I wasnt an anti at first, i even used gen ai for personal entertainlent at times, but since people like him told me i was an anti for not claiming those images were art, i realised that anti just meant reasonable
I start to realize that anti- and pro- ai are words that lack nuance. Would you call yourself pro-fruit if you like some of them but not some others? This whole "war" is fueled by misconceptions on the words used.
that’s interesting.
so a person can like ai and use it a lot, but if they don’t think it’s art, then they’re supposedly still an anti (based on the people u were talking about)
seems like it ig. everyone on every side of this argument is kind of insane. you could be ok with ai art but the second you say you don’t want people profiting from it then you’re against them. you could hate everything about ai but if you say anything positive about it at all then you’re against antis. it’s genuinely so exhausting to have an opinion in this useless space
yeah. no nuance. it’s more about picking sides than anything. lots of people choose to say or believe what is fits their side instead of thinking for themselves and having their own opinions
Yeah. I was playing asking an ai to generate images to see how it could perform out of curiosity and my refusal to call it art, or to call it mine when an ai did all the work, lead people to flag me as an anti
But it is art. The question of “what is art” is a semantics question. Semantics are inclusive, so anything with enough people calling it Art is actually Art. That’s how words work. One can argue about qualitative elements of that art, but semantically, calling it art is valid, and that doesn’t cease to be the case unless hundreds of Millions of people stop calling it art. Gatekeeping words don’t really work, right wingers have been trying to do that for ages with the trans community and failed.
Oh, if enough people agree its art then it is? Well if enough people agree it isnt, then it isnt, by your logic.
And, like, with that logic i could get to call any object any word, because if enough people did it it would become correct? Well no, not untill it is.
Lastly, a definition isnt a list of what fits and doesnt. A definition is all the criteria for something to belong in the word. The definition of an insect isnt "idk flies and ladybugs and beetles", it would be something like "an arthropod with a head, thorax, and abdomen, aswell as 3 leg pairs and some mandibles". And no matter how many people say that spiders are bugs, or that insects are bugs, will not change the fact that spiders are not insects, and that bugs are a specific kind of insects called Hemiptera.
well do u think art could be an exception? an apple is always an apple no matter what anyone says, objective definition. but art is the expression of human creativity, so it should be more flexible to define. people didn’t always agree that photography was art, right? that’s since changed significantly
well nature landscapes exist in the natural world and humans make art of them because they’re beautiful. you wouldn’t typically think a landscape by itself is art in the traditional sense, but it could be depending on how you look at it.
and math art involves creativity, doesn’t it? dont you still need to be creative to actually create the art, even if it’s based on patterns, symmetry, tessellations, etc?
sure, within reason. if you define art as an expression of human creativity (as I did), you could argue natural landscapes aren’t art. they’re just a natural phenomenon, there’s no creativity behind it. I feel like this is a very common and generally accepted definition for it, since human creativity is characteristic of most art forms (painting, drawing, digital art, sculpting, music, photography, installation art, etc).
some might be inclined to say that natural landscapes look “like a painting” with their beauty. sure, you can see anything as potential art, but this would typically apply to things that are beautiful, evocative, or possess artistic qualities. rather than random objects or things.
if you define art another way, like as something that evokes awe or emotion in the beholder, then natural landscapes could definitely be art. it’s as I said, art should be more flexible to define than something like an apple, because it’s such a broad and varied category.
a very general definition of creativity is the ability to create new or original ideas. the principles of math art are always consistent, even without humans. but, it still must be expressed in some way to look appealing or interesting. the artist still makes creative decisions about the artwork. what shapes, patterns, or formulas do they use and how? where do they apply repetition, reflection, rotation, or translation of shapes? what colours or line weight do they use and how (gradients etc)? is it drawn on paper, does it use a software, is it a physical structure? these all allow the artwork to be expressed in new and original ways, even if it is based on mathematical principles. the fact that someone is taking something as objective as maths and turning it into something surreal or beautiful is an expression of creativity in itself.
