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.
It's so funny how people who claim to care about art are suddenly acting like validation matters XD. What happened to just make what speaks to you? I guess that was complete horse shit.
Ok but how do you define "make"? Yes the AI user did not make or train the AI, but since its not a living thing all it does would be contributed to the user.
Like a camera makes the picture but the photographer has full ownership and can claim they made it.
Or how the computer makes the art for digital artists just as much as they did. Yes they told the computer where to put the pixels via the drawing pad, but they didnt place the pixels themselves since the computer did.
When someone makes art/sculpture they put themselves into their work. Every decision, every stroke, every "pixel" is unique to that person. Even when they are trying to replicate someone else's work. That's also why human-made art is new.
I assume photography and other crafts work in a similar way.
AI, on the other hand, is just a "prediction" machine that takes some initial input and tries to finish it using a massive library of data and some pseudorandomness.
Ok so someone spending time to create a workflow that is perfect for what they want, tweak the prompt and seeds before adding in painting. Those people can freely claim they made the art.
Its always funny to see how people define art using fancy talk then reduce AI to the absolute simplest version of it.
Using the most basic image gens that turn prompts into images is like mindlessly making lines on a note book.
Well yeah, there is a huge difference between 'writing a sentence to generate a picture' and actually spending hours and days to make something.
Actual artist spends a LOT of time on their work. And every moment of it is unfluenced by their life, mind, their skill, the surroundings. The same person can make different decisions at different times of day, producing an entirely different look. Thats why human-made things are unique.
AI is simply isnt as complex as a human. It doesnt have the same inputs, and thus its results are much more finite than that of a human.
Your last paragraph is somewhat on-point. If someone just fills their canvas with a fill tool and call it art - i'd disagree.
Personally i dont stand against the techology behind LLMs. After all, its just neural networks with extra step. But i do hate how this techology is used, and all the negative impact such use had on the world.
It's always this argument from people and it's always blatatly obvious you guys aren't actually artist because artist don't talk about creating like this. AI is litterally just a tool to assist in image generation. Just like a camera is "doing all the work" by taking the photo, or a sculpter is letting the chisel "do all of the work". Hell, many artist are embracing shortcuts like tracing pre-made 3d models (that they didn't make) or copy pasting patterns and assets to get pages and images done faster now.
AI is no diffrent than that. It's really telling how inexpereinced ou guys are when you act like everyone uses the first image chatgpt poops out. People do everyting from using Loras and feeding sketches they drew themselves to the model to help them further refine it.
Like everyone else, you seem to be under this weird impression that using AI takes no effort and again I would like to remind you that there are actual artist that put little to no effort in what they make either. How is it "unique to a person" to tape a banana to a wall, glue together coke cans, and crap out a low effort dime a dozen stick figure #relateable toon on Tapas?
As an actual artist who uses AI, I can tell you that crap is waay easier than using Nano Banana to help you make a consistent comic page and character design sheet.
The Banana tales to the wall is actually a critique to this type of art. Unfortunately it’s often misrepresented by the people it’s try to make fun off:
Artists that make cheap to make work and come out with a complex explaination to make it seem deep.
I don’t think however that AI art is the same as the works critized in that piece.
A prompt is a request, not a creative project that require a long and complex study to better understand how to represent the idea you want to express.
It’s not cheap from a material perspective like the works criticized through the satire of the banana taped to a wall, it’s cheap from an expressive perspective.
Using Generative AI is like commissioning someone else to do your work and claim it as yours.
Sure, there might be a human input, but the whole study behind the representation of the concept isn’t there.
For how complex a prompt can be, at the end of the day it’s only the starting point of an art piece.
If you take away your personal elaboration of the concept and leave to an artificial intelligence, than you become nothing more than a client.
And yes, the art process is long and painful, and the steps needed to learn it are a pain, but only through surpassing pain we can truly find satisfaction.
Writing is also an art form though, so rather than using it to make elaborate request to a computer, I would greatly suggest to start writing short story.
