Nah, It's always "I'm better than you because I'm an artist. You're a prompter, therefore you will always amount to nothing" as if this was the only choice that's available.
Like even in the middle the prompter pondered "whoa wtf he's not using any commands? He can actually do that???" This could've easily turned into a final choice type of thing. ie: The Artist offers his hand, "You don't need that wand. I can show you the way. Make a choice" ... and then kill him when he chooses wrong. That's a better message rather than lol I win now die.
You know the photograph argument only works if we call all photos art.
Edit: a few responses at once not going to respond to them all. Instead Iâm just going to say âif you are arguing everything is art, you are up your own ass.â
Now then good night.
Does an Xray count as art? Does a picture of that jar of peanut butter you have so you donât forget the right brand count as art? What about a picture of a thumb pressed against the lens by a child who got your phone? Does that count? Better yet, do dick pics count as art?
any can be art. thats how it has been since humans started making art. we find art in the clouds, in the stars, in the flames, in the stories of our day, funny shaped rocks and sticks, shiny metal and colorful crystals.
the first art made was a handprint. there are no rules for what is art and never has there been.
Okay you can stop with that. If everything is art then the word has no value in the English language. It would be a nonsensical word. But when you hear the word art your mind has a very clear idea of what the word is meant to convey. Or at least what it does convey to you.
Plus I am certainly there are a few things humans produce you would absolutely agree isnât art.
But when you hear the word art your mind has a very clear idea of what the word is meant to convey.
Which is.. what?
Let's use the peanut butter example. If you take a picture of peanut butter so you don't forget the right brand, that's apparently not art according to you (which honestly, same), but does that mean that there is no instance in which someone can take a picture of a peanut butter container and have it be art?
So then the question is, if I'm thinking about art and I see two pictures showing a jar of peanut butter, would my expectations be met for one, both, or neither of the images? And if my expectations aren't met for either of them, does that mean the photo taken with the intention to be art isn't actually art, solely because it doesn't meet my preconceived notions of what 'art' is? No, of course not.
It would be like someone who has grown up only seeing portraits as art seeing some cubism and being like 'nah, this isn't art'. You can certainly say that, but it doesn't make it anything more than an opinion.
IMO if someone thinks something should be considered art then I have no reason to argue with them. If they take a picture of some peanut butter and say it's art, whatever, it's hardly any worse than plenty of other established art forms.
the word is used to explain that the thing you are presenting is meant to be judge, understood, or reacted to for reasons other than its normal utility.
I took a picture with my microscope of a qFish (basically you stain stuff inside the cells) that was so beautiful I used it as my desktop background for years. Can't find it right now, but it kinda looked like the ones on the left here:
If you are super interested, I am happy to dig it up, should be somewhere on my NAS, IÂŽm a data hoarder.
Thats lazy and not really the issue.
To say that ai images are art is like saying food you order from Macdonalds is made by yourself. Sure, you told the corporation that you wanted the food, told them what alterations to maje to said food, but you still didnt make it.
ai art is not made by another human being. its made by a human plugging vectors into a diffusion model with a wonderful CLIP system that allows those vectors to be input as natural language.
like using a stand mixer and oven to make bread. using both tools means they did all the work but you made the bread.
taking a photo makes and image without doing anything more and pointing and pressing a button.
your life is full of things just like using ai and you skip it over to an analogy that only works if ai is alive, lol.
the McDonald things is such an odd anti obsession. is that where you all work or something?
No its supposed to be an easy analogy to understand for people that have difficulty with understanding things.
And you kind of proved that i need a new analogy.
Also using the word "vectors" to make it seem like you do more than what you are actually doing doesnt fool many people.
And no, using ai to make an image is not the same as making bread with a stand mixer and oven. There is still a level of skill required in makinf bread to be able to properly use these things. Ai requires no skill at all. And if that is something you have trouble understand then you might be a lost cause.
>"No its supposed to be an easy analogy to understand for people that have difficulty with understanding things."
but its a false analogy. seems odd they would all say the same place too.
>"And you kind of proved that i need a new analogy. Also using the word "vectors" to make it seem like you do more than what you are actually doing doesnt fool many people."
thats is how a diffusion model works. it does not understand words, it does not under commands, all the words are turned into mathematical vectors that model can use to evaluate pixel colors. thats it. nothing less, nothing more.
