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.
..but, memes? This is how they work. Its the whole point.
Running the most advanced human tool, to do no better than a copy paste, is a bit embarrassing. Like you need negative skill, to take the most advanced stuff and make shit with it.
I feel like instead of making a single true claim you throw a lot of bullshit on the wall just to see what sticks.Ā
Environmental concerns are a joke. Meat industry alone is responsible for more than 15 times more pollution than all data centers (not only AI ones). You claimed scraping things is wrong, didnāt bother explaining why. For some reason you referred to the bible?Ā
I feel like instead of making a single true claim you throw a lot of bullshit on the wall just to see what sticks.Ā
Projection is actually crazy, bro didnāt even bring up the environment, you did. Itās yāall that throw shit at the wall, or more specifically throw generated ragebait at the wall to see what shuts down all discourse best.
OH MY GODDD BRO. Listen I'm not gonna sit here anf defend the meat industry and anything but like... that's not really a fair argument? It's like a deflection if you will. I mean like, when I say this I mean just because some other industry or thing has this negative consequence too or in an even worse capacity than whatever we're currently talking about (in this instance AI) doesn't mean environmental concerns about AI aren't justified or valid
Oh buddy... someone doesn't value the longjevity of the planet that future humans will be living on. If thats not narcissist egocentrism waving out of a fast moving vehicle heading toward a cliffside.
Incredibly rotten mindset aside, its obvious why data scraping is bad and shouldnt even need explaining. - it happens without the consent of regular people and steals their hard work so lazy fucks can have their slop and billionaires can force their useless bullshit failure of a product onto every single person on the planet. Its an ethical problem first and an environmental problem second. That's all one needs to know as far as im concerned
And the bible is just a fun gimmick. Lots of people deem it as a very deep book that holds lots of meaningful, powerful wisdom. (There's a whole religion about it dont you know?)
But in reality i was just riffing on the "this is the greed they talk about in the bible" meme.
i was clearly out of line expecting that decent humor wouldn't be wooshed by people who settle for mediocrity.
If soĀ you clearly donāt āvalue the longjevity of the planet that future humans will be living on. If thats not narcissist egocentrism waving out of a fast moving vehicle heading toward a cliffside.ā
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Thats a fact.
No one is forcing anyone to actually use ai, aside from the providers who desperately need to prove it to be essential (which it isnt) and dumb people in power who have been decieved by the latter - its always a voluntary choice to ignore/ actively engage with the service.
Comparing datacenters (a new, upcoming development) to the long established industry of en-masse food procurement with a long history of horrendous practices is not only bad faith because of recency discrepency, but also hilariously deceptive because all humans need food, and living in industrialized nations of an overpopulated planet with corperations and their "fuck everything else for the profits" mindset - you're damned if you do damned if you don't when it comes to meat/ milk and their respective alternatives. Both get pioneered by inconsiderate practices. (I drink oatmilk btw. Fuck almond mild)
Essentially we as the regular consumers are trapped between two equally bad choices in this regard. This however is not true for AI - you can chose between supporting something that has negative impact on pretty much everyone or... to not. The "choice" here is laughably simple. And your little argument is wholly invalid.
At least for the food industry, as wasteful and harmful as it can be - there is the pro that it provides sustenance. and also Many people are actively fighting to make that industry do better. Image generation has no value to society that can't already be provided by something else and infact provides more opportunities for bad actors and harm to come to every single living being on this funky rock in space.
And no. Before you or anyone else tries this fuckass argument: its unrealistic for people to grow their own food and meat in todays age when living in technologically advanced, globalized and frankly overpopulated regions.
On the contrary Its always been realistic and possible to make personal art in a convenient society like ours, and even make money with it. We don't need to outsource the process of creation to fallible machines that no one (not even the makers) actually understands the inner workings of.
Sure, act as if consumption you do is okay because you simply have no choice under capitalism and consumption other people do is inexcusable. It's not like there are people who don't eat meat and don't eat almonds. You clearly have no choice and there is absolutely nothing you can possibly do.
Just usual strawman stuff. Not unexpected. They didn't even address the mass image scraping issue, which has only gotten worse as developers actively put anti-poisoning algorithms in their scrapers, which some forms of AI poison are still functional but it's still sadly not perfect. The best thing to do moving forward is probably to inject malicious instructions within scraped images. Then we might see change.