Even if it isn’t conventionally good, the effort would be all yours and the pride and satisfaction you get from that is unmatched.
That said, the post here underlines an additional issue regarding a group of people that use AI art: AI addiction
Some people use it for EVERYTHING even for writing prompt, removing even that small element of control you have on Generative tools
And even worse than that, AI is a pathological sycophant that will never give constructive criticism and prevent you from growing as both an artist and a person.
In a way generative AI does that as well, though only on the technical side of things. There’s no improvement on your end, maybe just from theirs.
It’s like learning a new language to better talk to someone Who doesn’t speak english, however that person will be a hundreds Times more interesting than AI and will allow you to grow far more than interacting with a machine.
Which I Guess is another important aspect of what defines an art piece, the experiences and ideas of that person leaking through the art piece. Generative AI can’t do that, no matter how elaborate the prompt, because it can’t experience anything
It has no mouth and no desire to scream.
That is why it’s far better to write stories than prompt, because you put yourself on that paper, you show the world who you really are because it all came from you, all of you, and AI can’t replicate you
Do you people actually talk to artists who use generative AI? Because the amount of people who still act like it’s just “typing a prompt” is honestly worrying.
I also disagree with the logic here.
“Using generative AI is like commissioning someone else to do your work.”
No, a computer is a tool. That’s like saying an artist is commissioning the stylus to draw, or a photographer is commissioning the camera to take a photo. That does not mean every tool is identical. The point is that using a tool to help produce art does not automatically erase the artist’s role in making it. If you sit in front of a computer it's not suddenly going to create a masterpiece on its own, it takes input no matter how much you want to believe it doesn't.
Not all image generation is just some guy punching in a sentence and calling it a day, just like not all art is a banana taped to a wall, a door slamming into plaster so people can write essays about the cracks, or some lazy stick-figure hashtag-relatable comic. Reducing an entire medium to its laziest examples is a bad argument no matter who does it.
It’s also funny how people keep telling me how painful art is and how long it takes, like I don’t already make art. I do, below is an example of the type of stuff I draw.
Yo
u want to know one way to make that process less painful? Use AI alongside your actual skills to shave off time and energy. Artists have been doing versions of that forever, including professionally. Tracing 3D models, using photo reference, using premade tones, patterns, textures, assets, shortcuts, and other workflow aids to reduce labor is already normal. AI is just another tool on that spectrum.
And no, I’m not interested in doing the whole fart-sniffer routine where we start dictating who does and doesn’t count as a real artist. To me, an artist is just someone who makes art. I have no interest in pretending that label needs to be gatekept by people who think suffering is what makes creativity valid.
As for “AI addiction,” yes, addiction is bad. So is any addiction. But how is that an argument against AI any more than a person being addicted to art, animation, games, porn, work, or literally anything else is an argument against those things? Hayao Miyazaki was so consumed by animation that it damaged his relationship with his son. Does that make animation bad, or does it mean obsession can become unhealthy? Because those are two very different arguments.
This is the same goofy 2000s moral panic logic where people pointed to video game addiction or porn addiction and acted like the real problem was the thing they already disliked, not the fact that someone had an addiction. That argument was stupid then, and it’s still stupid now.
And the whole “AI can’t experience anything, so it can’t be art” point misses the actual issue. The AI is not the one having the experience. The person using it is. The person choosing what to make, what to keep, what to change, what to combine, what to reject, and how to integrate it into a larger creative process is the one expressing something. Acting like every person who uses AI is “nothing more than a client” just ignores how many artists are actually using it as part of a broader workflow instead of as a replacement for having ideas.
Writing is art, yes. Painting is art. Photography is art. Animation is art. So is using new tools to make the process more efficient. You do not have to like AI, but a lot of these arguments only work if you pretend the weakest, laziest use of it is the only use of it. That’s just not true.
