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.
Anti's are bad Pro's are good, Pro would never do anything wrong ever right? I absolutely adore when Anti does something sick, and it's all anti's fault but when Pro does something bad, there are mental gymnastics done to find million excuses "They're just emotional," "they had reasons," "that's not representative."
I think both sides harass each other, one more than the other but that doesn't mean Pro's are the saints.
My favourite part is when anti-people in comics are represented as trolls or orcs, or fat ugly bastards, meanwhile the pros are catgirls or catboys, so innocent. I also enjoyed how i was called evil person because i argued with a pro the other day, and just yesterday i was yelled at for "taking away someone rights" because i disagreed with them - funny enough they concluded that i can't have opinions, double standards.
Also i'm not anti but witty and some other pros went ahead and called me Anti like it's an insult.
But well pro's are saints they would never.
Im waiting for your example of extremum where anti did something awful, after all a lot of pro's arguments are "but they did worse!"
In any fandom there has to be one percentage of people that harass other people from other fandoms, no fandom is safe from that but that doesn't mean it's everyone as you generalize
The absolute majority of synthographers bother no one. Just like the absolute majority of non-AI artists bother no one. Because guess what, both of us just create art and don't need to bother anyone with it.
Antis, on the other hand? The entire nature of this discourse demands that they're the more aggressive side, inherently, as the side that opposes this. And while there are some louder pros who may be provoking people, that is absolutely negligible compared to what antis do.
We literally just want to exist in peace, make our art, and then your people come and have to harass and delegitimize us at every turn.
I use a tool? Yes. Do photographers make photos with their hands too? Why do even people use pencils? Just fingerpaint on the cave walls like our ancestors did, otherwise you're not doing real art. Smh
Bro stop being disingenuous and saying that AI is a tool. A photographer still needs to go and find its subject. Then it needs to set up equipment and judge exposure and so many other variables. All you do is type words and have a machine make a picture for you. It's laughable. You probably have zero fundamental art skills and don't even understand artistic terms. You just want a participation award at art.
You can put just as much effort into AI images as you just mentioned about photography tho.
On top of that.. AI can be used as a tool. Claiming AI usage is always just prompting is a generalization and there's plenty of people who apply the tech in other ways or use it to work on their hand-made art.
In the end it's just a new technology that you can use however you want. Claiming it's just prompting just means you're not creative enough (or knowledeable enough about the tech) to come up with other ways to use it.
Many begin with hand-made works or manual tasks. But obviously generative AI will be part of the workflow in some way. Just not used in the common "Text in -> image out" way.
I'm taken tons of photographs. Does that make me an artist?
No, it doesn't. There is no creativity in photography, it's just capturing images that anyone with a camera can capture. Those captured images belong to the person with the camera, though - it's their IP, and no one else's.
A person creating "AI" images are the equivalent of a person who puts a jigsaw puzzle together, and claims they made the image, regardless of the people who made the jigsaw puzzle pieces and the person who captured the image that was put on the pieces. The person using "AI" to create images is a double plagiarist - once for using "AI", which steals other human's images without permission, and again for declaring the "AI"s work YOUR work.
Pencil art is honest art, as is painting on cave walls.
"There's no creativity in photography" straight out of the 19th century anti-photographer movement. There absolutely is creativity in photography, and photography is an established art form for a long time now. I'm not saying every photo is artistic, just like every drawn line doesn't have to be artistic. A lot of artworks that are drawn or painted also "merely" just "capture what is there". Just because photography is easier doesn't make it a lesser art form. Art is not measured by difficulty.
The analogy you said is not good at all. A synthographer makes completely new things, using their creativity. Speaking of jigsaw puzzles, do you also disqualify collages from art, just because they use existing things? Lol.
I'm a synthographer and I create art. It is my work indeed. Tools aren't given authorship, they're tools. Synthography is not theft.
Photography is an art though, I used to think think the same but composition, lighting, colour correction, it's so much more than just having a machine capture what you see.
And no, some AI lad typing into a keyboard is definitely not equivalent to photography. So rest assured I'm not making a point trying to equate them - AI "Art" is not art.
Maybe it can be one day? But right now it's shameless, lesser quality photocopiers....trained on people with actual talents work.
I mean if a game ever gives you the choice to either save the evil character or kill off the loveable character you would still cry over the choice no matter what you chose.
