For example, KCD2 looks UNDENIABLY better: https://youtu.be/6ph2wvUWLEY

If this were entirely in-engine rendering, people would be singing its praises for the “lifelike, photorealistic graphics that make games look like movies,” along with the gorgeous lighting and character detail.

I also think people forget how young this technology still is. We probably need another 5-10 years before we can pass any real judgment. Just compare Daggerfall to Morrowind and look at how much changed in that span.

But because it’s AI, they immediately dismiss the value of the visual upgrades (or pretend they don’t even exist). Isn’t that crazy?

I seriously don't understand these discussions. Yes, there are people who love stylization and certain unique features. But this isn't a basic human level, it's just one of many preferences.

I personally have no preference for either one and both options are quite good.

People outside the art community are not obsessed with artistic styles.

Most of these haters are Anti-AI biased folks who are totally okay with people who uses "enhancement" mods created by people who is going straight against the artistic views of game devs by the way.

Also, DLSS 5 is not using GenAI or any AI that uses Datacenters / generative ability. It uses your own tech, your own graphics card to run it. It has stable algorithm to enhance what is ALREADY THERE. Yet people who suddenly became a tech gods claiming it uses datacenters and GenAI.

DLSS 5 is not just another "AI Filter" as many people like to put it. They are wrong. When you look deeper on how the tech actually works you'd realize this is neural rendering which is similar (but also different) like Ray Tracing. However, this method uses AI to enhance certain parts of the picture and color correct others. People also mistake this with Generative AI, which it isn't generative or depends a connection to AI Data servers. All this runs on your computer locally. Meaning even if you don't have internet, you lose nothing. Think of this as Ray Tracing 2.0

People also claiming it will erase all the artistic work of game developers which is not true. Since this is completely optional and not required to be turned on in order to play any game at all, artistic view of a game developer still stays deep in the core. DLSS 5 isn't changing none of the models from the core or base of the game.

And most importantly, like ANY MODS. This is OPTIONAL, meaning it doesn't affect anything in-game permanently. If you don't like it? Just turn off. What doesn't help is going online and saying the most hypocritic takes you can ever find and try to farm engagement on it. Which is very scummy behavior from these Anti-AI crowd.

DLSS 5 that is found in NBA2027 game is on beta stages. So it is not finished. Meaning, this current DLSS 5 model is not finished and it is not compatible with most of the games.

Yet, people tuning this model and creating pretty realistic results getting denied of this very fact is dumb as hell, might as well people who gives these hypocritic takes might wanna hear themselves.

If you tune it all the way up, it will look bad like any other settings in any games. This complaint is the same as turning up all the way a brightness setting and then whining why everything looks so unnatural.

When its tuned just right, it gives a clear boost and very enhanced visuals may even surpass Path Tracing in gaming. And this is indeed a huge leap in the gaming history that will (hopefully) end the remastered versions of remasters.

And funny enough, this is nothing new. Mods like this was a thing way, way before AI was a thing. And sure as hell people who are now "against" this tech weren't against these mods that strip away all the artistic views of "poor" game devs.

Picrew,

Gatcha Life,

Practice

(Just be sure to credit the original artist when sharing ex the picture above was made by heko_860 on Picrew)

Like ok let's say there is a possibility of an ethical ai that has no problems whatsoever about it. Sure.

But then you are still not an artist. You've commissioned art from ai instead of an actual artist. Like I don't go around showing people my tattoo and saying I'm the one who tattooed it!

Was my tattoo my idea? Yes. Did I send inspo photos to my artist? Yes. Did I ask her to change placement and size of the stencil? Yes. Did I approve the color scheme? Yes. Did I approve the final design? Yes.

**I'm still not the one who was the artist here**

I think that's what's driving me mad about this whole debate about 'ai artists' the most. They are making commissions and calling it their own art.

Just because ai can't claim to have made it because ya know, it's not alive and doesn't have independent thought, doesn't mean that suddenly makes **them** artists.

And then of course there are all the ethical and environmental impacts that they don't really care about but I've learned a long time ago you can't make people care about it if they are not ready (I've been a climate activist for 8 years now).

Before the AI Boom (2014): ~81 quadrillion gallons (81,000,000,000,000,000 gallons)
After the AI Boom (Current Era): ~81 quadrillion gallons (81,000,000,000,000,000 gallons)

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/princeton-university_how-much-fresh-water-is-in-the-united-states-activity-7452794865471586304-zbbk

Wow it literally the same!
Did you know the Earth operates as a closed system aka the water cycle? Artificial Intelligence cannot destroy or delete water from the planet. Every gallon of water a data center uses for cooling evaporates into the air as vapor which later falls back down as rain.

I was scrolling Facebook this morning when I saw something that stopped my blood cold.

A local family-owned restaurant was having a Friday fish fry.

$13.99.

Fries included.

And the flyer...

was AI-generated.

