This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
There are ways to apply different prompts to different part of canvas to avoid this very thing but it's a bit more advanced than asking grok to make an image
Also another thing to mention, in original the women sees it and is disgusted or is just unsure if she should stop it.
while in the AI version she is unaware of the thievery happening being shocked at another piece of bread or the ground, or just exhausted? The emotion is lost in more ways than one, the whole art has different meaning... only thing that actually stayed is the boy taking the bread, its not even as well done to be sure he is stealing xD
The boy in the original is holding his hand to symbol that he is forced, but doesnt want to steal the bread, the AI version seems like he just needs to hold it for balance or because its more comfortable idk...
One of the reasons to dislike at least those AI artists, that give the least effort in the creation of the image, at least it used good visuals from random anime that he never knew about...
The brighter shop lighting changes the mood
The "fingertips pressing against the glass" detail got lost
The baker looks way younger
Snow on the boy's cap got removed
It looks generic
The generated art looks less interesting and I'm not saying this out of spite for AI. It's genuinely easier and more engaging to visualize a story from the drawing.
Also she no longer looks at him. She seems to be disturbed by something else on the right. The window seems gone entirely. AI interpreted the shine on the window as some kind of sun rays and made it as such.
You don't have to take your anger out on people who have nothing to do with that. There are more jobless people than jobs available, poverty is a problem for many people - so please don't belittle the poorest even more by pigeonholing them like that.
It's a phrase. I have nothing against people without a job. It's just that the person is acting like they have too much time on their hands, and they do this shit
Yes but that's exactly the problem: a bad phrase is just pushing the narrative of a common prejudice. Same with "touch grass" when today's reality is just that everything happens online, including a lot of jobs.
Most common one is that people who play outside in the dirt would be "better" than people playing video games, not accepting that both can be totally valuable hobbies. And they often start using the term only because someone starts explaining "too many" details and diving deep into fictional content.
Yeah, that looks significantly more 'generic anime' rather than the clear tone of the original art. That's not a improvement at all beyond 'rendering' (not really, just how shiny and warm it looks) that is simply distracting.
It's not about whether or not people see it's a troll. Troll or not, it's fucked up. If things like this were never talked about, the internet would be a pretty bland place
They genuinely thought that they were doing a service to the original artist by improving it. I've seen the type of people. "Don't attribute to malice what may just be stupidity"
Using Artificial Intelligence to show their Natural Stupidity.
Unfortunately a lot of the ProAI community seems to support this shit or just not think it's a problem because "AI can't steal art" or "you don't own a style" or "you willingly posted it. Stop whining."
I wish more people gave a shit but it doesn't seem like it.
I mean, I think all of us can agree this would be a problem even if the second guy had repainted the original work by hand and claimed they made it better. Or would that be okay by you because that means the second person has 'artistic talent'?
Absolutely, tracing was basically the same shit back without AI but it was usually for stealing designs rather than "improving" them.
Edit: actually looking back I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or trying to attack my viewpoint. I didn't say this was bad because itAI. I just said that a lot of people in the pro-AI support it. You don't have to accept this crap just because you like AI but a lot of people do.
If you classify this image as "AI stealing art" in any way shape or form, then the same can be said for pencil, chisel, brush and photoshop.
This is not "style" question nor "training" question.
This is source image taken and edited, not generated with model and prompt (and LoRa or whatnot).
This is a completely different situation, not related to "AI Steal art" conversation in any way shape or form.
Have you actually run into Pro-AI people who would dismiss this. I'm very pro-AI and while training an AI on art is not stealing art, if you feed art into and AI and then partially denoise it like this person did, you're doing the same thing as tracing, and creating a derivative work without permission, which is stealing. My argument about "it's stealing!" is that if you can't tell what specific work it's being "stolen" from, it's not stealing, but in this case it they had the AI trace the work (and created something insultingly bland and unexpressive in the process) then had the absolute gall to tell the real artist that they "improved" it.
Can a art piece get better by feeding it to AI? Depends on the artist's skill, but there are cases where it is a yes. Do you have to brag about it to the original creator? No. That's just plain rude.
Well no. It can't get better by feeding it to AI. "Better" implies one of two things. Either it is more skillfully made or it is subjectively better according to some person. Sure, things can always get subjectively "better" but it's also getting subjectively "worse" at the same time according to somebody else. So it's silly to say it got better at all.
But if we're talking about more skillfully made then that's obviously impossible because AI doesn't make images with skill, it's just an algorithm. It doesn't have any skill because it literally has no idea what it's doing.
So why even bother conceding that AI can make art better? It can't. Even if that mattered. Because the process of getting better through practice and effort is what really matters. Even if a skilled artist condescendingly "improved" the artwork of someone else unprompted they would still be a jerk because everyone had to start somewhere. But that's besides the point, because AI is not a skilled artist.
it's just an algorithm. It doesn't have any skill because it literally has no idea what it's doing.
This is one of those things that's really more wrong than right. I mean, yeah, it's a convenient thing that you can say if you hate AI that's technically true in some ways, but you're either being deliberately misleading or you don't really know what you're talking about.
Calling AI an algorithm is skipping the important layer of abstraction that they "algorithm" simulates a neural network. The neural network is what's doing the legwork, not the "algorithm", which is obvious, since if you swap out the values representing the neural connections with random data, you get nothing recognizable.
As for it having "literally no idea what it's doing", given the fact that it understands the context of things (like what objects go in a kitchen, what a reflection on a lake looks like, and so on), it's not correct to say that it "literally has no idea what it's doing", because it's clearly figured out a lot of context from training. AI video generators make this even more obvious because you can feed them a single picture, even without a prompt, and they can make it move pretty naturally.
That doesn't mean it's conscious, but the more you actually study consciousness, the more it becomes clear that consciousness, knowledge, and thought aren't inexorably linked. You make most decisions before the conscious, thinking part of your brain is even aware that you've made them.
Even if that mattered. Because the process of getting better through practice and effort is what really matters.
The lack of acknowledgement of latent talent is survivorship bias. It's like the guy who opens up a business and becomes an insufferable libertarian. "If I can do it, anyone can do it!"
If I draw something and then use AI to improve it, and I prefer AI's result, then in my perspective it made it better. Doing that to someone else's art is a dick move, though.
I'm not reading all that because your first sentence is wrong and I don't have the time to waste. I don't say this "because I hate AI" I say it because it's true. A machine has no skill and AI is not a person. I'm not saying it's bad at doing things. I'm saying it's unskilled.
Because it's easier than arguing when you're wrong. Anyway, I'm gonna go ahead and block you, because whether you read it or not, I don't get the sense that you're worth my time and I'm not interested in your reply.
This is like the AI equivalent of when artists edit another artist's drawing by darkening skin tones and saying they "fixed" the artwork, or something along those lines
What that person did was out of line - full stop. Running someone else’s finished artwork through an image generator and then telling the artist “AI made your work better” is disrespectful no matter what tools you use.
Even among people who work with AI, there’s a pretty clear line:
• Using AI for reference, iteration, transformative creation, or study = acceptable.
• Using AI to alter someone else’s completed piece and then announcing it to them = not acceptable.