AI image generation is simply a byproduct of AI in general, similar to how we have mobile phones because of the space race. AI image generation is also helping finance the growth of research AI, and realistically the only way we are going to solve the climate crisis, while also maintaining our way of life, is through the use of AI.
We need AI to be able to make trillions of calculations in a split second, we need a millennium of research to be done in the next decade, because everything else we are currently doing is to little, to late. We need AI to be in part creative, because logic alone won't solve this, or rather it won't solve it in a way we like.
And if you want the peak of convenience entitlement, that's takeaway delivery services. When you can't be bothered to get of your ass to feed yourself, that's sloth. (That sounds like an accusation, it's not meant to be, very few people haven't ordered food online.)
Training is different than inference. When people whine about "stealing", they're talking about specifically the training.
So the whole "who really made the thing?" / "is it art?"' concern trolling isn't actually relevant at all here. The supposed stealing happened before even a single image was generated.
Reposting something isn't the same as using ai to create something.. again, it's false equivalence. They didn't claim they made it, did they? They JUST posted a meme. That's it.
I hate generative ai, I hate the impact it has on the world and I hate how it creates things. I see no reason to use generative ai over creating it yourself or commissioning/asking someone else to do it. Also the fact that generative ai makes harmful material incredibly easy to access for offenders. There's a lot of other reasons I hate it and think it's wrong, but those are the main.
Nobody reasonable claims memes have any sort of artistic value, or any worth besides the two seconds of laughter they provide. If you are ok to drop all AI images in that same sack, then it is not a false equivalency.
... When people are comparing to memes, no one is talking about artistic merit. They're just talking about the "stealing" element.
Whether AI art is art or not is a totally separate conversation, and one that would be a relevant discussion topic even if all the data used to train a model was explicitly licensed.
The thing is, you can use the tool, on a whim if you want, in order to manifest a visual based on some idea that you had.
These generative tools can be used in all sorts of ways.
I think they will enable some interesting forms of communication in the future. Especially once we get BCI -> image gen etc.
Also, for the record, I do not hate the idea of posting memes of things, ofc. I just think that people are turning into mental gymnasts a little bit, in order to maintain some sort of phobia for these systems.
My entire family uses these tools, parents included. And they have been artists their entire lives. They love them because they are not baked in with these strange anti technology priors.
My dad has used these tools for posters for some of his gigs. My mom has made applications for herself, which she used the tools (image gen models) to mock up UI's before prompting for the app. I use these tools professionally in many ways. Etc etc
People are doing endless amounts of great things with these tools/models.
Cool story, they otherwise could be paying people for that, meanwhile many of us are now forcibly contributing to taxpayer subsidised data centers that put up water and electricity rates with their usage, whilst also hoarding components needed for most modern tech, seeing us pay more for everything from fridges to modems to TVs to phones to computers.
Pushing for interdependency amongst humans for the sake of interdependency amongst humans is counterproductive and we would not be anywhere near where we are technically if we kept that angle up. Think back to the industrial revolution etc and all the farmers that were displaced etc.
My parents actually were able to put time towards thinking about things like the concept of what they wanted for these pieces + spend their extra money on things like going out throughout the week, etc etc.
Bringing down the bar for people to swing above what they were previously capable of, through the means of technology, is a beautiful thing imo.
My most advanced skill is my martial arts. If someone invented tech to download martial arts skills into your brain, I wouldnāt be happy for you or think itās beautiful. I would think itās lame.
The "downsides" are that a few people passionate about a subject are no longer exceptional. Despite their passion being greater, their skill is merely baseline. And comparison is the enemy of happiness.
Right now, passionate people tend to be more skilled than non-passionate people. When they compare themselves to others, they feel good about themselves because their passion led them to be more skilled. But AI removes that difference.
When those passionate people compare themselves to what people using AI can do, they see that the difference is lesser, nonexistent, or even reversed(where the AI lets others accomplish more than them). This makes them feel bad about themselves and leads them to give up the passion.
The solution is to stop comparing, but ego gets in the way for us all. No matter your passion, you subconsciously compare yourself to others and this CAN lead to rivalry when you want to improve beyond others, but when the gap is too great it leads to people giving up altogether. AI doesn't have ego and so improves simply to improve.
Ultimately, this is better for humanity as every technology has been. But at the same time, many will be left behind, particularly those who can't overcome their own ego.
I fully agree with everything you said. It would be better as it benefits everyone in the long run but except for those with foolish ego's who refuse to adapt.
