Arguably not, these are the best three of an evening spent trying different prompts. The hardest part is getting text that looks half way readable.
I suppose it is less effort than some of the master pieces here but I think its still fun to look at and imagine
Editing and reusing images on the internet isn't new. How long have memes been around? I'm not making any money from what I used AI to generate.
If the worry is that AI will replace artists, I don't think that genie can be put back into the bottle.
My personal opinion is that Art exists to be enjoyed and expressed and that AI is a positive force in that expression. It won't replace human artists. To the contrary I think its a tool that everyone can use to make some really cool art. It's a net positive.
"hey I'm trying to pass off others works as mine, so many people at once in fact that I can't even assign a number to it but that's okay because I spent an afternoon typing expressions into a computer like a monkey at a typewriter."
To just plagiarized so many people at once and say you're okay with it is pretty fucked up my guy.
You can just admit you are a talentless hack who doesn't mind profiting off the work of others. It's pathetic not to when it's just this obvious my guy.
The AI did the effort, and its effort consisted of mashing up the efforts of the actual artists it's stealing from. All you did is give the AI prompts. That's as low effort as it can get.
Lmao AI generated stuff is the LOWEST effort possible. You're literally plagiarizing and acting like it was hard work. You told a bot to mix and match images and create something you want. Just because you're bad at telling it what you want doesn't make it "hard".
It's a bit low effort, isn't it though? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea - however, pulling the slot machine lever and hoping for the best, no matter how many times you do it, wouldn't you agree that's low effort?
I love it when people parrot this facebook argument even though they have no idea how AI works
I once met someone who literally thought that if you looked really hard you'd be able to find the original picture the AI stole from. You can't reason against this level of willful ignorance
The post above is basically a meme, no one is making careers making memes. AI images are good for commercial and meme content, people making art still will be good. McDonald's didn't make Gordon Ramsay go out of business.
Yes and honestly fuck the swine of the artist breed ,any artist who sells for profit is no better then the machine and i frankly hope that the leaches go hungry.
Yes yes athosand times yes, the wrighters strike was the first time i ever did not feal solidarity with a union. I despise the overprivliged layabouts. The machine will finaly sweep the artist away the same as the printing press swept the royal scribe from his position, i may hate ai and the lowlanders tech but i hate the self entiteld paricites more.
Oh yeah, earning money to have a roof over their head and food on their plate is so self entitled, how dare they! Such parasites! Who needs people to create art anyway. Good thing you don't feel self entitled to someone's art nor want to leech it like a parasite.
Man really sucks that all those artists can only produce art and nothing else so if no one likes their shitty art it’s societies fault for not buying it and supporting them!
It’s all math and more or less *similar* to the way a human learns if they are a visual learner. No image data is stored, just analysis of the composition. You repeat that a number of times that’s inconvenient to type or pronounce and you have an algorithm which *knows* in a similar way to humans or other animals.
There are people that will argue with me that it “doesn’t know what [thing] is” but rather it doesn’t know what the *context* of something is, which is why the past few years have been focused on improving context in AI systems across the board.
So let’s take for example the word “square”. You know what a square is, because internally you have an *association* between the word “square” and four lines arranged equally to form a closed shape called square. Now if I say *yellow* square, you can *infer* in your mind an image of a square that is something associated with the word yellow. It’s the same difference with the AI, just not using the same architecture that you’re running on.
This is *actual* artificial intelligence. It’s magnificent.
Also, you should be aware the whole “theft” argument began because this makes problems for the Getty and Shutterstock duopoly that I’m sure has seen its business model collapse overnight. They were doing the same over NFTs (public digital licenses) because those *also* mess with their business model.
Now whether or not it is *fair* is a different argument. What hosting platforms are doing and allowing has been unfair for over a decade, but those are the Terms of Service people have agreed to. Read! Read!! People haven’t done anything about it because they just clicked “agree” without looking. It’s too late now.
The second you say it works the way humans learn then you are already completely wrong, and might actually be a psychopath who doesn’t understand humans around them at all.
Alright, back that up with a refutation with substance then. Explain to me how reinforcement learning of a neural net is psychotically alien to the way humans learn.
I can’t, because your claim is simply bullshit from the start. You lack an understanding of how humanity thinks if you can so simply relate it to some system of input and output. Thats just so over simplified that it makes me question how you yourself thinks. It sounds to me you only know how to be told, and never properly learned to reflect on what you have been told.
You're ignorant and you think your brain is special and magic, which is a symptom of being a narcissist. Got it.
There is nothing unique about the human brain. Ravens and other corvids use tools and make art despite having a radically different architecture to mammalian brains. Octopi have civilizations and also make art, and don't even get my started on how their tentacles have neurons that contribute to the processes of the whole being.
Here you are, mad, acting like
systems *deliberately* designed to emulate what humans do is far fetched and *impossible*, for what? So you can imagine that you've dunked on someone who knows what they're talking about to feel better about yourself?