If you’re doing it as a private proof-of-concept, that’s one thing. But posting it to the artist as if you “fixed” their work is tone-deaf and guaranteed to offend.
It’s simply a manners issue. And unfortunately, this can happen with mediums other than AI too, like with music.
Those "fixed it for you" attempts when they're completely unwarranted are pathetic, it's hilarious when it backfires though, like that one time someone tried to "fix" a manga cover because they saw the character had black pantyhose on, so they edited the character to be black, then people pointed out the character in question was a slave in the manga, that person backtracked really fast. Don't think I can find the original tweet but there's a Reddit post about it from like 3 years ago.
There was one point where some internet rando "improved" that infamous Spiderman cover where MJ is in that ridiculously sexy pose on the couch. It got all over the internet and people started harassing the real artist with it on twitter, so he came back and "improved" the "improved" version, pointing out all of the flaws in it. A lot of people got their panties in a bunch that he did that to some poor, smug twitter artist, but IMO they deserved it for doing that shit over something that was obviously a style choice and not a skill issue.
Yeah. There are cases where it's fine, but the new work needs to different enough to coexist. I created a character based on someone else's character, but my character was different, even though the original character was fully used as a reference.
Its straight up petty, AI or not. If the guy redrew the artwork by hand and posted it to say "Here, I drew your art but better" being no better than middle school behavior.
One of the the mediums this happens in outside of AI is ironically, Art
People have taken art from other users, and then posted their own version in an attempt to "fix" it, and like this with AI and any other form or "fixing" someone else's work, it is always a shitty thing to do
"Your post inspired me to draw my own version (traditionally)", replied to artist - OK
"I made your picture better! (Traditionally or AI)", replied to artist - Disrespectful
"I used your post as a basis for experimenting with AI tools", replied to artist - Borderline, probably shouldn't post it
"I'm experimenting with AI tools, and used this image to show things we can do. Credit to <artist name>." posted in your AI focused group as an academic discussion - OK
Sounds like Shadiversity. Man can actually draw but he’s convinced his AI abominations of his drawings are just so much better. Man is delusional (and for other things but those are outside this sub’s topic).
Even if it is better, acting snobbish about being superior automatically makes you look like a dick. Just look at those 2 different people who did covers of RUSH E. One did it well, then a guy in the comments was saying it wasn't that good and he could do it better. He ended up proving himself right, but most of the comments in his video are spewing back the same negativity he gave the first guy because of how he acted.
It's just weirdos who think that by "adding something through a prompt" means that they contributed to the project and they are as good as the person who actually did something
Hot take, AI isn’t even problem it’s just a tool that provides increased minimum capacity in production for people.
Problem is what people do with this advanced tool that gives them capacity to do harm.
We gave apes semi automatic rifles believing it will act mature and use it with responsibility, and people like that are literally apes with automatic rifles flinging shit and shooting everyone unpredictably in order to farm clout and get noticed.
This simply shows how we shouldn’t really give ourselves capacity beyond certain point because we cannot assume responsibility over what we can do with it.
Now apes are going tribal war with rifles because history repeats itself. We are really hopeless creatures that never learn.
I think you are right. So far AI have been really helpful for me on making decisions in personal life and boosting work productivity.
It really have been selfless advisor who does not have any ulterior motives and spends time explaining everything regardless of how draining it would be if someone were to explain it to another, like literally I got my new PC built from AI's advices for hardware compatibility and avoid bottlenecking, and its been fantastic.
Sometimes AI stops me from making really simple but big mistakes because it gives me objective perspective and data.
On the other hand, people in general including myself have motives and sometimes benign sometimes sinister, and often times we blame others and things for our own shitty behavior.
I'd say I am far more anti-human than anti-AI just from personal experiences alone.
I don't hate the tool, I hate the fact shitty people boost themselves and tenfold the harm they would've done without being amplified by it and then try to blame the tool for their bad behavior.
This is just rage baiting tbh, and not relevant to AI any traditional artist could do that too
And AI could just do way better than that, they intentionally did it sloppy lmao
I don't think anyone would do this if antis didn't first bully people for using AI. This is his way of giving the anti community a taste of their own medicine
Even if this artist (I have no idea who they are) had directly bullied people for using AI, this isn't the way to go about dealing with that. Even in the unlikely case that they're a terrible person and they totally deserved it, that context is easily lost.
Even if you were correct which you aren't since this has been a thing since the very early days of AI slop but even if you were right, two wrongs never make a right and this isn't even taking into account artists who never spoke out against AI until finding their work stolen.
Well pertaining to the bigger conversation or "the war", I think a very small % of pros are the ones doing shit like that. Most pros are just regular people who used AI once online and got brigaded and had no ill will towards anyone. I'm one of them. So, it sounds like there's a small group of pros being douches in art groups but I guarantee >90% of the pros on here people like me. It seems like the % of antis brigading and attacking random people is much higher because it's so prevalent. I dunno. It just seems like the whole war is a bunch of unnecessary bullshit aimed at the wrong people
I agree with that the percentage of Pros who do this BS is definitely <5%, but the amount of Antis that do the brigading is similar, but you hear about it a lot more due to the algorithm.
I don't see those. This is because the algorithm doesn't recommend me those. I still see AI shit that I don't personally enjoy seeing. Basically no bashing happens to those posts and I ignore them, only inwardly being repulsed by them.
Well they do say that our social media algorithms are comprised of things that we engage with and most often, people engage with things that make them argue
Do you need permission to make memes using an image to express a meaning the original creator never intended?
Do you need the author’s approval to create fanart or fanfiction just because you didn’t like the ending? Or shipping the character the reading like instead of what the author originally intended?
Do you need to ask before sampling someone’s music?
You don’t.
This is how modern art(metamodernism) works. Memes, fanart, AI art are example of metamodernism art medium.
Also see the idea of Dead of the Author if you are interested in similar issue.
Metamodernism is the intersection of Modern optimism and Postmodern scepticism; where post-modernism criticises the pitfalls and naivete of modernism, Metamodernism criticises the pitfalls and bitter self-destructive cynicism of post-modern attitudes.
A movie where the government saves the day is modernist. A postmodernist movie is one where the government is the villain. A metamodernist movie has seperate factions within said government fighting each other.
Superman 2025, Everything Everywhere All At Once, Brooklyn Nine Nine are all metamodern works.
Metamodernism is just a kind of art, and has nothing to do with your argument in the same sense that cinematography is irrelevant to a book.
Addressing your intended point, No one needs anyone's permission to create art.
The problem is that it's basic courtesy to not wave derived works in the creator's face and saying things to the effect of "improving it". I don't send Dana Terrace's bluesky account links to my Owl House fanfiction, and I definitely don't say that my writing is better than the source material, and that's regardless of how good my work is.
Wikipedia only touches the surface/the genre, but it misses the actual mechanics.
Metamodernism isn't just "optimistic movies." It relies on "Constructive Pastiche" which means taking existing cultural fragments (like memes, characters, samples) and remixing them to build new, sincere meaning. You can't have the philosophy without the remix.
