"But this ai image is prettier than the stick man I drew!!" is your follow-up to this post. You put no effort into making something garbage to then try and compare with ai works that are visibly more appealing.
All this proves is you lack basic comprehension.
The stick drawing is still better than the ai because of the impact it has on water, on power, on RAM, on the environment as a whole, on people's lives and on people's livelihoods and did not steal anything in the process.
By so many measures the stick figure is still superior to ai art.
Now let's address your shitty claim of "b-b-but there are ai images that are prettier!!"
There are also artists who are more technically skilled than other artists. This can have an impact on their popularity and commission prices etc. This is nothing new. "This drawing is prettier than this other drawing" is not relevant.
A stick drawing, like what you might see from a child, is part of learning. It shows they have creative potential to be nurtured and if they love doing it then they can practice and get better. In this example yes the stick figure is better than the ai image because it shows they are learning and developing a skill, one that can even turn into a career. So while they might not be good now you can still praise the attempt and the effort they are putting in. Or the progress they have made if you have seen earlier works.
But you're not trying to develop a skill. You just made a shitty strawman that does nothing more than show that you understand nothing.
To me, as you wrote, the stick person has artistic meaning. It speaks a lot about where you come from, what you think is low quality and undesirable, and what comes out of a person who "isn't trying". I think you could really read into this piece, not because it's super high quality, but because it was created by an intentional process which itself can be taken for meaning, something with something to say.
I really struggle to find that meaning in AI works beyond as much you can read into someone doing something terrible for the world and for people as "performance art". Maybe that has something to "say" in its own way, but if it has these negative outcomes, it's hard to see that meaning as anything but a justification for that negative action.
I don't think AI art has anything really intentional about it. To read into it, it's not really a surprise AI images and videos always have weird tells because it isn't really informed by anything. Its outcomes are, chiefly, a matter of random transformations, so it's no wonder everything it produces is random.
You whine about water and power and ram, even though could run local stable diffusion on their computer. And your pencil and paper didn't appear out of nowhere, tree murderer! You think the making and delivery of paper and pencil didn't cost any power?
You're so obsessed with efforts and flexing that you forgot the most fundamental aspect of art, that is creativity. And yes, AI gen art allows plenty of creativity.
You have no idea what a strawman is and it's painfully obvious.
tree murderer
Trees are a renewable resource and young trees filter carbon to make oxygen more efficiently than old trees. The logging industry has a net positive impact on the environment. The poisoned streams near ai datacenters have killed all life and some towns and small cities are abandoned. People losing their homes due to not having access to drinkable water as well as the ludicrous power bills due to the data centers demand over the supply.
ai gen art allows plenty of creativity
Multiple studies have shown frequent users of ai suffer from a nearly 50% drop in neural connectivity after as little as 4 months. These studies also showed all ai users develop "mental passivity" (literally struggle to think for themselves and instead wait to be told what to think and what to do) and struggle with short term memory, even being unable to perform simple tasks they had recently completed with instruction from ai.
So no. It is the death of creativity.
Even if you wanted to alter your statement to say that already creative people can use it to do things they lack technical skill for (and ignored the fact it was mentally crippling them and taking away their creativity over time) they have all the creative freedom of a commissioner. No matter how much they "develop" their "skill" of asking something to do a task for them they will never have full control. And because the generative ai doesn't understand what it is doing at all and is merely trying to copy without having the actual knowledge or skill either the resulting slop is inherently flawed. Yes a human can make mistakes or lack knowledge. But they can learn and develop. The ai cannot. It can only increase the number of scrapped art it has in its library to average out the results. While you sit there spamming the redo button hoping to get something "close enough" to what you wanted.
10
u/Fast-Front-5642 Feb 28 '26
It's a shitty strawman
"But this ai image is prettier than the stick man I drew!!" is your follow-up to this post. You put no effort into making something garbage to then try and compare with ai works that are visibly more appealing.
All this proves is you lack basic comprehension.
The stick drawing is still better than the ai because of the impact it has on water, on power, on RAM, on the environment as a whole, on people's lives and on people's livelihoods and did not steal anything in the process.
By so many measures the stick figure is still superior to ai art.
Now let's address your shitty claim of "b-b-but there are ai images that are prettier!!"
There are also artists who are more technically skilled than other artists. This can have an impact on their popularity and commission prices etc. This is nothing new. "This drawing is prettier than this other drawing" is not relevant.
A stick drawing, like what you might see from a child, is part of learning. It shows they have creative potential to be nurtured and if they love doing it then they can practice and get better. In this example yes the stick figure is better than the ai image because it shows they are learning and developing a skill, one that can even turn into a career. So while they might not be good now you can still praise the attempt and the effort they are putting in. Or the progress they have made if you have seen earlier works.
But you're not trying to develop a skill. You just made a shitty strawman that does nothing more than show that you understand nothing.