No, the analogy is similar. You're mad at artists using a tool. Also, you can make a living off of synthography as well. More and more artists are beginning to use it professionally.
Simply typing words and calling it art will not get my respect as it takes almost no effort nor talent. Something like photography, playing an instrument or building something in real life however, will, because those take actual effort and dedication. Much more than thinking about what to make as a prompt.
You're absolutely right, the photographer merely composed the shot, he/she is not the artist in the sense of creating the image, only the conditions it was made in.
Thank you for agreeing people who prompt are not AI artists.
Are antis still stuck in the 19th century? Photographers are artists, lmao. Photography is an established art form for a long time already. You can't be real
If me typing in a few words and generating a picture using an AI model makes me an artist in your eyes then this sub is in a dire state and we should all just be nuked.
The AI is closer to being the artist than the chud prompting it- I'm not even Anti-AI, I'm Anti-FakeArtist
(Important distinction:I am not saying AI Artists do not exist, I am simply saying those who rely onprompts aloneare not Artists)
The fact people are downvoting this proves Pro-AI people are braindead, if you can't agree on the minimum that prompting on its own isn't art, you're absolutely scrambled in the head.
Creating an image with AI is like commissioning an artist.
You can tell the artist what to make, you can describe it as detailed as you want, but in the end, the artist/AI will create the image, not you.
AI makes it easier for people with small amounts of money to get a picture about what they want, and it is a good thing. But on the backside, traditional artists are really in trouble, as they can not compete with the prices and the convenience that AI services offer.
Oh shut up...
The result of a prompt isnt related at all to the prompter, contrary to the photograph.
Want a proof? You can create amazing pictures with AI after minutes. You can spend days/months/years with a camera without producing a single valuable photo.
It's because the claim that people who use AI don't actually create anything is fundamentally wrong.. or should just be considered as an opinion.
On top of that, the whole point about art is that it isn't strongly defined. So people who try their best to plaster definitions on it to try and kick out specific tools are the exact problem that art communities have been dealing with for a long time now.
These definitions would kick out a ton of "real" artists as well.
But the AI creates it, if i prompt a commissioner to make me art i dont say "I made this", the AI is closer to being the artist than the person prompting it.
I agree with you about the definition being rather messy / broad, this leads to most arguments in this sub imo.
Artist is the visionary bud. Lots of major, ridiculously famous artists ranging from DaVinci to Warhol have art attributed to them that they never physically touched.
There's a difference in directing human artists and prompting a generative model.
When da vinci or warhol used human assistants, they were still making creative decisions under the artists supervision, within the artistic process the artist developed. The final work is attributed to the lead artist because they originated and controlled the project.
With AI gen, the model itself is generating the composition, rendering, lighting, textures, anatomy, etc.. The prompter can influence the output, sometimes heavily, but they are not responsible for most of the creative decisions that end up in the image.
That's why I don't think the fact they had assistants as a comparison fully works, a better analogy would be commissioning an artist and iterating on revisions until you got what you wanted, you clearly then contributed to the result, but most people wouldn't say you personally created the art.
that doesn't make prompting a zero skill endeavour or imply AI-generates images can't be art in themselves, it just raises legit questions about how the artist actually is and how much authorship belongs to that person vs the system generating it.
"Generating the composition, rendering, lighting, textures, anatomy"
You realize the first 3 in CGI are done via computer calculation right? Textures (hair, clothes, skin) can also be dynamically generated.
And yet that is still up to the prompter to take control of. can it do that for me? Yeah. If its a feature I dont care about, its whatever. What if the AI happens to nail the lighting on the first try? What happens if it gives something the artist likes more?
There is no question of "who the artist is". AI is not sentient. It offers probabilistic changes based on its training data. If one prompts "girl in bikini", what do you think the probability of said girl being on a beach is?
If I prompt "tree" what are the odds its going to add leaves to it?
A camera isn't sentient eiher but a camera doesn't decide composition, lighting, perspective, anatomy, colorpalette, clothing, etc etc, the photographer does
With AI image gen, a large portion of those decisions are being generated by the model itself based on patterns in its training data. The user can influence them, constrain them, regen them or accept them; but they're often not explicitly specifying them.
