There is a fucking gambling ad of all things that is just an AI generated video of nonsense, a grandma flying through the air against a purple star scape, opening a door and holding a cake or some fucking thing, it's literally 30 seconds straight of meaningless brain rot that someone spent a couple minutes generating a prompt before saying "yep good enough" and it makes me want to just stop watching basketball entirely rather than be subjected to that offensive shit.
Same. Like....nobody at a craft fair is doing it cuz it's an easy way to make money(I have a friend who works a circuit of craft fairs that I used to table for cuz I personally enjoyed selling nonsense to people), they're doing it cuz they love the act of making. Someone shitting out ai drek and devaluing everything is just....bleh
eh, 3d printing has already done that. The amount of booths selling the same bullshit 3d printed figures and sculptures is gross. "No way, you sell the same articulated snake/dragon thing that I saw 3 booths over! what are the chances"
A very prolific designer is Cinderwing, who will happily sell you a commercial license to all of their designs for literally ten bucks a month. Many of those designs will sell for $20 or higher a piece if you use a pretty filament.
I've bought a few of their designs, they're legitimately good designs, but it feels weird to walk past a booth selling thirty-dollar dragons when I can print the same thing by paying three bucks for the model and then fifty cents of filament each.
If someone is selling a 3d printed model at a craft fair, 50/50 it's a Cinderwing model.
(No shade towards Cinderwing here, note. They do good work. That's why they're popular.)
Pardon my ignorance, but I see in some of those pictures, a lot of colors. I assume the ones selling also take the time to paint it? Is that perhaps part of the appeal of not doing it oneself? Or am I completely wrong here? I know squat about 3D printing.
There's a variety of techniques to do multicolored prints. The most common is what's called, depending on vendor, an Automatic Material System or Multi Material Unit, which can unload and reload various filaments automatically with computer control. There's also some dual-nozzle setups that support two filament colors and a new under-development thing called the INDX that actually swaps out part of the entire extruder assembly. They've all got various tradeoffs in terms of price and performance and waste and reliability, but they all let you print multiple colors unattended in a single print.
Most of Cinderwing's stuff is tagged appropriately for multiple colors if you have a way to print them; if you don't, you just get a single color.
(It's also possible to print multiple colors with a manual filament swap, and it's possible to print objects in multiple parts and glue them together or snap them together afterwards, though I think Cinderwing tends to not do either of those.)
Note that you can paint 3d printed stuff, and a lot of people do - there are people making a living off producing 3d models intended for people painting and using in miniature tabletop games (and while I don't have time for painting, I am right now coincidentally printing a half-foot-long mantis shrimp model for a son-of-a-coworker-of-my-wife, and he's planning to paint it to use in a diorama.) But I don't think Cinderwing is generally designing for that.
Edit: Oh, there's also a few filaments that are intrinsically multicolored, either co-extruded ("looks different from different angles") or rainbow ("changes color as the print goes from bottom to top".) They can be very pretty.
Wow! I didn't expect such an in-depth response. Thanks for taking the time, really appreciated. It was a good read, didn't really know 3D printing had such advancements already, (for consumer hardware, that is). Cheers!
There must be a temu/Ali express store selling these things in bulk. Because there's no way a majority of those sellers even know how to make them. Had some bloke in St. Albans proudly claim him and his mates made everything in house but suddenly went quiet when I asked him about what printer and filaments they used!!!
There are probably resellers out there, but those things literally just print in place. No assembly required. Get a fancy pearlescent filament and you're off to the races.
the majority of them come from local places in most cases I've seen. Someone starts up a print farm planning to run a business like rapid prototyping but the only thing that sells is shitty funco-pop like garbage. Its depressing, I know a couple people who just desperately try to get people to buy their own designs or get them to contract rapid prototyping but... the only thing anyone buys is garbage.
Turns out most kids just want the same things their friends have. I remember those segmented dragon in eggs were all the rage in my children’s elementary school earlier this year. At craft festivals I tried steering them towards the more unique builds, but nope, they just wanted more of those stupid dragon things.
Landfillcore. 3D printing can have actual uses (tools, structural things), but the overwhelming majority of it is waste. So many dorks releasing unfiltered toxic fumes in their homes in order to create more useless junk that will sit in landfill and poison the environment. Yes dear reader you heard right, your filament printer needs to be properly filtered and ventilated too, you are heating plastics to hundreds of degrees, I don’t care if it’s PLA you still shouldn’t be breathing that shit.
Yeah, I've been considering getting into it as a hobby or maybe to make certain cosplay pieces for friends and locals since that's pretty big here, lot of conventions in my area. Definitely would be getting proper ventilation and safety if I did get into it. That's one of the main things putting me off doing it because I want to do it right, not half assed or stupid. I'd love to go with resin even though it's more fragile and expensive, but also seems like quite a lot of upkeep and safety measures.
I can't believe how many people sell their stuff without even cleaning it or even trimming off the (I dont know the proper term) sprues/supports. You get these prints that are just covered in jagged excess all over. Like, my dude, have some pride in your products lol.
I've built printer enclosures for pretty cheap before. You can get by with passive air intake, active exhaust with in-line carbon + hepa filter positioned in front of your fan housing. You can use standard 4" tubing and a Y-splitter with backflow prevention to join it to an existing dryer vent system. The filters will eventually need replacing, but it's a fairly cheap and environmentally-friendly option.
I had one made out of wood that someone gave to me as a kid. Probably still have it in a box somewhere. It is a super simple design but I'd probably buy that over a fancy 3d printed design any day.
Oh yeah, saw tons of those at an autumn market here in Sweden. Also clothing with AI prints, "Italian brainrot" products, knockoff Labubus, knockoff Pokémon cards with AI pics and misspelled text, extremely low quality knockoff plushies from various franchises, and various other cheap trash.
It's gone from having tons of variety and a handful of repeat stalls with the same products when I was a kid... to maybe 5-6 different stalls just repeated over and over. Nothing stands out anymore. Now you can just go through 5% of it and browse Temu for five minutes and you've seen everything they have. Sad.
It is sad. I would gladly buy unique stuff from local artists but there's almost no unique artists left, it seems. Ive gone to a lot of craft fairs the past couple of years and its either stuff someone is reselling from temu, the same 3d printed stuff that every 3d print booth has, or someone in their 40's selling stuff that looks like a teenager made in school. None of it is quality anymore. Candles is a big one, too, all using the same novelty molds of the same characters and designs mass produced.
really sad cause I got really nice crochet pattern of yf-23 from etsy that got me into crocheting and later this year I got a pattern for moth plushies (I love the two I made for myself a lot)
you need to be really careful cause a lot of the new patterns are apperantly AI generated and make no sense (you can't really create the AI generated imagine) and these scammers drown the actual pattern makers under them
craft fairs have been shit for a long time, you need a well curated fair. when there is no curation going on you have supplement sellers, 3d print, cheap chinese stuff, laser engraved, soap sellers ( yes even though handmade it's a mass product )
People try to have big margins, that easiest with quickly produced, cheaply bought stuff. Handcrafted cannot compete with those people. Attending a fair as a real producer is shit. You loose because people compare you to cheap stuff and you just seem "too expensive" for "too little"
AI art does not change anything for fairs, fairs have been mostly shit for a long time. Some fairs specialize on individual stuff and handmade items. Those are ok and they bring the crowd willing to pay. That is not the usual fair though
-> My wife is an artist and has been selling on those fairs for a long time
McDonald's is the most successful restaurant in the world. I feel like that should tell you all you need to know about how much most people care about quality, art included.
Reddit was rightfully all up in arms about the streaming services raising prices and cracking down on passwords, sure that the strategy would fail and yet the streaming services won that.
I am pretty much sure we will lose the AI war as well even if all of Reddit is against it (which I am too). The general public doesn’t care about how the sausage is made when it comes to anything
Let's not forget about that time when Reddit killed third party apps and all the Redditors said this will kill the company and that they will never use Reddit again. Now 99% of them are on the official Reddit app, consuming those advertisements, just like the CEO said they would once the novelty of protest wore off.
Yeah I couldn’t agree more. Sadly, gen AI only reflects aspects of society that were already here.
The issue is that the general public only has an eye for design, not art. They don’t care what art means; only that it looks a certain way. There are enough people in the public discourse who are content with slop replacing more meaningful art, simply because it comes across as aesthetically appealing and looks polished enough. It’s less so that AI is a threat by itself, and more about the realization that the broader media landscape likely never cared about the authenticity of art in the first place. We’re seeing just how little society values culture.
AI is also a litmus test that humanity has failed. If given the chance, most people would take advantage of everyone else around them if they faced no consequences. The average person genuinely does not care that the use of AI is stealing from the people around them, nor its environmental ramifications.
It's eventually going to take my job, and I don't care. If it can do the work, it should be used. The economic system is going to have to change and the profits can't just go to a few rich assholes, but humans doing busy work just because someone feels like a person needs to work 8 hours a day to eat and have shelter is asinine.
I think what this tells is not that people don't care about quality, but that there's a niche for when quality isn't top priority. Like, I can appreciate a really nice burger, but sometimes I am also in a rush or don't want to pay premium, so McDonald's is simply good enough and convenient.
It's exactly same thing with AI art. Yeah it's not always high quality, but neither does it matter that there's a girl with a "12 of hearts" card in background of a poker banner I made with AI. Nobody will notice, and it's good enough for the purpose.