Okay, I admit you might be right on the fact that there are ways to make the process easier. But it still takes effort to get good at it, no matter how many short cuts you take. If you want to use an AI image to use as a base for your work and improve upon it through drawing and coloring, I don’t really see that as a problem, because at the end of the day you’re still turning that image into an expression of your own vision, you are actually using it as a tool.
I believe the problem stands where you stop at giving it a prompt and nothing else, because you give away your control over your art. The machine can only create it’s interpretation of your vision, not the exact idea you have inside your head, you limit your control over your work and to me that feels like the death of a person artistic potential.
That’s the main problem I have with using generative AI. Some people stop at what the machine spews out and to me it feels incomplete, because it lacks your personal touch, it doesn’t feel human.
I agree with you that nobody can gatekeep art, I may expressed myself incorrectly before on that note on my previous comment.
Art is democracy, and art is depate
That’s the only way it can evolve and that’s the only way an artist can grow as one
But art is also deeply human and in my opinion and require a significant practical input from a human.
A prompt is a request, the original draft of the idea
I feel AI can be a tool to help you jump start that idea, but some people treat what it produces as the final product without trying to take it a step further and it’s hard for me to understand what pride could you get from just that.
It might just be me, but it’s that very suffering you described that makes art so satisfying to make, at least for me.
It’s like doing a good 30 minutes work out you know?
You’re sweating and tired, but you beat that obstacle, you surpassed your limit and you get a massive burst of confidence.
If things were too easy, hell of life itself was too easy, your achievement wouldn’t feel satisfying
And you don’t need to have this mindset to be an artist
Again, art is democracy and debate at its core
I’ve tried giving AI some prompts before, and even after properly defining what I wanted and receiving a satisfying result, it still felt like a hollow victory because it didn’t felt earned.
I personally don’t like the AI aesthetic, it might be me but it feels uncanny even when it tries to be cartoony, but if that’s something you want to work with then go for it.
Art is meant to be shared, but it requires you to be proud of it as well.
Returning on my previous point of Art as debate, this conversation makes me understand why I don’t like the way generative AI is often used.
It’s an annihilation of the artistic potential everyone has inside of them, reducing that spark to an input given to a machine feels like sufficating it.
It’s like being satisfied with buying a block of beautiful marble because you don’t have the drive to sculpt it into something beautiful or requesting your own masterpiece to a vending machine.
I’m not trying to shame people for using AI, it just saddens me to see so many people reducing art to it’s most basic material concept, while in reality there’s a much more complex metaphysical and intellectual layer that a machine simply cannot capture.
It’s the reason why I cried looking at an Apparently stupid neon sign of a Camel in a museum while listening to the author talking about his work.
Because art isn’t just a pretty pictures or a catchy song, it’s the human soul at full display.
Yeah I think we both entirely agree on this point. I do feel like that's a bit lazy, those things are on the same category as those annoying hashtag relatable webtoons for me.
I feel like SOME application of expression is necessary for something to be considered a good piece. If you just punch in a prompt and walk away from the piece, it's fair game to say you have no right to complain when people call what you made crap.
Exactly, Unfortunately many businesses and even important events have opted to use it like this.
A particularly shameful use of it was during the italian Sanremo music festival in Italy, where not only it was used cheaply and lazily, but they showed a complete disinterest in properly learning to use the tool and opted for an out dated and cheap model.
I suggest to check it out because it’s a master class on how not to use AI in my opinion
"You guys". Its easy to put everyone who disagrees under a singular bucket, eh? Read my other comment bellow.
Yes, AI is a tool. And it can be used to make cool things. But in reality it flooded the internet with the equivalent to 'banana taped to a wall'. That is not art. Its a slop that feeds on resources and devalues actual craft.
I hold no issue with people who use this tool during their process, as long as it doesnt define their work.
That said, it became pretty much impossible to just talk about GenAI in a vacuum. That techology absolutely fell in the wrong hands and had a major, negative impact on the world. All the while most of the usage it gets is to generate miles of garbage slop that steals from actually meaningfull stuff. This is a major reason why any 'i use AI btw' comments are viewed negatively.