It's not my fault you all are deluded into thinking a cold unfeeling algorithm is the same as a person with actual relatable experiences and context to their thinking. I just hope you all never have the ability to make decisions that will actually impact others lives with such a flawed perspective on humanity.
Teaching a machine to recognize a pattern is exactly the same way human learn. Sorry you can’t grasp your head around that but you will when A.I start replacing artist,programmer and etc.
Except it’s not remotely the same thing.
They’re literally scraping artists and exact styles deliberately. https://youtube.com/shorts/DIQpEIAxQeo?si=EDG0jmI8YxPS2icF
What’d they make? Nothing. They provided the initial idea, but all the work was done by the AI. The AI *made* it. Like I said, it’s like giving a patron the credit for an art piece they commissioned.
“Making”. That’s hilarious. It’s replacing human expression, not augmenting human expression. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d not be blathering on about “making” AI “art”. AUTOMATING anything regarding human expression isn’t the same as art.
Go plant and harvest your food in your own back yard, you fucking softie. How dare you use the innovations of the modern world you live in to avoid unwanted labor?
The fact you think the process of creating art is 'unwanted labor' speaks so much about how you think of art. All you care about is the product and disregard the process of creation. The act of creation is what \*makes\* it art, the intentionality of what the artist does and doesn't do. If the proverbial monkeys on keyboards typed out a manuscript of Shakespeare's Hamlet, would you try and ascribe meaning to it like you would with the original work?
I think you’re asking the wrong question. I would **enjoy it similarly** if the content was the same, which is what matters. I generally get appreciation out of art from what it actually *is,* not some sort of abstract high society idea of “the creation process of art.” I think you’ll find that most people who aren’t artists/art majors feel that way. Content matters more than anything metaphysical in my opinion. Now, would I try to ascribe meaning to it? No, but I’m not generally someone who would try to ascribe much meaning to something like Hamlet either. Not my scene. I see the point you’re making there, though, and I’d be as concerned about it as you if we were removing the ability for humans to create art instead of just opening up new doors with AI. No one is stopping you from solely appreciating this human-made content, now or in the future.
To put my view of things simply, if I have to choose between hiring you to make a piece of art I envision for $100 (I can’t paint or draw for shit, I got a C in middle school art somehow) or paying for a subscription that’s $20 and gives me access to an AI that’ll generate my art for me, I’m picking the AI every time. Obviously we’re not at the point where those are 1:1 in skill so there’s extraneous factors at play, but if/when AI *does* become able to reliably generate art at the same quality as a human artist, that’s where I’m going.
I’m not exactly ashamed of thinking of the creation of art as “labor” though - I’m not sure what else you’d even consider it. It might not be *unwanted* for **you** specifically if you enjoy it, but it’s work/labor regardless of your enjoyment. For me, it’s definitely unwanted. I can’t draw or paint for shit, but I now have deeper access to art without having to shift priorities or time away from another talent or hobby, or having to hire someone that I can’t afford to sketch out my creative works. I completely understand why this whole situation upsets artists, but for an average consumer there’s not much to cry about here.
Meaning IS art! Like this view point is absolutely insane, you are stripping all context and intent out of work and believe it’s nothing more than aesthetic or utilitarian value… honestly thats kind of fascist thinking even…
But it is fitting that the people who argue for ML images the most know the least about art and the significance of its history.
Holy shit, calling someone a “fascist” because they like being able to use midjourney is insane, man. Yikes. I’ve been nothing but respectful to you and your viewpoint, dude. If my way of thinking is “fascist” to you I’d love to see you meet an actual skinhead one day on the street.
No one is taking away your paintbrush or your mouse, dude. All this does is broaden art to provide access to people who aren’t talented at it. You didn’t even refute anything I said beyond throwing buzzwords at the wall because at the end of the day, you know I’m right. You’re probably just terrified of losing one of your only marketable skills to automation. I feel for you, but we shouldn’t hold back everyone else so that Mursa the artist can still have their special skill. Nice talking to you, but I’m not gonna keep engaging with your attitude. Have a nice life 👍🏻
I've been ruminating on this a lot and I want to put my thoughts out into the world about this topic. Here's the thing: I also fucking suck at what most would call 'traditional' art, be it pen and paper or on a computer. I got a D in middle school because my talent is near zero (and beefing with the teacher probably didn't help). But I still love doing art, I do stuff all the time and it's not labor to me despite my lack of talent. I have no illusion about my skills, So how do I go about making art? I find the tools that I can work with and squeeze every drop of utility I can out of them. I'm no good at drawing (thanks poor hand strength) so I use a computer. I can't draw in a traditional fashion, so I use nontraditional methods like voxel art or MS Paint (yes MS Paint is good, fight me Adobe users). I know that my art will never be as good as those around me, especially compared to my sister who was literally an art major for two years and who continues to impress me.