Art been lacking the fast-food alternatives up till now, and that's the niche AI art currently fills for many.
Yep. And that's the thing. I mean....if you want a luxurious gourmet burger, yeah, human labor might be able to provide that better than some mass produced mediocre product. But it doesnt stop people from buying the mass produced mediocre product. AI is mass produced mediocre art, but as long as it's "good enough", it's gonna displace a lot of artists.
I do believe the best artists will remain immune to AI job loss, because AI just won't be able to replace the best, for the reasons mentioned in the article, but most people arent interested in the best, they're interested in the "good enough" to get the next product out the door to make their quarterly earnings look good.
But people know they're going to McDonald, at least. The entire value 'proposition' of AI material is that it can pass off as something else, which I'd argue is much worse. There's something wrong if your industry is built on reducing market information.
The only people that pretend AI is somehow better than the best human art are the same people that make AI slop services and the idiots who claimed crypto was the ultimate decentralized economic utopia, and those that thought NFTs are an intellectual copyrightable thing.....
I'd rather look at art created by a human being that is still practicing and learning, rather than an image from a machine. The humanity behind the creation is the entire point. I genuinely worry about the people who don't understand that.
Tons of AI music is instrumental stuff that tend to play on auto for hours as well, like those spotify generated jazz/lo-fi playlists. I turn off listening activity for stuff like that, it has definitely helped keep it away from my algorithm
It's same on Twitter. AI slop accounts have thousands of followers, but their posts often get barely single, maybe low-double digit likes, and if they get any replies they're all one-line fake positive shit that is clearly mass-produced by another bot. It's bots liking shit made by other bots.
That artificial boost gets them on playlists, and a lot of it (particularly instrumental music) is pleasant/inoffensive enough that people just leave it on when it auto-plays.
I'm pretty confident Spotify is responsible for some of the AI music on their platform. All those minutes listened with no artists to pay out.
What is claimed as country now days isn't really country. It's rural pop. There is some great country being made today. Sturgill, Molly, Billy. Sierra, Tyler... Simply amazing music. You aren't going to see it on the country charts though.
It makes sense when you consider that there are a lot of times (I'd argue the majority, due to public settings like supermarkets, cafes, restaurants, retail etc) where people aren't using music as an active engagement with art, but just as background noise.
In that context, it's incredibly easy for AI music to just smoothly pass by your brain without any 'bumps.' There's no real equivalent with visual art (at least until Musk figures out how to beam ads directly into peoples' neuralinks,) which inherently requires you to actively focus your gaze and choose to engage with it, on some level.
With that in mind, it's easy to picture someone throwing on one of those autogenerated spotify radio mixes, and not noticing/caring if an AI track shows up
It's called commerical art, and it's literally everywhere. You could even lump in architectural flourishes, if not the core designs (since those also need to function, which isn't something we should be trusting "AI" to do all by itself yet.)
Yeah true I could've put that better. I was mostly just referring to the method of delivery, though - you can't 'passively enjoy' images in the same way that you can passively enjoy music.
A trucker can't get the "best cool dog picture wallpapers" collection beamed into his brain for his 15 hour meth-fuelled interstate corn delivery, but he can put on the "best country testosterone mix radio" playlist on youtube.
In terms of the actual products created and their method of consumption, I think there's a difference
Sometimes I wake up with YouTube playing and it is some AI procedurally generated music like "cool classical jazz for a rainy day that you can relax to" or something like that and it will not be relaxing because it doesn't go anywhere. No beginning, middle, or end. It actually puts me on edge because I feel like I'm trapped.
People who never will consider spending more than $20 at target for a piece of wall art will happily shell out $100 to see Billy Strings play, or pay a $10 cover to watch their crush play a show at a bar.
I think that the reality is that the majority of people just don't care for art in that sense, and that already was clear before AI showed up.
Basically under that definition Avatar isn't art, pop music isn't art. The value of these things is not in their humanity today, they are already algorithmically corporate products even when there are humans holding the metaphorical pencil.
There's surely some AI zealots who expect AI art to replace museum art (and it will show up in some form, similar to photography the selection and postprocessing of things is still a human creative endeavor after all) but I think most AI art proponents are really thinking of things like Magic the Gathering card art where for 90% of the cards is more of an artisan's process than an artist's process today.
Basically under that definition Avatar isn't art, pop music isn't art.
Why isn't Avatar art?
Because it's 98% CGI? Because it's a blockbuster?
I'm not saying it's great or even good art, that's subjective and not really a part of the discussion. It's still a creative vision James Cameron (assuming you mean the tall blue people Avatar, not the short elemental people Avatar) is clearly following. Having created a whole (flawed) ecosystem for the planet, histories and cultures for the indigenous people, etc. clearly shows it's not just some superficial flavour of the month thing. Why is that not art?
Same goes for pop music. There's heeeaaaps of pop music that carries meaning and takes stances. I suppose charting pop music seldom does (though it happens).
I mean, maybe I'm just being semantic and/or nitpicky here but I'd really be interested in hearing why these examples?
I agree with everything you've said here. Most people don't view art with any level of depth and just want a pretty picture. I don't, and I think it's a little sad when people toss away the human behind the creation of the thing.
Not that I'm saying these people are morally wrong or bad people or anything. I even understand my perspective is a bit Luddite. Part of the wonderful thing about the humanity of art is our different perspectives. I'm just expressing mine.
I don't personally ascribe to Death of the Author, but the key tenet of the philosophy is that art interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. It takes away the artist's intentions, and replaces it with the viewer's/readers interpretation.
If anything, AI has a better claim, because there isn't any author, so it's pure interpretation by the viewer/reader, and not just a way to justify your awful media analysis skills.
I'm personally not an avid AI defender, I use it for like..throwing together D&D character portraits for NPCs, and other stuff that I would put at level of "Cool toy".
I don't think that's quite what Death of the Author is about. It's that if you can find evidence for an interpretation of an art piece, from within the piece itself (not your own imagination), then it's a valid interpretation even if it's not what the artist intended. Which is subtly different from taking away intentions and replacing them with interpretations. More like an additional perspective than a complete substitution. And it shows the difficulty of communicating non-verbally - the artist puts something out there, hoping someone will understand, but there's no guarantees. Just two people trying to create a shared understanding, instead of artist as dictator.
Based on that, Id say you treating AI as a cool toy is spot on. The program has no intention behind what it makes for you, so the only criteria for judgement is if it's fun for you to use. But for me (as a certified pretentious art nerd) there's no point in even looking for my own interpretation in what AI makes. If no thought or effort went in to making it, there's no intention for me to find or interpret. A lot of the stuff in the OP's linked article is worthless to me. But if an artist is using AI as just one tool to create a more complex piece, then I'm interested in seeing what they're doing. One example: https://sinisbeautiful.com/artwork-doppelganger/ (the FAQ is fun).
I don't really see the hate on it as any different than people hating on abstract expressionism, for example. There's plenty of really cool, thought provoking ai art. It's just a tool to get ideas out there.
I don't think that's quite what Death of the Author is about.
It's that if you can find evidence for an interpretation of an art piece, from within the piece itself (not your own imagination), then it's a valid interpretation even if it's not what the artist intended.
There is art as a mass commodity. A lot of people balk at this, bit it's true, there's demand for mass commercialization of art, otherwise it would not exist.
Then there's art as a Veblen good, for which the idea is that since a 'human soul' put effort in it, it can be seen as a form of conspicuous consuption, signalling the social virtue of being rich enough to afford to spend money on it, and THAT is why it is valuable.
I get it, this argument is whole-heartedly 19th century materialistic at its core, but I very much see it played over and over, only without overtly stating the quiet part out loud.
The oportunity for an enterpreneur, in the middle, is an art auditing service who will certify there is a real human soul inside your owned art, turning it into a Veblen good which of course means you are a better human being than the poors just consuming soulless AI art slop.
The 'real art by human' movement is going to ride the Veblen train as much as possible, insisting that art without a human soul in it is valueless, while the sellers of commoditized art wipe their tears with their stacks of cash inside their mansions.
There is an extra point, beyond just dressing it up as economics and fancy lingo.
It's very, very cheap to produce AI art that's shit. No matter how bad your human artist is, you gotta pay them minimum wage, so a terrible artist is roughly the same cost as like, a passable one..but shit AI art is essentially free.
The upshot of this, is that art coming from corporations can be shit now, to a degree that wasn't possible before..and we see how shit it can be already.
I'm not talking about any 'soul' or 'the worst human art is better', I'm just saying that it is objectively aesthetically shit. That plastic gloss finish is awful..but it's cheap
So, it puts a new shit floor on corporation illustrations, and that's just a worse service.
Eh; There is no such thing as being meaningful how we think is limited to ourself, and maybe half a lifetime at very most. Because of that something is only important because you choose it.
I think about this in particular with games, and how frequently I see people pitching the idea of AI art enabling more coders without art skill the "ability" to make games. (or just speeding up development in general)
and yet, I feel like there's plenty of "programmer art" that has a million times more charm then whatever an AI is going to churn out. There's so many games that are better and more interesting due to the compromises they had to make.
This is the basic attitude why ai art isn’t art at all. a person trying to get better at art will do crude stick drawings or some basic expression of their intent, they’ll tell a story and convey emotions in a relateable way. An AI that isn’t fully developed yet will hallucinate absolute garbage at you.
