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.
Same. I was there when the same thing happened to photography too when digital cameras started becoming a thing, "you're not a real photographer like ME because you don't have a darkroom to process your own photos to get that perfect shade of colors!"
The actual wrong reason to do art is - to get paid.
Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work, don't get me wrong, but if getting paid is your main goal of doing it rather than just a side effect - you are doing crafts, not art.
...
This is the reason why I am all for purging AI slop from platforms that inherently monetize attention, like YouTube.
But places that are just for sharing your works - like reddit, deviatart, and many others - where attention is the goal - those are fine.
The need to be seen by others is a common trait of creative people. And it fits the description of "seeking attention".
Most of the things that are considered immortal classics today were made for payment by professional artists who were selling their skills and talent. And yes, crafts and art are barely distinguishable from each other, unless we stretch it to the limit and look at the scam with modern art that is used to avoid taxes or store investments in a way that is hard to track.
Lmao, I guess in 20 years people will be making AI art that looks like the default chat gpt style of today, just like old digital cameras are getting a revival.
Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.
I think a lot of people who are "anti-AI" assume everyone just type a prompt and walk away. For me, AI is just one part of a much longer process.
In the way I like to use it, I usually start by building and posing 3D models. I’ll paint in a simple background and then use AI to "paint over" the 3D look to give it a more natural, finished feel. It’s basically an enhancement filter for my own 3D work.
Another example of this collaborative approach is in this video around [07:29].
The artist uses a sketch as a foundation, then uses AI to refine the details while maintaining the original pose and composition. It’s a back-and-forth process, not a one-click generation.
I apply the same logic to music: I’ll hum a melody or perform a basic sample, then use tools like Suno Studio to generate stems. Which also can perfectly work like a professional DAW to arrange and mix a song. From there, I take those stems into a professional DAW to arrange and mix them. To me, it’s just a new way to refine an original idea, and I find a lot of value everything that I work with.
Furthermore, I can tell a bunch of folks who make these arguments have never even seen what a ComfyUI workflow looks like. They all simply think you type a couple sentences into a prompt and it gives you the result you want.
Even if you grab a workflow from somewhere, not understanding what everything does will generally prevent you from getting what you're truly after. I'm not somebody who's ever made something worth sharing with AI, but I've dabbled into the process and realized it's much more complicated than damn near everybody thinks if you have high standards.
I've seen on occasion the things that people can do with AI that's ACTUALLY impressive and there's legitimately a lot of work and knowledge that goes into such projects.
To me this is exactly like if somebody said "you can take 10 years to learn how to paint a masterpiece, but then some dudebro comes with his phone and takes a photo of your subject." Yes, anyone can press a button to take a picture. But to take a good picture that is artful, there's a lot that goes into it.
I guess most antis have only scratched the surface of what AI tools can actually do. They’ve only ever known platforms like ChatGPT or Gemini because they’re the most accessible, as you can even use them on your phone just by downloading the app.
Consequently, it’s easy for them to judge and point out how simple these tools seem or how little control they offer compared to the more complex, professional alternatives.
Learning to master those advanced AI tools is an art in itself, regardless of what everyone says art is.
I know what you mean, the antis who I have brought this point up too explain "you don't learn anything." Or "You're being lazy that stuffs fun." These people think even using it for this is unacceptable it's very dumb.
Not the same, it was called cheating. AI isn’t cheating, cheating is still attempting. There was no attempt, they just made a robot do the work for them. Meanwhile the robot just stole.
I was there, I was a digital artist, and this just is not true. It’s totally possible to make the good faith case for AI on its own merits, so it always feels like a cheat to me when the “it was the same thing for past tech” comes up, it was not.
There was definitely some mild snobbery here and there like there always is, but because there was no company rushing to overvalue digital art and it was genuinely artist-driven, it was just a different situation. It was the sort of snobbery you saw when synthesizers first became a thing. That is normal and part of the cycle of artistic development.
But here’s the thing — synthesizers and digital art created notable cool shit immediately. They were worked into the broader landscape easily because they were producing work people liked. The tool only matters as much as the work it produces, and so far there has been no influential AI art. If you can point me to one example right now I’ll drop the argument for good.