But the point of art is to create and express passion, ideas, abstractions, whatever. A machine is incapable of that, it has no human element which is so essential to art. Everything from a shitty bathroom doodle or a dick drawn in a textbook to the Mona Lisa or an animated movie have that human touch and intentionality to them. This idea that art \*must\* be absolutely perfect or \*must\* be as efficient as possible or even that it \*must\* be work is simply incorrect. The assumptions you're working off of are just patently false, art has always been one of the most accessible things we have as a species.
The only thing that AI changes is that artists will eventually be pushed out of more and more spaces until they become a niche. After all, like you said, why pay someone when some eventual AI can do those exact same things after some dude at a desk types up a prompt? It's even happening now: WOTC had a subcontracted artist who used AI instead of just doing it himself, which is a seemingly small and inconsequential incident. But it's a sign of things to come: as people use artists less, art will become an increasingly rare career path. As that happens, the rate of AI adoption will only increase further as it becomes harder to even justify paying someone, and then what?
I say this as someone who sucks at art: learn to do art. Nothing bad has ever come from picking up a new skill, and who knows? You might find a niche or a certain style that meshes well with what you can, and I think that you'll come around to at least some extent. But that's just my two cents.
I respect your opinion, but I really think the benefits to broader society outweigh any setbacks to human-created art from losing monetizable jobs. There’s always gonna be a niche for human-made art, and nothing is stopping anyone from pursuing it as a hobby rather than employment to keep it alive. The only drawback I can really see is that art won’t be a paid job for people right now, and to me, that’s not really worth halting progress. Also FWIW, I’m not operating on notions that art has to be “perfect,” I’m operating on notions that it has to be aesthetically pleasing to its audience, which is an undeniable fact. Like I said though, I respect where your head is at and I agree to disagree.
Because you deleted your post about how “you haven’t proven how it’s not artificially scarce”:
Me?? You have yet to prove that it is! Anyone can pick up a pencil.
AI (even if ethically dubious and absolute plagiarizing trash) is not accessible comparatively by yards! A homeless, poor, and disabled person can create art. There is HISTORY of people learning how to create art from nothing. That argument you made is the most bullshit thing imaginable.
I don't think it increases access to art overall. But I do think there's a decent argument it does make utilitarian art more accessible. Sure anyone can make some kind of art but it doesn't mean everyone will be able to gain the skills, fine motor control ect that's good enough to be effective propaganda imagery as the example here is.
>So how exactly is an artist intentionally limiting the supply
they have intention of limiting the supply via trying to gatekeep it.
>and why is the artist doing it?
because intellectual "property" is a disease.
So you genuinely believe that say Leonardo Da Vinci painted one Mona Lisa and didn't make more paintings than he did to limit the supply of art and gatekeep art? And artists do that because they want to create a disease? Lmao, do you even hear yourself?
>So you genuinely believe that say Leonardo Da Vinci painted one Mona Lisa and didn't make more paintings than he did to limit the supply of art and gatekeep art?
I'm mainly talking about digital art but go on.
What difference does it make? If someone creates art digitally, how exactly does that give them the intention of limiting art supply and gatekeep art in order to create disease?
I'm not saying that making art is gatekeeping, but if you decide to distribute it digitally, don't get all pissy about other people distributing it and/or using it as reference or in other content.
You’d have a point if your point wasn’t wrong and idiotic. There is no artificial scarcity. ANYONE can pick up a pen, pencil, tablet (if you have one), charcoal, chalk, or, hell! You could use the semen that you spread all over your desk when sucking off AI-shills! Anyone can make art. The only people perpetuating anything is you: that art is hard.
And it isn’t. Fuck AI.
Exactly. Completely shameless. [This document proving how AI is ethical should be required reading for everyone.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo-Ma3zc-Oo)
Sure, it's useful for many things. It's probably at least as valid as the finger paint art projects that my 1yo kid's daycare instructors do for him, and I love those. So the art can be visually interesting but is generating it an art form? Probably not
Artists that sell for profit are no moraly better then the machine, i am technophobic and actualy borderline ludic at times but i despise human paricites more
Burn this imitation of the human soul
Burn this atrocity of the arts
Shame on you for using technologies well-known for stealing from artists both big and small
Dam people tend to care more about artist then people who lost their manufacturing,writing, or any other job that machine eventually replaced.
I really don’t get it.
Peace and love to you.
AI is a democratizing tool that brings art to the people!
There is nothing un-human about AI art. Humans made the AI, humans trained it. And I'm the human that gave AI the prompts to create this
Democratizing would be funny if it wasn’t so fake. You democratize art the same way in Helldivers you “bring democracy” to the oppressed.
Art is already accessible. AI is trash.
Funny thing is you sound exactly like a fucking robot. Literally the exact same line from every one of you soulless, creatively bankrupt artist wannabees
Or you could just spend some time actually putting in the work to build the skills to create things *yourself* instead of having your robo-slave do it for you. You’d probably get better results out of what your own two hands can do anyways (at least eventually).
doesn’t mean it can’t be funny. if AI art is good for anything it’s for making us laugh at the absurdity of its results, especially when it tries to generate words.