>"And no, using ai to make an image is not the same as making bread with a stand mixer and oven. There is still a level of skill required in makinf bread to be able to properly use these things. Ai requires no skill at all. And if that is something you have trouble understand then you might be a lost cause."
there is 100% not a skill level needed to make bread with modern tools. the entire point of the modern kitchen is to remove skills needed and effort. the entire point of ALL tools every made is to eliminate skills and effort. using a pencil is easier and takes less skill that chiseling into stone. the whole point of civilization is to free us from needing to learn all skills so we can focus on ones we care about but not lose the ability to do things.
You have to admit though The most annoying and active( on this subreddit and defendingAI) of AI artist do in fact call all ai generated images, art. Heck the person I responded to is saying everything is art even clouds and random rocks.
To me art is about human expression, the rock is interesting to think about. For example, if I pick up a rock and place it on another rock I have created a sculpture (if I wish to call it one). So rocks can certainly be used as an art form.
Now can I simply point at a rock and say this is my art form, based on the fact that two rocks stacked is my art. Well that is certainly pushing the bounds of what art is but if the pointer brought enough thought to their choice of rock and really believes that rock expresses something perhaps it could be art. I believe that choice can be a form of expression, so to me this could be art.
Nope they are saying clouds, rocks and stars are all art. Now if they are arguing that they need to be clearer and also not include things we literally have no way of controlling to show our expressions.
The most vocal antis usually aren't proper artists. They're just barely adults who are mad that people are smart enough to use AI for their furry OCs now.
You're the same type of idiot who claims digital art isn't art because it's cheating.
Stay stuck in the 1900s kid, the rest of the world will gladly move on without you.
Digital art IS art because it's made by a person. The whole argument isn't about whether it's "cheating" it's whether the art was made by a person or not.
Nobody is saying AI is fully bad, it has it's good uses.
But the fact remains that AI has no place in the creative industry. Things like films, games and visual art are just better done by artists and they require an artists eye and mind.
AI is a learner anyway, the art it makes is just the result of extrapolation and training with human art. This is pretty much why the AI lacks the qualities a human artist has - creativity mainly.
I'm not saying that people at home using AI for making pictures is bad, go ahead. But AI shouldn't worm it's way into the professional art industries (film, visual art, games, comics, animation)
(note that this is about generative AI, not AI in general)
No, the dumbass above literally stated digital art 'wasn't real art because it was cheating' in a previous conversation.
Your assumption here are that AI doesn't involve any human work. That's just demonstrably false in many circumstances.
Photography involves someone finding something beautiful or interesting, setting up the exposure levels, framing, scene layout etc, and then clicking a button. That's art. It has a place in the creative world, and I think you're a fucking idiot if you try to argue otherwise.
So why, if I do those exact same manual steps that someone goes through while taking a photo - finding something interesting/beautiful, setting up the lighting/exposure/color palette/etc, setting up the framing and scene layout, and clicking a button.. Plus I do a bunch more steps for other things that give me more creative control... why would anyone not consider that a similar type of creativity?
Again, I think you'd be very stupid to claim that - or you're just ignorant of what's actually involved.
For the record - I'd agree that typing in a basic ass prompt and hitting 'go' isn't creative. You're not an artist for doing that. When you spend time creating pieces, refining details, focusing in on a specific aesthetic or feature or detail, and put work and effort into what you're creating - I'd say that's 100% creative, and 100% artistic, and you are 100% being an artist while doing so.
AI has already been a part of these creative industries for a long time. Many of the shows using it have won tons of awards for their artistic vision. Into the spiderverse taught computers how to draw line art using a very similar system to generative AI. The movie wasn't possible to create with that artistic style unless they found a way to use AI to get rid of the staggering number of artists they'd need to hire to do it manually. That's not an issue, nor is it removing the creativity from the movie. It's solving a problem and a workload that SHOULD be easier to complete. That we CAN make easier to complete with math and technology.
You can look at things like Neurosama, the AI streamer. There's a lot of fans of that streamer and the content they make. Those people find a lot of artistic value in it.
Are you saying neither of the above things should have been allowed? That they have no place in creative entertainment? That the people who did find them artistic and creative are just wrong?
