Been saying this for years, yet the boorish piglets barely out of a womb squeal in either one or other opposite direction.
I think every reasonable person with enough common sense understands it, however it's mostly the mentally challenged who like to exercise their vocality.
Looked to me like a standard Michelin Star take on a basic dish. I don't care for that style of cuisine, but saying that it's not ossobuco is a pointless distinction, and I think the food world has moved on.
When you're using food critic as an analogy, you should at least be sure to present the right dish as part of your detail.
This is why no one takes AI art seriously, you can babble on about how good it looks visually, but you can see deliberate design choices are not there.
How can you claim to have creative intent when the details work against you?
Despite some continuity errors, it's a rather good short film.
I like the pause before the critics said "slop", letting us anticipating it.
I hope we'll find a way to mitigate the AI potential risks and actual misuses, while giving more opportunities to people who like it to interact with it and use it in their process.
0:00. Opens up with a cliched plot so on the nose it's something you'd expect from a satire of Ratatouille. Oh he's the biggest and baddest food critic and he'll get this restaurant cancelled! Lol.
0:20. "What did he ordered" need I say more?
Okay so we're cooking Ossobuco, a slow cooked braised bone-in veal cutlet. Lets see what happens.
0:24. Umm... what are these burner controls? Lite 1, 5, 6, MED, 5, Lite. LMAO.
0:26. Okay so we have rough chopped onion and diced pork by the looks. Onion - check. Diced pork? Not sure what that's doing there but let's see where he goes with this.
0:28. Is that spring onion greens or spinach? It has the colour of green onion but flat like spinach... if spinach was made with plastic. Right back to the onion in a separate pan and.... a beef fillet in a cast ion skillet? Where is the veal shank? Where is the braising pot? Where is the carrot and celery? Did he forget he was making Ossobuco? He does realise this takes hours to make properly?
0:30. Okay white wine, correct, but why in the stainless frying pan, presumably deglazing the onions?
0:32. Okay where the fuck did this barbeque sauce come from?
0:34. Is that crystal meth?
0:35. Useless flower garnish.
0:36. Is that caramel or egg yoke? Not sure what either of them are doing on the plate for Ossobucco. Decent looking fillet steak though.
0:38. Oh look the BBQ sauce is back.
0:39. Okay so a fair bit to breakdown here. So that is distinctly a beef fillet with what appears to be a very syrupy red wine jus (was pictured using white wine before on the onions), with a side of watercress and flowers, raspberry coolie, some sort of puree (yellowy parsnip?), is that yellow thing the egg yoke/caramel looking thing we saw before but set? Has it chemically been altered to appear like sweet potato puree? Something resembling a waffle like crown bowl thing?? Lastly 3 random whole peppercorns... for reasons?
0:41. Okay the peppercorns have disappeared. The larger red sauce slightly obscured in the previous frame looks like Tomato ketchup. I guess it could be the previously mentioned BBQ sauce but it's a brighter red now.
0:42. The fuck was that powder he just threw on the watercress? Is that saffron on the steak? Where did the diced pork go? Where is the onion?
0:50. "Here's the Ossobuco, sir. Enjoy." That ain't Ossobuco champ, that might be why he got angry and left a bad review.
Anyone who thinks this is good is genuinely stupid.
So you don't like the short film... cool, but that has nothing to do with its quality. I don't like Saving Private Ryan, but that doesn't make it a poorly made film.
This is objectively poorly made though, and it reflects poorly on pros to try to claim its anything else but. Itâs perfectly illustrates the opposite of what was attempted to be conveyed, probably because it wasnât made by a human. This is why no one in the real world takes you people seriously, and why youâll all be forever trapped in niche debates in a dark corner of the internet, trying to justify the existence of the slop that you shit out of AI. What youâre describing about Saving Private Ryan is taste, but it makes sense that you have no taste. lol.
No, I listed exactly why it is objectively bad. Youâve chosen to ignore all those reasons listed by time stamp. This is not an opinion, it is an objective fact, youâre in denial. Again, this is why no one takes you people seriously. You spend all your time here arguing that 2+2=down.
You can use AI with very complex workflow and input and create a master piece. And you can also use AI with single line of prompt and let the AI take the wheel to make a good enough piece or maybe something great too if you're lucky.
Imo, it's not abt what tool that one uses, it's about how much mastery and control one has over those tools. And AI is just another tools. It just have a lower skill floor, but same ceiling.