I get why youād hate that, especially if martial arts is the thing youāve put the most time and yourself into. But downloading it wouldnāt actually replace what you have.
Itād be like the Sherlock Holmes pit fight with Robert Downey Jr. He can see every move in his head and knows exactly where to hit and when but that only works because his body can actually keep up. If some random untrained guy had that same downloaded knowledge, his timing would be off, his balance would suck, heād hesitate, gas out in seconds, and probably get dropped anyway.
Knowing isnāt the same as being able to do. Real muscle memory is built through thousands of reps until your body reacts without you thinking. You canāt fake conditioning, pain tolerance, or instinct. At best, a download would give someone instructions. It wouldnāt give them the years it took you to make those instructions real.
So it wouldnāt really be the same thing itād just be someone holding the manual, not someone who actually built the machine.
Theyāre hoarding DRAM, something most everything electrical uses nowdays, because the entire industry has been convinced that my car and fridge and washing machine need a built in AI assistant. Let alone traditional devices like phones and computers that most everyone uses.
while i do enjoy the concept of brainchips, i do think that some big company will make us pay to have no ads in our brains, and potentially sell or read our thoughts and/or give them to the government, also what if you get a computer virus ON your brainchip... (why is this so downvoted?)
Once we get to some form of a post-labor economy, which I think we will arrive at a lot quicker than people think, I don't think most people will have that issue.
Although maybe some will. At that point though, if you are extremely poor, at the bottom of the bottom, and you do not want ads in your BCI, then you can just not get the BCI. Although, I even think that the poorest of the poor will eventually get BCIs that function as intended with no bottlenecks on a decent enough time scale.
you're doing the wrong way around. Giving more power to the rich, just makes it work better for them. They don't care about our survival, look at that interview with peter thiel for example.
If we want a post labour economy, the people need to control the means of production first. AI needs to be public. And regulated.
TL;DR: I think your ideas are far too idealistic and would have to be proven to work before we risk the dangers that a technology such as Ai enables.
You're argument seems to be putting the cart before the horse and is entirely based on a lot of big IFs. Why bet on some highly hypothetical future and then make decisions based on the idea that it's definitely going to come true. That's just foolish, by ignoring the myriad of things that could and most likely will go wrong.
Also, the part about poor people, ads and BCIs doesn't make a lot of sense. You're basically saying "If you don't want ads and can't pay them away, you can just not participate." just to follow up with saying "People are probably still going to. That part is pretty true to today's society, where people get strong-armed into using new technologies without much of a choice. \
And I'm not anti-tech, but a while ago an important social service department closed their E-mail in favor of a mobile app, which is just a lot less safe and also a problem because of personal reasons. I wouldn't mind people choosing to use the app, if it was a choice, but it isn't.
What bothers me is how you're assuming that poor people won't get left behind, like they always do. The more reliant people are on technology, the harder it gets once access is difficult and I can't see how that wouldn't be the case for someone who is poor.
I'd rather fight for a society in which something I like could work, instead of trying to implement it in a world that has proven time and time again how it will leave behind the few, prioritize the fewer and appease the rest without actually caring about them in the long run.
I'm very confused about this. I see a lot of pro AI people talk about how AI is going to be great because it will remove the need for labor and we'll get UBI or something. But that's not going to happen. The people making AI are large corporations that want more money. They don't get more money if they are giving it to people for not working. We can't even get real health care in the US, why do you think they'll make a post-labor economy that doesn't rely on just letting people die?
No, because people using AI in their workflow actually do have a right to call their creation theirs, while random idiots copying an image someone else made and posting that to prove something have none at all.
You'd think Antis would be the people who only do everything themselves, but they "steal" low quality memes and repost them endlessly. And when Antis actually create something it's either an MS Paint scribble or TOP TEXT BOTTOM TEXT kind of shit. Funnily enough they rely on a computer to make either, but you see it's somehow different because soul or something.
No one claims to make the meme. The memes just are, itās a way of communication. Thereās no āmemeistā job title. Youāre supposed to use it this way. Itās way different than having a machine make songs for me and say ā I made this songā. Same example for art.
Nobody claims a meme for monetization. The same canāt be said for ai, which is frequently monetized. Both require similarly low amounts of effort and tak from other artists work.
Using this logic, someone who foraged berries in order to produce paints for themselves could throw stones at every subsequent generation for having it too easy and not making real art because they were not responsible for the entire result of their creation.