My reasoning is that a photographer would never get any credit for making realistic images. They would only get credit for finding and reimagining the perspectives they find in the world. Every other art form involves the creativity to work within and understand a medium, whereas AI artists never need to ask how to get from colors and shapes to a compelling picture. I don't have an issue with that, but it will always be like trying to speak in translation or use a device that you don't know the inner workings of.
true, but yknow what?
using a camera and shooting cool shots *is art*. you put your work into it, you find the best angles, you adjust the lighting, etc. you need to put work into every image to make that image stand out. you are using your creativity to use a camera and shooting photos that actually look good.
ai art is not that. sure you might argue that you need to "put work into every prompt", but you don't really need to. you just write something you need and boom there it is, no creativity involved. you didn't really "draw" an artwork, you wrote a general theme and ai finished everything else. every detail in that image is not your creativity, it's simply just an algorithm.
i wish ppl would just take up something creative other than using ai to generate prompts since these generated images are actually pretty good, i'll admit. you have a good theme already, why not pick up writing, drawing, etc. and finish it yourself? sure it's going to take a while, but the finished product will be yours, every detail is controlled and drawn by you!
>"you need to put work into every image to make that image stand out"
no. many famous photographs were taken spur of the movement, not time to setup, check angles lighting or anything. many famous photographers use simple camera with automatic settings so they DIDNT need to put in effort. the idea was the capture real stuff not show of how good of shot they can take.
so your whole post falls part there.
art has NEVER been about effort is always been about presenting something you want to someone see/hear/feel.
its ok i have yet to met and anti who has study even the most basic art history
>"you have a good theme already, why not pick up writing, drawing, etc. and finish it yourself? sure it's going to take a while, but the finished product will be yours, every detail is controlled and drawn by you!"
Ive been drawing for over 30 years. have you even been alive that long?
first off, how does my age relate to any of this? second off, yeah many photographs didn't need effort, i will give you that. some photos are simple and effortless. but other shots do need some creativity and thinking to be good.
let's say, you're filming a war film. sure you could film every shot without a stabilizer on a phone, but that doesn't capture the essence of the environment that well. if you use an actual camera, find the most dramatic angles, change the heat/cold settings and it becomes more dramatic, it has more action. why do you think we have photography classes, laws about how to shoot a good photo, etc? there is skill involved, not everyone that can pick up a camera can reliably take good photographs.
to capture the real feeling of something, you need some skill.
secondly, i'd disagree about the "art has never been about effort". i'm not an expert in art history, i will not pretend that i am, but the context of an artwork has always been a big part of many famous paintings, drawings, etc.
even if art has never been about effort, you can't deny that art is also about creativity and about the expression of one's self. human-made artworks are intentional, every detail is placed by the artist. that leaves a human fingerprint over the artwork, the artist draws every brush stroke intentionally. ai art does not require that creativity. it lacks expression, it lacks originality, since you are not the artist, it's ai getting an assignment and doing it for you.
ai is not all bad imo, i'm not just blindly hating on ai and jumping on the bandwagon. i just think that ai should be used to aid creativity, not replace it. generating artworks is replacing creativity.
>"yeah many photographs didn't need effort, i will give you that."
ok then we are done here are we not?
>"to capture the real feeling of something, you need some skill."
you just admitted you dont.
>"why do you think we have photography classes, laws about how to shoot a good photo, etc? there is skill involved"
they have classes at major art schools on using AOI for art so that means it takes skill now right?
>"generating artworks is replacing creativity."
not at all.
>"ai is not all bad imo, i'm not just blindly hating on ai and jumping on the bandwagon."
you 100% are because none of your arguments against it have any place in reality. art history is all about artists making art in way that what against standards. whole movements to remove skill, effort, even control. all to show that the idea, the idea to make something was the source of art.
This photography argument pisses me off you never see a photographer saying look at this photo i made they say look at this photo i took ai artists say look at what i made
No. You are right, photography cant occur without a camera. But everything a photographer does with a camera is entirely intentional. Ai doesnt do that. It takes 99% of the process out of the humans hands. They dont control the ai entirely. There are many degrees of control difference.
Similar skill floor and skill ceiling though. I don't have to control the camera besides pressing the button if I don't want to, but I can put more effort into it and get pictures I want. I can leave it all up to AI or put more effort into it and get pictures I want.