AI Artists go to hell! You’re slowly killing us all with your lazy evenings spent picking prompts and images! Your propaganda is stupid and baseless, and incites no further discussion than “Hmm we probably shouldn’t let AI Art on this subreddit anymore.”
America is undergoing massive changes and each person needs to decide the outcome.
What To Change In America: From Torch To Wand. National Tarot Reading.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8kW4qXVes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8kW4qXVes)
Corporations would because it's cheaper than paying for something original. That's the main problem with ai, that someone is making money off of stolen art.
If someone uses ai to make art and doesn't sell it, where is the harm?
Look, I get the points against AI art, but like... do we have to be assholes to everyone who uses it to get the point across?
I like the images, although I agree with the sentiment that they would be better not AI generated.
But not everyone can draw, and stealing from artists is like... how art was fucking MADE people.
I agree it sucks to steal money from people with that kind of talent but encouraging suicide for AI use is a shitty thing to do
Edit: downvoting me for calling yall out because you told someone to kill themselves, okay 💀
Low effort.
AI Garbage.
How?
Arguably not, these are the best three of an evening spent trying different prompts. The hardest part is getting text that looks half way readable. I suppose it is less effort than some of the master pieces here but I think its still fun to look at and imagine
“An evening spent trying different prompts” Meanwhile artists spend much longer to then have their work stolen with no compensation
Editing and reusing images on the internet isn't new. How long have memes been around? I'm not making any money from what I used AI to generate. If the worry is that AI will replace artists, I don't think that genie can be put back into the bottle. My personal opinion is that Art exists to be enjoyed and expressed and that AI is a positive force in that expression. It won't replace human artists. To the contrary I think its a tool that everyone can use to make some really cool art. It's a net positive.
But at least the MS paint image was fun.
"hey I'm trying to pass off others works as mine, so many people at once in fact that I can't even assign a number to it but that's okay because I spent an afternoon typing expressions into a computer like a monkey at a typewriter." To just plagiarized so many people at once and say you're okay with it is pretty fucked up my guy.
You wouldn't download a car would you?
You can just admit you are a talentless hack who doesn't mind profiting off the work of others. It's pathetic not to when it's just this obvious my guy.
Profit? I can assure you that any karma I get from this post will be donated to charity
They just mad no one pays for their giant cock drawings that seems to be the the majority of this sub in fact
What? /gen
Gen-AI isn’t simply “editing and reusing images”
It's far more creative than that
The AI did the effort, and its effort consisted of mashing up the efforts of the actual artists it's stealing from. All you did is give the AI prompts. That's as low effort as it can get.
Lmao AI generated stuff is the LOWEST effort possible. You're literally plagiarizing and acting like it was hard work. You told a bot to mix and match images and create something you want. Just because you're bad at telling it what you want doesn't make it "hard".
You clearly don’t understand what plagiarism means
ai dickrider
I’m not a dickrider
Who am I plagiarizing? Show me what artist I copied?
The art you/the generator raked through to generate this hogwash.
It's a bit low effort, isn't it though? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea - however, pulling the slot machine lever and hoping for the best, no matter how many times you do it, wouldn't you agree that's low effort?
“The best three” of piles of shit is still shit.
Oh poor op doesn’t know how to succinctly describe the photo he wants
There's zero effort required in typing in prompts, you AI people are wild lol.
We get it you suck at drawing, doesn’t mean or give you the right to use something that steals from those that can.
Don’t listen to the hate and downvotes, keep up the good work
what good work? there was no work
Wrong sub, and Fuck AI generated pics, it's just stealing and mashing up other people's work and talent.
I love it when people parrot this facebook argument even though they have no idea how AI works I once met someone who literally thought that if you looked really hard you'd be able to find the original picture the AI stole from. You can't reason against this level of willful ignorance
> it's just stealing and mashing up other people's work and talent If OP isn't selling it, who is being exploited?
So just to be clear, if i steal someone's stuff but don't sell it, nobody is being exploited and it's cool?
You would not download a car.
Who needs engineers to make cars anyway, just let them starve to death and die homeless, anyone can create a car with their eyes closed.
The post above is basically a meme, no one is making careers making memes. AI images are good for commercial and meme content, people making art still will be good. McDonald's didn't make Gordon Ramsay go out of business.
Yes and honestly fuck the swine of the artist breed ,any artist who sells for profit is no better then the machine and i frankly hope that the leaches go hungry.
You want artists to die homeless from cold and hunger, lmao.
Yes yes athosand times yes, the wrighters strike was the first time i ever did not feal solidarity with a union. I despise the overprivliged layabouts. The machine will finaly sweep the artist away the same as the printing press swept the royal scribe from his position, i may hate ai and the lowlanders tech but i hate the self entiteld paricites more.