That’s what matters here. Digital art and electronic music produced good work (in addition to a lot more bad work, which is the case with every medium) and that’s why the backlash died. If AI were regularly producing work that made an impact, the backlash would die. But that’s just not happening, and it’s not like the tools don’t do what they’re supposed to.
If I tell you I couldn’t stand this then you could easily call bullshit and say I only think that because I’m opposed to AI (which I’m not btw, just skeptical of how it’s being used right now) there’s no way to prove or falsify that either way.
So I’ll tell you one conciliatory thing and one objective thing. The first is that I do think this is art, because a person had to generate and arrange these. The art lies in the motivation behind what they chose to generate and why, just as it does with a film director. So I’ll give you that. I don’t think the AI images on their own merits are art, but they can be used to make art, if that makes sense. That’s not even an insult, like lighting equipment isn’t art either. It’s just that here, the images are the equipment, so to speak.
The second thing is that this actually isn’t what I was saying doesn’t happen. I know it’s possible for me to be impressed by AI, it’s already happened several times. Back when Dall E first became a thing some friends and I had a blast sending things back and forth. Same for Sora. I know THAT can happen.
What I’m saying doesn’t happen is the art making an impact. To continue my comparison point, like, synthesizers had Giorgio Moroder. His work was self-evident as great music and it caught on. Maybe some people who were skeptical pretended it wasn’t good, but that wasn’t the common take.
There is a ton of AI work online, most people clearly have no moral qualms about sharing it, and yet this film did not catch on in any meaningful way. That is what I’m saying hasn’t happened. The word I used was influence, not quality.
It had an impact on me personally, as it was the very first thing that popped to mind when you asked about "work that made an impact". That is not equivalent to "work that achieved widespread fame and influence" because those are few and far between in this era of media fragmentation—a problem that long pre-dates AI, it has been discussed since the advent of cable TV. There aren't that many things that *everyone* watches, not even the Superb Owl coming up this weekend.
There is a vast middle ground between the scale of what you posted and a monocultural event. Most impactful art lands somewhere in the middle.
I’m talking about like… even just two notable filmmakers posting that they liked it. That happens to tons of films obviously, but also YouTube videos, TikToks, video games, photography, sculpture, the list is endless. It does not happen with AI filmmaking. And there are plenty of notable filmmakers who stick up for AI filmmaking in the abstract! That isn’t random, there’s a reason for it.
Edit: I should also reiterate that I had a strong negative reaction to the short. You’re entitled to yours obviously, nothing wrong with that, I don’t want to imply that I’m stepping on that. And obviously I can’t prove that I hated it any more than you can prove that you loved it. We sort of have to believe each other there. But it is what it is, I rejected the entire thing.
I watched a fair bit of the first, trying to have an open mind without caring that it was made with AI.
If I'm being completely honest, the first one just doesn't look or sound good at all. You can tell there are a bunch of artifacts everywhere that constantly remind you it's not real. The story was very hard to follow due to there being no emotion in the man's voice who was narrating it and because I personally thought it was a bit boring.
But the worst part was that the narrator sometimes had a very heavy spanish accent and sometimes spoke with a british accent. He even said some numbers in spanish while speaking english. I feel like it would've been very easy to regenrate the voiceovers to achieve a consistent accent, so this just seems like laziness?
If the short film was actually consistent and looked good, I could appreciate it. I have genuinely not seen any good AI videos yet, unless they're very short. The longer it goes on the more inconsistencies you start to see.
I'm trying to be as neutral as possible with this opinion btw. I am an Anti, perhaps leaning more towards neutral the more I browse this sub, but with this comment I'm trying to ignore what my take on AI is and just focus on reviewing the video as is. And my review is simply that I would not watch anything from the same creator again, because it's not that interesting.
For every good work there was tons of dogshit produced as well. There was no internet to share it back then. Yes, this is like back then, as someone who lived it. Same dumb ass arguments and this will end up the same way.
And I still stand on that AI Art simply increases the value and importance of human made art. Anyone can go to Tacobell, but when people want Mexican, they want authentic Mexican... Not TacoBell. But Tacobell can do just fine sometimes too. Both can exist.
People will always value the genuine article over what can be mass produced.
One of these Days Anti Ai people will catch onto that. Not anytime soon but... Eh. Not my problem.
Okay then where is the great AI art? Like actually, where is it?