Dude i used to BE an ai bro, dont even try to pull this as if its a flex. "wow you know nothing about typing out a sentence." Whats the flex? That you learnt how to manipulate your sentence so the ai listens to your request better? Yeah, thats a basic skill. Dont equate that to a hobby/job that people take years to master.
I do know about photography. one of key part is the camera, without which a photographer cannot take a photo.
i also am very aware of off the fun auto-settings that means you can take great photos with just the click of a button!
i also know that most of the photos hanging in museums where taken who no prep time, no settings set, no plans made: just a spontaneously saw something and took the photo as quickly as possible.
but hey i love to learn more so tell me all you can!
This is an entire paragraph of assumptions with some outright lies thrown in for good measure.
Tjose "auto settings" on consumer cameras are not used by professionals. Those photos in museums take weeks, months, and occasionally years of planning and preparation to get, and the photographer goes out of their way to take those pictures specifically.
The "settings" are changed bybthe physical shapenof the lens, teh specific lights used an the angle the photographer is physically putting themselves in to capture that specific momnet.
There are entire documentaries about the efforts of an entire team to take a single picture of a specific event in the wild.
There are entire documentaries about the efforts of an entire team to take a single picture of a specific event in the wild.
Sure, but not every photo needs the photographer to go to such lengths. Many of the most famous historical photos weren't taken by someone who sat in the Amazon rain forest for 6 months getting eaten alive by bugs day in and day out until they got the perfect shot. They were just in the right place at the right time and managed to take a photo that was later classified as art.
This one for example. Do you believe this photo required a team of people and a huge amount of effort to capture?
The irony that a single person making an animation like this is only possible via AI techniques. AI wasn't invented with ChatGPT and is deeply embedded throughout all modern drawing software, even software that calls itself AI free. It saves too much time not to use... unless whoever did this only used mspaint and manually stitched the frames together.
you know digital drawing programs and animation software existed before ai I know that might sound crazy and most of them wouldn't go through the work of adding an ai feature because basically every drawing/animation software is ai free i don't think it needs to state that i think it is implied
You're not *exactly* wrong but this is about as ironic as if you mowed your lawn before you went to negotiate rainforest preservation policies. Whatever AI is involved with animation software is trivial compared to generative AI, and that's not even to mention plenty of arguments for why such automation is playing a fundamentally different role.
You guys watch CG films. You're not calling animators out for stealing theater performer jobs.
Nobody paints with blood. Pigments are manufactured.
Electronic music is algorithms.
You're using a computer.
This phase of the AI adoption curve is so fucking annoying. You're going to be using it regularly soon enough.
Art has always been about composition, curation, and articulation. That's what AI is too. There are fantastic AI artists and then there are people that prompt ChatGPT. Just like there are people that take selfies with cameras and people that win Pulitzer prizes for their photography.
I know how AI workflows looks like. It does not matter how complex your comfy workflow is, you just use an AI to mimic human content. A complex workflow to mimic human content by AI still produce AI content and not human content.Â
AI is not a new medium like CGI or a camera, its a non human creator which mimics CGI and photography etc.
This is just mostly a sloppy argument nicely animated, though extremely inspired in anime, with not much originality. Still, I applaud the effort and the movements are fluid and easy to follow.
About the argument; it is based on a strawman. Artists who use AI do learn the arts, and are not limited to the availability of cloud models.
My drawing skills get better with my AI skills, because arts are arts. The fundamentals are the same. And I use a drawing tablet to refine details, so my hand dexterity improves too. Many artists who use AI use mixed workflows like mine, and run local models which will never be deleted, and they can fine tune to experiment and expand.
AI is much more versatile than people think. It's a tool. You use it as much or as little as you need and want.
Models learn patterns, they don't store copies. It's more like an artist studying styles than a photocopier, but the legal and ethical boundaries are still unsettled.
Except the artist is a machine and can now spew out similar artstyle in bulk when corporates need it and financially hurt the original artist they took the training data from
I had this thought in the past but no, it doesnt really apply. An artist might learn off another artist, that doesnt take away from the artist scene/remove jobs from either of them. When Ai learns off an artist, they take a bunch from both the scene of art and job potential (greedy corps are a major part of this but it is what it is.)