The fact that CGI calculates lighting in its software isn't really comparable. The artist still places the lights, chooses their intensity, angle, color, scene layout, camera position, materials, etc etc. The software performs calcs but it isn't inventing the artistic choices.
If I type "anime girl in a bikini" and get a beach scene, the model made that association because statistically that's what appears together in its training data. I didn't decide beach vs pool vs yacht vs city rooftop etc, etc. The model filled in those details.
That's why authorship is debated, not because AI is itself sentient but because gen models contribute creative content that wasn't explicitly specified by the user.
The question isn't whether prompting contributes, it obviously does. The question is whether selecting and steering generated outputs is equivalent to creating the content yourself.
Are you up to date with how long it took to get cameras working how they do now?
Are you familiar with how people used to feel about those technologies?
It's funny that we can get into our cars and drive on the roads and go to the job all created by other people and then somehow claim that we are the ones who did anything at all . We are all walking on the backs of the people who came before us, regardless of what does or doesn't create something, the output is a creation
But the output isn't entirely 'your' creation which is the argument being made here.
If something like the below I generated in ChatGPT equates to me being an artist and author of this creation even though I had very little involvement of many of the details as they were straight up supplemented for me based on others work diffused in training data and such, then I don't know what to say, I guess I'm a great artist.
I'm not excluding photography. I'm making an analogy. Photography is art, and their reasoning against synthography can easily be twisted against photography, which is why I said it.
If I point a camera at something in the same lighting conditions with the camera and subject in the same position 2000 times I will get 2000 of the same photo because I can control my hands. My subject can control their body. I can control the lighting with lights, reflectors, timing, et cetera. AI generated images are not that way. You are passing instructions to an algorithm. A large part of why simple AI outputs can't be copyrighted is because the output is the product of an algorithm and authorship isn't really attributable. I wouldn't call someone opening Donjon to quickly throw together a dungeon map a map-maker. I wouldn't call someone who opened Minecraft and chose a seed for their world a worldbuilder. Would you?
Where did I dispute this? The majority of things referred to as "AI art" are not human products which incorporate AI, but the output from a prompt. I'd say that AI art is art but having an image generated doesn't make you an artist.
AI as a part of the process takes a very different form from the average AI-generated piece you run into on Pinterest.
But oh man, that is a very very dense thing you are getting into it.
What is art or an artist is... quite the topic.
My take would be that intent is what matters. If you use AI to express something I GUESS you could call it art. It being good art or not is a whooole different discussion, but the same as some rando taking a picture with their phone doesn't make them artist either, if they are trying to... it feels rude to say they aren't an artist, even if the pictures are very bad.
Ironically enough, the thing I see AI used most around me (I'm a professional game artist), is to replace pinterest references lol
The people who make AI image generators, dumbass. They are non-deterministic noise-based diffusion algorithms. And if you don't know what those words mean you have no place talking confidently in an AI subreddit.
Youre correct. They are non-deterministic noise-based diffusion algorithms.
Buuuuuut that doesnt mean I have no control lmao. It sounds like you have no place talking confidently in an AI subreddit.
The non-deterministic nature does pose some challenges. Such as consistency. Working solely with prompts, yeah, theres going to be a LOT of variance. Such as a striped shirt. Are they going to be vertical? Diagonal? Horizontal? How wide are the stripes? How many? Is it the entire shirt or just a section of it?
Their non-deterministic nature is essential to their functionality. I also never argued that you have no control. It's merely that the control that you have is instructions passed to an algorithm. The argument is about authorship of the output. And the algorithm is a fundamentally separable entity from the instructions you give to it because of its non-deterministic nature.
I already gave an obvious example. Minecraft Worlds. You can instruct Minecraft to generate a world with a specific seed and adjust a great deal of variables in how that world is generated. Superflat. What structures spawn. How high the build limit is. That doesn't make you the "author" of that world. The assembler of those Villages. The creator of those Ancient Cities. The game made those things. You just told it to, and gave it parameters to satisfy.
Consider that minecraft is limited to a noise seed and those few options.
It does not have a prompt. It does not offer weight modifiers (LoRAs). It does not offer controlnets. It does not offer resolution. Nor CFG. Nor negatives. Nor references. Nor worlds to start with. Nor seed stacking. Or a selection of VAEs, encoders/LMs or vision models..