Maybe ai and humans are both “learning” but We’re “learning” from opposite ends of the spectrum. Humans start with truth and heart and the skills develop, refining and refining until you hit something masterful. AI starts with nonsense and refines and refines until it mimics, or is indistinguishable from, something masterful. There’s no truth there.
I have a son who is learning to draw. What am I supposed to tell him? Don't bother, an AI can just do it for you? It already learned so you don't have to? Nothing you create will be as good as the necessarily generic slop it produces via plagiarism?
Nah, I think I'll just wait for the whole bubble to pop and hope that we find some sanity in the aftermath.
The humanity behind the creation is the entire point. I genuinely worry about the people who don't understand that.
Plenty of people only care about what they see and only engage with that and nothing else. To them it is merely "it looks the way I like, thus I like it." There is no care for the artist or the message in fact to many there is no message, just what they see and nothing else. To these people AI works are equally satisfying and in many ways more so.
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't recall seeing anyone say that ai pictures are better than the greatest or even slightly better than average human created art. You must admit, however, that there is a hell of a lot of stuff created by humans that is just slop. It doesn't become art just because it was daubed on to a canvas by a person.
The amount of tech bros who will seek out artists, only to parrot back their artwork with the phrase “I fixed this for you” or “I made it better” is gross.
Not only is it discouraging, especially for someone who might be still finding their style, but it’s disrespectful too, and is injecting their work into the library of slop being churned out—in turn making it easier for others to emulate.
It's definitely not better than the best human art. That's obvious, because it does it's best to learn from that. It is, however, better than MY best art.
Their argument was that some AI poem won some poetry contest against human poets, and therefore only insecure people can't see its superiority.
Something about how "the output is all that matters, not the process." Nevermind that poetry is meant to express experiences and emotions of the writer.
Also whenever someone links to some flashy story about an "AI poem" winning a prize or getting praised, my followup question is always "how much pRomPt eNgiNeErinG was needed to make the poem vaguely readable?" At a certain point, even if an AI technically wrote it, it may have been the human's aesthetic sensibilities that hand-held the AI into burping something out that wasn't insipid and boring.
The reality is that AI is already becoming indistinguishable from human skill. And we are just in AI infancy. In a few years AI will be able to achieve art that is indistinguishable from human art. And the more time that passes after that, the more capable and refined AI will be.
And it is sad. But also a technological achievement. One that we can’t be in denial of. AI images, AI music, AI videos, AI movies will soon saturate our culture and you will be unable to distinguish AI from human arts with the naked eye.
We are in that transition and change is difficult. But I predict that as time goes on, and newer generations grow up with it, it won’t be long before AI is mostly accepted and welcomed as an inherent part of our culture. That just seems inevitable to me.
Same thing happened when the tractor came out and replaced millions of farmers, or when TV came out and ruined radio and playhouses, or when the printing press came out and replaced hand-copied books from monasteries.
Yeah. I think another good parallel is cgi. When cgi first started appearing in movies a lot of people reacted negatively. In the early days it looked really shitty. Nowhere near as good as practical effects. But over time it got much better.
Today, sometimes CGI is noticeable, but I think most people would be surprised just how much of what’s on screen is CGI that is nearly indistinguishable from real life. People who think they still hate CGI are enjoying movies having no idea just how much of what they are seeing is CGI.
I disagree. I think we're very much in the middle of our CGI hangover, and have already seen productions swinging back to a mix of practical effects and CGI, because going full-CGI messed with the actors and made the final result look weird(two independent things). Another issue we've had in modern films are dark/muddy lighting schemes, as it's assumed the color balance will be fixed digitally in post so nobody bothers to properly light the damn scene to guide the viewer's eye...and then you can't see what the hell's going on! Movies from 30 years ago didn't have this problem, but we're seeing it as the norm for everything released over the past 20 years or so.
Personal opinion here - I will say that I think CGI has caused one major problem - and it's no-holds-barred amazing it still often looks as damn good as it does. It's that it's gotten so good that the same meticulous lighting setups aren't done to get a shot prepared, or at least aren't done as well because "we'll just fix it in post" with their massive AAA budget.
Projection spaces like Disney's Volume help a lot here, but there've been a lot of clips and effects in super-budget films that just jump out to me as off which smells to me that someone didn't really set the scene up correctly with the final effects in mind, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I’ve worked with those people. They also claim AI can write better movie and TV show scripts. And that AI actors would be better in the long run.
Have you subjected yourself to a full play-through of the "Hot 100" list on Billboard recently? How much of the content there feels like genuine human innovation, talent, and soul, versus how much feels like rehashed formula cut and pasted into a digital audio workstation?
Is a person dragging and dropping drum loops and autotuned vocals into a DAW with the intent of appealing to a specific psychology engaged in the creation or real art? Is the person putting hundreds of hours into composing a genuinely good song with AI tools for themselves not creating real art?
I find this whole argument very similar to the 19th century painters who hated photography. And I don't mean they wrote angry posts about it I mean they physically assaulted photographers. But a bad photograph was never a threat to a good painting.
Art is many things and AI tools do not diminish an artists ability to tell stories, send messages, and evoke emotions. It is just another medium in a long line stretching back to fingers in the dirt.
I've never, ever seen this take. Ever. I spend most of my time on reddit in /r/stablediffusion and /r/aivideo and I've never, not once, seen somebody claim that AI art is better.
The goal might be to become better, but nobody in their right mind would make a generalization the current state of AI art is better than traditional art.
Is a black dot in the middle of a picture art? Some say so. Possibly could argue by definition that art can only be made by a human. But what if that human uses a computer to create it? At what stage is a human no longer the author?
Yes it is, but it's getting to the point where most people I know (including myself) can't always tell them apart from non-AI art so what the fuck are we actually, legitimately gonna do about it?
It essentially creates dynamic content, that wasn't there before, based on the rest of the image provided. No one can detect it, the feature is used literally millions of times per day, globally and has been for almost 15 years. In just seconds, it can do what previously took a Photoshop master up to an hour to do by hand, no skill required AT ALL.
This begs a question: why do we need to spend trillions on a globally spanning set of data centers that are never enough for this incredibly inefficient technology when humans were able to write algorithms that did the best things it can do 15 years ago?
Yeah, there is a lot of toupee effect going around. People see bad AI art and say "all AI art is shitty" not realizing that they are constantly seeing AI art that they don't clock as such.
I feel like statements like these do the whole message a disservice. Either you fundamentally misunderstand the situation or you're intentionally misrepresenting it for the sake of easy karma.
AI art is, in many ways a problem. Sam Altman is asking for trillions and China is an issue. What you fail understand is that although these are connected high level topics, they're not directly related.
If you want to protect art, Sam Altman is not the leader in its destruction. The trillions are hardly for shitty image models. People that jump to Altman being the cause of everything is just another form of hero worship. It's who you seen in the news.
You should be looking at Alibaba who is currently dominating in AI art capability and releasing it to the world for free and can run on shitty gaming hardware. If anybody would like to better informed, you can learn more on r/stablediffusion.
By misrepresenting reality, all you gain is karma while spreading misinformation that causes people to focus on trying to address a pop culture issue instead of the root cause.
---
If anybody interprets this as pro-AI art, that's not my intent here. There is a real problem in the art industry because of it. We would be wise to pay attention to what matters and not be distracted TMZ.
We would be wise to pay attention to what matters and not be distracted TMZ.
You have captured what it feels 90% reddit is like. Just one red herring after the next, and almost never are we actually addressing substantial problems, or even talking about the real problems.
As someone who’s occasionally glanced at this stuff, pretty much this. People who think sora 2 is the worst it can get haven’t seen what others have already achieved
So much so that I've seen many skilled and strongly anti-AI artists accidentally get excited about and promote people who turned out to be heavily relying on AI or solely using AI. They get "caught" eventually by having an AI-tell in an image, or simply by having an unrealistically high output.
People are already unable to distinguish between AI and human poetry, which one would think would be the absolute hardest thing to pass over given the context of emotional expression and creative evocation.
Turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, they rate AI-created poetry as better than human-created poetry:
We conducted two experiments with non-expert poetry readers and found that participants performed below chance levels in identifying AI-generated poems (46.6% accuracy, χ2(1, N = 16,340) = 75.13, p < 0.0001). Notably, participants were more likely to judge AI-generated poems as human-authored than actual human-authored poems (χ2(2, N = 16,340) = 247.04, p < 0.0001). We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.
So it's a combination of both A) most humans being terrible at being able know whether they can or can't determine between human and AI, and B) AI output already being very sophisticated.
Yeah, you gotta realize that the people who write articles about this are trying to move the needle on whether they have a job in five years. They have a personal motivation to denounce ai products and it’s not about the sanctity of the artistic way.
Yeah, we call out AI companies for overhyping AI to boost their profitability, but lots of places are unfairly shitting on AI for similarly self-interested reasons.
AI art has gotten better at not having incredibly obvious tells. Much like some people will edit the output of ChatGPT output I'm sure some will edit out things they dislike out of AI art to make it less obvious.
Yep, and with how much money has been pumped into research and refinement of AI models from dozens of different entities. We're starting to leave the uncanny valley of AI images and short videos. Long form videos are probably not far behind.
By 2027 I doubt anyone will be able to differentiate an AI image, and it will be very hard to tell from videos a few minutes long.