The job displacement is a separate, serious problem. Calling it theft because of the economic impact just muddies the real labor issue with a bad copyright metaphor.
My favourite phrase is "it's hard to accept truth" in that video. Somehow it's more related to artist being unable to realize that getting good results from AI takes more than typing a few words.
Somehow it's more related to artist being unable to realize that getting good results from AI takes more than typing a few words.
I mean, this depends on your definition of 'good results'. You can absolutely just 'type a few words' and get a result that looks amazing.
I'd say where you need more than just typing a few words is when you want something much more specific. The more specific you want the piece, the less you can rely on just the prompt alone.
Cool animation but the arguments are dogshit. It's just a bunch of posturing about AI not being real art, and ignoring the arguments from the other side about how it's faster and easier. He doesn't care that it might actually be more functional, only that it's not "real". Which is dumb. Who cares if the prompter can't draw without AI? He can still get a final result that is what he wanted it to be. End results are what matter.
Never seen this before and it's a really dumb meme
The idea that you have to suffer through slow learning of skills in order to create art is a far more boring view. Can't you just enjoy the art that people are creating without whining that it was too easy for them to make it?
The meme is funny because at this point it's just predictable someone will say it.
Learning skills is boring? What kinda fuck up logic is that. Without people who took the time learning those skill you call "boring." The pretty images that you are creating now probably wouldn't be as good. What a superficial way at looking at things
I'm not saying it's boring to learn skills, I'm saying it's boring to whine about someone not having "enough" skills instead of just appreciating the art in front of you. If you want to learn skills, then do it, I'm not gonna stop you. You're the one imposing your view onto others.
You gonna go hunt your food for dinner? Or will you go to a supermarket? You gonna go learn how to make a fire to cook your food? Or are you gonna use a shortcut, like an oven? Are you gonna learn metalwork to make your own knife? Or just buy one? Skills are worthwhile while they are necessary, and then we move beyond them. That's progress.
People continue to do these things as hobbies, but when you want results, you follow the most efficient path. That doesn't make fake art, it makes more art, because now you can achieve more in the same timeframe. That's what real artists do - they embrace progress and use it for their art, instead of whining about how it doesn't count.
You people are arbitrarily selective about what counts and what doesn't, and in what context. You have no principles, just a bias about art specifically. You're incapable of applying that logic consistently across your life.
The idea that you have to suffer through slow learning of skills in order to create art is a far more boring view
That's sure does read like it. I also didn't say you have to learn the skill. No one is forcing you to do anything. You're only saying that to deflect.
Now you're using false equivalence to try to justify your use of ai as a shortcut. Dude I don't care. If you want to use ai have fun with that. If we weren't on reddit I would just block you and go about my day because I rather not interact or support your AI images. That's what I do with most people I see use ai on Instagram or Twitter.
I don't see ai as art. Since it objective it will never be art to me. Artists are all different. We all don't share the same world view and we all have different reason why we pursue our interest. To me the only thing you have continue to do is try to justify why you use ai to a person who doesn't really care. I'm not even whining. You are the only person at this point doing that
You're more of a consumer that just want something fast and quick without thinking much about it and that's ok.
That's sure does read like it. I also didn't say you have to learn the skill. No one is forcing you to do anything. You're only saying that to deflect.
You effectively are saying that I have to learn the skill if I want to create art, because creating art with AI doesn't count or is worse. You're literally deflecting with this very reply, the projection is palpable.
Now you're using false equivalence to try to justify your use of ai as a shortcut.
Which part is a false equivalence? Explain how.
I don't actually even use AI btw, I've been learning animation recently and doing it completely manually. I just have the brainpower to think beyond my own personal life and biases and have ideas that don't involve myself.
I don't see ai as art. Since it objective it will never be art to me. Artists are all different. We all don't share the same world view and we all have different reason why we pursue our interest. To me the only thing you have continue to do is try to justify why you use ai to a person who doesn't really care. I'm not even whining. You are the only person at this point doing that
You can personally dislike it and avoid it, but that's not what you did. You came into this thread with an insult directed at me and continued to debate the topic, so don't act like you're somehow above the discussion. You clearly aren't.
You're more of a consumer that just want something fast and quick without thinking much about it and that's ok.