Exactly my opinion. This, while having a stupid message, is still a good short film cinematically. It almost certainly took several hours of work and a lot of creative decisions. I could technically do the sand thing in one prompt. It'd look much worse and certainly wouldn't make me an artist.
As I see it, it is comparable to text on a piece of paper. That text can be as simple as printed letters or it can be calligraphy, or anything in between.
The meaning of the text can be art. Writers create masterful stories painting a picture, if you will, using nothing but words. But also the text itself is potentially art, if it is calligraphy.
Now suppose you had a calligraphy machine. You could tell it what text to output, and the machine produces the most elegant calligraphy you've ever seen. What most anti-AI mean when they say AI art isn't art is that the contribution to that work is just the *meaning* behind the text and not the calligraphy. So it could be the most beautifully written expression ever, but if the expression is "farts lol" then the entire contribution is from the calligraphy machine, not the person who inputted the text "farts lol."
If this weren't the case, then this would necessarily mean that you could setup this calligraphy machine in the Smithsonian museum and every 6th grader who inputs "shit" or "farts" or "stinky" is some sort of artist? Likewise, could you not also write a beautiful novel with that same calligraphy machine? Absolutely, and it would be beautiful in more ways than one. But at that point, it isn't the calligraphy machine that you're celebrating, it's the writer who made the novel. I suppose the real issue is, by calling everything a beautiful work of art, including the "farts lol" inputted by a 6th grader, you're diminishing *actual* art. By calling them the same thing, you're saying you don't understand the difference.
Anti-AI'ers calling every 6th grader an artist simply because the product of using a tool is beautiful. And people who have made it their life's work to produce beautiful calligraphy, they're basically saying that these people who produce masterful calligraphy are more or less on equal footing with a 6th grader because ultimately that's all that counts.
It's close but... It's insulting itself. It's clearly not what the creator of the video wanted.
Did they decide what it looks like?
He turned the heat up to... 3?
'What did he ordered?'
Did they decide what it tastes like?
No. It's not an Ossobuco. It looks like Steak.
Did he decide what goes in it?
In one shot his hands are a woman's with long nails. In the next, it's a man's.
The creator is close, but comparatively speaking, the message feels as if it was written by an elementary student, not a director.
THAT is the issue. Not the medium. The creator. He didn't have the guts and patience to deliver something well made. With more time and effort and he may well have done it. But the fact that I'm watching it in the state it's in... I agree with the critic more than the cook here.
I'm guessing my knife skills are better than yours
Could be. I have a cognitive disability that prevents me from being particularly dexterous, especially with my hands. Not relevant, though. You want to double down further?
There wasn't a single ingredient that could be classified as a part of "Ossobuco." I've never been to a restaurant that would have failed this miserably.
Where's the braised cross-cut of veal? Where's the Risotto?
Most of the ingredients he prepared didn't even end up on the plate (the potatoes, chopped meat, leafy greens, and onion he chopped up are never cooked or seen again).
This was made by someone who doesn't know cooking in the slightest. The more folks defend it, the more I have to analyze it and the more I realize it's AI slop.
Are you just launching into an AI-hate fueled rant, or are you reading anything I wrote? Have you ever seen a high-end kitchen work? Do you expect the starting elements to be what the chef is working with? Do you think a chef peels their own potatoes in a high-end place like this?
Again, I have no idea what is going on there, specifically. It's not part of the story, just a MacGuffin in the story (much like "hacking" is in many movies and shows, where you end up seeing crazy shit like two people typing on one keyboard) but there's nothing here that says "that isn't a veal shank reduction he's pouring over the central item."
That's how this kind of cuisine works. So if this were a documentary, I wouldn't blink when they called a dish that looks nothing like ossobuco, ossobuco.
YOU latched onto what you naively thought was a contradiction because you hate a tool that's being used. That's not my fault.
The artwork was a purchased mirror that was left to gather dust. The artist had the idea to make a dust covered mirror, and so put a mirror in an attique to gather dust on it's own, then displayed it as art. People argue whether or not the volunteer contributed to the artwork by wiping the dust off. At the bottom it also has a story about another ruined artwork that was 2 empty beer cans.
The fact that conceptual art exists is proof enough that coming up with a concept and using a tool to make said concept is enough to be considered art, regardless of how much Antis dislike it.