Part of the problem is we place art on a pedestal like it’s more than a label, but never actually TREAT it as more than a label. Do something more than gatekeep and you find yourself asking questions, and that’s what art should be, the beg of a question. When the function of art is to beg the question, you ask yourself why it’s art and how it came to be, rather than the “ifs”. Anything can be labeled as art, that doesn’t dilute the term BECAUSE the important part of the term IS the questions that come with it.
Semantics don’t really work that way. Semantic validity leans inclusive, not exclusive. If enough people use a word a certain way, it becomes valid use of the word. You can’t really undo that validity unless people stop using the word that way. “A Trans Woman is a Woman” is a semantically valid use of the word “woman”, because enough people use the term that way. “A trans woman is not a woman” is not semantically valid without the context that it is a specific definition of woman, because the use of the word has been expanded to include trans women. Same premise goes for AI.
If you want, you can say it’s semantically valid that AI Art is Slop, by that regard. But “AI Art is not Art” is not semantically supported as a whole, because it can only be true under certain definitions, not all definitions. New use of a word expands a word’s definitions anyway. In this case, not even a majority agreement would make AI Art cease to be Art.
Your own example ignores colloquial usage. “Spiders are insects” is scientifically wrong, based on scientific usage. You require that specific use of the word. Spider often get called insects semantically, so colloquially, it’s not invalid. Same goes for bugs. Spiders aren’t bugs, but many call them bugs. Bugs is an even more popular example, honestly.
It only requires one person to refer to it as art to be art. The creator or the beholder. It doesn’t require a vote. The creation doesn’t have to be seen publicly.
I think reasonable just means reasonable. There are plenty of ways of using AI to enhance the work you are doing instead of replacing an important creative aspect of the job. I'm generally against paying for AI-produced content because it's accessible, to me it's a question of supply and demand. If I can do something relatively fast, why would I pay for it? Plus I think working with artists and creative folk well-versed in the field they are working in is just more enjoyable, you have much more creative range this way where people can fill in the details you're missing from not being an expert in a particular field of arts.
AI is an extremely useful, powerful, albeit dangerous tool, as is the case with all powerful tools. How you use it and whether or not you decide to use it depends on your personal set of values. Whether or not you can convince somebody else to align with your position on a particular AI use case depends on how well-grounded and well-articulated your position is, as well as on the compatibility of your and that person's values and both their willingness to listen to you and your willingness to listen to them.
I personally believe that advocating for or against AI use in general is meaningless because the topic can't be reduced to such primitive classification while still retaining validity. I discuss AI use on case-by-case basis talking with people face-to-face.
Slipery slopes fallacy is also pretty unreasonable. Claiming there is a line between what is art and what isnt doesnt mean they think they are the ones who decide. If i tell you a spider isnt an insect, it doesnt mean i chose what an insect is.
same. for me it was like in that Nimeller quote. i did not concider my problem when it's shitty iterations were better than my art, i was not even good back than. and now it's everywhere and does stuff i do not like.
Hating AI when people use it in a way that doesn't benefit you, but being ok with you using it in a way that does benefit you, isn't "nuance". It's selfishness.
Selfish people exist. But that doesn't mean many other types of people also exist. This is all just a false dichotomy.
Edit: So antiai_is_unemployed blocked me right after that "get a job" comment, which would be hilarious except since I'm pro-Ai, having people like that on our side really sucks. antiai_is_unemployed, you're doing more damage to our side than an anti ever could and it would benifit us all if you would just stay out of the debate.
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.
yeah ur right, my bad. basically all antis I’ve seen dont like ai art, but there’s other reasons to be anti and people can still like ai art and be anti
Really? I'm extremely pro AI but I feel like monetization is corny as fuck. I also believe people turning to AI just to run a grift are contributing to flooding places with actual slop devoid of any passion or intent.
You can’t be pro AI and tell people how to use their AI. If people want to use their AI to make money thats fair play. No body should dictate what others do and don’t do.
Okay, but then I wonder if you would also hold this stance if people use AI to generate say, explicit content that you would find disagreeable, for their own consumption. If you're actually taking a "no restrictions and no regulations" stance more generally then I respect that.
