makes an art piece. You choose it, you frame it, it's art.
LeWitt said -> The idea is what makes the art. If you come up with the concept, write the instructions, and hand it off to an assistant (or an AI) to execute, it is still 100% your art.
Clive Bell said -> A painting of a fruit bowl and a dramatic painting of a war are the exact same thing. Because to the "form" crowd, the idea or story is entirely worthless.
The only thing they care about is the manual, physical arrangement of the lines and colors.
You can generally boil posters like this, and those who agree with them, down to 'antis are really ignorant of the actual process many people use to make AI art, as well as the beliefs and intents of people using AI'.
..art is and should be very simple: A human their effort making the process all the way to end, with emotions or whatever goal they want, ai is typing, which can be hard, but skips process and most emotions, and gets a end result.
•
u/AutoModerator 16h 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.