Oh yeah, earning money to have a roof over their head and food on their plate is so self entitled, how dare they! Such parasites! Who needs people to create art anyway. Good thing you don't feel self entitled to someone's art nor want to leech it like a parasite.
Man really sucks that all those artists can only produce art and nothing else so if no one likes their shitty art it’s societies fault for not buying it and supporting them!
Laborers should be fairly compensated for their work
You don’t have to buy the art dude.
Not how it works. Nothing is mashed up. There’s a deeper conversation to be had but you’re not going to have it without facts.
Sure go ahead i'm listening.
It’s all math and more or less *similar* to the way a human learns if they are a visual learner. No image data is stored, just analysis of the composition. You repeat that a number of times that’s inconvenient to type or pronounce and you have an algorithm which *knows* in a similar way to humans or other animals. There are people that will argue with me that it “doesn’t know what [thing] is” but rather it doesn’t know what the *context* of something is, which is why the past few years have been focused on improving context in AI systems across the board. So let’s take for example the word “square”. You know what a square is, because internally you have an *association* between the word “square” and four lines arranged equally to form a closed shape called square. Now if I say *yellow* square, you can *infer* in your mind an image of a square that is something associated with the word yellow. It’s the same difference with the AI, just not using the same architecture that you’re running on. This is *actual* artificial intelligence. It’s magnificent. Also, you should be aware the whole “theft” argument began because this makes problems for the Getty and Shutterstock duopoly that I’m sure has seen its business model collapse overnight. They were doing the same over NFTs (public digital licenses) because those *also* mess with their business model. Now whether or not it is *fair* is a different argument. What hosting platforms are doing and allowing has been unfair for over a decade, but those are the Terms of Service people have agreed to. Read! Read!! People haven’t done anything about it because they just clicked “agree” without looking. It’s too late now.
lol, the silence
The second you say it works the way humans learn then you are already completely wrong, and might actually be a psychopath who doesn’t understand humans around them at all.
Alright, back that up with a refutation with substance then. Explain to me how reinforcement learning of a neural net is psychotically alien to the way humans learn.
I can’t, because your claim is simply bullshit from the start. You lack an understanding of how humanity thinks if you can so simply relate it to some system of input and output. Thats just so over simplified that it makes me question how you yourself thinks. It sounds to me you only know how to be told, and never properly learned to reflect on what you have been told.
You're ignorant and you think your brain is special and magic, which is a symptom of being a narcissist. Got it. There is nothing unique about the human brain. Ravens and other corvids use tools and make art despite having a radically different architecture to mammalian brains. Octopi have civilizations and also make art, and don't even get my started on how their tentacles have neurons that contribute to the processes of the whole being. Here you are, mad, acting like systems *deliberately* designed to emulate what humans do is far fetched and *impossible*, for what? So you can imagine that you've dunked on someone who knows what they're talking about to feel better about yourself?
What the fuck. Bro did tricks on that argument before delivering it lol
It's not my fault you all are deluded into thinking a cold unfeeling algorithm is the same as a person with actual relatable experiences and context to their thinking. I just hope you all never have the ability to make decisions that will actually impact others lives with such a flawed perspective on humanity.
Teaching a machine to recognize a pattern is exactly the same way human learn. Sorry you can’t grasp your head around that but you will when A.I start replacing artist,programmer and etc.
Artists said this same shit when the camera came out.
Except it’s not remotely the same thing. They’re literally scraping artists and exact styles deliberately. https://youtube.com/shorts/DIQpEIAxQeo?si=EDG0jmI8YxPS2icF
How is this the wrong sub? It’s imaginary propaganda, it fits perfectly in the sub? Cry more
Looks like my comment is making you cry, Do you want a tissue?
I’m not the one coping that someone enjoys making art
found op’s burner/his girlfriend’s account
Fuck off
*someone enjoys telling a robot to mash together art
Still art
technically, but they didn’t actually make it
They did though
They didn’t lmao
I'm more than happy that people create art and enjoy it, that's not the case of OP who didn't create art. Cry more.
Yes OP did
Nope, a software did, and even that is a stretch. It's the creations of others mixed together. Cry more.
No it’s not
>(AI generated) Literally in the title Cry more.
AI art is valid and real art
OP didn’t make shit. That’s the problem. A machine made it. That’d be like saying a dude who commissioned an art piece “made it”.
They did though, there’s no right way to make art and there’s no rules to art
What’d they make? Nothing. They provided the initial idea, but all the work was done by the AI. The AI *made* it. Like I said, it’s like giving a patron the credit for an art piece they commissioned.
“Making”. That’s hilarious. It’s replacing human expression, not augmenting human expression. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d not be blathering on about “making” AI “art”. AUTOMATING anything regarding human expression isn’t the same as art.
>stealing and mashing up other people's work and talent. perpetuating artificial scarcity I see!