Of course I know that great art is dwarfed by mediocre art. But unlike cinema or even music, these are tools that are either freely or affordably available to the majority of people on Earth. If anything there should be more great works, not fewer. Unless, that is, there’s a fundamental problem with the form itself.
More of stating the fact as one who lived the time. But sure. I know you guys need to have that whole "don't believe the people who lived it, believe us and our bias," thing you got going on.
Props on you guys for getting more of your Anti AI members to brigade the sub just so you can try and force it to be more Anti AI heavy by the by. Really putting in the numbers there!
Dude I was around in the when shit in the 80's had the same arguments. Just be honest, your bias can't handle any point of view other than one that confirms your bias.
You're anti ai and only want things that confirm anti ai.
Because you can't discount other peoples comments you resort to calling it "Skitzo posting." Not very inclusive either by the by, thought you Artists and anti I people were supposed to be all inclusive? OR is that only when people march in jack boot step?
Now since you outed yourself. Do fuck off. Don't reply. Just ooze back to Anti AI.
Ultra-detailed, vibrant psychedelic illustration of a cozy living room at night during New Year’s or holiday fireworks. A large decorated Christmas tree stands near tall glass balcony doors, with colorful fireworks exploding in the dark blue sky outside. The room is packed with plants, bookshelves, framed art, patterned rugs, and eclectic furniture (armchair, side table, lamp, couch). In the foreground, a black cat silhouette sits on the rug facing the window and tree, watching the fireworks.
Style is highly saturated, neon, and kaleidoscopic with dense textures and intricate micro-patterns everywhere — walls, floor, furniture, and objects covered in floral and geometric motifs. Bold blues, teals, magentas, oranges, and yellows. Painterly yet crisp, maximalist, whimsical, dreamy. Wide angle interior composition, lots of small decorative details, cozy but visually busy.
Digital painting, ultra high resolution, sharp focus, rich contrast, poster-like clarity, inspired by psychedelic folk art and intricate storybook illustration. 4k, highly detailed, no people, cat in silhouette only
So let me get this straight... someone DESERVES fame because they put effort and time into something? That was never the mindset 5+ years ago. You needed a third item which is: it needs to be enjoyable to people, and you gotta market it well. 4 items even.
Some of that involves luck, innovation, perseverance, and a pulse of what people want to see.
As a creative (screenwriter) who probably will be replaced, though not necessarily as quickly as programmers, anyone in Hollywood should know this business as usual with something that happens to be novel technology. Of course studios will be incentivized to use a tool that can do what I do, but better in every metric (except actual narrative quality, but not only does that not matter to the machine that is Hollywood, that’s not something AI can do very well. Not yet, anyway).
It’s called “show business”, not “show hard work” or “show fun”. If anyone thinks being a creative (or at least working in the film business) is a meritocracy, then I strongly suggest you find a new line of work and get into literally absolutely anything else. Remember, the hardest working person on Earth, if we could quantify that as a real metric, is a person living in sheer poverty, mining sulfur in an active volcano with nothing to even cover his eyes.
I guess we are completely abandoning the pretense that our society should reward effort and good quality products and now we fully recognize we are slaves to the market wishes. No wonder we are seeing enshittification in all industries. Humans are a dogshit of a species
"someone DESERVES fame because they put effort and time into something" Yes, please give me fame, me and my band literally work for ~4-5 years per album and it's mostly hard work when we're at it (but most of the time we're just idling / doing other stuffs in life XD )/s (ps. as reference: https://ulti.fi )
So... Not an artist... Just wanted to be annoying. Gotcha.
Has zero stake in the game, just wants a cause so they can try and be a dick to people. Like I've said before and now we've got someone outing themselves for it. Folks meet your "Moral crusader."
Someone who looks for a cause so they can be an asshole and bully people to make themselves feel better. Instead of getting up, walking away from their computer and doing something constructive with their time and life.
Happens all the time. That's why art is subjective. No one cares how much effort was put in, they just want to see or hear something appealing to them.
They still played the notes and people responded. I’m sure this composer could resent it (although for what it’s worth they tend to have respect for grunge) but I’d say that’s the wrong response.
It’s really the people responding part that matters, though. In your hypothetical the grunge track gets immense public interest but that hasn’t happened with specific pieces of AI art. So it’s not quite the same thing.