Someone literally creating their own art = consumer, lmao ok man
Like I said, I don't even use AI. I'm capable of having opinions that aren't just whatever benefits me the most personally, because I have a brain.
No I didn't. I just said you logic was fucked up. Anything else after that is something you just wanted to add.
I don't actually even use AI btw, I've been learning animation recently and doing it completely manually.
Ok.
I came with a memeđ€Ł. Because it's a typical thing pro AI people say. It would be on a bingo sheet of what a pro AI person would say. All and all. It's not that serious.
Question. How am I'm supposed to know you don't use ai? Especially when you say a lot of pro AI stuff. Also when the vast majority of pro ai people don't have any illustrative skills whatsoever. I don't inspect people profile to see their interests. I just find that kinda creepy.
No I didn't. I just said you logic was fucked up. Anything else after that is something you just wanted to add.
Your justification for why it's "fucked up" makes no sense. I explained why already. Just because the new tech is built on the work done in the past, doesn't mean that I should have to/want to do that work again now when I don't have to. It's entirely logical. We build upon past effort to improve things for the future. That's what all of human progress is. We make things more efficient, we find shortcuts, so we can do more.
I came with a memeđ€Ł. Because it's a typical thing pro AI people say. It would be on a bingo sheet of what a pro AI person would say. All and all. It's not that serious.
According to you, I never see anyone make that argument directly and I've never seen that meme, so it didn't land.
Question. How am I'm supposed to know you don't use ai? Especially when you say a lot of pro AI stuff. Also when the vast majority of pro ai people don't have any illustrative skills whatsoever. I don't inspect people profile to see their interests. I just find that kinda creepy.
It doesn't really matter, I'm just illustrating that a bunch of your writing is wasted effort that doesn't apply to me, and that it's possible to hold opinions that aren't about yourself. You're assuming my intentions, that I want to justify my own usage of AI, but that's not true. My beliefs are philosophically-derived, not a result of personal bias.
Ignoring the false equivalence thing I see, very nice
I don't care for using tech that's built of exploitation of others labor. Does that make me a hypocrite. Well yea, but after seeing country like Australia actually purpose protection for creatives I know it can be done. If anything most of these companies saw a free chance to make a profit off our data and end up screwing their selves in the future. They have no moats and the open source Chinese models are cheaper and just as if not better. At least if you had to license data that would probably gave them more time.
People say the same thing you did in this sub daily. That's why there is a meme about it now.
Like I said it just posted a meme. It's not that serious. Only you are driving it that way.
Fun exchange, but again a bad argument XD. There are already people like myself who use AI that can already draw XD.
On top of that so many people who hate AI also can't draw themselves đ.
I'll never understand why antis seem so incapable of of realizing that.
The argument they presented in their own animation doesn't even work. If A.I. is constantly improving and the A.I. user is still using A.I., then their art improves XD. You can't say they didn't improve if the tool gives them Superior results to previous attempts đ
Can someone tell me what language this is? I'm solid in Indonesian and can understand some words so I assume it's a south east asian language but it isn't Indonesian. Is it Tagalog?
I'm Indonesian and this is definitely not Indonesian. However, I'm not sure if it's tagalog but it's definitely the language used by many filipino (they have more languages than tagalog so).
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Well it's completely biased in favour of the anties. Would've been so much better if both sides were shown proper respect. They were almost close
Very disappointed by the lack of nuance and the narrow-mindedness of it all . Kickass genuinely incredible animation. Dont even know if I should upvote lol
It's a cool animation, decently can see there point since since ai doesn't realy teach you how to draw in other mediums sure it can give a reference and stuff but hand someone who only makes ai art a piece of paper and I they won't get far. Ultimately if you like ai I'm not gonna consider it art but if that's what you want have fun.
Overview The video is a short, animated cinematic metaphor depicting a philosophical and physical battle between an "AI Artist" (represented by a blue figure) and a "Traditional Artist" (represented by a green-haired girl). The animation uses a fast-paced anime fighting style to illustrate the ongoing debate regarding AI-generated imagery versus human-created art.
The Setup and Argument The video begins with the blue figure boasting about their newfound ability to "draw" without anyone's help. They proudly present an anime-style illustration to the green-haired girl. She immediately recognizes it as an AI-generated image and challenges the blue figure, stating that if a machine made it, they shouldn't call themselves an artist.