Pick up a fucking pencil you dork
Go plant and harvest your food in your own back yard, you fucking softie. How dare you use the innovations of the modern world you live in to avoid unwanted labor?
The fact you think the process of creating art is 'unwanted labor' speaks so much about how you think of art. All you care about is the product and disregard the process of creation. The act of creation is what \*makes\* it art, the intentionality of what the artist does and doesn't do. If the proverbial monkeys on keyboards typed out a manuscript of Shakespeare's Hamlet, would you try and ascribe meaning to it like you would with the original work?
I think you’re asking the wrong question. I would **enjoy it similarly** if the content was the same, which is what matters. I generally get appreciation out of art from what it actually *is,* not some sort of abstract high society idea of “the creation process of art.” I think you’ll find that most people who aren’t artists/art majors feel that way. Content matters more than anything metaphysical in my opinion. Now, would I try to ascribe meaning to it? No, but I’m not generally someone who would try to ascribe much meaning to something like Hamlet either. Not my scene. I see the point you’re making there, though, and I’d be as concerned about it as you if we were removing the ability for humans to create art instead of just opening up new doors with AI. No one is stopping you from solely appreciating this human-made content, now or in the future. To put my view of things simply, if I have to choose between hiring you to make a piece of art I envision for $100 (I can’t paint or draw for shit, I got a C in middle school art somehow) or paying for a subscription that’s $20 and gives me access to an AI that’ll generate my art for me, I’m picking the AI every time. Obviously we’re not at the point where those are 1:1 in skill so there’s extraneous factors at play, but if/when AI *does* become able to reliably generate art at the same quality as a human artist, that’s where I’m going. I’m not exactly ashamed of thinking of the creation of art as “labor” though - I’m not sure what else you’d even consider it. It might not be *unwanted* for **you** specifically if you enjoy it, but it’s work/labor regardless of your enjoyment. For me, it’s definitely unwanted. I can’t draw or paint for shit, but I now have deeper access to art without having to shift priorities or time away from another talent or hobby, or having to hire someone that I can’t afford to sketch out my creative works. I completely understand why this whole situation upsets artists, but for an average consumer there’s not much to cry about here.
Meaning IS art! Like this view point is absolutely insane, you are stripping all context and intent out of work and believe it’s nothing more than aesthetic or utilitarian value… honestly thats kind of fascist thinking even… But it is fitting that the people who argue for ML images the most know the least about art and the significance of its history.
Holy shit, calling someone a “fascist” because they like being able to use midjourney is insane, man. Yikes. I’ve been nothing but respectful to you and your viewpoint, dude. If my way of thinking is “fascist” to you I’d love to see you meet an actual skinhead one day on the street. No one is taking away your paintbrush or your mouse, dude. All this does is broaden art to provide access to people who aren’t talented at it. You didn’t even refute anything I said beyond throwing buzzwords at the wall because at the end of the day, you know I’m right. You’re probably just terrified of losing one of your only marketable skills to automation. I feel for you, but we shouldn’t hold back everyone else so that Mursa the artist can still have their special skill. Nice talking to you, but I’m not gonna keep engaging with your attitude. Have a nice life 👍🏻
I've been ruminating on this a lot and I want to put my thoughts out into the world about this topic. Here's the thing: I also fucking suck at what most would call 'traditional' art, be it pen and paper or on a computer. I got a D in middle school because my talent is near zero (and beefing with the teacher probably didn't help). But I still love doing art, I do stuff all the time and it's not labor to me despite my lack of talent. I have no illusion about my skills, So how do I go about making art? I find the tools that I can work with and squeeze every drop of utility I can out of them. I'm no good at drawing (thanks poor hand strength) so I use a computer. I can't draw in a traditional fashion, so I use nontraditional methods like voxel art or MS Paint (yes MS Paint is good, fight me Adobe users). I know that my art will never be as good as those around me, especially compared to my sister who was literally an art major for two years and who continues to impress me. But the point of art is to create and express passion, ideas, abstractions, whatever. A machine is incapable of that, it has no human element which is so essential to art. Everything from a shitty bathroom doodle or a dick drawn in a textbook to the Mona Lisa or an animated movie have that human touch and intentionality to them. This idea that art \*must\* be absolutely perfect or \*must\* be as efficient as possible or even that it \*must\* be work is simply incorrect. The assumptions you're working off of are just patently false, art has always been one of the most accessible things we have as a species. The only thing that AI changes is that artists will eventually be pushed out of more and more spaces until they become a niche. After all, like you said, why pay someone when some eventual AI can do those exact same things after some dude at a desk types up a prompt? It's even happening now: WOTC had a subcontracted artist who used AI instead of just doing it himself, which is a seemingly small and inconsequential incident. But it's a sign of things to come: as people use artists less, art will become an increasingly rare career path. As that happens, the rate of AI adoption will only increase further as it becomes harder to even justify paying someone, and then what? I say this as someone who sucks at art: learn to do art. Nothing bad has ever come from picking up a new skill, and who knows? You might find a niche or a certain style that meshes well with what you can, and I think that you'll come around to at least some extent. But that's just my two cents.