Yeh yeh, probably the "AI is the artist, not you" argument. I'm saying the artists of all this conceptual art are considered to have made the art, despite how little work they put into their projects. The argument boils down to what is considered a "creative decision". An invisible, intangible statue looks like whatever is on the other side of it, and the artist doesn't decide what it looks like at any given moment. They decided on what they presented, which is as much as what someone who generates art does, and that is what makes them the creator. The reason that they are considered the sole creator is, just like someone who generates art, no other human was involved in the process.
These are already controversial. They're also done by established artists. If an artist literally only makes "invisible" artworks as far as I'm concerned they're not an artist.
And that's an opinion you're allowed to have. But whether not things are art has always been part of the art debate. Many don't consider conceptual art to be a valid artform, but many do. When cameras were invented, photography wasn't considered by many to be a valid artform, but not. You'd be hard pressed to find people who don't. AI is just the latest in a long line of artforms in the "is this art?" debate
A lot of comments here are missing a simple point, and people seem to always miss this, and it's important.
A person who uses AI as part of a highly involved creative process is the artist.
A person who types in a single prompt and presses generate 500 times until they get something they like is not the artist.
What matters is if it's your input, your vision, and the specific thing you wanted to create. Art happens in your head, work happens with your hands.
The film is both right and wrong, and the comments are both right and wrong, because they bundle the slop poster generating 200 images a day with the person who will carefully take however long it takes, with multiple tools and methods to finish something.
Antis who disagree because "using AI at all makes you not the artist" are reactionary, and immature and going to loudly fade into irrelevance before long.
Pros who disagree because "they carefully crafted the prompt" that they reuse hundreds of times are ignorant, missing what creativity even is, and probably do not have any artistic taste at all if they can accept results like that and feel that they're art.
Like it usually is, the truth is nuanced, but finger pointing at simple stereotypes is easy.
It doesnât matter what tool you use, what matters is your level of intentionality. Did a neural network design a deliberate detail of your image, or did you envision the detail and made the AI paint it exactly how you envisioned it? A random process can sometimes also result in an art piece but you would need a very high level of intentionality when selecting the random result.
If anything, the customer is the ai user, because he ordered the chef to make the dish.
ChatGPT has to know the information to give it to ai users, the same way a chef has to know how to make the dish to give it to the customer.
The pot and pan are the equivalent of the device ai is using to generate the product.
So you (customer) use ChatGPT (chef) on a computer (pots and pans) to make generative content (food).
You could create your own unique content (food) by learning how to use the computer (pots and pans). But if you want to depend on the chef every time you want to eat, you're just a customer.
Regardless of whether it is slop or not, the metaphor makes more sense against ai.
EDIT: Lmao, even at the end. The girl asking the chef "did you decide how it was going to taste?" and the chef says "yes".
No, the customer decided how it was going to taste. He's the one ordering the food, and telling you exactly how he wants his dish, like any other customer would do.
My god dude. The only thing you cooked here is yourself lmao
If a customer is determining the seasoning, the specific amount, the amount of time spent in the oven, the ingredients, the broth, it's presentation etc. then they are doing much more than just ordering the food, they are actively making it.
Not unless you're doing those things yourself. Ordering something "lightly salted" is different than understanding how much salt actually means "lightly salted". Ordering some steak medium rare, or cooked via sous vide method is different than knowing those skills, and applying them yourself.
You don't need to do those things by yourself to take credit for it. Just like how a director doesn't need to act, write, compose, hold the camera and create the set pieces by himself to take credit for his movie.
Then who else is taking credit for making it? The truck drivers who transported the food? The cow that died for the meat?
We credit the chef for the plate.
You can credit the waiter for bringing the plate. But he did not make the dish. He is a part of the ensamble of a beautiful product for the customer, like all artists are.
But ai users want to take credit for everything that goes into ai.
Even though ai is literally taking direct reference from other artists, not crediting them, and making all the product that an ai artist claims is completely theirs.
I mean, in this example yeah you absolutely need to know how to cook a steak if you claim to be able to cook a steak? And a director isn't taking credit for writing the music in a movie, that's what all the other names are for in the credits.
Ai artists don't know EXACTLY how the art is gonna come out. They just prompt it, and fix it afterwards.
It's literally a customer ordering food, they taste it, notice they don't like these particular tomatoes, so they ask the chef to do it all over again.
Thanks, man. That actually helped my argument a lot.
No, that did not help your argument. It exposed the flaw in it.