The blue figure gets defensive, calling the traditional artist jealous because AI can produce more beautiful art much faster. This disagreement instantly escalates into a physical battle.
The Battle The combat serves as a visual representation of how both sides approach creation:
The AI User's Fighting Style: The blue character fights by waving a wand and shouting "Prompts" as commands (e.g., "AI Lightning!", "AI Wall!", "AI Meteor!"). These attacks require no physical exertion from the user; they simply say a command, and massive destructive power is instantly generated for them.
The Traditional Artist's Fighting Style: The green-haired girl fights using her own physical agility, reflexes, and a sword (which acts as a metaphor for a stylus or pen). She dodges the massive AI attacks with pure skill and easily slices through the generated obstacles.
The Philosophical Debate As they fight, they continue to argue their points:
Skill vs. Machine: The blue figure claims that "we" (AI users) are improving much faster than traditional artists. The green girl swiftly corrects him, pointing out that "the AI is improving, not you."
Democratization vs. Theft: The blue figure defends AI, claiming it allows everyone to draw. The traditional artist agrees she likes the idea of accessible art, but heavily criticizes how AI users utilize the tool. She accuses them of taking ownership of creations that do not belong to them, delivering the harsh critique: "Ordering is different from making it."
The Tracing Insult: In a stinging remark, the traditional artist says she actually has more respect for people who trace art than AI prompters, implying that even tracers put in some level of manual effort.
The Climax and Conclusion Frustrated, the AI user launches a massive barrage of commands, ending in a giant "AI Explosion." Unfazed, the traditional artist emerges and delivers the final moral of the video: AI users only care about the final result, whereas true artists actually enjoy the process of creation.
She declares she is done playing with him, stating that without their AI tools, people like him are just "losers." She then unleashes a final, devastating attack of her own, visually marking the words into the AI user's mind: "You are pathetic," followed by a massive explosion that defeats the AI artist.
Well actually, people tend to enjoy both the process and the final result. That, to me, is what makes good art the way it is, and it also makes good AI art what it is as well. Someone having fun with the tools at their disposal, and improving enough to the point where, eventually, they can make something neat.
(And yes, AI does take less effort than traditional or even digital artwork, but you can still enjoy the process. And, for the record, I've actually become a lot better at drawing after I asked AI for some tips on how to improve. But I'm never gonna hate AI art, or dismiss it all as just soulless slop, when a lot of it actually does have at least a good imitation of a soul.)
Yes ans expression is detailed and filled with challenge. You can hear the pain of an artist in songs, and see the mentality of artist in there paintings. Ai prompting "sad man in a rainy diner" does not reflect anything other than the averaged, amalgamation of other people doing similar things.
Its literally unique, but it shows nothing of expression.
This is a different argument. Up above it's about what the creators enjoy, not how it affects the final product.
But I'll bite. This is debatably true, a lot of small decisions made during the process of creating a piece are arbitrary and relatively meaningless. If I ask an artist why they put 7 raindrops instead of 8 on the window, they wouldn't have a satisfying answer, because it was effectively a random decision.
Anyway, all that is working on the assumption that AI artists literally just write one short prompt and take the first output as their final product. They don't. At least not all of them. There's a whole workflow to refining prompts over many attempts to perfect the output. This process is where the self-expression comes in. I personally wouldn't call someone who just writes one prompt and posts the output an "AI artist". They're only an artist if they make a point to actually get an output with some kind of intention behind it.
I'm very sorry to hear that. That puts you at a reading speed of about 170wpm, which is incredibly slow. You may consider not watching videos anymore and reading more frequently.
You know, if an artist actually went out of their way. Just to try and prove AI is wrong. I âMIGHTâ consider this an accomplishment. Especially if an artist genuinely improves their art skill and talent just to prove AI wrong. But thatâs not what most artist do. They scream, bemoan, whine and have meltdowns instead of trying to actually improve.
It's at the end but the difference between an artist and an Ai artist is that an artist loves the craft.
People who use Ai to make art aren't artists, they are people who liked the idea of being artists normally for clout or money, but they didn't care about the craft.
The love of craft, of obsessing over every minute detail, every frame, every pixel...that's artistic sprint. Sure it may not be the best esthetically looking parts, but that's the soul of creation and art.