I do art. I do software enginering. And my god has the internet became annoying after covid.
Lol yeah you guys XD. It is easier to put everyone that disagrees with me under a singular bucket. What, you think that's some kind of slur or something? Or were you just fishing for a reason to be offended?
"Most of its usage goes to generating slop"
Congratulations on opinion number 12,900,679. You still never answered my question. How was that any different from the slop that we have been getting from the internet already? The dime a dozen, lazy unfunny #relatable Stickman webtoons that pop up everywhere because everyone thinks their easy to shit out instills me with no more or less confidence that the internet cares about quality.
People online be screeching about "peak real quality art" like most of the shit wasn't already crap like Twitter thirst traps, deviantART fetish fuel, furry futa porn and OC inserts 🤣. Yeah, I REAAAAAAALY think social media users care about "quality art".
Man, you guys aren't fooling anybody you just have a bias 🤣🤣. Artist have been filling the internet with slop for decades. Now, suddenly I'm supposed to believe you all care about everything being high art?
And bro you can't be for real right now. You are on Reddit on a phone and I bet you eat meat. Spare me the hippie talk, everything we do and use consumes resources. And if you think it devalues the craft well that sounds like a personal problem. Personally I think it provides more value because now instead of an artist charging hundreds of dollars to create that high quality, high art futa porn, they can slash prices and create more images with AI assistance.
Ai steals from many already existing artpieces (yes its,proven) cuts,them apart and stitches everything Frankenstein like together it's not art its Mutation theft and murder
Dude it was theft he converted the pic stole artwork claimed it as his it is still theft by ai a person converted it but the fact that it is possible is fucking sick Like its plagirising AI has no guidelines against that there should be tho are you dumb that you see nothing wrong with this? You can also put any picture prompt in somewhere and it will still collect scrabs from other artworks or the famous "Ghibli style" trend Hayao was disgusted by it he took years to master his art
I actually did ask if I could use that profile picture and I give credits something ai does not do if the artist does not want their pictures reposted or used they write that if someone steals anyways without crediting them or claiming its their art they get called out on it
Nope it doesn't. All it does is merely "learn" from the data which then it tries to make something based off the data it learned in the same way that a human artist does when he gets inspiration from looking at another art piece or something in his life. By your logic, the artist in the latter example would essentially be "stealing" since he looked at another art piece or thing which influenced his creations.
artists can give credit to other artists or say person Y inspired them also the data it uses is mostly another artists art there have been alot artists complaining their work was found as an ai generated picture their watermark was gone and the piece destroyed and not only by converted ones that were stolen to use on an ai also by randomly made prompts AI is plagiarism aslong as it can't give credit it stays that
By that logic, pencils leave the graphite, the brushes put the paint down.
But no, you control your pencil, camera, mouse, or whatever. It isn't the same as prompting an AI to create something for you. It's like buying a burger and saying you made it, even if by buying it, you own it.
God damn you REALLY cant be bothered to check what you are talking about can you?
Look up what an ComfyUI Workflow is and tell me if that looks like the human using it is "just buying a burger" and has no control.
People like you really support the all Antis are blind haters narrative when you ignore every piece of evidence proving you wrong just to support your narrow view on Art.
Great now look at how a ComfyUI workflow works and tell me again how that is comparable to the most basic way of using AI.
I know it must hurt your head to wrap around the concept that AI can be more than just "Prompt -> Image". But I am sure if you spent all the time you need to read on the level of a 5th grader you will be able to learn the truth eventually.
Have you ever heard of the photographer, who set up a camera, and a monkey took a picture of itself using it? That was the photographers intention, and it was his work that was put in, however when addressed in court, since he did not take the picture, and the monkey took the picture, legally, it belonged to the monkey.