If it was all weird, sad and ugly there would be a lot less clutching of pearls.
I can't say I like most of the output of "one and done" prompting, which is the usual target of these hit pieces and arguments. However, where it's used as a tool to generate or improve on parts of an image as part of a large creative workflow, that can be excellent.
Shhhh, we're spamming rage-bate here. It also doesn't matter that a lot of human art is mistaken for AI which invalidates any argument starting with "ai art is"
That's honestly the saddest part. When people have such a blind hatred for AI art that they start accusing, and in some cases berating, human artists simply because they think their work is AI. They go so far one way that they horseshoe back and start hurting the very thing they wanted so desperately to protect and then they pat themselves on the back for it.
Now you get how I feel reading all that AI hate. It's wild.
It feels like the people were manipulated to mindlessly hate AI lol
Certainly, there's a lot to critisize but there's also so much it can be used for.
It's like hating on computers as a whole because the people that make the computers are pieces of shits. Computers are useful/cool tools, regardless who creates them. So is AI.
You want to see folks who are hyper-defensive about their AI art, check out the r/SunoAI subreddit about the AI music generating platform. These folks are absolutely convinced that their "works" are no less valid than people who write, perform, and record their own music from scratch.
I mean, creating things with a prompt can be fun, no doubt, but it's about as interesting to other people as having someone tell you about a dream they had last night.
Right? Appreciation of art is subjective. Very few people can appreciate the art of a toddler beyond family. And honestly I'm suspicious of any beyond mom and dad really enjoying it. But that's because they have a rich and subjective experience with the artist.
Most art I buy for my house I buy because I think it's cool. Not because I value the artist.
People can like and buy the art they like. Or generate it will an AI if that's their thing. Some people are huge sci fi nerds and may really appreciate that an AI made the art.
Most of reddit's anti-AI art brigade seem to live in an alternate reality from most everyday people I know. Most people I know don't give two shits about the artists intentions or the emotions they were experiencing or all the other stuff people in this sub are glazing as essential to art. They are looking at the work as a finished product and appreciating it based on what they feel from it, not what the artist felt as he/she was making it.
This whole notion that "art is solely about the artist's feelings and intentions" is why so much modern art is perceived as narcissistic crap. It's why the average person doesn't care about art anymore. Artists have become engrossed in their own thoughts, believing that the audience truly cares about their personal mental state at the precise moment they paint a red dot on a canvas. Maybe AI art will force artists to actually make art that says something to everyone again and not have paintings be puppets with the artists' hands shoved up them to "express" what the audience should feel.
Yeah people compare ai art with the output of the masters but go to a local gallery and so many of them are just full of uninspired garbage. I absolutely respect the effort but it’s weird to pretend that ai output can’t possibly match a human. If you value that human effort was put into it is another matter.
Yeah and that's the point. Companies hiring artists care about making money. They don't care if you're picasso making a masterpiece, they care if the art an AI can make is better than most artists they otherwise hire, or at least if AI can get 80-90% there for a fraction of the cost, which it can.
The reason this is so controversial is AI is displacing human artists, and that's making artists butthurt because their livelihoods are threatened. If we had UBI it wouldnt be a problem but because we insist people have to work for a living doing SOMETHING these guys hate that the thing they're actually passionate about is being destroyed in favor of this thing that can get 90% of the way there for like 10% of the price.
Imo the problem is it's been (and still is being) shoved down our throats so much that people have developed an AI fatigue, and even a revulsion to some extent.
I work in AI so clearly I'm not opposed to its development, but I can understand why people don't want half-assed "AI" to be shoehorned into everything they buy when it makes no sense.
The media is positioning AI to make people jobless while also inflating GPU and RAM prices, increasing the costs of personal computers significantly, and many folks have anecdotally had poor experiences with early AI rollout that were inevitably poor quality.
Put it all together and we are ripe for anti-AI content as a society.
For what it's worth, I do think we are investing too much into it, but I may well be proved wrong in the future.
All I know is that building a PC at home has shot up in price over the past 18 months. At current rates laptops will double in price in the next year, and if things don't improve phone prices are likely to go up by a flat $100-300 per phone based on RAM prices alone as manufacturers start to deplete stockpile and end deals with suppliers (I don't know typical contract length for RAM chips from suppliers in the industry, so a blind guess would be around the same time laptops start to go up in price).
AI companies desperate need for basic computing hardware is going to make life very expensive for the rest of us for the next few years until either supply catches up, or AI companies ease off on buying hardware.
Honestly from what I saw in the last few days,most of the people here are completely disconnected from the technological world, especially when it comes to the AI failed at X posts or whatever,I recently saw a bunch of comments on such a post about AI being an overhyped failure that will flop like web 2 cloud and IoT , which if you're even mildly involved in technology you'd know lmao
AI can assist artists and help create but AI is not living a human experience and therefore we humans should not be utilizing AI art as replacement for real human art, which is a special type of expression that needs to be protected.
Yeah the only real difference is that most people are too embarrassed by 'ganic slop to post in a public forum. They don't seem to have the same degree of shame when it comes to AI slop.
Art can be, and often is, about relating humanity through ones own physical and creative limitations. You can use various tools to overcome these, but there remains a point where ones personal creativity is overshadowed by the tools used.
And yet, studies repeatedly show that humans can't tell the difference between human-made images and images generated by the leading models.
I don't understand how apparently 1200 of you still think that AI images suck when there's been repeated top posts demonstrating how good it is. Just yesterday or the day before, a top reddit post was showing the progression of Will Smith eating spaghetti. I'm wondering which of you upvoted both that post and this one.
"I CAN'T DISTINGUISH THEM AT ALL, AND YET I AM UTTERLY CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A MAGICAL DIFFERENCE THAT i CAN'T ARTICULATE BUT UPON WHICH I RELY UTTERLY TO SUPPORT MY ANTIPATHY!!"
As someone who's done graphic design for many years I personally love it. It cant top human art but it's Hella fun and limitless only to your creativity
I think this is a silly dismissal of something, for the sake of not understanding the direction of technology or simply to villainize it. Keep in mind AI art is derived from actual art and artists. Calling it weird, sad, and ugly is reflective of real art and artists. AI art poses danger but also progress. It just needs a healthy moral oversight.
It’s ruining craft fairs
it's even ruining ads on websites. I mean, I hated them before, but I hate them even more now
Who are you people, on /r/technology of all places, that don't have ad blockers?
There’s no perfect ad blocker for iPhone.
Ublock Origin Lite is perfectly fine.
Yeah just remember, it’s not an “adblocker” because that would be against google ToS. lol
Google ToS ... on an iphone?
There is, and it’s called AdGuard
Will it block ads on this godforsaken default reddit app? I miss 3rd party reddit apps badly
and youtube, "shorts" is now full of disgusting weird shit, its a nightmare
(and I like horror, this is like disgusting nonsense)
There is a fucking gambling ad of all things that is just an AI generated video of nonsense, a grandma flying through the air against a purple star scape, opening a door and holding a cake or some fucking thing, it's literally 30 seconds straight of meaningless brain rot that someone spent a couple minutes generating a prompt before saying "yep good enough" and it makes me want to just stop watching basketball entirely rather than be subjected to that offensive shit.
ads on TV too. i saw a horrible lawyer ad on TV of people screaming at each other without making eye contact, with weird mouth movements.
The second I hear the inkling of an AI voice, my brain is off.
That makes me very sad.
Same. Like....nobody at a craft fair is doing it cuz it's an easy way to make money(I have a friend who works a circuit of craft fairs that I used to table for cuz I personally enjoyed selling nonsense to people), they're doing it cuz they love the act of making. Someone shitting out ai drek and devaluing everything is just....bleh
I want craft fairs to have a no ai policy, a saw a food vendor had an ai poster at the one I went to the other day, so cringe.
eh, 3d printing has already done that. The amount of booths selling the same bullshit 3d printed figures and sculptures is gross. "No way, you sell the same articulated snake/dragon thing that I saw 3 booths over! what are the chances"
Seems crazy but those things are what sells. People over in r/3Dprinting are shaking their heads in disbelief too.
Yeah. I had a friend spend $30 for one at a comic con. A friend that knows I have a fancy 3d printer.
My nephew is obsessed with them and orders them from Amazon lol
[deleted]
A very prolific designer is Cinderwing, who will happily sell you a commercial license to all of their designs for literally ten bucks a month. Many of those designs will sell for $20 or higher a piece if you use a pretty filament.
I've bought a few of their designs, they're legitimately good designs, but it feels weird to walk past a booth selling thirty-dollar dragons when I can print the same thing by paying three bucks for the model and then fifty cents of filament each.
If someone is selling a 3d printed model at a craft fair, 50/50 it's a Cinderwing model.
(No shade towards Cinderwing here, note. They do good work. That's why they're popular.)
Pardon my ignorance, but I see in some of those pictures, a lot of colors. I assume the ones selling also take the time to paint it? Is that perhaps part of the appeal of not doing it oneself? Or am I completely wrong here? I know squat about 3D printing.
3d printed, actually!
There's a variety of techniques to do multicolored prints. The most common is what's called, depending on vendor, an Automatic Material System or Multi Material Unit, which can unload and reload various filaments automatically with computer control. There's also some dual-nozzle setups that support two filament colors and a new under-development thing called the INDX that actually swaps out part of the entire extruder assembly. They've all got various tradeoffs in terms of price and performance and waste and reliability, but they all let you print multiple colors unattended in a single print.