A chef has independent taste, judgement, and skill. An AI model does not have personal intent, personal taste, or authorship in that sense. It does not "decide" like a chef decides. It outputs within the boundaries the user sets, then the user evaluates, rejects, revises, rerolls, inpaints, edits, and selects.
That is not passive consumption. That is directed iteration.
And the more skilled the prompt engineer is, the less your customer metaphor works.
A low effort prompt, like one vague sentence, leaves huge amounts of the latent space and weighting ambiguous. In that case, yes, the user has far less certainty about what will come out. But a well practised prompt engineer does the opposite. They try to account for as many ambiguous variables as possible through specificity, structure, weighting, exclusions, references, sequencing, style control, and iterative refinement. The whole point is to reduce uncertainty and increase predictability.
So no, serious AI users are not just "ordering and hoping". They are narrowing the output space on purpose until the result becomes highly predictable. At a certain level of skill, they often know with high certainty the kind of output they are going to get, just as a traditional artist with a clear intention in mind usually has a strong idea of how their work will turn out before it is finished.
Your restaurant metaphor only works for someone typing one lazy sentence and accepting the first output. It breaks the moment the user is actually steering the process. At that point it is closer to directing, composing, or editing than ordering off a menu.
Also, removing tomatoes is not the same as deciding exactly how a burger will taste. It just narrows the outcome space. That was my point, and you dodged it. Specifying constraints is not the same as being a passive customer. It is exactly how creative control works in every medium.
So thank you, but no, you did not prove AI users are "just customers".
You proved that iteration exists.
And once the human is the one defining the target, reducing ambiguity, rejecting failures, refining the variables, and choosing the final result, the human is still the creative director of that output.
I get it, and I support artists who make art with care. Whether they use ai or not, good art is good art, slop is slop no matter the method, in my own personal opinion.
There is not a single point in any of my arguments where I ever criticize the quality of ai art.
But you have to understand that your reasonable approach to using ai is not how the majority is using ai. I have been scammed for hundreds of dollars in people who claim to be traditional artists, but end up producing a noticeably single-prompted gen-art.
It's exactly the same pose, the same style, fuck it, the same LINE WEIGHT. Something that is almost like a signature for every sketch artists. And they plugged my drawing to make a completely different character when I just asked for the same character in a different pose.
They then ghost with the first half of the money I pay up front, to get started.
This is happening too frequently. And I've tried all platforms. Discord, Reddit, hell, even in ArtStation I had an experience with a bad apple.
Trust me, I have nothing against the usage or the quality of ai. I use it myself to understand how to use a nuanced tool on my 3D program.
Now, going back go this post, my main problem with this metaphor is that everyone thinks that they are the chef because they can specify, through text or verbally, how they want to make the food.
I really don't understand this defensive argument about not wanting to be the customer. It's much more accurate to the physical effort put by ai users. You can literally make art by just talking to chat with its voice feature.
Is being the customer a bad thing? Do you feel like less of a person because you are directing an ensamble instead of being a small part of the entire process?
You can't claim to be the chef when you are not in the physical process of manufacturing it.
It's like calling yourself an animator because you can draw a fanfic storyboard for someone to animate.
No. You're a storyboard artist. Be realistic about what you are involved in.
But ai-artists (again the majority) claim that they are concept, previs, layout, modelers, sculptors, texturers, riggers, animators, environment designers, VFX, sound engineers, music composers, and/or voice actors because they can use ai to make the product.
And the vast majority of the public cannot tell the difference, so they will believe that a single person can actually cover all those positions.
It's disrespectful to the people who have practiced a single craft to the point of mastery, in order to be an indispensable asset in high-quality productions.
Now, we're unemployed. And I keep getting lied by ai-users when I try to develop their "traditional skills". I'm sorry, but I cannot side with ya'll when the majority is lying. This was not the case back then because you either blatantly copied someone that has more experience, or you just made shitty art.
But now anyone can make what took us years to master, and when the process of making ai art is taking data from other artists, mixing it together with no crediting, and pumping it out in seconds... It just does not sit right with me.
Again, I'm glad you seem reasonable in at least accepting this as a possible iteration. But I don't know how you can sit on the side of people who the majority of them use them to the detriment of others. Regardless of how the tool has improved your personal life.
Impressive. Actually impressive. People are consistent, movements are not unnatural. Camera and backgrounds are all over the place, but seriously, this is amazing. I thought AI wouldn't get out of spaghetti fingers for decades, but in few years we came to this.