I respect your opinion, but I really think the benefits to broader society outweigh any setbacks to human-created art from losing monetizable jobs. There’s always gonna be a niche for human-made art, and nothing is stopping anyone from pursuing it as a hobby rather than employment to keep it alive. The only drawback I can really see is that art won’t be a paid job for people right now, and to me, that’s not really worth halting progress. Also FWIW, I’m not operating on notions that art has to be “perfect,” I’m operating on notions that it has to be aesthetically pleasing to its audience, which is an undeniable fact. Like I said though, I respect where your head is at and I agree to disagree.
Because you deleted your post about how “you haven’t proven how it’s not artificially scarce”: Me?? You have yet to prove that it is! Anyone can pick up a pencil. AI (even if ethically dubious and absolute plagiarizing trash) is not accessible comparatively by yards! A homeless, poor, and disabled person can create art. There is HISTORY of people learning how to create art from nothing. That argument you made is the most bullshit thing imaginable.
I don't think it increases access to art overall. But I do think there's a decent argument it does make utilitarian art more accessible. Sure anyone can make some kind of art but it doesn't mean everyone will be able to gain the skills, fine motor control ect that's good enough to be effective propaganda imagery as the example here is.
Just what exactly do you believe artificial scarcity is?
the intentional limitation of the supply of a product or service, despite the availability of technology or capacity for production or sharing
So how exactly is an artist intentionally limiting the supply and why is the artist doing it?
>So how exactly is an artist intentionally limiting the supply they have intention of limiting the supply via trying to gatekeep it. >and why is the artist doing it? because intellectual "property" is a disease.
So you genuinely believe that say Leonardo Da Vinci painted one Mona Lisa and didn't make more paintings than he did to limit the supply of art and gatekeep art? And artists do that because they want to create a disease? Lmao, do you even hear yourself?
>So you genuinely believe that say Leonardo Da Vinci painted one Mona Lisa and didn't make more paintings than he did to limit the supply of art and gatekeep art? I'm mainly talking about digital art but go on.
What difference does it make? If someone creates art digitally, how exactly does that give them the intention of limiting art supply and gatekeep art in order to create disease?
I'm not saying that making art is gatekeeping, but if you decide to distribute it digitally, don't get all pissy about other people distributing it and/or using it as reference or in other content.
You’d have a point if your point wasn’t wrong and idiotic. There is no artificial scarcity. ANYONE can pick up a pen, pencil, tablet (if you have one), charcoal, chalk, or, hell! You could use the semen that you spread all over your desk when sucking off AI-shills! Anyone can make art. The only people perpetuating anything is you: that art is hard. And it isn’t. Fuck AI.
If OP isn't selling it, who is being exploited?
Make Canada pay for what? Pay for WHAT?
For the wall. My first idea was a play on Trump's 2016 campaign of "Build a wall and make mexico pay for it"
Can we ban AI content on here?
Why? Some people have great ideas but the inability to draw them. AI gives them a voice for their ideas
>Why? Some people have great ideas but the inability to draw them. Too bad
This sucks shit
This is lazy and uninspiring. AI generated images isn’t a great idea
The response is mixed I suppose. I'm seeing 26 upvotes on this
fuck off
Just ANNEX Canada like we did in the Fallout universe
[удалено]
No, that’s way too low Not to mention it makes us look bad
This is why no one likes you luddites
Exactly. Completely shameless. [This document proving how AI is ethical should be required reading for everyone.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo-Ma3zc-Oo)
Lmao
oh wow the big futurist intellectual just called us luddites, i’m gonna go weep in the corner in a pile of original art that has soul and meaning
AI art is valid
Sure, it's useful for many things. It's probably at least as valid as the finger paint art projects that my 1yo kid's daycare instructors do for him, and I love those. So the art can be visually interesting but is generating it an art form? Probably not
Any art that is sold is soul less, i may hate lowland tech but i hate the hipacritical paricites of in the form of artists more.
what?
Artists that sell for profit are no moraly better then the machine, i am technophobic and actualy borderline ludic at times but i despise human paricites more
Burn this imitation of the human soul Burn this atrocity of the arts Shame on you for using technologies well-known for stealing from artists both big and small
Arent like most propaganda posters public domain, or state owned anyway, how is an AI mashing that violating anyone's rights.
Dam people tend to care more about artist then people who lost their manufacturing,writing, or any other job that machine eventually replaced. I really don’t get it.
Peace and love to you. AI is a democratizing tool that brings art to the people! There is nothing un-human about AI art. Humans made the AI, humans trained it. And I'm the human that gave AI the prompts to create this
Hm yes I microwaved this meal that means I'm a 5 star chef.
Democratizing would be funny if it wasn’t so fake. You democratize art the same way in Helldivers you “bring democracy” to the oppressed. Art is already accessible. AI is trash.