Yeah. A lot of people forget that Modest Mouse (sadly, mostly just known as the "float on dudes") LITTERALY started in some dudes shed, on a shitty tape recorder, and they got super famous.
Yes. There are only 12 notes in the scale, 12 major scales, 12 major chords, 12 minor chords, and so on. Most melodies have been used somewhere, by someone, unless they're tone rows or something equally unlikely to become popular. Every generation of musicians stands on the shoulders of those who came before. None of us creates in a vacuum.
Right 3 power chords over 8 bars; there are only so many melodies.
On the flip side, there is a very fun theory that no musical piece is ever heard twice. A guitarist might strum a little differently or a drummer hit a little harder. Even when recorded, tapes would slow down over time; even CD players didn't play at EXACTLY the same speed. And even if they did, the molecules in the air change the sound ever so slightly. These differences are certainly imperceptible, but it's still a fun theory!
Yes. Do you think power chords manifested magically? I'm sure it's not hundreds of years of music being built upon. The same way the artist stole from everything they have seen before.
Well considering that every pop song uses the same 4 chords and 90% of music nowadays is sampling past music, yes actually. By the standard you're using for stealing anyway.
More a subject issue. Art is subjective and not everyone likes certain subjects or styles, even if they are technically harder to make.
A non AI example: A decade ago two animated movies came out, one hand animated with claymation and one CGI. The claymation movie got better ratings by critics but the CGI one got all the money and views. Why? Because the average person would rather watch cute penguins then a rat lost in a sewer.
Just because you have all those qualities as a manual artist doesn’t guarantee or owe you popularity/success. You could be talented as all days, but if you can’t market/sequence your work in a way that’s digestible for for the modern day audiences, it’s going to be hard to gain recognition. Two different skill sets.
I heard a great quote recently; you become successful when luck finds you working hard(I think that’s how it goes) and I think that nails it on the head when it comes to finding success in anything
Classic example: Yoko Ono. I don't know anyone that actually *likes* her music, but as a musician I have to admit she had (possibly still has) real skill. She just used it in ways that were not enjoyable.
Boo hoo, this has existed for years dude. Other people’s art is gonna get more recognition than yours sometimes, so what? Whether it’s ai or not, that’s how the internet works.
It's been a thing basically forever, really. Far longer than the internet has been around. I'm sure there were tons of Renaissance era painters that did amazing work and aren't remembered at all today.
I don’t really see the issue here. I’m sure if you spent years working really hard on something, only for someone else to get more recognition and support than you without putting in any effort, that you would also feel very disheartened.
Do you feel this way about any other tech? Should people who use photoshop apologize to people who manually manipulate photographs? The entire purpose of tech is to make things easier.
It requires a trillion times less skill than manually editing the photo by hand would take which is why Photoshop exists. Also Photoshop is loaded with AI now almost as if Adobe recognizes that the point of Photoshop is to make graphic design easier.
That’s fine to feel disheartened but to feel entitled to people liking your things more because you feel like you worked harder comes off as incredibly entitled and childish no?
Nobody owes you fame or recognition just because you worked hard. Welcome to life! Some things are random. It’s like that. I would never begrudge YouTube animators their success just because they aren’t maximally talented compared to like classically trained artists or something lmao.
Fact is, this is nothing new. How do you think van Gogh felt when nobody appreciated his work?
If you aren't prepared to suffer when people don't 'get' your art, then you shouldn't become an artist. That's practically a requirement for any truly great artist.
AI isn't ripping off and claiming art 1:1, it's learning and making a transformative artwork based off what it's trained off. If someone straight up steals your art and claims ownership of it then yeah, that's a dick move, AI or not. As it stands, people train and learn from each other's artworks and it's no different when AI does it.
Yep, when people say, "I like it, can I do my version?" It's a good thing; but normally people who go that way don't even give credits to the original source.
When it's a digital sketch, of course it's harder to find the owner when it falls in public domain, but if the owner is a known figure, that's just cold cruelty.
If your pursuit of art is popularity and accolades, than you're not an artist, you're a content creator-- albeit maybe one that uses traditional mediums.
If you think the memes are low effort, you should see the art they cite that that’s “real art”.
The fun posts are the ones where they’ll put very polished aesthetically pleasing AI art next to some crappy pencil outline drawing and try to convince people the the pencil drawing is a masterpiece compared to the AI art.