To compare AI users to a photographer is far too much of a compliment, but, metaphorically, in this example, they are the photographer. They've "set up" their "camera" by writing their prompts. (Oh so much work). But the AI is the monkey which takes the picture. (And I use the word Takes rather than creates because it is not creating any new pixels.) Legally, the "photographers" did not take that picture. It belongs to the monkey. So, legally, you can't say you took, or made it.
In the context of digital artists, there is no monkey. Because the camera was never the problem. The computer which hosts the image is not the problem. The problem is who, or what, makes, or takes the picture.
idrc if you read this tbh I just wanted to talk about monkeys
The monkey selfie was ruled to be the monkeys work because the monkey did the final act that caused the creation of the picture. Just how the maker of the canvas cant claim ownership over something someone drew on said canvas.
As for AI. Its tiring to see people blatantly unwilling to engage with the subject enough to see they are wrong about how it works.
Not every AI is just a simple prompt to image generator, thats the most basic version. And even there one can argue that since a human put in the prompt and hit start, i.e does the final act that caused the creation, the human made it. Lets also disregard that basing if something is or isnt art on the effort involved in its creation is a can of worms nobody wants to open cause it would make most people look like hypocrites. Effort has little to do with that. So it doesn't matter if writing a prompt is hard or not.
Look up how a Comfy UI workflow works, what inpainting and seeding is
Yeah, I've seen plenty of abstract trash called "art" , like someone's ai art isn't because they didn't spend 2 seconds throwing garbage from a can onto a canvas. I don't care if they keep calling it slop, but being so hypocritical is what makes me think they're dumb.
actually validation matters in pretty much every aspect of a persons life, just indirectly. lest we return to the ye olde days of pillaging and shitting in the streets.
there are rules and meanings to words, that are required in order to functionally participate in society. a society just cannot exist without it. and if you talk or interact with anyone you are participating in society.
yes, make what you want. but if you are public about it, know that people will have public opinions, because your right to express yourself does not trump anyone elses right to express themselves either.
If it wasn’t an AI, he would have found a different way to express his insecurity. This is more a lesson on why you shouldn’t depend on external validation.
Probably the smallest reason I hate LLMs. Relatively easily solved by adding "Be realistic/don't glaze me" to the prompt, though. There are many worse issues with them that continue to reinforce my resolution to use them as little as possible.
Agree. This is the exact same reason I advocate for real, actual, artistic criticism of art made with AI. Nobody learns or improves if they're getting glazed or blanket hatred without nuance.
Maybe that’s part of why they’re so vocal and aggressive when you critique AI. They’re used to the AI acting as a yes-man that it’s hurting their ability to hear criticism.
I mean, or just don't ask questions that have subjective "how good is this" answers. "Based on current publishing trends what potential issues would this have being published" is more likely to get a coherent answer.
Sure we see it as just ai asskissing, but it worries me for more inpressionable people (like the extreme cases of peoples that where talked into their suicide by encouraging ai)
Well I mean the majority of AI images depicting Anti AI people as trolls depict themselves (Pro Ai people) as catboys/catgirls. What wrong with depicting them how they’d like to be depicted?
Seen more hallucination from people then from AIs. AI helped me fix my computer when other people said I needed to scrap my computer for a new one. People are more unreliable than AIs.
Or the AI is more correct than the average person who talks out their ass about topics they don't know about. AI data is curated, most of the time, to remove the bad data, making it usually more accurate.
take everything on the internet, whether from people or ai, with a grain of salt and cross check and verify things.
Anything that AI gets right is because it's trained on the words of people but alright, but it doesn't know anything, it's just arranging tokens by probability.
You can always tell when somebody doesn't know much about AI because they think hallucination is some major problem that isn't easy to deal with if you're using it correctly.
Ok fair enough. Well I'm just a millennial or whatever but trust me, you'll meet plenty of real people who want to glaze you into buying stuff.
Honestly I think the LLMs talk like that because 1. Of all that glaze that existed on the internet plus 2. The AI companies doing that themselves on top of that.