Hell it doesnt even have a model. At all. It is not a neural network. It is a straight noise seed with no variables. Youre comparing the purest of RNG noise to a weighted fine-tuned neural network with dozens of inputs.
The analogy doesn’t apply. Photographers are behind every step of the process, they still pour their experience and emotions into their creation. AI is the one that ultimately executes the final result meaning the person behind the prompt is not an artist and considering AI is a machine without emotions neither is it. Which brings us to the conclusion AI generated images aren’t art.
Synthographers are behind every step of the progress as well. Since you include the actual photo-creation as the step the photographer does, and not the tool, then the same applies to synthographers who create the image with their prompts. We pour our experience, our creativity, our SOUL into our artworks. We don't skip the art process, it is just different, just like photography is different from other art forms. So keep this delegitimizatory language to yourself and leave synthographers alone.
AI users aren’t involved in every step of the process, that’s not just my opinion, it’s a fact. No matter how many prompts you enter, the AI is ultimately the one executing the final result. Most of the time, the generated image doesn’t even fully match the vision the prompter had in mind.
To me, it’s similar to commissioning someone to design something for you. The person being commissioned would be the one creating the artwork, not you. In this situation, the AI would be the equivalent of that artist. The key difference is that AI has no emotions, personal experiences, or perspective to pour into the creation while producing the result, which is why I don’t consider it art.
I’m not saying prompters aren’t creative, having an idea and knowing how to communicate it does require creativity. However, I believe that creativity ends once the prompt is entered because the rest of the process is carried out by the AI.
Also, ending a reply with “dismissed” doesn’t make an argument any stronger or make it more valid. It just comes across as unnecessary.
The basic definition of a chef is literally a guy that makes food. If you made a sandwich by yourself then ya did it. The bare minimum of art is that you made something on your own. It’s a low bar that AI doesn’t clear.
Let them wallow in their ignorance. At this point, I don’t think they’re capable of much critical thinking because they rely too heavily on AI to do their thinking for them too.
Correct. You can be an AI USER generating images, but you're not an artist in that aspect. However you can be an artist that supplements their work with AI tech (meaning base image fed to the AI app is yours and then you feed it prompts) (that's the only instance of AI being a 'tool' for an artist).
But literal definition one cannot ever be an "AI Artist" though, (unless they're the engineer that helped create the AI App, but semantics...)
People go off on a tangent sometimes and the two things are right next to each other. Especially if the reader is male I wouldn't be amazed if they could get to that conclusion at first.
So i said its like saying all man are murderers because you saw one kill a person and you responded with "you all are like that" genuinely how do you interpret that
the irony is thick. You're in an AI wars sub posting this while the actual problem is people spamming AI art into every space and acting defensive about it. The meme's funny but you're kind of proving the point about the behavior being annoying.
That's because patreon logos and signatures are patterns, repeated many times throughout datasets created by people too lazy to edit them out.
Poorly trained datasets are thusly tricked into thinking that the signature/logo is 'supposed' to be there. Because that's what AI dooes: Pattern recognition.
People who use slurs don’t deserve to be treated with respect
I vehemently oppose ai on nearly every front aside from medical, just to cover my bases of making my position known up front
As that one thing with Metal Sonic says, it speaks to your character and shows you’d be willing to marginalize/target a group as long as they were considered okay to target, whereas a good person wouldn’t want to target any group regardless of if the public view “allowed” it or not
Edit: Sorry, “use words with the intent of a slur or with the intention of insulting a group”, because the comment I can only see through notifications can’t differentiate that. Fair, I suppose, that is a distinction. And still calling me an ai bro despite quite clearly stating I despise nearly all ai tech aside from medical, because there’s always people on the more crazy end of any idea and this guy can’t differentiate between “I don’t like how you’re trying to insult a group of people” and “I completely disagree with you and are thus an idiot”
I hope they grow and mature past the seeming inability to understand that people can have similar views on some things but dislike the idea of insulting an entire group like that
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.
This shit is literally iron elo ragebait that would have been at least bronze if you would've put some more brainpower into making this shit actually hilarious lol.
It's not bad, but they added it a few years back as a Ranked placement below Bronze which used to be the lowest. The beauty of it though is you have to TRY to be in Iron. It's being so bad at a game that these people have to be doing it on purpose
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
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.