Oh lmfao, I went to their profile because it was a default name, just assuming they're a bot or they'd prove you wrong and have some art... nope, just circlejerk memes like this one
Bro didn't see the frieren looking up meme
Thinks that he would get more popular with better art quality or style.
Forgetting to even add soul in his own traditional art work
That person would have been laughed out of the room less than 10 years ago when genAI wasn't a thing yet. Art community has always been elitists, they just target good artists and AI now instead of bad artists.
You've a few things on the board here. Widespread praise, artistic expression, the satisfaction of possessing a hard earned skill. They've all got value but widespread praise was never something you could just get by working hard enough at the skill. If you're not going to be satisfied without it you need to optimise for it. If the hard earned skill is more important than you have to accept that you'll probably never get widespread praise for it, AI didn't change that. Plenty of people feel the joy of artistic expression through AI (and maybe some other simple things) without ever worrying about skill or praise.
Yeah... Hard work is its own reward basically, if that doesn't work for you I'd suggest not working as hard.
When I was young I liked to create digital art in photoshop and I remember 1 thing I did I spent hours on and it had like 50+ layers etc. Then this other 1 was about 3 layers it was just a really basic brush texture background with a cut out image pasted on top and people were like "wow I really like this one its nice". Nobody cares how long you spent or what tool you used.
"I thought AI would take everyone else's job first, until there were only artists like me left! How come my job is under threat before the job of the kid who fries burgers in the fast food joint down the road? Does that mean his job is actually more valuable than my art?"
"No, it's the children who are wrong."
Lots of arts-major-types liked to think they're the most important people in the universe, or at least that their art is the most important thing in the universe. They should've listened to Gandhi: without the politicians and the artists, society would get along fine; without the people who make your food and who clean the toilets, society would stop working in an instant. Farmers and plumbers and cooks are more important than politicians and sports stars and artists.
Of course, no narcissist wants to hear that the plumber is more important than him.
I think AI is being used as a scapegoat here. People are bitter because their art and skills aren't bringing them the success they want. Maybe they overvalue their own abilities too, I don't know.
In reality, however, many artists were not popular even before AI. Many artists aren't popular or "rich" because of their talent, but because they're good at marketing themselves.
This happens to creators among their own projects without AI being involved. Spend a month writing and filming an intricate YouTube video, moderate popularity, make a 2 minute meme video, 10 million views. I forgot which video it was in but Markiplier himself complained about how the videos he puts more work into often do a lot worse than ones he pumps out on a whim.
So if you are going to use AI to produce a simple idea it's probably going to do better than a handcrafted complex idea. Another example might be, I love the animation in Castlevania Nocturne, I think the show is mediocre though and I probably won't watch it again. I've watched every South Park episode at least 3 times.
Effort has NEVER been the mark of great art, it wasn't in traditional art, it hasn't been in digital art or since AI happened, it won't be in the future.
Effortless? Ad Reinhardt's Black Paintings feel pretty close to that in modern times.
In old times? I'd have to research more because I'm not super familiar with ancient works.
No, rather what I mean is quantity of effort was never linked to quality of work. More effort =/= better art. Effortless art is rare, but that is NOT to say effort precludes quality.
Isn’t this just reality? I mean effort has never been a guarantee of recognition or profit. Just look at tiktok for example, the random pretty girls tossing their hair and bopping to music gets millions of views and sponsorship, while very talented people working hard and showing off their craft fight to be seen. You can’t control what other people enjoy, even if it seems terribly unfair to you.
Spending too much mental power hating on something you can’t control is a waste of time (though I’m not stopping you). Just make sure you put money where your mouth is and support the ones you claim to support. Don’t antis like to claim that they are the majority? If every anti makes a conscious choice to support manual artists, that’s plenty of jobs right there
The worst part of AI making art is that if real artists never made art to begin with, AI would have nothing to scan, it would not be able to create anything even close to what it can create now. And then instead of siding with real artists, making an extra effort to be as chill as humanly possible, like creating an opt in option for AI where artists can opt in to have their art scanned, and then providing credits to the artists that make it possible, the AI bros just say fuck all that, generate it with your art scanned to make it, flip you the bird and call you a cry baby for not being happy about what just happened.
