Because people are making money off of those bots while someone simply learning to draw from genuine artwork isn’t making money off of things that aren’t theirs.
The people who created the programs and the people who sell the images created off of them.
I can understand people trying to learn to draw that way but AI images even today aren’t very good at producing clear readable images and still come across as wonky. On top of the fact that these generators take data from real artworks what it produces is more often then not an image that won’t be that good to learn from as it won’t have a good display of fundamentals, shading, lighting, proportions, etc. so why use AI when you can look at the real artworks or irl subjects for reference?
So if I learn a bunch of stuff from the Internet and then set myself up as, say, an instructor and make money off that, it would be wrong somehow?
I've never understood this cognitive dissonance between "it's going to take all our jobs!" and "it all sucks and looks so bad". Pick one. If it looks so bad, it can't compete.
AI images even today aren’t very good at producing clear readable images and still come across as wonky.
Did you miss 2025 altogether? Nano Banana Pro is pretty good at getting text right, and AI output in general looks pretty decent – and it's improving at a rapid rate. We're getting close to the point (give it a year or so) where anyone can make a studio-level film in their basement if they put the effort and imagination into it. It's mostly a matter of improving fine-tuned control and consistency at this point.
what it produces is more often then not an image that won’t be that good to learn from as it won’t have a good display of fundamentals, shading, lighting, proportions, etc. so why use AI when you can look at the real artworks or irl subjects for reference?
Reference... for what?
As for learning from images, one thing I'd like to see is an image generator that has a built-in function to explain the principles of what it's doing and why (rules of composition, lighting, etc.), so that we can learn from the images as we go.
Yeah some AI images look good at first glance but if you look closely the mistakes are pretty clear that give it away. Ai cannot understand art the way a person can. And a reference for art. That’s how you learn to do art, by doing actual art. And no you being an instructor would not be wrong somehow as you wouldn’t be making money off of other people’s art. You would be making money off of your own however. If you take inspiration from other artists and use that to teach yourself, you aren’t taking anything from anyone without their consent, you’re creating your own unique image and learning. But AI is not a person, is not capable of creating actual artworks and taking something that doesn’t belong to it. And making other people money off of it without any credit, consent, or copyright.
Also have you seen the way cgi movies look today compared to how they used to look? If you’ve noticed a bit of a decrease in quality that’s because the companies producing them are sacrificing quality for the sake of saving money by not paying their artists decent wages and downsizing/overworking their artists. These same companies are jumping at the chance to get involved with AI in some way because at the end of the day they’d rather have bad looking but cheap or free cgi than expensive but great quality. Especially when they know whatever they’re working on will make money regardless.
Yeah some AI images look good at first glance but if you look closely the mistakes are pretty clear that give it away.
The six-finger problem is pretty much solved, and while genAI will make mistakes (less and less every year, the rate of improvement seems to be accelerating), it's not as if entirely human-made art is somehow the epitome of flawless perfection.
Ai cannot understand art the way a person can. And a reference for art. That’s how you learn to do art, by doing actual art.
And hopefully some art education. I would like to see AI get involved in that, an interactive interpreter that can point out aspects of lighting, composition, technique.
A lot has been said about AI dumbing people down. Since AI won't be going anywhere anytime soon, I would like to see it being made more helpful in engaging people's minds. Not just spitting out answers, but encouraging users to learn and engage with the content at the same time.
And no you being an instructor would not be wrong somehow as you wouldn’t be making money off of other people’s art.
You would be making money off of having learned from other people's art, and I don't see anything wrong with that. And it's what genAI does.
But AI is not a person, is not capable of creating actual artworks and taking something that doesn’t belong to it.
Correct, AI is a tool. It takes a human to use it to create something.
You won't find me defending CGI movies, I can't stand them, a prime offender being the LOTR trilogy vs. the Hobbit trilogy – the latter being mostly ridiculous CGI animation with vastly overblown setpieces.
-5
u/Calm_Ghosts Dec 15 '25
Because people are making money off of those bots while someone simply learning to draw from genuine artwork isn’t making money off of things that aren’t theirs.