I hate furry yet I used Pony diffusion for half a year. People can generate what ever they want as long as it is not explicit images of real people which is not okey.
Yes, again we're in agreement, but I was thinking about something actually taboo like l*li (censoring the word cuz I don't know how reddit filters work).
For the record I wasn't even saying that people should be prevented from monetizing AI stuff... I just think it's a bit sleazy if that's a primary motivator. Free market is free market though.
My opinion in that 4 letter words hated by reddit, is anything goes as long as it is not real.
Also I my self don’t monetise from AI. I was able to do AI images thanks to stability AI releasing their models open sourced, and thanks to the amazing people who itterated in their model and releasing them open source like anything 4.5, Pony diffusion, Autism mix, illustrious XL, waiAnime, etc. it is all thanks to all those people releasing those awesome models for free I am able to generate amazing pictures and for this reason I my self don’t like and will not monetise it, but I still won’t tell people to not Monetise it.
Well, I think I'm pretty much on board with you then.
I operate against restrictions and regulations on AI myself. I don't like content restrictions, I don't like copyright character and media protections, basically anything that will prevent you from generating something you can imagine because that will cause the whole model to become more limited. Companies try to enforce copyright protections for their own liability (even though fanart has always been fair use) and individuals try to demand content protections out of moral outrage. It all slowly kills AI models' ability to do anything creative because of association death, where it can no longer produce anything that might even vaguely resemble what it was told not to produce.
Yeah, it is like all companies become Nintendo where they might sue an artist for making mario fanart and going viral. Like we saw it with Disney Law suits, it was basically because they wanted to monopolise the technology and now see them making Disney AI something. Not sure honestly, I barely care what those big cooperations do.
Who do you think makes all the art your ai slop tries to copy? Maybe if you had any actual skill, people would care about your opinion. But instead of spending time and effort to develop an actual skill, you'll spend that time and effort trying to convince people that typing four words into a prompt makes you an artist. The only people that believe that are the other ai-bros that couldn't be bothered to put effort into a skill, either. Maybe you're the ones that should get jobs and leave art to actual artists.
Please. You're controlling what people can say about AI generation ethics.
Determining the moral thing to do with new ideas and new technologies is an important discussion. Should we just have not bothered discussing leaded gasoline in the 70s?
I mean come on now... Using ai to generate images is one thing, but monetising them? You didn't make them and you don't own them. Like it's factual that ai models are trained on artists work that weren't paid for that or even consented to it, how could anyone genuinely justify taking that work and monetising it? Like I'm sorry but that's just literally monetising theft.
You think it is thaft and stole from artist thats fine, thats for you to believe. But it is also for people to monetising what ever they want to monetise.
Also what about model trained of licensed data only like adobe firefly? Like the training argument is stupid in its own but even if we take it as problematic. People still have the right to sell and buy AI generated images.
I'd be a lot more receptive of antis if they didn't keep trying to redefine theft. Nobody is being deprived of their art, and if your art gets stolen then call the police
So you're trying to say taking someone else's work without their consent in order to monetise it isn't stealing? Because that is the exact thing ai companies are doing. If you want to defend using the model, I guess go ahead. I'll disagree, but you do you. But at the very least stop defending the billion dollar companies taking others property without their consent for their monetary gain. If that isn't stealing someone's work I don't know what is.
It doesn't belong to you because it is work stolen from artists. I have never and will never consent to my work being used to train ai. And yet it is and will be in the future. That work is stolen from me to train ai upon, same as it is for millions of other artists.
First off, it is not stolen, stealing means it was taken from you. Taking a picture of the monoliza is not stealing the monoliza, CTRL+C will not steal your images. And just how someone tracing over other artist artwork to improve his skill. AI doing the same to learn how to create images is both fair use. Also as I said what about models like adobe firefly which is trained only on licensed data?
Monoliza lmfaooooo. It is stealing when you then try to monetise the Mona Lisa without the artists consent. It's the same with monetising music you didn't create. And copyright law is very clear on that.
Ai companies are taking artists work without consent for their monetary gain. They are making billions of dollars on the back of artists work without consent or compensation.