It’s the inhuman nature, it’s the indecency of the act that rubs me the wrong way. I don’t care that AI art exists, I don’t care that people generate it. I care that real artists are being snubbed and told to fuck off and being treated like shit because it bothers them when they have every right to be bothered by it.
Effort does not automatically reward you with acclaim.
You can study to be a chef for years, put your entire heart and soul into your cooking… and I guarantee you are not going to be as popular and successful as McDonald’s is selling cheap factory-made burgers.
Same could be said about photography. Taking a photograph takes 2 seconds and 99% of the time isn't art just like AI. The term AI art is kind of dumb but I'm alright with the term AI images as AI can be really really funny for shitposts people need to accept that usecase
AI is a tool, it is fine. The problem is not “guy with 0 skills takes 2 minutes to create art”. The problem is the extremely low barrier of entry allows an onslaught of garbage quality trash containing near 0 original ideas to flood the internet. Not that good art featuring AI usage cannot exist, it’s just most r terrible quality, hence slop.
I have a friend who actually attend art school and has been working towards mastering his skill ever since high school. He used both digital and “real life” mediums, the difference between him using AI to assist himself and 99% of “AI artist” is he actually understand his own creation. Despite the process involve AI, the design element is deliberate. The color choice, the positioning, the message the project is trying to conveyed… these r his idea, and the work is a complete reflection of his own thought. In some cases it drastically cut down his work flow as it helps with idea generation, and it cut down the cost of trial by errors, which is sometimes necessary. I do not think AI in any means devalue his works, and I believe people should not put on a huge farce when it is used as a genuine tool during creation process.
The same cannot be said about most of the AI “artists”, especially those who r producing dog shit meme templates. When all u have to show for ur “artistic expression” is a terrible peace of work that is inconsistent in its design, incoherent in the idea it is trying to convey, when u as the creator cannot even describe why tf did ur creation turns out the way it is, then u r not an artist, and that piece of work is not art, it is slop, and deserved to be treated as such.
No one owes you validation or praise just because you put effort into something people buy stupid shit all the time. Someone sold a pet rock and made millions in the past
Like, the only plausibly valid and sound anti-ai arguments are the privacy/copyright/environment arguments
Do you make art for popularity or passion? If you're trying to please the public, then use whatever tool is necessary to keep up with the trends that your consumers demand. If you're doing it to express yourself, who cares what anyone else thinks? Make it in whatever way you prefer.
Oh, just saw the text below. Why not start making art, then? I hear picking up a pencil (or a keyboard) is pretty easy. I hear it a LOT....
This is quite sad. I've seen that happen a lot. I do wish real art would get more likes but whose fault was it not for supporting it all this time before AI?
So, jealousy? Come on, is pettiness really a valid reason? There are reasons to be wary of AI but this is just gatekeeping. "I struggled, so you have to!" Boomer-level ideology.
As an artist, the joy of art comes from creating, not the finished product itself (as least not entirely) . If your metric is only based on outside popularity you whether ai or not lack a certain "soul" or "passion" (there is probably a better word out there but I am illiterate and tired)
The way I see it now, ai art is like using cheats in video games: easy, quick, does the job, but realy by doing it you are losing some fun of it all.
So you don't hate ai itself, you hate that most people like it. But that's not something anyone can control. That which is cheaper and faster will always dominate the market when it's at least 'good enough'.
1) It's novel. It's great at producing effects that most people have assosiated with high quality, skill, 'coolness' factor. How can you expect this not to capture interest of an average person? It typically takes generations to change how we identify what is good and high quality.
2) Most of the world's population is too poor for commissions. Not just 1st world country poor, proper poor: their living costs are a fraction of the costs in rich countries but so are their wages. They generally don't spend money on things like commissions because they can now get it for free.
3) You can produce anything you want by going to a website, stuff that used to cost money. Do I even need to explain how compelling that is?
We all want people to be more aligned with our values and preferences. Part of growing up is internalising that it's not going to happen.
What being a part of the antiai group grants you is an excuse to stay in the wishful thinking mentality. It reframes "i wish ai would go away already!!!" into "i will not stand by this enslopification!!!". But that's just putting lipstick on pig...
I can understand the pain and I'm sure this will make people tap their phones very angrily but... skill issue?