Most of Cinderwing's stuff is tagged appropriately for multiple colors if you have a way to print them; if you don't, you just get a single color.
(It's also possible to print multiple colors with a manual filament swap, and it's possible to print objects in multiple parts and glue them together or snap them together afterwards, though I think Cinderwing tends to not do either of those.)
Note that you can paint 3d printed stuff, and a lot of people do - there are people making a living off producing 3d models intended for people painting and using in miniature tabletop games (and while I don't have time for painting, I am right now coincidentally printing a half-foot-long mantis shrimp model for a son-of-a-coworker-of-my-wife, and he's planning to paint it to use in a diorama.) But I don't think Cinderwing is generally designing for that.
Edit: Oh, there's also a few filaments that are intrinsically multicolored, either co-extruded ("looks different from different angles") or rainbow ("changes color as the print goes from bottom to top".) They can be very pretty.
Wow! I didn't expect such an in-depth response. Thanks for taking the time, really appreciated. It was a good read, didn't really know 3D printing had such advancements already, (for consumer hardware, that is). Cheers!
They're made using color changing filament. If their printers are set up correctly, all they'll have to do is hit a button to start the print.
All plastic trash too. Last thing the world needs
There must be a temu/Ali express store selling these things in bulk. Because there's no way a majority of those sellers even know how to make them. Had some bloke in St. Albans proudly claim him and his mates made everything in house but suddenly went quiet when I asked him about what printer and filaments they used!!!
There are probably resellers out there, but those things literally just print in place. No assembly required. Get a fancy pearlescent filament and you're off to the races.
There's resellers out there for sure. When I was on vacation a couple months ago all the touristy stores had shelves of the things.
the majority of them come from local places in most cases I've seen. Someone starts up a print farm planning to run a business like rapid prototyping but the only thing that sells is shitty funco-pop like garbage. Its depressing, I know a couple people who just desperately try to get people to buy their own designs or get them to contract rapid prototyping but... the only thing anyone buys is garbage.
Turns out most kids just want the same things their friends have. I remember those segmented dragon in eggs were all the rage in my children’s elementary school earlier this year. At craft festivals I tried steering them towards the more unique builds, but nope, they just wanted more of those stupid dragon things.
Yes, you can drop ship them. Not sure why someone would do that instead of printing themselves though.
That, or they pay a printing farm service to have them produced in bulk for cheap and then resell them.
They are all over temu
Landfillcore. 3D printing can have actual uses (tools, structural things), but the overwhelming majority of it is waste. So many dorks releasing unfiltered toxic fumes in their homes in order to create more useless junk that will sit in landfill and poison the environment. Yes dear reader you heard right, your filament printer needs to be properly filtered and ventilated too, you are heating plastics to hundreds of degrees, I don’t care if it’s PLA you still shouldn’t be breathing that shit.
Yeah, I've been considering getting into it as a hobby or maybe to make certain cosplay pieces for friends and locals since that's pretty big here, lot of conventions in my area. Definitely would be getting proper ventilation and safety if I did get into it. That's one of the main things putting me off doing it because I want to do it right, not half assed or stupid. I'd love to go with resin even though it's more fragile and expensive, but also seems like quite a lot of upkeep and safety measures.
I can't believe how many people sell their stuff without even cleaning it or even trimming off the (I dont know the proper term) sprues/supports. You get these prints that are just covered in jagged excess all over. Like, my dude, have some pride in your products lol.
I've built printer enclosures for pretty cheap before. You can get by with passive air intake, active exhaust with in-line carbon + hepa filter positioned in front of your fan housing. You can use standard 4" tubing and a Y-splitter with backflow prevention to join it to an existing dryer vent system. The filters will eventually need replacing, but it's a fairly cheap and environmentally-friendly option.
I'm amazed how 3d printing made everyone super happy with overpriced chappy versions of the plastic tat poundshops sold for decades.
Remeber the articulated snakes of the 90s you turned them a bit to make them weave and move while holding them out
I had one made out of wood that someone gave to me as a kid. Probably still have it in a box somewhere. It is a super simple design but I'd probably buy that over a fancy 3d printed design any day.
Oh yeah, saw tons of those at an autumn market here in Sweden. Also clothing with AI prints, "Italian brainrot" products, knockoff Labubus, knockoff Pokémon cards with AI pics and misspelled text, extremely low quality knockoff plushies from various franchises, and various other cheap trash.
It's gone from having tons of variety and a handful of repeat stalls with the same products when I was a kid... to maybe 5-6 different stalls just repeated over and over. Nothing stands out anymore. Now you can just go through 5% of it and browse Temu for five minutes and you've seen everything they have. Sad.
It is sad. I would gladly buy unique stuff from local artists but there's almost no unique artists left, it seems. Ive gone to a lot of craft fairs the past couple of years and its either stuff someone is reselling from temu, the same 3d printed stuff that every 3d print booth has, or someone in their 40's selling stuff that looks like a teenager made in school. None of it is quality anymore. Candles is a big one, too, all using the same novelty molds of the same characters and designs mass produced.
Between AI and cheap Chinese dropshipping, Etsy is basically fucked beyond any usefulness, sadly.
really sad cause I got really nice crochet pattern of yf-23 from etsy that got me into crocheting and later this year I got a pattern for moth plushies (I love the two I made for myself a lot)
you need to be really careful cause a lot of the new patterns are apperantly AI generated and make no sense (you can't really create the AI generated imagine) and these scammers drown the actual pattern makers under them
Yeah, I just don't even get on Etsy anymore. It's just not worth it.
Truly sad that it's been absolutely ruined.
Also has ruined etsy
Pinterest, Deviantart and Artstation are unsalvageable.
I was at one a couple of weeks ago, and oh my god was it bad. In the end I only trusted the stalls that were selling paint and other basic shit
craft fairs have been shit for a long time, you need a well curated fair. when there is no curation going on you have supplement sellers, 3d print, cheap chinese stuff, laser engraved, soap sellers ( yes even though handmade it's a mass product )
People try to have big margins, that easiest with quickly produced, cheaply bought stuff. Handcrafted cannot compete with those people. Attending a fair as a real producer is shit. You loose because people compare you to cheap stuff and you just seem "too expensive" for "too little"
AI art does not change anything for fairs, fairs have been mostly shit for a long time. Some fairs specialize on individual stuff and handmade items. Those are ok and they bring the crowd willing to pay. That is not the usual fair though
-> My wife is an artist and has been selling on those fairs for a long time
It's definitely revealing who was only ever there to try to scam people versus who actually had art they were proud of, for sure.
Every stall selling a combination of lame 1st gen AI art alongside 3D printed dragons
💯 starting to see more and more slop in the art scene
McDonald's is the most successful restaurant in the world. I feel like that should tell you all you need to know about how much most people care about quality, art included.
The general population doesn’t give a fuck
Reddit was rightfully all up in arms about the streaming services raising prices and cracking down on passwords, sure that the strategy would fail and yet the streaming services won that.
I am pretty much sure we will lose the AI war as well even if all of Reddit is against it (which I am too). The general public doesn’t care about how the sausage is made when it comes to anything
Let's not forget about that time when Reddit killed third party apps and all the Redditors said this will kill the company and that they will never use Reddit again. Now 99% of them are on the official Reddit app, consuming those advertisements, just like the CEO said they would once the novelty of protest wore off.
Yeah I couldn’t agree more. Sadly, gen AI only reflects aspects of society that were already here.
The issue is that the general public only has an eye for design, not art. They don’t care what art means; only that it looks a certain way. There are enough people in the public discourse who are content with slop replacing more meaningful art, simply because it comes across as aesthetically appealing and looks polished enough. It’s less so that AI is a threat by itself, and more about the realization that the broader media landscape likely never cared about the authenticity of art in the first place. We’re seeing just how little society values culture.
AI is also a litmus test that humanity has failed. If given the chance, most people would take advantage of everyone else around them if they faced no consequences. The average person genuinely does not care that the use of AI is stealing from the people around them, nor its environmental ramifications.
It's eventually going to take my job, and I don't care. If it can do the work, it should be used. The economic system is going to have to change and the profits can't just go to a few rich assholes, but humans doing busy work just because someone feels like a person needs to work 8 hours a day to eat and have shelter is asinine.
People won’t give up modern convenience for anything. No matter what
I think what this tells is not that people don't care about quality, but that there's a niche for when quality isn't top priority. Like, I can appreciate a really nice burger, but sometimes I am also in a rush or don't want to pay premium, so McDonald's is simply good enough and convenient.
It's exactly same thing with AI art. Yeah it's not always high quality, but neither does it matter that there's a girl with a "12 of hearts" card in background of a poker banner I made with AI. Nobody will notice, and it's good enough for the purpose.
Art been lacking the fast-food alternatives up till now, and that's the niche AI art currently fills for many.
Yep. And that's the thing. I mean....if you want a luxurious gourmet burger, yeah, human labor might be able to provide that better than some mass produced mediocre product. But it doesnt stop people from buying the mass produced mediocre product. AI is mass produced mediocre art, but as long as it's "good enough", it's gonna displace a lot of artists.