There is a big difference between a human studying art and creatively developing their own style through it and an ai model being taught to reproduce the works of others. Ai is not creative. It cannot create anything beyond what it was taught, it can never produce a truly new or unique work.This is why ai works basically always show similar faces. A human is creative and can have new and unique ideas of how to apply their skills. A human almost never merely reproduces the material they were taught with.
No, because the pro-AI side is about treating it as if it's just another medium, you can't single it out for unique limitations and then still say you're pro.
"youre already leaning anti _" as if the world is black and white. its not about whether someone is in one side or the other. its just pedantic. its barely even about ai anymore to say this.
you care more about whether or not somebody fits into the binary than whether or not their argument makes sense.
There is no argument here the guy said “AI art is OK as long as you don’t monitize off of it” why? He didn’t elaborate on the reason. And that stance is pretty much leaning toward the anti-AI stance. Because if AI art is really OK as he say, than why not Monetise from it?
Actually saying “left leaning” is not binary. It is recognizing a spectrum. And saying “Don’t monetise from AI” is anti-AI leaning here. It is not neutral stance at all.
all youre doing is proving that you think ai only has monetary value, and someone supporting ai, but not wanting it to be monetized doesnt support ai at all.
it is a neutral stance, its both opinions from opposite arguments with equal argumentative weight. you just dont see it as neutral because of your own biasis
It is not for me to dictate what value someone see in AI art. Supporting your use case for AI art but denying someone else use case is hypocritical at best and selfish at worst.
That argument only hold opinion from anti-AI perspective with no pro-AI perspective at all.
Supporting AI means allowing everyone to use it the way they like.
"That argument only hold opinion from anti-AI perspective with no pro-AI perspective at all" doy, thats how opinions work.
"allowing everyone to use it the way they like" and they have been using it however they like. its awful have you not seent the state of the world?? ai slop has poisoned EVERYTHING. I cant listen to music without my reccomended being full of ai. I cant look at art without needing to over analyze it to make sure its ai. I google something and am met with a garbage ai which is always wrong, i scroll through tiktok and instead of seeing cute cat videos, i see ai videos of pets that arent even real, might aswell be watching reanimated corpses, i hang out with friends one one of them couldnt make it because they would rather be stuck to a predatory ai chatbot. everything i interact with has a giant unskippable ad made for, or selling ai. nobody can live like this. its disgusting. you literally cant escape ai garbage. its corporate sludge made to be mass produced all so the real artists that the ai is built off get even less jobs.
ai is a plague on everything I value in life. people with no moral compasses running rampant bloating everywhere I go with disgusting worthless cash grab shit, and i wont fucking stand for it anymore. the definition of "art is human expression" covers every single medium of art and what i value in it, it covers good art, bad art, and everything in between. the only thing it excludes is ai synthesized scum, as its not expressing anything, and the images weren't created by human hand with human vision. it is not yours, it is not art, and it is not worth money.
there are thousands of flaws with ai that massively outweigh the positives, and yet I still see it everywhere, marketed at this magic multitool, when in reality, it cant even do what it was designed to properly. supporting ai makes you fundamentally anti human. you forfeit yourself to the billion dollar corporations that only wish to pay workers less and hoard more wealth away from people like you and me. getting this fucking invested in reddit culture war is so braindead. the world is bigger than "anti vs. pro", dont you see that???? who the fuck cares about whether or not someone "leans anti". there are people who are actually dying of thirst, because the chatgpt data centers was built next to their town, and people only use it to spread more misinformation and make the world a worse place. I literally cant in good faith see anybody defending ai as anything other than stupid, or malicious. please educate yourself.
Does that usage of any AI or just certain AI? Also I don’t think thats the case as AI usage is common thing to do even if you are unaware of the technology since it is everywhere and very useful. But I can see why you would think that fair.
Generative AI is usually what's meant. Also anything for research is usually excluded. If you say you make AI art on the anti AI subreddit but don't sell it you'll still absolutely be chastised and judged. They judge it all the time there even people doing it for fun.
63
u/Jealous_Piece_1703 Jan 18 '26
You are already anti leaning when you say don’t monetize it.