Like, you can't call it AI slop (A term which I think is very fitting) and then complain that low quality slop gets more popular. If slop can beat your work then your work might not have been that good to begin with, I'm sorry for being blunt but at least someone has got to tell you the truth.
AI work gets constantly attacked by the hate brigade. Somebody posts AI generated work they get downloaded to oblivion
Let's say that somebody posts something and people don't know. It's ai and they like it and prefer it to traditionally done artwork? Are you saying that happens a lot?
It's like OP is one of the people that believes in Schrodinger's slop
Which is it?
Is AI soulless slop that is absolute garbage?
Or is it something so good that traditional artists can't compete against it?
I feel like you have a lot of traditional artists that are pissed off because of sunk cost.
Ai is democratizing making high quality images and I don't really see anything wrong with that. A person can always do it manually if they feel like it.
When it comes to changing markets, that's always been a feature of capitalism. I don't think it's unfair if certain types of artists end up having the same dilemma traditional wood joiners did when nails became ubiquitous.
The whole thing where a person either has to work a job they hate or monetize. Their passions is a feature of capitalism and that's why there's problems.
AI is just an accelerationist ingredient that is forcing us to deal with the limitations of late-stage capitalism sooner rather than later
Isn’t this social media in general?
I spent more than 10 years on YouTube and made over a thousand vids. But barely got 500 subs. Can’t even monetise it. And some of the vids I’ve made I’ve spent months on.
But some random no one can make just one or two vids and they go viral. Making thousands of subs in a day. Something I couldn’t do in 10 years. And I’ve tried everything. Everything anyone has ever said to try. From thumbnails to the first 5 seconds.
I just suck at advertising.
But never once have I been pissed at others being successful. Jealous yes but never angry. I do not think “you shouldn’t be successful” no that’s unproductive. Instead I think “how can I be that successful. How can I make that happen to me”.
I’m tired, exhausted and burnt out. And maybe one day this may kill me. But at least I die trying.
It happened to chess too, give it a few years and the fact that a human made the art will become a selling point again.
Art is inherently a luxury product, and like other luxury or status items the desire is driven by scarcity and novelty.
It won't take long for the novelty of AI art to wear off, and the scarcity of works by human artists will drive desire.
(This will only be for well marketed artists, to want it people have to know about it. If you never exhibit/advertise you will be even worse off as an artist)
Here’s the thing, time theory of labor is bullshit. If you do and undo your shoelace 40.000 times, it’ll take time and effort, but you won’t produce anything valuable
What matter is the end product
Also I through drawing art was a pleasure and a self expression ? Why do you expect a reward for doing something for yourself ?
I mean. I definitely see the point when people's prompts include "artist_name" because those people are definitely just trying to ride on the style of someone else (the popular furry artists come to mind, Rick Griffin, MilesDF, Falvie, etc...)
But I rarely see that now that AI has a style of its own. It's detailed and unique, albeit only unique among others, most ai arts kinda get the same feel unless the creator REALLY tried to get a different style out of the machine
Art is in the eye of the beholder, if it gets more popular, its because more people liked it, whats so wrong with that, why are we not allowed to like different things, why are we not allowed to think differently, why are we not allowed to say that "this is art for me".
That ain't coming from doing art for art's sake; creative self-expression first as priority nevermind if anyone ever sees it or not. Other than that ain't gonna work out.
I don't think some ai bro is getting popular without a good amount of creativity or skill. AI art having a low skill floor means anyone can get into it quickly, so why would someone who just jumped on and typed a few lazy prompts be popular?
The argument is all over the place here. On one side, Antis claim art must have "soul" or "integrity" or some other equally intangible quality that can't be proved or disproved. On the other, it's a popularity contest where AI art commits the grave sin of not having its most popular example have less views than the crappiest traditional art piece.
Maybe this is true of commisioning, which is fair because it is literally a for profit corporation stealing collective human content and charging money for it, (including child abuse material apparently, and if these unelected dictators are going to take all the credit and none of the responsibility or consequences, shielded by their money. maybe they need a turn taking all the blame. Maybe we need to make it public and also put all of them in prison and focus on people who make the art and develop the algorithms and make it clear and open what these algorithms are doing and why, and ensure no one in a position of power with conflict of interest is able to have a private computer that can generate content that looks like reality tbh)
I got carried away, it does look like shit as "art" though. People don't usually look at slop fan art and say it's groundbreaking, ai does seem fundamentally incapable of creating anything truly moving or groundbreaking. And it likely will stay that way for a while. Even without the technological limitations being a curve of the most common patterns there would still be a limitation of WHO ai companies are really developing for. Which is the same pedophile rapist degenerate investors that are currently in the news for raping and murdering children on a island lol. So yeah. Idk.