I do believe the best artists will remain immune to AI job loss, because AI just won't be able to replace the best, for the reasons mentioned in the article, but most people arent interested in the best, they're interested in the "good enough" to get the next product out the door to make their quarterly earnings look good.
McDonald’s is not the same as it was 20 years ago. Their food has gone downhill while their prices have gone up. They have lost a lot of customers.
McDonald's popular not because people agreed it was good food, but because it was cheap slop, just like AI.
But people know they're going to McDonald, at least. The entire value 'proposition' of AI material is that it can pass off as something else, which I'd argue is much worse. There's something wrong if your industry is built on reducing market information.
The only people that pretend AI is somehow better than the best human art are the same people that make AI slop services and the idiots who claimed crypto was the ultimate decentralized economic utopia, and those that thought NFTs are an intellectual copyrightable thing.....
I'd rather look at art created by a human being that is still practicing and learning, rather than an image from a machine. The humanity behind the creation is the entire point. I genuinely worry about the people who don't understand that.
Same goes for music
Somehow music is more commoditized than art, because AI slop is finding appeal on Spotify.
Don't necessarily trust the charts when the people making the AI shit can get bots to drive listen counts up.
Tons of AI music is instrumental stuff that tend to play on auto for hours as well, like those spotify generated jazz/lo-fi playlists. I turn off listening activity for stuff like that, it has definitely helped keep it away from my algorithm
It's same on Twitter. AI slop accounts have thousands of followers, but their posts often get barely single, maybe low-double digit likes, and if they get any replies they're all one-line fake positive shit that is clearly mass-produced by another bot. It's bots liking shit made by other bots.
That artificial boost gets them on playlists, and a lot of it (particularly instrumental music) is pleasant/inoffensive enough that people just leave it on when it auto-plays.
I'm pretty confident Spotify is responsible for some of the AI music on their platform. All those minutes listened with no artists to pay out.
Spotify doesn't require active listening or purchase though
when all it takes is "this number of downloads or views" you can guarantee those numbers are gamed.
This is a tale as old as the "New York Times Best Sellers List"
To be fair, The genres AI music is topping are not known for pushing new sounds.
Country music is arguably more formulaic than pop these days
And faith music has never pushed any envelopes of creativity.
What is claimed as country now days isn't really country. It's rural pop. There is some great country being made today. Sturgill, Molly, Billy. Sierra, Tyler... Simply amazing music. You aren't going to see it on the country charts though.
Lucas Nelson sounds just like his dad.
It makes sense when you consider that there are a lot of times (I'd argue the majority, due to public settings like supermarkets, cafes, restaurants, retail etc) where people aren't using music as an active engagement with art, but just as background noise.
In that context, it's incredibly easy for AI music to just smoothly pass by your brain without any 'bumps.' There's no real equivalent with visual art (at least until Musk figures out how to beam ads directly into peoples' neuralinks,) which inherently requires you to actively focus your gaze and choose to engage with it, on some level.
With that in mind, it's easy to picture someone throwing on one of those autogenerated spotify radio mixes, and not noticing/caring if an AI track shows up
It's called commerical art, and it's literally everywhere. You could even lump in architectural flourishes, if not the core designs (since those also need to function, which isn't something we should be trusting "AI" to do all by itself yet.)
Yeah true I could've put that better. I was mostly just referring to the method of delivery, though - you can't 'passively enjoy' images in the same way that you can passively enjoy music.
A trucker can't get the "best cool dog picture wallpapers" collection beamed into his brain for his 15 hour meth-fuelled interstate corn delivery, but he can put on the "best country testosterone mix radio" playlist on youtube.
In terms of the actual products created and their method of consumption, I think there's a difference
you ever walked through a hotel? its full of visual background noise
To me music is also about understanding what is the meaning behind the song... The lyrics... AI is souless random genetated slop
Sometimes I wake up with YouTube playing and it is some AI procedurally generated music like "cool classical jazz for a rainy day that you can relax to" or something like that and it will not be relaxing because it doesn't go anywhere. No beginning, middle, or end. It actually puts me on edge because I feel like I'm trapped.
10× for music
People who never will consider spending more than $20 at target for a piece of wall art will happily shell out $100 to see Billy Strings play, or pay a $10 cover to watch their crush play a show at a bar.
I think that the reality is that the majority of people just don't care for art in that sense, and that already was clear before AI showed up.
Basically under that definition Avatar isn't art, pop music isn't art. The value of these things is not in their humanity today, they are already algorithmically corporate products even when there are humans holding the metaphorical pencil.
There's surely some AI zealots who expect AI art to replace museum art (and it will show up in some form, similar to photography the selection and postprocessing of things is still a human creative endeavor after all) but I think most AI art proponents are really thinking of things like Magic the Gathering card art where for 90% of the cards is more of an artisan's process than an artist's process today.
Why isn't Avatar art?
Because it's 98% CGI? Because it's a blockbuster?
I'm not saying it's great or even good art, that's subjective and not really a part of the discussion. It's still a creative vision James Cameron (assuming you mean the tall blue people Avatar, not the short elemental people Avatar) is clearly following. Having created a whole (flawed) ecosystem for the planet, histories and cultures for the indigenous people, etc. clearly shows it's not just some superficial flavour of the month thing. Why is that not art?
Same goes for pop music. There's heeeaaaps of pop music that carries meaning and takes stances. I suppose charting pop music seldom does (though it happens).
I mean, maybe I'm just being semantic and/or nitpicky here but I'd really be interested in hearing why these examples?
I would argue pop music can definitely be art. But the pop music on the charts often times isn't.
I agree with everything you've said here. Most people don't view art with any level of depth and just want a pretty picture. I don't, and I think it's a little sad when people toss away the human behind the creation of the thing.
Not that I'm saying these people are morally wrong or bad people or anything. I even understand my perspective is a bit Luddite. Part of the wonderful thing about the humanity of art is our different perspectives. I'm just expressing mine.
Isn't it just Death of the Author though?
I don't personally ascribe to Death of the Author, but the key tenet of the philosophy is that art interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. It takes away the artist's intentions, and replaces it with the viewer's/readers interpretation.
If anything, AI has a better claim, because there isn't any author, so it's pure interpretation by the viewer/reader, and not just a way to justify your awful media analysis skills.
I'm personally not an avid AI defender, I use it for like..throwing together D&D character portraits for NPCs, and other stuff that I would put at level of "Cool toy".
AI doesnt just spontaneously output images by itself though
The prompt is the intention, as is any work done on the image by the user post- production
I don't think that's quite what Death of the Author is about. It's that if you can find evidence for an interpretation of an art piece, from within the piece itself (not your own imagination), then it's a valid interpretation even if it's not what the artist intended. Which is subtly different from taking away intentions and replacing them with interpretations. More like an additional perspective than a complete substitution. And it shows the difficulty of communicating non-verbally - the artist puts something out there, hoping someone will understand, but there's no guarantees. Just two people trying to create a shared understanding, instead of artist as dictator.
Based on that, Id say you treating AI as a cool toy is spot on. The program has no intention behind what it makes for you, so the only criteria for judgement is if it's fun for you to use. But for me (as a certified pretentious art nerd) there's no point in even looking for my own interpretation in what AI makes. If no thought or effort went in to making it, there's no intention for me to find or interpret. A lot of the stuff in the OP's linked article is worthless to me. But if an artist is using AI as just one tool to create a more complex piece, then I'm interested in seeing what they're doing. One example: https://sinisbeautiful.com/artwork-doppelganger/ (the FAQ is fun).
I don't really see the hate on it as any different than people hating on abstract expressionism, for example. There's plenty of really cool, thought provoking ai art. It's just a tool to get ideas out there.
Isn't that exactly what Death of an Author means?
I think it's an economic tug of war.
There is art as a mass commodity. A lot of people balk at this, bit it's true, there's demand for mass commercialization of art, otherwise it would not exist.
Then there's art as a Veblen good, for which the idea is that since a 'human soul' put effort in it, it can be seen as a form of conspicuous consuption, signalling the social virtue of being rich enough to afford to spend money on it, and THAT is why it is valuable.
I get it, this argument is whole-heartedly 19th century materialistic at its core, but I very much see it played over and over, only without overtly stating the quiet part out loud.
The oportunity for an enterpreneur, in the middle, is an art auditing service who will certify there is a real human soul inside your owned art, turning it into a Veblen good which of course means you are a better human being than the poors just consuming soulless AI art slop.
The 'real art by human' movement is going to ride the Veblen train as much as possible, insisting that art without a human soul in it is valueless, while the sellers of commoditized art wipe their tears with their stacks of cash inside their mansions.
There is an extra point, beyond just dressing it up as economics and fancy lingo.
It's very, very cheap to produce AI art that's shit. No matter how bad your human artist is, you gotta pay them minimum wage, so a terrible artist is roughly the same cost as like, a passable one..but shit AI art is essentially free.
The upshot of this, is that art coming from corporations can be shit now, to a degree that wasn't possible before..and we see how shit it can be already.
I'm not talking about any 'soul' or 'the worst human art is better', I'm just saying that it is objectively aesthetically shit. That plastic gloss finish is awful..but it's cheap
So, it puts a new shit floor on corporation illustrations, and that's just a worse service.
Our society is becoming increasingly detached from meaningfully human activities and what it means to be human.
i agree, fellow redditor with 100 made comments in the last 24 hours.. we really need to get back to meaningful human activities.