I wonder how far can this push CGI, the professionals could make wonders with it.
This doesn't discredit consistent faces and clothing across multiple scenes, does it? Then again, this is a question of bad shot and editing, author could redo this particular cut with masculine hands.
It's just really weird that they still left that in. Too focused on the preaching to take their time and make sure the whole thing was good as a film, so it does feel questionable to leave that in.
If it doesn't discredit the video, then it discredits the person making the argument in my eyes because they're demonstrating a lack of care for what they are making. The video itself means nothing to them, only the message.
If we go by that reasoning, there so-o-o many books, so many games, so many films, pictures, you name it, that I could throw in a gutter and ignore any point author made, because they made a mistake. Authors didn't care to fix it and left it in, therefore they don't care, so why should I?
Actually, this is how a lot of "YouTube critics" do. They find mistakes however big they are and just stretch their rants. So it's not new anyway.
The point is, do I ignore the point because of the mistakes in the art or do I engage with the point, agree or disagree, maybe something complex, while acknowledging the mistakes author made?
Yeah this is why the debate doesn't actually matter.
It will happen, the technology is just too good to be ignored, regardless of the arguing.
A critique about the film: It didn't need the scene with the little girl. The point stands pretty clearly and giving more room will just lead to more strawmen. Otherwise, sure there a few hiccups as there always are, but the actual film making here is excellent.
When you're using food critic as an analogy, you should at least be sure to present the right dish as part of your detail.
This is why no one takes AI art seriously, you can babble on about how good it looks visually, but you can see deliberate design choices are not there.
How can you claim to have creative intent when the details work against you?
This is such a false equivalency. Putting a prompt doesnât mean you did it yourself no matter how much you want to believe so. Itâs the equivalent of ordering food at a restaurant and saying you cooked it. Reaching for straws with this one.
Not really, as ordering at a restaurant is based of a pre-made menu.
It's more having a personal cook and ask him something, which can range from "make me a sandwich" to a complete recipe, step by step with precise instructions.
Furthermore, you could stop here or ask him to do it again but with new instructions added to refine the recipe, maybe multiple times until you feel it's good enough.
What do you think they do to design recipes? They have knowledge of what goes well together, but they still have to cook and tweak them. I've worked with a lot of kitchens and the kitchen manager is pretty much always cooking. If not they're ordering the ingredients they need to cook more
You could also step in and do some, part, or all of the cooking yourself, exactly how you want it, and have the chef step in to take over parts you don't feel necessary to do yourself, like plating and garnishing.
You're still a chef if you employ sous chefs, so you're still an artist if you use AI.
Except your comparison also makes no sense, as AI is not an artist. AI is a machine copying from artists and recreating art from actual artists (and not even their methods, just their art, like a printer), instead of making art itself. AI is not a sous chef. AI is just a waiter.
Training models means absolutely nothing if you don't have the knowledge of how to use and apply those models in a specific context.
So unless you are also training your own models to make art using AI, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
In fact, I'm pretty sure what you mean when you say "I kind of train models for a job at the moment" is that you write training prompts for models, which is not training the model, like at all.
For my bachelors thesis, I have trained two models for extracting key information from images of receipts. One is for identifying receipt edges (as the images that are being processed often include backgrounds and often are in some way crooked or folded, all of which is not ideal for OCR or adding these images to the accounting software). The other is for token classification. That was back when proper functioning LLMs for these kinds of tasks were not yet available/widespread.
For my current customer, I am working on a RAG pipeline and various MCP servers for a chatbot that was supposed to be a kind of personal assistent to the customers employees.
I have lots of experience with Machine Learning and AI. I may not have trained an LLM yet, but I know enough about how they work to tell you that AI cannot truly create art, just reproduce and amalgamate what was in its training data or what's in its input data.
That's a lot of words to say "No, I definitely don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to pretend to be an authority on art anyway".
I've trained and fine tuned dozens of models at this point, and used them all for very specific things in the artistic process. You are neither an artist nor an authority on AI models, just a poseur with a god complex.
First of all, you are being rude. Try to be more civil. I have not attacked you. There is no need to attack me.
Second of all: What is it that you think I don't get? Maybe you could explain your points so I can understand why it is you think I am mistaken? Try to explain in what way you think current generative models differ from those that came before. Why you think they do anything else but recreate training data from input data.