If you want to see how the medium works beyond just the Wikipedia definition, I think this is a good introductory article https://nesslabs.com/metamodernism
I only linked the Wikipedia article because I didn't want to hunt down the video essays i learned the subject from. I still feel that you are using the word metamodern incorrectly in the context of your original comment.
Problem is with sincerity, genuine intent, and the spirit of good faith. Memes are all for laughs. Fanart and fanfiction are about genuinely contributing to the characterization and fleshing out the setting.
The example shown is just bad faith. It's just trying to one-up someone who put effort and intent into a piece of art by barely putting in any effort then claiming it's better. It's trying to claim superiority instead of promoting cooperation.
And the result? A bastardization that lost its meaning, instead of passing down the emotions regardless of context, like all good memes do.
I do this when I see art that is a really good idea. But is lacking full potential. Like if I really like an image but want it to look better.
But I don't go around telling the artists about it.
I just add it to my collection.
I think people that do tell artists though are just trying to complement them. Saying your art was so good that it made them want to make it even better.
Though I get how it can be taken in a negative way.
Also isn't there a whole thing in the artists community where artists "fix" images other people made.
"I saw someone mocking someone else, but THEY SAID AI bros!"
Thats how you sound, focusing on the wrong part instead of the person mocking the OOP's art.
And you are shocked when someone disrespects you slightly.
Its for these silly reasons, thats why.
Wanna see ancient scrolls of "real" artists "improving" other people's characters because someone drew them one tone lighter, not fat enough, not hairy enought, not gay, too sexy?
This "improving" thing has been done since there were douchebags and public forums to share art.
No, they're saying the use of the term 'AI bro' is bad. No one calls AI users 'AI bros' with good intentions. It's meant to be on a similar level to 'tech bros' and 'crypto bros'. It's an insult.
For the record. I do not care if someone puts some of my work (I work with 3D) into a generator and filters it with AI. I think it's neat. I don't take it as an insult to my skill or theft or anything. It's just a model interpreting what it sees to me.
But with that said, I can kind of understand why it would annoy someone on a personal level, but I feel their annoyance towards the issue. Maybe they take it as a slight against their skill? Disrespecting their work? I can't say for sure, but it's just not something I feel.
That's terrible. Doesn;t this AI-Bro know that real artists only passive aggressively "fix" someone's art if they draw an anime character with too light a skin tone, or boobs that are too big.
Humans have free will, you can't control what other people do. Artist had a "No Ai" sign on their page and telling people not to do something makes them want to do it more and it's honestly angering Antis with something so trivial. Remember the golden rule when it comes to posting your art online:
That's only because they told the artist, which is obnoxious. Same in your example, they can see you ordering mcdonalds and thus will be insulted.
If you just do it on your own time and don't tell the artist (provided you obtained the original legally by paying them or them offering it for free), then you've removed all harm from the situation. In the analogy it would be like me taking a few bites, and politely complimenting the food, but not eating much, then on the way home getting mcdonalds and never speaking of it to them.
It's still disrespectful as you give the Ai companies permission to use the media/text/likeness of whatever you use with their programs. Not only do most artists don't want their art being used for Ai training data or in Ai without their permission (and this artist explicitly noted that they are against people doing that) but you don't actually have the legal authority to be doing that as the non copyright holder to the image (You even agree in the ToS that you're either the copyright holder or have permission/license from them for anything you upload) and it's not just a necessity license either like it has been for the last few decades, they're actively using the media people use for Ai data training, effectively using their users to gather data from others while claiming plausible deniability.
Not doing anything you want me to do is not "disrespectful", that's not what the term means.
If you think I should only wear pink clothes and should only listen to ABBA and no other music, I'm not "disrespecting you" by declining, and living my own life instead.
Respect means deferring to people's desires on things that they are reasonably owed, and that have to do with them, generally. Not being a slave to every random whim they have for my own life.
It is not reasonable for you to dictate how I simply LOOK at and think about things in my own head (or in the AI's network weights, by analogy), you are not thought police. I'm not copying your work, I didn't steal anything, AI doesn't copy anything. You are not harmed, you are not disrespected.
Your unreasonable and invasive desires about how you want me to live my own life are just that: unreasonable. And are politely ignored, which is not disrespectful. If anything, it's disrespectful to try and tell people what to look at or think about or not on your end, not the other way around.
you don't actually have the legal authority to be doing that as the non copyright holder to the image
Yes, you do. Copyright pertains to COPYING. Nothing else. It has literally nothing to do with looking at or learning form art, but not copying it. No law does, that's an unrestricted activity requiring zero permission.
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.
I am on the side where I think that AI art should never be used to replace works by real artists, but I also think pissing off artists recreationally is funny.
If you publish things online, especially on a social media website, you are implicitly sharing your media with others to do with what they will. What others do may not be nice, but you are putting it in their hands.
When you share something, you agree that other people see it. After that, whatever copyright license you have for it is what others are allowed to do with it.
For example; CC BY-SA (Others may use as they wish, as long as the creator is attributed. All derived works must use the same or comparable copyright license).
Art is subjective but... I think most people agree that the original is better. The style is unique, and I feel the intent of the artist comes through clearer. I don't understand why in the AI version the boy has a surprised expression. In the first it appears that he is struggling against his impulse, in the second it looks like he's thinking "why is my hand moving on its own!?!" It makes no sense.
Because art is perceived differently by ever person who ingests it. The piece an artist makes is going to be perfect for them (ideally) and then somewhere along the spectrum of good to bad for each individual viewer of that art. A viewer who likes red will perceive a red filter over the price as an improvement, whereas a person who likes blue would see that as a decrease in quality, but would see a blue filter as an improvement.
So people see something as a 75/100 and then add a personal flair that bumps it up to a 90/100 for them specifically.
And before the 2025 literacy endemic strikes, this is not me condoning the practice, this is me answering the question of "why do people do this"
I understand now, you were responding to the caption below the post (“This is one of the grossest…”). I assumed your comment was a response to only the title. Your comment’s correct in cases where both the artist and the person who used the AI are happy, but the more likely answer for this commenter is to seek attention and troll the artist, especially because the final AI image had many flaws.
Indeed, the title establishes the primary point and it is reiterated when the author states: "I don't understand why people feel they need to "improve" art they see."
The answer being, again, because every individual person has slightly different tastes, meaning that any given piece of art can be modified, slightly or dramatically, to be better tailored to any individual person.
Fun fact: this happens literally all the time, and always has. It just historically isn't with AI. Someone sees an impressionist piece and thinks "well this is a scene of a middle-class boy on the side of a lake, lounging in the grass, but it would be better if it was a group of boys to communicate some sense of unity or companionship" in the past, they just repainted the whole thing. They made their own painting.
This is the AI version of doing the same thing: "I like what's here, but I would personally be more pleased if it looked slightly different " and so they do it. Same motivation, same phenomenon, different tools.
I'm not making a judgement on the action. I have my own personal feelings about the practice that I won't get into here, I'm just explaining what is happening, since a lack of that understanding was the entire premise of the post.
The whole "let me fix your art" thing has been going on for ages before generative AI was even part of the picture. But now with generative AI, even people who wouldn't have ever have been engaged in the arts before now can jump in and do it too.