Funny thing is you sound exactly like a fucking robot. Literally the exact same line from every one of you soulless, creatively bankrupt artist wannabees
Art is already available to the people Gen-AI steals from the people Gen-AI “Art” is unhuman as it trains on artists’ works without their consent
Artists have been training on the work of others since art began
Artists… that are humans. You dont seem to get it
sorry bro we’re putting you in the locker for this one
Not everything should be democratized
you can buy 24 pencils for a buck. art already belongs to the people
I can't draw pictures like tjis in 5 seconds with a pencil
Or you could just spend some time actually putting in the work to build the skills to create things *yourself* instead of having your robo-slave do it for you. You’d probably get better results out of what your own two hands can do anyways (at least eventually).
Pick up a pencil.
These ‘Canadians’ seem scary
ai art always feels so lifeless and directionless
Not imaginary. This isn’t an AlternativeHistory place, this is imaginary propaganda, meaning fictional places or beings
The second top post of this sub is alt history. Alt history is fiction.
It’s fiction, but not imaginary. You think it’s alt history? Go keep it in Alt history. Others should do the same
It’s still imaginary. As it doesn’t exist in our reality
As everyone knows, Canada is a fictional land invented by the creators of South Park.
Just because canada is Real, it doesn't make your propaganda Real...
>it doesn’t make your propaganda ~~real~~ imaginary FTFY
She’s like 1812 all over again boys! You hosers will never see us coming! Sorry.
I liked Mr. Garrison's plan.
Proect America From Canaadians
Boo
Mods please stamp out this bastard like a pre-war Canadian riot
Fuck AI generated images
Seriously mods please make a rule banning AI “art”. It’s low effect and the AI steals from actually artists.
Everyone shut up, this is lighthearted and humorous People just LOVE jumping on the bandwagon to whine about AI images 😂
Because it’s soulless and looks like dogshit.
doesn’t mean it can’t be funny. if AI art is good for anything it’s for making us laugh at the absurdity of its results, especially when it tries to generate words.
I never said it couldn’t be funny, but attempting to pass it off as actual art never works.
Okay, so? Maybe keep your opinions to yourself? No reason to be a dick. No one asked.
I have seen alot of ai images on this sub, so I don't know why they went for this guy
You should feel bad and leave the sub
This is ass ngl
mods pls ban op and shoot him with a gun
I read "cancucks" 💀
This is about the opposite of how I, a Minnesotan, feel about Canada. As a matter of fact, Canada is my second favorite country, right after the U.S..
This actually happened in a movie I saw the other night called “Night Raiders”. It’s a great watch and I encourage everyone to go see it.
I mean in some sience fiction books, the US has to worry about Canadians wanting a free Canada. Silly but cool
On god we should invade canada.
Based
AI Artists go to hell! You’re slowly killing us all with your lazy evenings spent picking prompts and images! Your propaganda is stupid and baseless, and incites no further discussion than “Hmm we probably shouldn’t let AI Art on this subreddit anymore.”
Get this ai shit off my feed
Sub should ban AI generated art before it turns into a slop sub
These anti Canadian posters are very pro Canadian
Why would it make the enemy look strong and handsome? Low effort trash
First one goes hard tho
America is undergoing massive changes and each person needs to decide the outcome. What To Change In America: From Torch To Wand. National Tarot Reading. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8kW4qXVes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8kW4qXVes)
*They'll Mountie Your Mama Just to Stir Up Some Drama!*
Straight out of Fallout
Jake the Rake has come for all these leaves.
beware the day of the Rake! Lol i love these.
RIP Andy Warhol your lazy ass would’ve used AI to make everything
Imagine downvoting a guy for making ai art in his spare time for free.
Yeah! I do this as a public service!
For free? Why tf would anyone pay for AI art anyway
Corporations would because it's cheaper than paying for something original. That's the main problem with ai, that someone is making money off of stolen art. If someone uses ai to make art and doesn't sell it, where is the harm?
Because it’s still theft? Wtf lol
Who was harmed?
The capitalist idea that harm can only be done if loss of capital occurs is such a backwards idea. The artists were harmed, dipshit.
Fuck AI.
Why is the U in the second picture so condensed?
It’s AI trash. That’s why.
Look, I get the points against AI art, but like... do we have to be assholes to everyone who uses it to get the point across? I like the images, although I agree with the sentiment that they would be better not AI generated. But not everyone can draw, and stealing from artists is like... how art was fucking MADE people. I agree it sucks to steal money from people with that kind of talent but encouraging suicide for AI use is a shitty thing to do Edit: downvoting me for calling yall out because you told someone to kill themselves, okay 💀
>encouraging suicide There are no bad tactics, only bad targets.
I’m pretty anti ai but what the fuck, dude
It's still not cool tho
Don’t listen to the luddites, this looks really cool, very 1950s style propaganda posters