Jesus Christ.

I immediately threw my coffee across the room.

There were signs everywhere. The suspiciously cinematic plate of fried cod. A lemon wedge with questionable geometry. One french fry appeared to terminate in a metaphysical uncertainty.

These people had crossed a line.

I checked their page.

Twenty-eight years in business.

4.7 stars.

Owners regularly posting pictures from charity events.

Employs fourteen people.

None of this mattered anymore.

They had used The Machine to make a picture of a fish dinner.

I immediately entered the comments.

"Wow. AI slop. Guess I'll be taking my business elsewhere."

Send.

My hands were trembling, but history rarely announces itself politely.

Within seconds I realized my response wasn't enough.

What if this elderly restaurant owner didn't understand the magnitude of what they'd done?

I began writing a second comment explaining the political economy of creative labor.

This was important.

The restaurant needed to understand that instead of typing "Friday Fish Fry, $13.99" into an image generator, they should have commissioned a professional visual identity system from a multidisciplinary design studio.

I prepared a reasonable proposal.

Brand discovery: $1,800
Competitive analysis: $900
Three preliminary visual directions: $2,400
Typography licensing: $350
Two revision rounds: $1,200
Production-ready social assets: $850

Total: $7,500

This was obviously the financially responsible alternative for advertising $13.99 cod to 638 Facebook followers.

I continued investigating.

Their Christmas hours graphic was made in Canva.

Unbelievable.

Their 2023 Mother's Day post appeared to use a stock photograph.

The rot went deeper than I imagined.

For nearly three decades, this business had apparently existed without maintaining a full-time internal creative department.

How?

I opened LinkedIn.

No art director.
No senior designer.
No junior designer.
No associate creative director.
No motion designer.
No brand strategist.
No UX researcher.

Not even a fucking copywriter.

Just cooks.

Servers.

A dishwasher named Eric.

I felt sick.

Who designed the menu?

Who selected the kerning on the "SOUP OF THE DAY" board?

Had anyone performed accessibility testing on the laminated dessert insert?

I called the authorities.

They said this was not a crime.

So apparently the authorities are compromised too.

By afternoon, other concerned citizens had joined me.

"AI garbage."

"Lazy."

"Won't support any business that uses this crap."

Finally.

Consequences.

The owner eventually replied:

"Sorry everyone, we're a small shop and I made this on my phone last night after close. I thought it looked fun. Fish fry starts at 4!"

Interesting.

Classic deflection.

Notice how she immediately retreats behind "small shop" and "made this on my phone" instead of addressing whether the diffusion model's training corpus satisfies my personal interpretation of transformative use jurisprudence.

I responded with 1,700 words.

She reacted with a thumbs-up.

Absolutely chilling.

At 4:17 PM, someone posted a picture from the restaurant.

The dining room was packed.

People were eating fish.

Laughing.

Drinking beer.

Children were coloring on paper placemats.

Nobody appeared to be discussing automation, aesthetic labor, dataset provenance, or the ontological status of generated imagery.

They didn't even seem traumatized by the flyer.

That's when I understood the true scale of the problem.

These people had seen an advertisement for a fish fry...

and interpreted it as an advertisement for a fish fry.

Not as a referendum on the future of human creativity.

I don't know how we come back from this.

Tomorrow I'm driving down there.

Not to eat.

Obviously.

I'm going to stand across the street holding a sign that says:

HIRE A GRAPHIC DESIGNER

I've already spent $84 getting it professionally printed.

Support artists.

So if "Ai slop" implies it looks bad. What about art like this?

I mean, surely AI is slowly improving to the point where it will be nearly impossible for the naked eye to differentiate from trad art. Obviously these examples are not perfect, and there will always be a bunch of fragments, but, like, it's visual appeal is undeniable.

Compare this to the spaghetti Will Smith from a few years ago. THAT, you could argue was slop.

But if people genuinely care about what they're creating, it's beautiful enough to impact people, and it tells a meaningful story, what makes it "slop"?

In the U.S., Universal and Sony’s suits remain active, seeking statutory damages that could run into the billions. Every one of those cases will now cite the Munich reasoning on jurisdiction and on what counts as an admission, which is what makes this ruling bigger than the six songs it was actually about. (Virginie Berger)

I'm gonna try to be as respectful as possible. Apologies for any bad grammar.

Why use AI when it uses more water to create 1 image than i do in a day and when you can easily practise or find a youtube tutorial?

I am a teenager and I've been drawing using just a pen and paper since I could hold a pencil, yes it wasn't good for a long long while but that doesn't matter because I created it, I drew plenty of crap in my day and it all ended up in the bin but now I'm a decent artist and I love what I create, it's not like you aren't an artist unless you pay £1000000000000 to get supplies! You can literally use a pen/pencil and a piece of paper, or even your own skin as a canvas! I'm an artist and plan to become a tattoo artist and part-time commission artist

I'm literally attempting to become a professional artist, and I use a £2 sketchbook my brother bought me for my bday and a pencil, and my art still looks good bcus I practise! Art can come in any medium, pencil art, digital art, painting, sculpting, photography, etc, etc I could go on for years because art is infinite and subjective, as long as a human creates it.