A lot of the people who really take advantage of this sort of thing are already people inclined towards plagiarism or just finding ways to put others down and are ultimately people you learn to filter out since being around those sorts of people tends to cause more drama and trouble down the line unless you wanted to be part of a YouTube video where someone is going over drama.
I wouldn't really even put this in as an AI-related phenomenon other than the fact that now it's easier than ever for AI to make everyone effectively capable of doing this and not just petty artists.
This isn't even an AI thing. As you get older you just realize how thoughtless most people can be. Maybe that was the only thoughtless thing they did that day. Maybe it was the 100th. Just try to avoid people that get past a few a day; a few a week if you can help it.
Some people simply don't understand that not everything should be said out loud (or over text) to the person they're talking to, and other people are just assholes who think making other people upset is making a point.
Like for fuck's sake can we please not forget the whole 'Making X art better' that some artists did even before AI was a thing?
Some artists are fucking assholes. Some AI bros are also fucking assholes. Congrats, you now understand that some humans are just fucking assholes, regardless of how you're tagging them.
its showing literally what the future is with agi. if people are hellbent on stuff now what happens when agi comes. when we can link the reference image and agi can copy it change enough and its fully ours? copyright as a thing is dying this is only the start of it fully dying out.
even if it stays in its current form in a agi powered future it is useless. your 1 single release could be the best thing in the world if the 50 people that come across it cant use it cause your stingy af they will move on they will join a fandom that lets them make things.
your 1 single release vs 20million other high quality releases that day is just that. lost in all the releases 50k games release on steam a day and indies get lost in those 50k releases now x that by all the high quality ai assisted stuff that will release. on ubi and cost of almost 0 to make things people wont care about money anymore so much stuff is gonna release and just be free.
so competition on price will be reduced to 0 to the point there is no money in it just a fandom. thats the future of art. its being freed and will be exactly what it should be. not art for money but art for art
You're saying this as though "fixing" other people's art is an exclusively AI thing. How quickly people forget that before AI, artists were "fixing" other people's art because they thought the characters were the "wrong" race or whatever.
Translation: “I think Ai should replace human artists and to demonstrate that I’m going to take your art and ask an Ai to redo it and then tell you how much better it is”.
The actions, thoughts, and words of that specific user have no bearing or effect on the original works.
Are you threatened by their image? What is the purpose or value of their creation over yours?
Personally, I feel more compassion for the user generating images seeking acceptance and belonging with their version of art and expression.
I know y'all don't want to let Rudolph join in on the Reindeer games here...
That’s not even remotely what’s happening here???? The ai guy said I took what you made and ai did it way better and then gloated about it. Like how is this remotely similar to exclusion?
I mean, it's only an insult if you view it as such, no? I don't see a need to emotionally label such behaviour at all. Im not defending this act, in fact I have no opinion on the matter, just want to understand why that is upsetting to some people
Ok yeah I agree. So it would seem to me like the problem is not with the act itself but with intent and attitude? I didn't realise before but sure, this behavioir seems spiteful and rude
Please tell me how is the act rude? To me it seems not much different than a few people collaborating together on an art project. Obviously there's no intention to make money using the copy? When you're subscribing to a social network you agree that all you post basically becomes public property, so i feel like it's within anyones power and right to do whatever they want with things you post, as well as editing and reuploading them. Or am i just missing something?
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The post for context
https://preview.redd.it/1dv4meyqj36g1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=74ebf260bfbf0b6f7aaef1d1380bbb8b05fffb4d
It looks so much worse, this person has to be trolling.
The “I’m trolling when it’s convenient for me”
not trolling if they aren’t called out, trolling if they get called out.
😂 This fool is like "I made it better" but he didn't get the facial expressions of the mice that tell half the story.
The dumbest part isn't even the mice, it gave the two humans almost identical expressions
Hahaha yeah better my behind
There are ways to apply different prompts to different part of canvas to avoid this very thing but it's a bit more advanced than asking grok to make an image
It’s not even conveying the emotion-
The AI version has a spoiled brat who wants bread
The actual art has a starving child suffering from hunger pains
Exactly this
Also another thing to mention, in original the women sees it and is disgusted or is just unsure if she should stop it.
while in the AI version she is unaware of the thievery happening being shocked at another piece of bread or the ground, or just exhausted? The emotion is lost in more ways than one, the whole art has different meaning... only thing that actually stayed is the boy taking the bread, its not even as well done to be sure he is stealing xD
The boy in the original is holding his hand to symbol that he is forced, but doesnt want to steal the bread, the AI version seems like he just needs to hold it for balance or because its more comfortable idk...
One of the reasons to dislike at least those AI artists, that give the least effort in the creation of the image, at least it used good visuals from random anime that he never knew about...
Better = more moé anime bullshit of course!
The brighter shop lighting changes the mood
The "fingertips pressing against the glass" detail got lost
The baker looks way younger
Snow on the boy's cap got removed
It looks generic
The generated art looks less interesting and I'm not saying this out of spite for AI. It's genuinely easier and more engaging to visualize a story from the drawing.
Also she no longer looks at him. She seems to be disturbed by something else on the right. The window seems gone entirely. AI interpreted the shine on the window as some kind of sun rays and made it as such.
Ngl the original looks so much better man
Jobless behaviour at its peak
You don't have to take your anger out on people who have nothing to do with that. There are more jobless people than jobs available, poverty is a problem for many people - so please don't belittle the poorest even more by pigeonholing them like that.
It's a phrase. I have nothing against people without a job. It's just that the person is acting like they have too much time on their hands, and they do this shit
Yes but that's exactly the problem: a bad phrase is just pushing the narrative of a common prejudice. Same with "touch grass" when today's reality is just that everything happens online, including a lot of jobs.
Alright, I'll refrain from using the phrase
:)
What's the common prejudice of "touch grass"?
Most common one is that people who play outside in the dirt would be "better" than people playing video games, not accepting that both can be totally valuable hobbies. And they often start using the term only because someone starts explaining "too many" details and diving deep into fictional content.
pedantic for no reason 🥱🥱🥱🥱
And it's from Diva!
That's just disrespectful at this point.
it just made it into anime slop
they turned it into soulless and bland slop
I hate how much brighter the inside of the shop looks in the ai version. The ai also butchered the mice.
Ew, that second one is toss
Yeah, that looks significantly more 'generic anime' rather than the clear tone of the original art. That's not a improvement at all beyond 'rendering' (not really, just how shiny and warm it looks) that is simply distracting.
The ai one doesn't even look that good
Ragebaiting keeps up really well with technology.
I love how in this sub, when it make ai pros look bad its bait but when it makes antis look bad it's totally real
Ragebaiting is a universal human quality. Affiliation does not matter, at least to me.
99% of this stuff for both sides is bait
Only out of spite. No other reason
Yep. This is just nasty, AI or no AI.
Yes. This is on par with another artist "fixing" your art then saying they made it better than you. That's demeaning and disrespectful
Either that, or a troll who is intentionally trying to stir up hate. Whether or not that is motivated by Anti-AI motivations is unclear in this case.
It's absolutely a troll, how can people not see this?
It's not about whether or not people see it's a troll. Troll or not, it's fucked up. If things like this were never talked about, the internet would be a pretty bland place
We talk about it endlessly here, It's still pretty bland.