Eh; There is no such thing as being meaningful how we think is limited to ourself, and maybe half a lifetime at very most. Because of that something is only important because you choose it.
The beginning is not a negative it’s a freedom
I think about this in particular with games, and how frequently I see people pitching the idea of AI art enabling more coders without art skill the "ability" to make games. (or just speeding up development in general)
and yet, I feel like there's plenty of "programmer art" that has a million times more charm then whatever an AI is going to churn out. There's so many games that are better and more interesting due to the compromises they had to make.
This is the basic attitude why ai art isn’t art at all. a person trying to get better at art will do crude stick drawings or some basic expression of their intent, they’ll tell a story and convey emotions in a relateable way. An AI that isn’t fully developed yet will hallucinate absolute garbage at you.
Maybe ai and humans are both “learning” but We’re “learning” from opposite ends of the spectrum. Humans start with truth and heart and the skills develop, refining and refining until you hit something masterful. AI starts with nonsense and refines and refines until it mimics, or is indistinguishable from, something masterful. There’s no truth there.
Precisely this. Art is a reflection of the human experience for me. AI art has no meaning to me.
I have a son who is learning to draw. What am I supposed to tell him? Don't bother, an AI can just do it for you? It already learned so you don't have to? Nothing you create will be as good as the necessarily generic slop it produces via plagiarism?
Nah, I think I'll just wait for the whole bubble to pop and hope that we find some sanity in the aftermath.
Plenty of people only care about what they see and only engage with that and nothing else. To them it is merely "it looks the way I like, thus I like it." There is no care for the artist or the message in fact to many there is no message, just what they see and nothing else. To these people AI works are equally satisfying and in many ways more so.
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't recall seeing anyone say that ai pictures are better than the greatest or even slightly better than average human created art. You must admit, however, that there is a hell of a lot of stuff created by humans that is just slop. It doesn't become art just because it was daubed on to a canvas by a person.
It happens; All. The. Time.
The amount of tech bros who will seek out artists, only to parrot back their artwork with the phrase “I fixed this for you” or “I made it better” is gross.
Not only is it discouraging, especially for someone who might be still finding their style, but it’s disrespectful too, and is injecting their work into the library of slop being churned out—in turn making it easier for others to emulate.
Edit: not even one day later, look what’s on the front page.
It's definitely not better than the best human art. That's obvious, because it does it's best to learn from that. It is, however, better than MY best art.
... Is anyone actually claiming that?
Someone tried to tell me in another thread that "AI poetry" is superior to human poetry. They got lots of upvotes. Pretty ridiculous stuff.
Better as in... Faster? And poetry as in words that rhyme(sometimes)?
Wow.
I didn't know people were trying to claim it was better. Only faster and/or cheaper.
What was their argument?
Their argument was that some AI poem won some poetry contest against human poets, and therefore only insecure people can't see its superiority.
Something about how "the output is all that matters, not the process." Nevermind that poetry is meant to express experiences and emotions of the writer.
Thread here.
Honestly most amateur poets are fucking awful, so I'm not really surprised that a machine could win a poetry contest.
Also whenever someone links to some flashy story about an "AI poem" winning a prize or getting praised, my followup question is always "how much pRomPt eNgiNeErinG was needed to make the poem vaguely readable?" At a certain point, even if an AI technically wrote it, it may have been the human's aesthetic sensibilities that hand-held the AI into burping something out that wasn't insipid and boring.
Sturgeon's Law has never applied to anything like it does to poetry. <shudders>
That's incredibly sad.
Enter the average AI defender subreddit and you'll see lots of people like that
To me, it’s not about AI being “better”.
The reality is that AI is already becoming indistinguishable from human skill. And we are just in AI infancy. In a few years AI will be able to achieve art that is indistinguishable from human art. And the more time that passes after that, the more capable and refined AI will be.
And it is sad. But also a technological achievement. One that we can’t be in denial of. AI images, AI music, AI videos, AI movies will soon saturate our culture and you will be unable to distinguish AI from human arts with the naked eye.
We are in that transition and change is difficult. But I predict that as time goes on, and newer generations grow up with it, it won’t be long before AI is mostly accepted and welcomed as an inherent part of our culture. That just seems inevitable to me.
Same thing happened when the tractor came out and replaced millions of farmers, or when TV came out and ruined radio and playhouses, or when the printing press came out and replaced hand-copied books from monasteries.
Yeah. I think another good parallel is cgi. When cgi first started appearing in movies a lot of people reacted negatively. In the early days it looked really shitty. Nowhere near as good as practical effects. But over time it got much better.
Today, sometimes CGI is noticeable, but I think most people would be surprised just how much of what’s on screen is CGI that is nearly indistinguishable from real life. People who think they still hate CGI are enjoying movies having no idea just how much of what they are seeing is CGI.
I disagree. I think we're very much in the middle of our CGI hangover, and have already seen productions swinging back to a mix of practical effects and CGI, because going full-CGI messed with the actors and made the final result look weird(two independent things). Another issue we've had in modern films are dark/muddy lighting schemes, as it's assumed the color balance will be fixed digitally in post so nobody bothers to properly light the damn scene to guide the viewer's eye...and then you can't see what the hell's going on! Movies from 30 years ago didn't have this problem, but we're seeing it as the norm for everything released over the past 20 years or so.
Personal opinion here - I will say that I think CGI has caused one major problem - and it's no-holds-barred amazing it still often looks as damn good as it does. It's that it's gotten so good that the same meticulous lighting setups aren't done to get a shot prepared, or at least aren't done as well because "we'll just fix it in post" with their massive AAA budget.
Projection spaces like Disney's Volume help a lot here, but there've been a lot of clips and effects in super-budget films that just jump out to me as off which smells to me that someone didn't really set the scene up correctly with the final effects in mind, if that makes sense.
It's especially poignant because most people have a completely mistaken conception of what CGI actually is.
They think it's the Scorpion King, when really it's composite shots, color grading, etc.
The famous RocketJump video "Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't)".
Yeah, I’ve worked with those people. They also claim AI can write better movie and TV show scripts. And that AI actors would be better in the long run.
Have you subjected yourself to a full play-through of the "Hot 100" list on Billboard recently? How much of the content there feels like genuine human innovation, talent, and soul, versus how much feels like rehashed formula cut and pasted into a digital audio workstation?
Is a person dragging and dropping drum loops and autotuned vocals into a DAW with the intent of appealing to a specific psychology engaged in the creation or real art? Is the person putting hundreds of hours into composing a genuinely good song with AI tools for themselves not creating real art?
I find this whole argument very similar to the 19th century painters who hated photography. And I don't mean they wrote angry posts about it I mean they physically assaulted photographers. But a bad photograph was never a threat to a good painting.
Art is many things and AI tools do not diminish an artists ability to tell stories, send messages, and evoke emotions. It is just another medium in a long line stretching back to fingers in the dirt.
AI music is often better than the human slop on the hot 100 pop songs lol.
Most of pop music are made with sampled loops/construction kits.
Is it ok to like both?
Only if you're a rational person. Which many of the zealots here clearly are not.
I've never, ever seen this take. Ever. I spend most of my time on reddit in /r/stablediffusion and /r/aivideo and I've never, not once, seen somebody claim that AI art is better.
The goal might be to become better, but nobody in their right mind would make a generalization the current state of AI art is better than traditional art.
Some of it is CLEARLY better than some human art.
And vice versa.
That's about all that can be legitimately claimed if you're not operating from unsupported emotion.
Is a black dot in the middle of a picture art? Some say so. Possibly could argue by definition that art can only be made by a human. But what if that human uses a computer to create it? At what stage is a human no longer the author?
Yes it is, but it's getting to the point where most people I know (including myself) can't always tell them apart from non-AI art so what the fuck are we actually, legitimately gonna do about it?
Get over ourselves and move on, like always.
Adobe introduced content-aware-fill in 2010 to Photoshop with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
It essentially creates dynamic content, that wasn't there before, based on the rest of the image provided. No one can detect it, the feature is used literally millions of times per day, globally and has been for almost 15 years. In just seconds, it can do what previously took a Photoshop master up to an hour to do by hand, no skill required AT ALL.
This begs a question: why do we need to spend trillions on a globally spanning set of data centers that are never enough for this incredibly inefficient technology when humans were able to write algorithms that did the best things it can do 15 years ago?
Yeah, there is a lot of toupee effect going around. People see bad AI art and say "all AI art is shitty" not realizing that they are constantly seeing AI art that they don't clock as such.
But, but the Chinese will take the lead on ugly, soulless, sad art if we don't give Altman trillions
I have to admit, I am going to enjoy that guy's downfall.
Not even because of AI art. But because he's the archetypical Tech Bro who thinks he knows better than any human on earth how things should go.
Well if he doesn’t engineer all of our deaths, me too.
Ted Faro archetype.
From the Horizon games. Great games. Horrible man.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTedFaro/
Be warned, that sub is full of spoilers for both games.
His company has likely already murdered whistleblowers
What downfall? The man is going to be a billionaire for life. There is no downfall for him.
I feel like statements like these do the whole message a disservice. Either you fundamentally misunderstand the situation or you're intentionally misrepresenting it for the sake of easy karma.
AI art is, in many ways a problem. Sam Altman is asking for trillions and China is an issue. What you fail understand is that although these are connected high level topics, they're not directly related.