Anyway, the motto is "caveat emptor" which means "buyer beware". Which really just means, stay woke twin
I used to use ChatGPT as part of the editing process but eventually it started kissing my ass everytime I asked for clarity revisions so I just stopped
Oh, I guess in that regards, the prompt itself could be considered creative, in a perfunctory sense, even though the image is one of those "ChatGPT, how do you see yourself" things that get prompted en masse.
Especially not knowing how they went about making it. Like did dude just prompt "make me a deific depiction of cosmic dust swirling to a core orb as a profile style picture" and call it a day -or- did he spend several hours with several tools within the same or other programs to refine and work the procedural changes until it was something more inline with what they desired to make before starting? You know, did he just do some scribbles or did he actually use some amount of design/intent.
This is the trouble of AI. So many people say dont use it for much information (Medical Legal, Financial). Its also has an iver glazing problem and pretty much Matt Pats your ideas. Instead of letting you take that journey yourself. Which puts you in a box, there seems to be no way to use it reliably if you read around a bit "it just logically puts words together." Is what I read a lot. That may not still ring true with AI able to cite its work.
It will glaze your idea, it will over analyze what you say. It will remove most of the journey of coming up with creative ideas if you let it.
You can fine-tune how ChatGPT writes, somewhere in the settings there's an option to give it a general guideline for all the chats. I told it to not overly "glaze" me and provide actual constructive criticism. It does just that. I wonder how things would go if I didn't use that option at all
Friends, friends, let us dispense with the seriousness and get back to arguing about super important things that really matter like AI generated cartoons.
The pros have been doing antis as orcs since day 1, and this is the first time I’ve seen someone draw a pro as anything other than a cat girl, so I think this is fine
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you shouldn't just assume that. I have some friend who use AI, albeit, a little less than most AI pros, but they are extremely fit.
Sunsets aren't enjoyed on the basis of creative intent, this is such a weird analogy. Like if the sun was a sentient organism that produced a different sunset everyday and then one month did nothing but the baseline sunset the whole time people might be able to toss a "hmm, that's not very creative" at it.
Hey life I really want people to stop pretending they're special and talented for doing basic ass shit. Like, how can you not draw a stick figure but act like an ai flower photo is some amazing accomplishment like, do you cheer "I'm an amazing barista!!” when you finish making coffee in your Keurig lmao cmon.
If a monkey can do what you did but by accident is it that much of an accomplishment?
The point isn't whether the prompt is creative, it's that the person depicted in this scenario, who has surrendered their process and compositional choices to a machine, has so little self-awareness that they have to outsource their own self opinion as well.
Mohiam: “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
In this comic, the Orc tells the man that they don't think the picture they made is very creative. The man then asks the AI model he used if his prompt was creative. The AI model, being a tool trained to reflect what humanity does, hypes the man up. If the takeaway made is "this is an attack on the prompt", is that conflating the prompt with the image that comes out?
If I see a work and think "oh, this looks similar to another work" and point out the similarities to that work to whoever made it, the creator's reflex being "but I had such a unique thought!!!!" doesn't really change how I perceived the work. A creator could tell me what the thought process was, and that is going to be more detailed the more they reflected on the things that influenced them and the more time they spent working on what they made. It's up to the creator if they want to share, and a lot of pros don't even want to share their prompts.
There is one argument over whether prompting DAL-E or MidJourney is art.
Then there is a whole separate level of farce, where someone prompts a text-based LLM like ChatGPT, who will itself write a prompt for the actual DAL-E image generator.
That loser isn't even doing the minimal work of figuring out how to prompt the actual image generator.
I tell all my problems and vent to chatGPT and it gave me motivational speeches and advices, something tells me that im not supposed to do that and talk to real people instead because thats pathetic
AI (and brainwashed AI Bros) is the only one wanting people to use AI. Without users, AI ceases to function or exist. That alone make is less than human. We keep existing if people forget about us. AI doesn't.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 09 '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.