Twitter pays people for engagement.
Being shitty drives engagement
Am pro AI, and that kind of bullshittery is NOT how most of us are (I hope).
I didn't think so, I am just wondering if they had an actual reason behind it or if it was just bullshittery
Definitely bullshittery. Probably caused by jobless behaviour. May also potentially be a Reddit mod.
Ego issues, wanting to insult the original guy, trolling.
First thing i thought of when seeing this was that he is just ragebaiting. I can’t think of any other reason why someone would do this.
They genuinely thought that they were doing a service to the original artist by improving it. I've seen the type of people. "Don't attribute to malice what may just be stupidity"
Using Artificial Intelligence to show their Natural Stupidity.
My take is elitism. Some folks just have to tell others that they are better than you.
Unfortunately a lot of the ProAI community seems to support this shit or just not think it's a problem because "AI can't steal art" or "you don't own a style" or "you willingly posted it. Stop whining."
I wish more people gave a shit but it doesn't seem like it.
I mean, I think all of us can agree this would be a problem even if the second guy had repainted the original work by hand and claimed they made it better. Or would that be okay by you because that means the second person has 'artistic talent'?
Absolutely, tracing was basically the same shit back without AI but it was usually for stealing designs rather than "improving" them.
Edit: actually looking back I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or trying to attack my viewpoint. I didn't say this was bad because itAI. I just said that a lot of people in the pro-AI support it. You don't have to accept this crap just because you like AI but a lot of people do.
This is not "AI stealing art" it's "person stealing other person's work".
It's not exclusive to AI and not absent from the artistic community.
Sure it is easier with AI, but with AI it is easier to spot.
I didn't say it was just "AI stealing art" I said a lot of ProAI people dismiss it because they believe "AI can't steal art".
"AI can't steal art" != "people can't steal art"
If you classify this image as "AI stealing art" in any way shape or form, then the same can be said for pencil, chisel, brush and photoshop.
This is not "style" question nor "training" question.
This is source image taken and edited, not generated with model and prompt (and LoRa or whatnot).
This is a completely different situation, not related to "AI Steal art" conversation in any way shape or form.
Have you actually run into Pro-AI people who would dismiss this. I'm very pro-AI and while training an AI on art is not stealing art, if you feed art into and AI and then partially denoise it like this person did, you're doing the same thing as tracing, and creating a derivative work without permission, which is stealing. My argument about "it's stealing!" is that if you can't tell what specific work it's being "stolen" from, it's not stealing, but in this case it they had the AI trace the work (and created something insultingly bland and unexpressive in the process) then had the absolute gall to tell the real artist that they "improved" it.
Can a art piece get better by feeding it to AI? Depends on the artist's skill, but there are cases where it is a yes. Do you have to brag about it to the original creator? No. That's just plain rude.
If it's my art? Yes. :)
Well no. It can't get better by feeding it to AI. "Better" implies one of two things. Either it is more skillfully made or it is subjectively better according to some person. Sure, things can always get subjectively "better" but it's also getting subjectively "worse" at the same time according to somebody else. So it's silly to say it got better at all.
But if we're talking about more skillfully made then that's obviously impossible because AI doesn't make images with skill, it's just an algorithm. It doesn't have any skill because it literally has no idea what it's doing.
So why even bother conceding that AI can make art better? It can't. Even if that mattered. Because the process of getting better through practice and effort is what really matters. Even if a skilled artist condescendingly "improved" the artwork of someone else unprompted they would still be a jerk because everyone had to start somewhere. But that's besides the point, because AI is not a skilled artist.
This is one of those things that's really more wrong than right. I mean, yeah, it's a convenient thing that you can say if you hate AI that's technically true in some ways, but you're either being deliberately misleading or you don't really know what you're talking about.
Calling AI an algorithm is skipping the important layer of abstraction that they "algorithm" simulates a neural network. The neural network is what's doing the legwork, not the "algorithm", which is obvious, since if you swap out the values representing the neural connections with random data, you get nothing recognizable.
As for it having "literally no idea what it's doing", given the fact that it understands the context of things (like what objects go in a kitchen, what a reflection on a lake looks like, and so on), it's not correct to say that it "literally has no idea what it's doing", because it's clearly figured out a lot of context from training. AI video generators make this even more obvious because you can feed them a single picture, even without a prompt, and they can make it move pretty naturally.
That doesn't mean it's conscious, but the more you actually study consciousness, the more it becomes clear that consciousness, knowledge, and thought aren't inexorably linked. You make most decisions before the conscious, thinking part of your brain is even aware that you've made them.
The lack of acknowledgement of latent talent is survivorship bias. It's like the guy who opens up a business and becomes an insufferable libertarian. "If I can do it, anyone can do it!"
If I draw something and then use AI to improve it, and I prefer AI's result, then in my perspective it made it better. Doing that to someone else's art is a dick move, though.
I'm not reading all that because your first sentence is wrong and I don't have the time to waste. I don't say this "because I hate AI" I say it because it's true. A machine has no skill and AI is not a person. I'm not saying it's bad at doing things. I'm saying it's unskilled.
Lol, you read it.
What? I didn't say I didn't read it. I read the first part. You think I'm lying about reading the whole thing? Why would I do that?
Because it's easier than arguing when you're wrong. Anyway, I'm gonna go ahead and block you, because whether you read it or not, I don't get the sense that you're worth my time and I'm not interested in your reply.
This is like the AI equivalent of when artists edit another artist's drawing by darkening skin tones and saying they "fixed" the artwork, or something along those lines
What that person did was out of line - full stop. Running someone else’s finished artwork through an image generator and then telling the artist “AI made your work better” is disrespectful no matter what tools you use.
Even among people who work with AI, there’s a pretty clear line:
• Using AI for reference, iteration, transformative creation, or study = acceptable.
• Using AI to alter someone else’s completed piece and then announcing it to them = not acceptable.
If you’re doing it as a private proof-of-concept, that’s one thing. But posting it to the artist as if you “fixed” their work is tone-deaf and guaranteed to offend.
It’s simply a manners issue. And unfortunately, this can happen with mediums other than AI too, like with music.
I remember when TikTok was full of people "improving" songs
Those "fixed it for you" attempts when they're completely unwarranted are pathetic, it's hilarious when it backfires though, like that one time someone tried to "fix" a manga cover because they saw the character had black pantyhose on, so they edited the character to be black, then people pointed out the character in question was a slave in the manga, that person backtracked really fast. Don't think I can find the original tweet but there's a Reddit post about it from like 3 years ago.
There was one point where some internet rando "improved" that infamous Spiderman cover where MJ is in that ridiculously sexy pose on the couch. It got all over the internet and people started harassing the real artist with it on twitter, so he came back and "improved" the "improved" version, pointing out all of the flaws in it. A lot of people got their panties in a bunch that he did that to some poor, smug twitter artist, but IMO they deserved it for doing that shit over something that was obviously a style choice and not a skill issue.
Yeah. There are cases where it's fine, but the new work needs to different enough to coexist. I created a character based on someone else's character, but my character was different, even though the original character was fully used as a reference.