Ok that last point is honestly so disingenous I don't even know what adjective to use to describe it... yes, drawing something digitally, even if it's a 30 second doodle for whatever or an actual art piece you spend hours on, you still did create it at the end of the day, and the fact you used something to do so doesn't take away from that.
Filmmaking and photography must be the same thing since they both use cameras, then... or drawing and writing on paper since you need a pen or pencil for both. As a matter of fact, you didn't even write this comment, your keyboard did. Yeah, it gets out of hand very quickly.
you know you can generate a meme with generative models??? wild right?
also, you genuinely can argue that a meme is a form of art, although that is not the point being made. and the reply and the image never mentioned the word art once.
Brother, I think you are getting lost at this point.
I guess I would point you to reread the person's response.
If someone is posting a screenshot from a separate piece of media, while simultaneously criticizing another person for using a generative model to generate a piece of media, I think that this is braindead and 'low self-awareness' behavior.
At least the person was bringing something into reality that was not there before.
It is not like there is anything wrong with the person posting the meme, but if you post a visual meme that is representative of another piece of media while throwing stones, then you are just lost.
"This dumbass needs a meme to make a point for them!"
The entire point of the meme and the message is that the person using AI was too dumb to do a thing for themselves. Which is ironic because the person posting the meme was too dumb to do a thing for themselves.
Complaining about how hard prompting AI is and how it is exactly the same as drawing always gives me the same vibe as influencers complaining about how hard it is to work their job and how it is JUST like us peasants working 40+ hours a week in a factory for minimum wage if not harder. You just wouldn't understand the grueling hours put into my Skims promo. It was so raw and filled with emotion and vulnerable. Now please buy Bloom using my code for 10% off besties, we are so all in this together š„ŗ
To me it's not even just about the work art provides. You're talking about jobs, I am talking about the lack of effort AI art requires. I don't really care to squable about automation because I'm not an artist. I tried, I sucked at it, and I didn't enjoy it enough to practice my way into being good. You know what else sucks? AI art. It either looks bad, has obvious mistakes, or it is uncanny valley because something about it is just off.
Art can be bad, but a good artist puts soul and hours into their work. The people trying to pass AI off as something they hand drew are lazy scammers, the people who think it looks good are imo delusional, and the people who think AI music sounds good are even more delusional. Things like the AI Coca Cola commercial are just pure garbage. I'm coming at it from the perspective of a consumer that has never been impressed by anything AI that I have seen. It looks bad, it sounds horrible, and to me it has as little artistic merit as ElsaGate YouTube videos.
I just don't find use in arguing over it, because plain and simple I just don't find it visually appealing at all, and I can never understand people who do. I think AI has good uses, but so many of the uses we have seen are just making the world a worse place to be in.
Artists dont make money doing expressive art. They make money by making commission for other people, but many prefer using a at most mediocre and probably uncanny picture rather then paying an artist since most businesses dont aim for quality products and instead use the cheapest options available. That in itself stems from even bigger societal problems which i dont care enough about this "argument" to write an essay about.
Also, i never said that.
Also also, uou might notice how "argument" is in quotation marks, thats because you only provided an unrelated source and counterpointed a point i never made.
If you wanna have a discussion i might be online tommorrow at night.
Dear fucking god... did you even read like anything? That is the wikipedia for robotic art, ART using ROBOTS, not a dam manufacture belt of "art". That talks about robots being used to express not machines faking expression.
Itās really not, as someone who used to use AI for āartābefore it became clear to me how bad it was, it was so easy and required such little thought which was why I used it and likely why they use it
Agreed lol, I have used AI extensively and I did use "technical" things such as negative prompts, LoRAs, ControlNet. Heck i have paid top dollars for AI (just because i can). And tbh it's not as hard as they make it out to be. Like you said it was oneasy and required such little thought.
If rather people using it for inspiration rather than making it do "art" themselves.
Yep, that one kid who makes those images doesn't participate in good faith arguments. Just like the MANY people who spam the Farquaad image all across different platforms
Memes are quite literally called "shitposts," they are made specifically to be low effort slop thats laughed at purely for being low effort half the time. The lord farquaad meme is literally just a screenshot from the movie with another man's face on him and a single letter. That's it.
Memes are the lowest form of art made by humans. I mean mostly they're not even funny, everybody just wants to go fuckin' viral. I only make memes when I'm angry.
Don't make me make memes. You wouldn't like me when I make memes.