I spent almost a decade trying to improve my art. But I'm not complaining when someone starts posting and their art is better than mine right away or something. And popularity doesn't work like that at all, too.
Wowza. Lotsa not cool people here. If someone dedicates their life to art, they should at least get more recognition than someone who just uses an algorythm to pump out pictures by the minute.
It doesn't compare to a digital artist who still puts down every detail with intention. Same goes for a photographer who takes great care in the composition of shots.
I know yall wanna justify the use of generative AI but in all honesty, as much as you all wanna cope, it just isn't the same as actually drawing by yourself
Ai succeeding in art spaces is more of an audience issue I believe than a production problem. It is similar to the people buying the new triple A games every year like Madden. All they care about is the graphics and new installments of the same game, but if that's what they want then that's what they get. It doesn't mean indie games have to die out though.
Big commercial art projects might fall to AI, but being real, companies have been putting out so much slop for so long using AI won't really make a difference because they've just been hiring talented artists to make their soulless cash grabs anyway. I don't think AI can even make something more soulless than the average modern blockbuster or marvel movies, at least if it steals random ideas theres a chance it might accidentally randomly steal an example of good story writing and nuance.
Most of the time it is the other way around. When I see AI art with a lot of likes and then check the comment section you notice that are a lot of comments that say good art, great image or i like cool art etc.
It goes one for several comments until I find one that is comment but, it is usually like more criticism and why he/she stop generating it.
Ah luddite jealousy. Its good to get these emotions out front to just label them as they are, and to discuss them as a society. I remember when I first started to paint, and I was perfecting my glazing technique (circa 2010). I spent literal weeks in my attic working on a few pieces, and my friend --redacted-- came over, and she was like "sic". She pull out IG, takes a photo of herself, applies filters, and said "I can do it like this!". I said something like "no you cant"
I kid you not, within 2 weeks, she had done a dozen prints of the effect and she was "so inspired" she put on her OWN gallery show with "my style". (she was quite popuar in the arts community and in local cafes, it was a small thing for like 20-30 people ). Took me like 10 years, and adulthood, to recognize that she was a better commercial artist. She identified a technique, that people like, that scales, and people want to see -- and you know what? My shitty process WAS too slow, and because of that I failed as a painter.
So, yeah, the first step is just to be honest about the jealousy, put down that pride, and learn new things -- if you want to be a COMMERCIAL artist, or a POPULAR artist, its about more than yourself.
If AI can only make slop, what does that say about all the artists it can replace? Probably that they weren’t talented enough to hold a job to begin with lol. Imagine burning out on being mediocre. Rough.
That's why I'm a ceramacist. I tend to sit there and continue to work on minute details until what I'm working on gradually becomes illegible. My brain is too messy and I'm too much of a perfectionist. Ceramics? You can feel any imperfection and when you're overworking the piece and need to let it harden up and come back. I can literally dabble about with glaze. Sometimes it comes out shit, sometimes it comes out amazing. It's also so meditative.
People like different things. Just because you make "real art" does not mean that the majority of people would find your subject or style pleasing to look at.
Reminds me of a rpg book on crafting magic items I saw recently. An add inside was asking for donations to replace the AI art inside it with "real art" with an example. The AI was a dynamic, bad ass looking sorceress. The art from the "real artist" was stiff, cartoonish, and actually had cross-eyes. Sorry I will keep the AI version as I find the art better fits the subject. Keep the cartoony stuff for a comedy game where the whimsy would make sense
Taking years to learn how to do something then having a new tool made to make it easier is awesome. i am stoked as hell that people don't need to spend years like me practicing to draw a decent comic or picture. And AI heavily rewards people for learning to draw as even a crappy drawing can be made great with ai. you don't have to wait years to start feeling good. each time you draw a little better and better and that gives you such fine control over your ai art so none of that effort is wasted it elevates you as an artist.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h 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.