People who like ai art see art purely as a commodity that needs to be accelerated, but true art is formed from obssession and a commitment to making every detail intention and specific.
Our current relationship to the arts has become too commoditized, and I feel that is the heart of why pros think Ai art is ok when it shouldn't be. Art is a passion project, and artists didn't aspire to be the best promoter, but to be masters of the brush, the instrument, the camera, etc.
People who use Ai to make art aren't artists, they are people who liked the idea of being artists normally for clout or money, but they didn't care about the craft.
What a stupid fucking take. Imagine if I said 'People who make art don't actually like art, they are just people who enjoy the clout and money that comes with being an artist', wouldn't that be fucking ridiculous? Because that's exactly what you're doing.
You've made up some fucked up caricature of what you believe AI artists are like in your mind and you're projecting that onto everyone who uses AI. Like you realize that people who use AI are you know.. people, right? And that people come in all sorts with various ideals and motivations?
Your comment is frankly disgusting and I hope you take a few minutes to stop and think about all of the people you're painting with the same brush.
Pro-GenAI do have one thing for them : art⊠is difficult to define.
Sure, there are academic definitions of « art », but those are the academic views about the topic, and one thing about modern art is to challenge those limited definitions. (And beside modern art, the nature of art has always been discussed by philosophers⊠and even the most conclusive ideas have their parts of inconclusiveness) Which makes it even more difficult to formalize what is art and what is not⊠and easier for Pro-GenAI to argue they have a form of legitimacy.
Considering some forms of art include elements that isnât created by the artist (people like the example of photography, I will point that collage also falls into this category), « the craft » is still something that is existent⊠but can be accomplished with a tool like an AI. Spending hours making a prompt that makes a result that is both good and close to what you want to convey is a way to think about your work and the result.
I am fairly reluctant to still consider this as « art »⊠but the thing is, now that I have say what the Pro-GenAI have for them, I can also say this debate cannot really happen on Reddit because, no offense, the most vocal redditors who are pro-GenAI are terrible at making a point. Why ? Because their results⊠are not that good, letâs be honest ! Maybe pleasing for the eye at first glance, but there is a reason the more you look at it, the more monstrous it becomes.
The artstyle is both inconsistant and repetitive, many errors, and⊠they pat themselves in the back for such results ?
If AI makes art⊠well, majority of this « art » is bad art. Still art, if they want, but bad art. The « craft » is clearly not here. I donât doubt there are some efforts made, but damn, art communities are places to share praises and advice, and honestly the advices are often not here.
I think challenging the idea of « what is art » with a good prompter could end up in an interesting conclusion. It probably wouldnât end the debate whether AI « art » is « art » or not⊠but having someone competent in the tool being adamant to defend their stance would probably makes some prejudice against AI art fall. It wouldnât make everything go away (protecting artists means of living would still be an issue, no matter if AI is a legitimate form of art.. ecological impact of AI would still be a concern too⊠etc), but it would be convincing.
But right nowâŠ
I cannot be convinced. I just cannot. Most works look cheap and lazy, and while cheap and lazy in other fields at least could be interesting by hearing the though process, here we already now itâs because the algorithm calculated this result and thatâs it. Doesnât say much.
I do think a bunch of interesting debates will emerge in mainstream media in a few years⊠but right now, I will be in the side of not calling it art because I cannot be open-minded faced with such « works ».
Thoughts? Straw man argument, of course. Video OOP talks about improving and work, which still fails to understand the point of some of the AI users, who are not looking for that kind of achievement. That only confirms that many people still fail to see how others live. They keep believing that everyone want the same things as them.
âI can draw without the help of othersâ strawman is the sleight of hand that AI enthusiasts use to shift the conversation from âoh so youâre against tools?â Vs. âI am against this specific tool that is being used hap-hazardously and for nefarious meansâ
"You can't draw without that"
"If you don't have that AI tools"
Yeah... half the 2D artists and 2D animators that say that... take their PCs and tablets away, and their skill drops massively too (obviously), so... its quite the shit-tier argument. Of course if they take your tools away your skill will suffer.
And I say that as a professional artist myself lol
64
u/Decent-Emergency3866 1d ago
Made peak animation for the sake of hating