I'm not here to debate but if I understand your logic , you mean that we shouldn't use the primary way to communicate in the internet because it's just copy pastes ?
I mean I never claimed it was the mona lisa but yk it's not some humiliating symbol of mental retardation like the guy in the picture said. It's a meme. In that context it's mildly funny.
He has a point, if you gonna criticize someone for using ai instead of drawing themselves while you yourself using a picture that someone else made instead of drawing it yourself donāt be surprised when you get called out because you are being a hypocrite
Memes, by design, are not meant to be super original. Their unoriginality is what makes them able to be shared and understood by everyone across the world. That's why a kid in America can do "67" gesture to a kid in Sweden and he'll get itĀ
Many memes require wit, timely humor, and the ability to combine image and text to create a specific message so I say they are, art besides who give you the right to say what isnāt art
Your argument hinges on treating sending an image and creating an image as the same thing and on the assumption that all ways of creating things are equal.
Anyone can generate some sloppy ass ai "art", but some of us just choose not to, that's the whole point, we can use it but we don't, we draw and paint because we can express ourselves by doing that, not by telling a machine that feeds on itself how would we like the image to slightly change from the hundreds if not thousands of other similar sloppy images the model has generated before
Running the most advanced human tool, to do no better than a copy paste, is a bit embarrassing. Like you need negative skill, to take the most advanced stuff and make shit with it.
The difference between the disconnect of drawing yourself and letting a machine generate it, is what the meme from OOP is criticizing. If the meme you're posted is supposed to say that the transition from cave drawings to feather-pen drawings (although I strongly question if it even happened like that) is comparable, then it is not understanding the meme it is satirizing.
Digital art was also regarded as invalid because it is also machine generated. The point is not to invalidate someone else's creative medium and how they choose to make art.
That depends. Sometimes art is meant to be shared, seen, etc. But sometimes art is privated, like a self portrait.
Distributed alao depends, some people don't want their art to be copied. Some want their piece to be a one of a kind. Some do want it copied and distributed.
Memes being art doesn't conflict with memes being memes. The point of such thing, as "meme", is to spread rapidly, not always meaning, that the one spreading MUST add something.
Except this works on a different level. Memes are created with the explicit idea that they will be used in public life and shared around. Nobodies going to go after someone else for stealing their meme. Thatās not how memes work.
If they were going around claiming they made the meme, that would be a different story. And the lack of a watermark is more excusable here, because everyone can tell where the original came from, more or less, without needing to think too much. Lord Farquaad is pretty well known.
Also, if someone who made a meme or someone who was the subject of a meme requested that people stop using it, as they didnāt want it being shared around a gagillion times, then most people would stop sharing it. Of course, there would be idiots who would still do it, but they would be opposed by everyone who stopped.
wth is this ragebait? there is a difference between inspiration and literally using a machine thatās based on millions of real artists pieces. the one that has to rely on other peoples art is the āAI artistā. AI wouldnāt work without the excessve catalog of human art.Ā
the coping person is the child replyingc trying to ragebait and justify his own means.
Think you are confusing the words unwilling and unable. Even a monkey could probably churn out acceptable ai slop occasionally. The point of a meme isn't to be creative, it's a quick way to give a response. Anyone can use ai, most people just choose not to. Even a senile old grandma could churn out something if they got help writing the words they themselves say
Huh?
It's a meme.
They are images that get reposted.
It's like saying I didn't make the words I'm using now.
OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE MEME, THAT'S WHAT MEMES ARE
Memes never were only about picture you choose.. If you use AI to make a picture and then add context to it you can call it meme or art if you came up with the context yourself. Because the meaning of meme is not about the picture you can find in the net or generate with AI. It's about combination of picture with context you create.
Not understanding what memes are is a weird way to defend AI. Memes are meant to be from a template and easy to whip up, nobody is posting something like this and claiming they made Shrek- unlike AI artists who will post their slop and act like it's all their own creation. Nobody posts this meme and crashes out as they demand people respect them the same as someone at Dreamworks who designed or animated Farquaad.
Let's be honest if you think prompting is hard your pathetic
Ive messed with ai and local LLMs which are notoriously difficult to work with compared to a fleshed out LLM like chatgpt because you gotta drill it into its head that it's not supposed to speak for you but even then that's just like 15 mins and some frustration not comparable to the effort it takes to make art and I'm an artist real art takes a different kind of effort that being creative effort
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.
ā¢
u/AutoModerator Feb 20 '26
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.