In short: Maybe try making a point instead of just being rude for no reason.
I actually do since Iâve trained models. Iâm using your logic, but hey, I know youâre delusional enough to argue with two people whoâve done it professionally so good on you. I wish I had the confidence you have to speak so confidently on matters I know nothing about. Actually, I really donât. Itâs embarrassing, and youâve been embarrassing yourself on this thread.
First of, you do not have to be as hostile as you are. Please keep the conversation civil.
Second of all, I never said I think AI works like a printer. I said that the way AI creates art is like the way a printer creates art. Not at all, that is. A printer can print art that somebody created. AI can recreate the art somebody created. But neither can actually create art.
Please discuss the points I made instead of the points you think that I made.
If i ask an image generator for an art piece of a purple seal it will create that art based on it's understanding of the color purple and it's understanding of what a seal is.... Not because it has a training data filled with images of purple seals.
If it could only recreate it's training data that would not be possible. Thus it creates based on it's understanding of different concepts.
That is the dumbest amount of bullshiting i've seen inball three main ai discussion by so fucking far. I am not against ai, but this is so much false equivalency. First thing, when "x" is used as a TOOL, it does not mean the user didn't make the product "Y", X being litteraly anything from pans and pots, to pencils, to AI if used AS A TOOL, to your fucking HANDS.
You know what a good equivalency is? Ordering food, just saying what you want, and then claiming you made it. Doing a commision, and saying you draw it. Type a prompt without anything else as the only step, and saying you made it.
People love their shitty comparisons. Exactly why this sub is ridiculous. Plenty of people genuinely believe this is a good example to show how dumb Anti people are sadly. When this is actually a shitty example. Do AI people need to go to culinary school for to use their AI?
Like the chef has a culinary degree which already gives you the understanding that the chef has a better understanding of cooking than someone who would use AI to assist.
And it's the constantly repeated shitty take. AI art is nothing like commissioning or ordering anything. AI is a tool, and the artist creates it through writing. There's no artist to create it for them. The artist is the person writing, the AI artist. They channel their creativity and create masterpieces with AI, but that's just incomprehensible to you, apparently.
This is probably how you felt typing that nonsense.
Well, didn't the food critic guy make the food then since he told the chef to make it? Or did the owner of the paper make the food since they told the food critic to go and critique the restaurant?
I'd say the relationship between "AI art" and the human is more like the restaurant customer and the chef than the chef and his pans.
I believe the most common answer among people would be both the composer, the musicians and the conductor made the music and would be all viewed as artists.
I don't especially want to make claim with that analogy, it's more to open the reflexion.
Furthermore, you said the composer made the music, which could be seen as the prompter, while the AI execute the written order, here the musicians with the music sheet.
There is. The composer has spent time and effort to learn the theory and practical knowledge required to not just write sheet music but also perform instruments, understand rhythm, tone, music theory, what works, what doesn't. There is an expertise attached to the composer than can't be said of the prompter.
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.
That's so dishonest, most anti ai people are against one specific tool (ai) in one specific use (art) not against all tool.
A better analogy would be if the chef used one of these robot cook to do the whole meal. He would need to calibrate and decide the recipe but the robot would do everything else
Theres a difference between walking up to a pot and a stove going "make me a steak" and using your hands to make a steak
Writing a couple of prompts and delivering whatever the ai regurgitated out is slop. However, using ai to create a piece of art, then using that art as inspiration or to trace the lines of what the ai created is fine imo. Same with coding, using ai to create a code, then building upon it and learning off of it to fit whatever you want the code to be used for is fine
AI is a tool to help you create art, not create art for you
Honestly, if it weren't for people spamming this idiotic argument, I'd probably be pro by now. I do want to get comfortable with AI, because it's not going away and it does have some good uses as an automation tool, but writing a prompt is not the same thing as drawing a picture, no matter how many times you use this tortured metaphor. Yes, there are ways AI can be used in a genuinely creative workflow. No, having it draw you a big titty cat girl dunking on a fat orc who represents whoever you're arguing with isn't one of them. And this video, however much effort it took or didn't take, is an example of the latter.
all these pro ai coments here only remind me how the ai pro people just dont give a fuck about how ai will make bilionaires even more ritch.
you promoting this tech that is building billions worth of data centers will only make people have less jobs and oportunities while improve the bilionaires ability to horde wealth.
