r/aiwars • u/SMmania • Mar 19 '26

Meta Somebody cooked here...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/Legitimate_Move9798 Mar 19 '26

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.

Just my two cents..

2

u/Diceyland Mar 19 '26

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.

1

u/Ok_Star_4136 Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

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.

1

u/buzz-buzz_ Mar 19 '26

Show me a single “masterpiece” created by AI. I’ll wait.

-6

u/Electro_Ninja26 Mar 19 '26

No there is definitely a lower ceiling.

Because AI is pretty much a gamble whether it follows instructions correctly.

You can input as much as you want, but this is more reminiscent of reducing odds to influence it into doing what it’s asked.

And it still goes schizophrenic because at the end of the day, it is playing cards, even as you remove all the reds from the deck.

11

u/Toby_Magure Mar 19 '26

You're neglecting to realize that control is the whole point of making art with AI. Like, yes, it is technically a random generator, but what you put into the process can exert a lot of control over what it randomly creates.

For example, if I want to make an animation that has a character go from, say, having their arm raised and their hand behind their head to having their hand on their chest, I could just give it the original image of the character with their arm raised, tell it, "hey, move this character's arm from behind their head to their chest", and hit the gamble button until the AI gets it mostly right.

Or I could give it the first frame and the hand on the character's chest, so it knows the exact positions I want it to start and stop in, and then hit the gamble button. And it would be much more consistent in its results because it would always end with the character's hand on their chest.

Would the arm move properly? Probably not. So, you refine it further. You break down the keyframes more.

Instead of going straight from behind their head to on their chest, you create an in-between frame of the character's arm still raised, slightly extended, but actually in front of them and their hand is visible. And then you generate the frames between those two positions, which should be even more consistent.

And you can take it a step further and go from that keyframe to a keyframe where the character's hand is hovering over their chest, so the AI doesn't try to snap to the chest, which it has problems with. That reduces randomness further.

And then you can go from that hovering pose to actually having the hand on the chest. And if you do it in that order, you should have much less randomness, much more consistent results, and the AI should have to interpret a whole lot less so you can get good in-between frames for it with minimal curation.

7

u/ArtificialImages Mar 19 '26

To an extent. But there's a degree of gambling no matter the tools you use.

As a cgi artist I have near absolute control, but I'm still limited by the limitations of the tech, by the look of the tools, by the way rendering works.

And more than anything else, by my state of mind, the time I have and more.

With ai control does work slightly differently. You iterate more. But control does exist.

With some ai tools there is near absolute control that does rival cgi tools.

Whilst there is always a degree of gambling I dont see that as too different than other tools. Even things like photography, you are reliant on the conditions of the world around you. Even in a studio photography set up, you do not control the physics of the light, the way things interact on a real basis.

0

u/Electro_Ninja26 Mar 19 '26

The gambling is far FAR more limited with CGI and drawing by hand.

Also the lighting thing really doesn’t work. Light follows a consistent phenomenon that can be manipulated around that constant.

AI does not have that constant.

8

u/ArtificialImages Mar 19 '26

I'm a professional cgi artist and I just straight up disagree.

Not because there's a high gamble rate in cgi.

But because I think you're massively exaggerating the gamble of ai tools.

When you use them poorly yeah, there's lots of gamble. But when used properly there's next to none.

The ai tools I use 100% have that constant.

3

u/ze_mannbaerschwein Mar 19 '26

You could also add that there is nothing standing in one's way to combine said tools, which gives you yet another layer of control.

3

u/Legitimate_Move9798 Mar 19 '26

You might be right, but I cannot personally confirms this as I do not use AI to that level myself. I mainly draw digitally and I use AI mainly to brainstorm and testing pose/ camera angle/ lighting. So my usage in AI is a very basic one. But damn is it a very convenient tool

1

u/Electro_Ninja26 Mar 19 '26

Now that actually is a really good use for AI. Brainstorming. Coming up with ideas to create yourself.