I made your character better = wrong
I made your character into a cake = funny
Its straight up petty, AI or not. If the guy redrew the artwork by hand and posted it to say "Here, I drew your art but better" being no better than middle school behavior.
Yeah, even if you did that exact same thing with different medium of art you’d still get pretty much same the reaction
One of the the mediums this happens in outside of AI is ironically, Art
People have taken art from other users, and then posted their own version in an attempt to "fix" it, and like this with AI and any other form or "fixing" someone else's work, it is always a shitty thing to do
Yeah, agreed. This is just ragebait though. The people do this because it's disrespectful. They just want to piss someone off or upset them.
That's why having these conversations with people that do this is never going to work. Being offensive IS the goal.
The way I see it:
It just looks like trolling, AI is just a way to troll here.
Humans suck. 😩
Sounds like Shadiversity. Man can actually draw but he’s convinced his AI abominations of his drawings are just so much better. Man is delusional (and for other things but those are outside this sub’s topic).
Usually ragebait
Occasionally people with 0 social awareness
But its almost always the first
Even if it is better, acting snobbish about being superior automatically makes you look like a dick. Just look at those 2 different people who did covers of RUSH E. One did it well, then a guy in the comments was saying it wasn't that good and he could do it better. He ended up proving himself right, but most of the comments in his video are spewing back the same negativity he gave the first guy because of how he acted.
Lack of manners, some people don’t even try to understand how "fixing" someone's art might be offensive, with or without IA
It's just weirdos who think that by "adding something through a prompt" means that they contributed to the project and they are as good as the person who actually did something
It works as an insult I guess
Easiest ragebait ever.
Pure spite and engagement bait
its bait
I'm sorry but the troll in me thinks this is really fucking funny
Because it makes you mad
It's called trolling. They're doing it to provoke a reaction. Like, say, someone complaining about it on Reddit.
For the same reason, people do this. Note: I'm addressing only the fixing action.
https://preview.redd.it/xgcm680vo36g1.png?width=1577&format=png&auto=webp&s=8add830ee6e104481d58d2243a7ed5c3febcd34d
That was vile, I remember the funny trend of people posing like that suddenly turning into everyone who could draw/had access to ai "fixxing" it
People who draw do the same shit with other people's works what's the big deal?
because artists are absolutely toxic to each other. its not a pro-AI thing. It's a douche canoe thing.
The same reason people reply with images of them having “fixed” their art.
Ego and assholism
Hot take, AI isn’t even problem it’s just a tool that provides increased minimum capacity in production for people.
Problem is what people do with this advanced tool that gives them capacity to do harm.
We gave apes semi automatic rifles believing it will act mature and use it with responsibility, and people like that are literally apes with automatic rifles flinging shit and shooting everyone unpredictably in order to farm clout and get noticed.
This simply shows how we shouldn’t really give ourselves capacity beyond certain point because we cannot assume responsibility over what we can do with it.
Now apes are going tribal war with rifles because history repeats itself. We are really hopeless creatures that never learn.
That’s not a hot take, if one isn’t extremely anti-AI then this would pretty much be their take on AI
I think you are right. So far AI have been really helpful for me on making decisions in personal life and boosting work productivity.
It really have been selfless advisor who does not have any ulterior motives and spends time explaining everything regardless of how draining it would be if someone were to explain it to another, like literally I got my new PC built from AI's advices for hardware compatibility and avoid bottlenecking, and its been fantastic.
Sometimes AI stops me from making really simple but big mistakes because it gives me objective perspective and data.
On the other hand, people in general including myself have motives and sometimes benign sometimes sinister, and often times we blame others and things for our own shitty behavior.
I'd say I am far more anti-human than anti-AI just from personal experiences alone.
I don't hate the tool, I hate the fact shitty people boost themselves and tenfold the harm they would've done without being amplified by it and then try to blame the tool for their bad behavior.
This is just rage baiting tbh, and not relevant to AI any traditional artist could do that too
And AI could just do way better than that, they intentionally did it sloppy lmao
I don't think anyone would do this if antis didn't first bully people for using AI. This is his way of giving the anti community a taste of their own medicine
you cant just represent a massive group with a small portion
That's a really big small portion, then.
Yeah, that's no excuse.
Even if this artist (I have no idea who they are) had directly bullied people for using AI, this isn't the way to go about dealing with that. Even in the unlikely case that they're a terrible person and they totally deserved it, that context is easily lost.
Even if you were correct which you aren't since this has been a thing since the very early days of AI slop but even if you were right, two wrongs never make a right and this isn't even taking into account artists who never spoke out against AI until finding their work stolen.
To be fair it has been a thing since before ai slop even, ai just made it easier
what do you mean? Like artists would be douches to other artists and do their drawing better?
Yeah, exactly
Well pertaining to the bigger conversation or "the war", I think a very small % of pros are the ones doing shit like that. Most pros are just regular people who used AI once online and got brigaded and had no ill will towards anyone. I'm one of them. So, it sounds like there's a small group of pros being douches in art groups but I guarantee >90% of the pros on here people like me. It seems like the % of antis brigading and attacking random people is much higher because it's so prevalent. I dunno. It just seems like the whole war is a bunch of unnecessary bullshit aimed at the wrong people
I agree with that the percentage of Pros who do this BS is definitely <5%, but the amount of Antis that do the brigading is similar, but you hear about it a lot more due to the algorithm.
No, there's anti AI comments on literally every single post with AI in it on every social media platform. On Reddit it's really extreme
I don't see those. This is because the algorithm doesn't recommend me those. I still see AI shit that I don't personally enjoy seeing. Basically no bashing happens to those posts and I ignore them, only inwardly being repulsed by them.
Well they do say that our social media algorithms are comprised of things that we engage with and most often, people engage with things that make them argue
The original poster had no opinion on AI, they just posted there art and this guy did this. Even if he didn't AI generate this it would be shitty
So……it’s the victims fault that someone did that to them?
Because of metamodernism.
Do you need permission to make memes using an image to express a meaning the original creator never intended?
Do you need the author’s approval to create fanart or fanfiction just because you didn’t like the ending? Or shipping the character the reading like instead of what the author originally intended?
Do you need to ask before sampling someone’s music?
You don’t.
This is how modern art(metamodernism) works. Memes, fanart, AI art are example of metamodernism art medium.
Also see the idea of Dead of the Author if you are interested in similar issue.
You have made the critical mistake of being wrong on the internet (wikipedia link)
Metamodernism is the intersection of Modern optimism and Postmodern scepticism; where post-modernism criticises the pitfalls and naivete of modernism, Metamodernism criticises the pitfalls and bitter self-destructive cynicism of post-modern attitudes.
A movie where the government saves the day is modernist. A postmodernist movie is one where the government is the villain. A metamodernist movie has seperate factions within said government fighting each other.
Superman 2025, Everything Everywhere All At Once, Brooklyn Nine Nine are all metamodern works.
Metamodernism is just a kind of art, and has nothing to do with your argument in the same sense that cinematography is irrelevant to a book.
Addressing your intended point, No one needs anyone's permission to create art.