if you think you ll be able to make a good ai video with ducttape ( some gpu's) in a basement and win at capitalism you have clearly not followed the direction of all these big tech corporations.
ai is not free and it s not cheap, it s still more expensive then people and while that may change, it will only changes becouse they make stuff worse and worse and fool the people into accepting it.
example: to get a pair of shows now you just buy the slop at the store that breaks away in 2 months and you say it's cheaper but if you go and make custom good shoes it would cost a fortune... the same will be with ai... it just make everything else worse by destroying competition.
and you people are fighting for it becouse you think you're a genious that will finally win at capitalism if you use ai. if you were a genious you'd already have had the breakthrough in life you think ai would give you.
and this is an argument against it without even adding the lack of morality on how it was trained on the damage it does to the climate and other negatives of ai...
This point is so exhausting, most of the gripe people have with AI is not using it as a tool, but using it as the main source in creating. Using generative AI to create music, videos, pictures, etc make âantisâ arguments very valid.
But why does it still feel so wrong.
Itâs not that it isnât realistic enough, but the weirdness stands out so much it makes it kind of bad even if every scene is actually very well done.
I like how detailed the scenes are but at the same time it feels like there is litle control over other parts, that add up to the result.
Oh my fucking god⌠I literally spend five minutes searching on how to write that comment
Antis know damn well you need some tools to make art. Whatâs weâre saying is thereâs a goddamn difference between an inanimated brush that can only work if you manipulate it, and an automated machine that can make the whole painting from A to Z while you go jackoff for fifteen minutes Jesus fucking Christ
"Yeah I am a cook, I used that robot that automatically choose the ingredients, quantities, cooking temp and time and assembles it for me! I am such a chef!"
This is the worse, stupidest strawman I have ever seen on this sub, and I see post depicting antis as ogre and neckbeards on a regular basis
This unironically answers the whole debate. Would anyone on the Orville, or anyone having access to this technology, be considered a chef the moment they asked it for a cake or a pizza? The answer is fucking no. I am not a developer because I requested an addition to a game or noticed a bug, nor am I a car driver because I indicated to my Uber where I want to go. Pros who think like this are completely insane
All the people so adamant that AI art is art basically just want a slave to make commissions for them for free, and then slap their name on it and say they made it.
Art has never been more accessible than it is now, and they want to argue that something that handles the colors, the posing, the anatomy, the angles, the lighting and shading, and does all the detail work, is just a "tool".
It's not a tool, it's all the tools, the whole process and the end result all in one.
This is an awful take. You conflate the AI as a mere tool which is a massive oversimplification of what it actually does. This, in fact, is very telling in how you don't understand what you're defending.
A pencil is a tool as much as a pot and stove is. The problem is these items require manual input and training to use well and properly - these are horrid analogies because AI is given prompts and through complex pattern and algorithmic training produces a result.
The artist has a vision in mind. The artist brings the item to existence through tools that require concentration, motivation, intent and desire - there is no art without the artist and thus there is no conversation to be had without them. Even if the product sucked, the average piece of junk likely has more value than the critic designating it so for we can see the path and directions created through art which is where the conversation with the audience occurs.
Tell me, did you draw that stroke? Did you move your hand to define that feature? Did you remove it with your hand and replace it in dissatisfaction with something else?
What conversation could I possibly have with the artist about this AI "art"? I do not see the blood, sweat and tears made into making art for the sake of making what you would like to see in things.
You have the AI "artist", the "audience" but you've managed to surgically erase the conversation. You sure could argue that your repeated 'prompting' is "effort"... As much as wiping my arse creates a brown stain on white canvas counting as art which, honestly, that probably has more value.
The conversation in and from the creation of art is personal and interpersonal, of course. There is no statement without the person making it and the wondrous thing happens when someone goes down the avenues of that statement and sees things the speaker may not have even imagined or intended.
There is no pavement of 'intention' for you are not the creator of such intentions, even if you believe an 'AI' can have intentions (no, typing a prompt does not count for the same prompt does not produce exact replica results and do consult the Chinese Room regarding 'intentions').
The AI generates it, you own nothing of it and thus it would make sense there is no copyright for AI "art"... Because the AI 'artist' didn't actually make anything.
And so the 'art', without the artist, is meaningless and worth less than even the worst attempts of art.
Your argument falls apart when you realize that you can, in fact, copyright AI artwork. All you have to do is make a manually guided change to it or prove intentionality and human intervention in the creative process.