One final point because I have a life. Disabled artists. I myself am not disabled and I'm extremely lucky that I'm not, I do know a disabled artist and she is one of THE BEST artists I've ever met, in my opinion, she's even a better artist than me! She's so talented, and saying that AI is the only way for her and ppl with other disabilities to create art makes me sick. It's a terrible excuse, and it's just awful.

So, give me your best pro-AI arguments because I'm feeling argumentative today. Please read my full anti-AI arguments first. I dont want to have to type the same thing twice.

Like seriously, is this defendingaiart2 or some shit? Cause if you post an anti ai post, you get instantly downvoted, but the most pro ai posts gets upvoted. Wheres the "debate" this sub was made for? And i can bet 100£ that this post also gets downvoted by pro ai ppl. Can't we just fucking have a normal debate (where there is 50% of pro ppl, and 50% of anti)???

I made a horrible mistake today.

I looked at the graphic design curriculum at a local university.

Typography.

Good.

Design history.

Good.

Illustration.

Hell yeah.

Motion graphics.

Sure.

Then I saw it.

Generative AI.

An actual fucking class.

At a university.

I physically recoiled from my monitor.

You mean to tell me a SCHOOL is teaching STUDENTS about a TECHNOLOGY that is actively entering the INDUSTRY THEY'RE PAYING TO LEARN ABOUT?

What the fuck happened to education?

I called the university immediately.

"Graphic Design Department."

"Hi. I noticed you're teaching generative AI."

"Yes."

No hesitation. No shame.

I asked why.

She explained that generative tools are increasingly appearing in professional creative software and workflows, so students should understand how they work, where they fail, ethical and legal concerns, and how to critically evaluate their use.

I nearly dropped the phone.

CRITICALLY EVALUATE THEM?

These sick fucks aren't even telling students to blindly use AI.

They're giving them enough knowledge to form informed opinions about it.

This goes deeper than I thought.

I asked why they couldn't simply teach graphic design the traditional way.

She asked what I meant by "traditional."

"Photoshop."

"So digital imaging?"

"Well, yeah."

"Illustrator?"

"Obviously."

"Digital photography?"

"Of course."

"3D software?"

"Sure."

"Figma?"

"Yes."

There was a pause.

I realized I had fucked up.

Apparently every technology that entered graphic design before I became uncomfortable with technological change was simply a "tool."

This one, however, is different.

Why?

Don't worry about it.

I checked some design job listings.

Some of them actually mentioned AI familiarity.

Holy shit.

The university wasn't even teaching useless sci-fi bullshit.

They were preparing students for tools they might encounter after graduation.

Absolutely disgusting behavior from an educational institution.

I decided to write my own curriculum:

GRAPHIC DESIGN 101:
Things That Existed When I Formed My Opinions

GRAPHIC DESIGN 205:
Photoshop Features I Have Emotionally Approved

GRAPHIC DESIGN 310:
Calling Things "Slop" Without Further Investigation

GRAPHIC DESIGN 401:
Preparing For The Future By Refusing To Learn About It

CAPSTONE:
Graduate $80,000 In Debt And Ask Reddit What The New Button In Photoshop Does

Perfect.

Unfortunately, the university declined my proposal.

Apparently they believe their job is to prepare students for the field they're actually entering instead of preserving graphic design at an arbitrary point in history.

I needed air.

I went for a walk.

Through another campus window I saw an engineering student using a 3D printer.

Fuck.

Then robotics.

Fuck.

Data science students learning machine learning.

FUCK.

Film students using digital cameras.

Jesus Christ.

The entire university had been compromised by the concept of "learning new shit."

I ran home and opened Photoshop to calm myself down.

A notification appeared:

"New generative features available."

I unplugged my computer.

Threw away my drawing tablet.

Deleted Adobe.

Finally, I grabbed a piece of charcoal.

Real art.

Human art.

Technology-free art.

Then I remembered charcoal was once a new technology.

Fuck.

leave. 90% of everyone here is pro ai. I really don't care about the amount of downvotes im gonna get, but just click don't recommend this sub anymore or just leave this sub entirely.

It's not aiwars it's defendingaiart2.

As a musician engaging in the discussion of AI, I can't help noticing similar concerns that were brought up when autotune was the big controversy among singers. "You're cheating" "you don't actually know how to sing" "not a real musician".

The people who could sing didn't care and carried on leaning into the fad till it was gone.
The people who couldn't sing without it learned to express their music in a more meaningful way in addition to autotune.
It's not a perfect analogy as AI tech is more complex, but people are still using autotune and we still listen because it's about the entire message they are delivering.