The problem is that it's basic courtesy to not wave derived works in the creator's face and saying things to the effect of "improving it". I don't send Dana Terrace's bluesky account links to my Owl House fanfiction, and I definitely don't say that my writing is better than the source material, and that's regardless of how good my work is.
Wikipedia only touches the surface/the genre, but it misses the actual mechanics.
Metamodernism isn't just "optimistic movies." It relies on "Constructive Pastiche" which means taking existing cultural fragments (like memes, characters, samples) and remixing them to build new, sincere meaning. You can't have the philosophy without the remix.
If you want to see how the medium works beyond just the Wikipedia definition, I think this is a good introductory article https://nesslabs.com/metamodernism
I only linked the Wikipedia article because I didn't want to hunt down the video essays i learned the subject from. I still feel that you are using the word metamodern incorrectly in the context of your original comment.
Problem is with sincerity, genuine intent, and the spirit of good faith. Memes are all for laughs. Fanart and fanfiction are about genuinely contributing to the characterization and fleshing out the setting.
The example shown is just bad faith. It's just trying to one-up someone who put effort and intent into a piece of art by barely putting in any effort then claiming it's better. It's trying to claim superiority instead of promoting cooperation.
And the result? A bastardization that lost its meaning, instead of passing down the emotions regardless of context, like all good memes do.
Parody and a few other things are exempt from Copyright law. It's not that modern art can use anything without permission for any reason at all.
Theres difference between saying "i liked your art and decided to make my own version" and "i fixed it and made it better"
Theres nothing wrong with trying to redraw somebody's art to test your skills
But using AI and saying that you made it better is just insulting
I do this when I see art that is a really good idea. But is lacking full potential. Like if I really like an image but want it to look better.
But I don't go around telling the artists about it. I just add it to my collection.
I think people that do tell artists though are just trying to complement them. Saying your art was so good that it made them want to make it even better. Though I get how it can be taken in a negative way.
Also isn't there a whole thing in the artists community where artists "fix" images other people made.
Dont really see a difference.
https://preview.redd.it/yw9z2e7ki36g1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f3f63a2ec4900cf686f0a5cb7da61b5d8ee79f3
"I saw someone mocking someone else, but THEY SAID AI bros!" Thats how you sound, focusing on the wrong part instead of the person mocking the OOP's art. And you are shocked when someone disrespects you slightly. Its for these silly reasons, thats why.
So are you saying it is ok to take someone's art and mock them by "improving it"
Wanna see ancient scrolls of "real" artists "improving" other people's characters because someone drew them one tone lighter, not fat enough, not hairy enought, not gay, too sexy?
This "improving" thing has been done since there were douchebags and public forums to share art.
No, they're saying the use of the term 'AI bro' is bad. No one calls AI users 'AI bros' with good intentions. It's meant to be on a similar level to 'tech bros' and 'crypto bros'. It's an insult.
If you called me an "ai bro" I would also take your art and run it through AI.
You give me no respect, I will show none in return.
This was not directed towards me, this was posted on someone's art on Instagram
Why interpret disrespect from calling a spade a spade?
Stop rummaging through the garbage bin that is Twitter. We don’t care what those shit stains do on that cancer site.
The same reason you posted it here. Ragebait for attention.
For the record. I do not care if someone puts some of my work (I work with 3D) into a generator and filters it with AI. I think it's neat. I don't take it as an insult to my skill or theft or anything. It's just a model interpreting what it sees to me.
But with that said, I can kind of understand why it would annoy someone on a personal level, but I feel their annoyance towards the issue. Maybe they take it as a slight against their skill? Disrespecting their work? I can't say for sure, but it's just not something I feel.
I mean, they indirectly called the original art bad
That's terrible. Doesn;t this AI-Bro know that real artists only passive aggressively "fix" someone's art if they draw an anime character with too light a skin tone, or boobs that are too big.
Humans have free will, you can't control what other people do. Artist had a "No Ai" sign on their page and telling people not to do something makes them want to do it more and it's honestly angering Antis with something so trivial. Remember the golden rule when it comes to posting your art online:
https://preview.redd.it/6dg5chyim46g1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8bceb19e259ef2f34f07734f83f1a30020e708c
Have you heard of Creative Commons?
I mean, its just disrespectful.
Its like cooking for a guest and they order McDonald's. Get a grip dude lmao.
That's only because they told the artist, which is obnoxious. Same in your example, they can see you ordering mcdonalds and thus will be insulted.
If you just do it on your own time and don't tell the artist (provided you obtained the original legally by paying them or them offering it for free), then you've removed all harm from the situation. In the analogy it would be like me taking a few bites, and politely complimenting the food, but not eating much, then on the way home getting mcdonalds and never speaking of it to them.
Yes thats what im mad about, why tell them? Thats just fucking disrespectful. I dont care beyond that.
It's still disrespectful as you give the Ai companies permission to use the media/text/likeness of whatever you use with their programs. Not only do most artists don't want their art being used for Ai training data or in Ai without their permission (and this artist explicitly noted that they are against people doing that) but you don't actually have the legal authority to be doing that as the non copyright holder to the image (You even agree in the ToS that you're either the copyright holder or have permission/license from them for anything you upload) and it's not just a necessity license either like it has been for the last few decades, they're actively using the media people use for Ai data training, effectively using their users to gather data from others while claiming plausible deniability.
Not doing anything you want me to do is not "disrespectful", that's not what the term means.
If you think I should only wear pink clothes and should only listen to ABBA and no other music, I'm not "disrespecting you" by declining, and living my own life instead.
Respect means deferring to people's desires on things that they are reasonably owed, and that have to do with them, generally. Not being a slave to every random whim they have for my own life.
It is not reasonable for you to dictate how I simply LOOK at and think about things in my own head (or in the AI's network weights, by analogy), you are not thought police. I'm not copying your work, I didn't steal anything, AI doesn't copy anything. You are not harmed, you are not disrespected.
Your unreasonable and invasive desires about how you want me to live my own life are just that: unreasonable. And are politely ignored, which is not disrespectful. If anything, it's disrespectful to try and tell people what to look at or think about or not on your end, not the other way around.
Yes, you do. Copyright pertains to COPYING. Nothing else. It has literally nothing to do with looking at or learning form art, but not copying it. No law does, that's an unrestricted activity requiring zero permission.
its no worse than going into safe spaces to harass the users there like op does
Just because I post on this sub doesn't mean I am like the 30% of people who go to "defending ai" and "anti ai" to harass people
[removed]
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.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I am on the side where I think that AI art should never be used to replace works by real artists, but I also think pissing off artists recreationally is funny.
I think it is okay if they have consent if they don't well um no
If you publish things online, especially on a social media website, you are implicitly sharing your media with others to do with what they will. What others do may not be nice, but you are putting it in their hands.
When you share something, you agree that other people see it. After that, whatever copyright license you have for it is what others are allowed to do with it.
For example; CC BY-SA (Others may use as they wish, as long as the creator is attributed. All derived works must use the same or comparable copyright license).