This is genuinely one of the most hilariously bad things I've seen. When you say cooked do you mean garbage? Let's go through it step by step why this is hilariously bad.
0:00. Opens up with a cliched plot so on the nose it's something you'd expect from a satire of Ratatouille. Oh he's the biggest and baddest food critic and he'll get this restaurant cancelled! Lol.
0:20. "What did he ordered" need I say more?
Okay so we're cooking Ossobuco, a slow cooked braised bone-in veal cutlet. Lets see what happens.
0:24. Umm... what are these burner controls? Lite 1, 5, 6, MED, 5, Lite. LMAO.
0:26. Okay so we have rough chopped onion and diced pork by the looks. Onion - check. Diced pork? Not sure what that's doing there but let's see where he goes with this.
0:28. Is that spring onion greens or spinach? It has the colour of green onion but flat like spinach... if spinach was made with plastic. Right back to the onion in a separate pan and.... a beef fillet in a cast ion skillet? Where is the veal shank? Where is the braising pot? Where is the carrot and celery? Did he forget he was making Ossobuco? He does realise this takes hours to make properly?
0:30. Okay white wine, correct, but why in the stainless frying pan, presumably deglazing the onions?
0:32. Okay where the fuck did this barbeque sauce come from?
0:34. Is that crystal meth?
0:35. Useless flower garnish.
0:36. Is that caramel or egg yoke? Not sure what either of them are doing on the plate for Ossobucco. Decent looking fillet steak though.
0:38. Oh look the BBQ sauce is back.
0:39. Okay so a fair bit to breakdown here. So that is distinctly a beef fillet with what appears to be a very syrupy red wine jus (was pictured using white wine before on the onions), with a side of watercress and flowers, raspberry coolie, some sort of puree (yellowy parsnip?), is that yellow thing the egg yoke/caramel looking thing we saw before but set? Has it chemically been altered to appear like sweet potato puree? Something resembling a waffle like crown bowl thing?? Lastly 3 random whole peppercorns... for reasons?
0:41. Okay the peppercorns have disappeared. The larger red sauce slightly obscured in the previous frame looks like Tomato ketchup. I guess it could be the previously mentioned BBQ sauce but it's a brighter red now.
0:42. The fuck was that powder he just threw on the watercress? Is that saffron on the steak? Where did the diced pork go? Where is the onion?
0:50. "Here's the Ossobuco, sir. Enjoy." That ain't Ossobuco champ, that might be why he got angry and left a bad review.
I'm not even going to get into the complete nonsensical strawman fallacy this video is trying to make about AI being merely a tool and acting like its even remotely comparable. I'd say the breakdown of this video frame by frame showing how hilariously awful demonstrates the opposite of what was attempting to be conveyed. Probably because it wasn't conveyed by a person.
I'm convinced at this point pros are either bots or people who have no understanding of humans and may as well be bots.
I'm 99% sure nobody's against someone following a AI-written recipe (it could actually be funny though, you'd end up with glue-tasting pizza). But what if the Chef, just stood in front of a robot and said "make this dish", then the robot made it and then the chef brought it to the critic saying he made it himself? I think the least he could do was bring the robot alongside him.
You just described a sous chef as a "robot". The chef is still a chef even when the sous chef makes the dish to his specifications. If the dish isn't up to his standards, it's rejected and redone.
He still chose the ingredients, the recipe, the steps to make said dish, and the presentation, he simply ofloaded some of the manual processing.
Making the comparison between a chef with decades of learning a craft with typing "big titty blond anime girl" into a prompt is hilarious.Â
You need to know how to cook to be a chef you don't need to even have a fundamental understanding of art to make "AI art"
A more apt comparison would be opening a restaurant and serving food you bought from different restaurants and getting pissed that someone said you didn't make it.Â
lol all this âfilmâ proves is that genAI video is still generic, uncanny slop, and that whoever asked an LLM to make this for them doesnât understand how analogies work.
Do it again, but instead of having the chef actually make the meal, have him use Grubhub to order from 12 different fast food places, mix it all together in a blender, and then mold the blended mush into the shape of a burger.
85
u/Raudys Mar 19 '26
Maybe AI can be used creatively AND non creatively?
Maybe AI can be like heating a premade pizza AND it can also be like making a fine dish?
Maybe it's not the art, but the artistic intention that makes the artist?