Yeah I avoid doing it myself unless:
It is my own drawing
It was a provoked challenge, usually nightshade-related like ‘Come AI bros, my drawing is poisoned’
The original one looks pretty good tho, idk what’s the point of feeding it. The colouring especially is 👌
See that makes sense, I don't understand if the commenter is being a shitty person or genuinely thinks he "improved" it
Art is subjective but... I think most people agree that the original is better. The style is unique, and I feel the intent of the artist comes through clearer. I don't understand why in the AI version the boy has a surprised expression. In the first it appears that he is struggling against his impulse, in the second it looks like he's thinking "why is my hand moving on its own!?!" It makes no sense.
People who do this deserve to be hate crimed, bloody clankers!
Because art is perceived differently by ever person who ingests it. The piece an artist makes is going to be perfect for them (ideally) and then somewhere along the spectrum of good to bad for each individual viewer of that art. A viewer who likes red will perceive a red filter over the price as an improvement, whereas a person who likes blue would see that as a decrease in quality, but would see a blue filter as an improvement.
So people see something as a 75/100 and then add a personal flair that bumps it up to a 90/100 for them specifically.
And before the 2025 literacy endemic strikes, this is not me condoning the practice, this is me answering the question of "why do people do this"
Then why didn’t they keep the new ‘art’ to themself instead of taking the time to make a comment to insult the artist?
What?
I meant that even if they perceive the ai generated image as better, that shouldn’t make them write a comment in an attempt to trigger the artist.
No, I understood that. Why are you responding to my post with that comment? That has nothing to do with what I was saying
I understand now, you were responding to the caption below the post (“This is one of the grossest…”). I assumed your comment was a response to only the title. Your comment’s correct in cases where both the artist and the person who used the AI are happy, but the more likely answer for this commenter is to seek attention and troll the artist, especially because the final AI image had many flaws.
Indeed, the title establishes the primary point and it is reiterated when the author states: "I don't understand why people feel they need to "improve" art they see."
The answer being, again, because every individual person has slightly different tastes, meaning that any given piece of art can be modified, slightly or dramatically, to be better tailored to any individual person.
Fun fact: this happens literally all the time, and always has. It just historically isn't with AI. Someone sees an impressionist piece and thinks "well this is a scene of a middle-class boy on the side of a lake, lounging in the grass, but it would be better if it was a group of boys to communicate some sense of unity or companionship" in the past, they just repainted the whole thing. They made their own painting.
This is the AI version of doing the same thing: "I like what's here, but I would personally be more pleased if it looked slightly different " and so they do it. Same motivation, same phenomenon, different tools.
I'm not making a judgement on the action. I have my own personal feelings about the practice that I won't get into here, I'm just explaining what is happening, since a lack of that understanding was the entire premise of the post.
this goes for both sides honestly
the idea of changing someones art has always been a thing but i see it be done badly a lot now
The whole "let me fix your art" thing has been going on for ages before generative AI was even part of the picture. But now with generative AI, even people who wouldn't have ever have been engaged in the arts before now can jump in and do it too.
A lot of the people who really take advantage of this sort of thing are already people inclined towards plagiarism or just finding ways to put others down and are ultimately people you learn to filter out since being around those sorts of people tends to cause more drama and trouble down the line unless you wanted to be part of a YouTube video where someone is going over drama.
I wouldn't really even put this in as an AI-related phenomenon other than the fact that now it's easier than ever for AI to make everyone effectively capable of doing this and not just petty artists.
Low effort trolling. A tale as old as time
This isn't even an AI thing. As you get older you just realize how thoughtless most people can be. Maybe that was the only thoughtless thing they did that day. Maybe it was the 100th. Just try to avoid people that get past a few a day; a few a week if you can help it.
Some people simply don't understand that not everything should be said out loud (or over text) to the person they're talking to, and other people are just assholes who think making other people upset is making a point.
Because people are assholes.
Like for fuck's sake can we please not forget the whole 'Making X art better' that some artists did even before AI was a thing?
Some artists are fucking assholes. Some AI bros are also fucking assholes. Congrats, you now understand that some humans are just fucking assholes, regardless of how you're tagging them.
50/50 split between: Trolling or false flag for internet points. Your call which one of the two it is.
its showing literally what the future is with agi. if people are hellbent on stuff now what happens when agi comes. when we can link the reference image and agi can copy it change enough and its fully ours? copyright as a thing is dying this is only the start of it fully dying out.
even if it stays in its current form in a agi powered future it is useless. your 1 single release could be the best thing in the world if the 50 people that come across it cant use it cause your stingy af they will move on they will join a fandom that lets them make things.
your 1 single release vs 20million other high quality releases that day is just that. lost in all the releases 50k games release on steam a day and indies get lost in those 50k releases now x that by all the high quality ai assisted stuff that will release. on ubi and cost of almost 0 to make things people wont care about money anymore so much stuff is gonna release and just be free.
so competition on price will be reduced to 0 to the point there is no money in it just a fandom. thats the future of art. its being freed and will be exactly what it should be. not art for money but art for art
Pro, but agree, this isn't cool. The biggest thing for me is don't act like your input made it 'better'. That's egomaniacal behavior.
You just HAD to tell them, didn't you?
The simple answer is because their an anti-social asshole who finds entertainment in being a shitty person.
Or actually like a 15yo kid who is too stupid to know better.
Spite.
Use Ai it’s better
You're saying this as though "fixing" other people's art is an exclusively AI thing. How quickly people forget that before AI, artists were "fixing" other people's art because they thought the characters were the "wrong" race or whatever.
Translation: “I think Ai should replace human artists and to demonstrate that I’m going to take your art and ask an Ai to redo it and then tell you how much better it is”.
Pure envy
Honestly, I have know clue why people choose to use that font. Your guess is as good as mine.
Because they think they’re superior and everyone should live up to their expectations.
What is the problem?
The actions, thoughts, and words of that specific user have no bearing or effect on the original works.
Are you threatened by their image? What is the purpose or value of their creation over yours?
Personally, I feel more compassion for the user generating images seeking acceptance and belonging with their version of art and expression.
I know y'all don't want to let Rudolph join in on the Reindeer games here...
If Rudolph went to join the games and said "I took your game and made it better" most people wouldn't let him join
That’s not even remotely what’s happening here???? The ai guy said I took what you made and ai did it way better and then gloated about it. Like how is this remotely similar to exclusion?
and why do you think it's wrong? anyone is allowed to do that
Yes, anyone is allowed to insult your work.
I mean, it's only an insult if you view it as such, no? I don't see a need to emotionally label such behaviour at all. Im not defending this act, in fact I have no opinion on the matter, just want to understand why that is upsetting to some people
"It made your art look so much better"
Implies it looked bad.
"I really like how it looks now"
Implies they didn't like the art, also gloating about their act.
Ok yeah I agree. So it would seem to me like the problem is not with the act itself but with intent and attitude? I didn't realise before but sure, this behavioir seems spiteful and rude
Well, the act itself is rude, but they topped it off with what they said. Thank you for understanding.
Please tell me how is the act rude? To me it seems not much different than a few people collaborating together on an art project. Obviously there's no intention to make money using the copy? When you're subscribing to a social network you agree that all you post basically becomes public property, so i feel like it's within anyones power and right to do whatever they want with things you post, as well as editing and reuploading them. Or am i just missing something?
How would you feel if someone took your art and said they "improved it, made it so much better"
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.