If you want to protect art, Sam Altman is not the leader in its destruction. The trillions are hardly for shitty image models. People that jump to Altman being the cause of everything is just another form of hero worship. It's who you seen in the news.
You should be looking at Alibaba who is currently dominating in AI art capability and releasing it to the world for free and can run on shitty gaming hardware. If anybody would like to better informed, you can learn more on r/stablediffusion.
By misrepresenting reality, all you gain is karma while spreading misinformation that causes people to focus on trying to address a pop culture issue instead of the root cause.
---
If anybody interprets this as pro-AI art, that's not my intent here. There is a real problem in the art industry because of it. We would be wise to pay attention to what matters and not be distracted TMZ.
You have captured what it feels 90% reddit is like. Just one red herring after the next, and almost never are we actually addressing substantial problems, or even talking about the real problems.
Ridiculous that this is being downvoted.
Misinformation is still misinformation if you agree with it
As someone who’s occasionally glanced at this stuff, pretty much this. People who think sora 2 is the worst it can get haven’t seen what others have already achieved
That you can tell*
AI art is everywhere and you're only noticing the bad and unaltered kind.
So much so that I've seen many skilled and strongly anti-AI artists accidentally get excited about and promote people who turned out to be heavily relying on AI or solely using AI. They get "caught" eventually by having an AI-tell in an image, or simply by having an unrealistically high output.
People are already unable to distinguish between AI and human poetry, which one would think would be the absolute hardest thing to pass over given the context of emotional expression and creative evocation.
Turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, they rate AI-created poetry as better than human-created poetry:
AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably
So it's a combination of both A) most humans being terrible at being able know whether they can or can't determine between human and AI, and B) AI output already being very sophisticated.
Yeah, you gotta realize that the people who write articles about this are trying to move the needle on whether they have a job in five years. They have a personal motivation to denounce ai products and it’s not about the sanctity of the artistic way.
Well it's Jacobin so you shouldn't expect anything else. They make Fox News look tame though they're on the opposite side of everything.
Yeah, we call out AI companies for overhyping AI to boost their profitability, but lots of places are unfairly shitting on AI for similarly self-interested reasons.
AI art has gotten better at not having incredibly obvious tells. Much like some people will edit the output of ChatGPT output I'm sure some will edit out things they dislike out of AI art to make it less obvious.
Yep, and with how much money has been pumped into research and refinement of AI models from dozens of different entities. We're starting to leave the uncanny valley of AI images and short videos. Long form videos are probably not far behind.
By 2027 I doubt anyone will be able to differentiate an AI image, and it will be very hard to tell from videos a few minutes long.
AI art reminds me of Thomas Kinkaide paintings. Even if they look fine at first glance, the longer you look at them the less you like them.
[deleted]
If it was all weird, sad and ugly there would be a lot less clutching of pearls.
I can't say I like most of the output of "one and done" prompting, which is the usual target of these hit pieces and arguments. However, where it's used as a tool to generate or improve on parts of an image as part of a large creative workflow, that can be excellent.
Shhhh, we're spamming rage-bate here. It also doesn't matter that a lot of human art is mistaken for AI which invalidates any argument starting with "ai art is"
That's honestly the saddest part. When people have such a blind hatred for AI art that they start accusing, and in some cases berating, human artists simply because they think their work is AI. They go so far one way that they horseshoe back and start hurting the very thing they wanted so desperately to protect and then they pat themselves on the back for it.
Now you get how I feel reading all that AI hate. It's wild.
It feels like the people were manipulated to mindlessly hate AI lol
Certainly, there's a lot to critisize but there's also so much it can be used for.
It's like hating on computers as a whole because the people that make the computers are pieces of shits. Computers are useful/cool tools, regardless who creates them. So is AI.
Aesthetic takes are subjective; the real problem is invisible labor displacement and shady training data.
You want to see folks who are hyper-defensive about their AI art, check out the r/SunoAI subreddit about the AI music generating platform. These folks are absolutely convinced that their "works" are no less valid than people who write, perform, and record their own music from scratch.
I mean, creating things with a prompt can be fun, no doubt, but it's about as interesting to other people as having someone tell you about a dream they had last night.
So is the vast majority of human made art to be fair.
Right? Appreciation of art is subjective. Very few people can appreciate the art of a toddler beyond family. And honestly I'm suspicious of any beyond mom and dad really enjoying it. But that's because they have a rich and subjective experience with the artist.
Most art I buy for my house I buy because I think it's cool. Not because I value the artist.
People can like and buy the art they like. Or generate it will an AI if that's their thing. Some people are huge sci fi nerds and may really appreciate that an AI made the art.
Most of reddit's anti-AI art brigade seem to live in an alternate reality from most everyday people I know. Most people I know don't give two shits about the artists intentions or the emotions they were experiencing or all the other stuff people in this sub are glazing as essential to art. They are looking at the work as a finished product and appreciating it based on what they feel from it, not what the artist felt as he/she was making it.
This whole notion that "art is solely about the artist's feelings and intentions" is why so much modern art is perceived as narcissistic crap. It's why the average person doesn't care about art anymore. Artists have become engrossed in their own thoughts, believing that the audience truly cares about their personal mental state at the precise moment they paint a red dot on a canvas. Maybe AI art will force artists to actually make art that says something to everyone again and not have paintings be puppets with the artists' hands shoved up them to "express" what the audience should feel.
Yeah people compare ai art with the output of the masters but go to a local gallery and so many of them are just full of uninspired garbage. I absolutely respect the effort but it’s weird to pretend that ai output can’t possibly match a human. If you value that human effort was put into it is another matter.
“go to a local gallery and so many of them are just full of uninspired garbage.”
Gross
Yeah and that's the point. Companies hiring artists care about making money. They don't care if you're picasso making a masterpiece, they care if the art an AI can make is better than most artists they otherwise hire, or at least if AI can get 80-90% there for a fraction of the cost, which it can.
The reason this is so controversial is AI is displacing human artists, and that's making artists butthurt because their livelihoods are threatened. If we had UBI it wouldnt be a problem but because we insist people have to work for a living doing SOMETHING these guys hate that the thing they're actually passionate about is being destroyed in favor of this thing that can get 90% of the way there for like 10% of the price.
When did this become just an anti-AI sub instead of "technology"
Imo the problem is it's been (and still is being) shoved down our throats so much that people have developed an AI fatigue, and even a revulsion to some extent.
I work in AI so clearly I'm not opposed to its development, but I can understand why people don't want half-assed "AI" to be shoehorned into everything they buy when it makes no sense.
Well, if most upvoted posts are Anti-AI than that’s the sub’s majority sentiment. Nothing can be done about that.
I’d say it probably has to do with AI being painted as a world saviour but with no results to show for, though.
Crazy things are coming to medicine is what I can say. But it will take some time.
The media is positioning AI to make people jobless while also inflating GPU and RAM prices, increasing the costs of personal computers significantly, and many folks have anecdotally had poor experiences with early AI rollout that were inevitably poor quality.
Put it all together and we are ripe for anti-AI content as a society.
For what it's worth, I do think we are investing too much into it, but I may well be proved wrong in the future.
All I know is that building a PC at home has shot up in price over the past 18 months. At current rates laptops will double in price in the next year, and if things don't improve phone prices are likely to go up by a flat $100-300 per phone based on RAM prices alone as manufacturers start to deplete stockpile and end deals with suppliers (I don't know typical contract length for RAM chips from suppliers in the industry, so a blind guess would be around the same time laptops start to go up in price).
AI companies desperate need for basic computing hardware is going to make life very expensive for the rest of us for the next few years until either supply catches up, or AI companies ease off on buying hardware.
Honestly from what I saw in the last few days,most of the people here are completely disconnected from the technological world, especially when it comes to the AI failed at X posts or whatever,I recently saw a bunch of comments on such a post about AI being an overhyped failure that will flop like web 2 cloud and IoT , which if you're even mildly involved in technology you'd know lmao
someone needs to make a technology circlejerk subreddit for this stuff
I mean that's what /r/technology here is for.
Only problem I have with the title is that it's not 'art' in the classical sense (to me, at least). I refer to them as ai pictures.
There is a lot of really bad looking human art too.
"AI art" is a misnomer and an oxymoron. Calling it art legitimizes it as a form of such, when in reality it’s merely artificial.
it literally burns the fucking eyes
And it's built by stealing the art of other artists.
Downcycling
AI can assist artists and help create but AI is not living a human experience and therefore we humans should not be utilizing AI art as replacement for real human art, which is a special type of expression that needs to be protected.
Calling AI art “weird” practically feels like an undeserved compliment. Personally, I’d go more with bland or uninspired.
I disagree. Ai slop is real, but if used correctly ai can make some beautiful things.
Yeah the only real difference is that most people are too embarrassed by 'ganic slop to post in a public forum. They don't seem to have the same degree of shame when it comes to AI slop.
Sorry, hard disagree. The same thing was said about electronic music many moons ago.
Same thing was said about Photoshop and digital art.
Now those are retconned as real art while a new threat looms.
Give it a couple years and they will fix that. Already got people questioning real art made by people for being Ai looking.
Right! Remember when ppl said "it cant do hands" lol. Now We cant even know what is truth. This will become even more wild.
Art can be, and often is, about relating humanity through ones own physical and creative limitations. You can use various tools to overcome these, but there remains a point where ones personal creativity is overshadowed by the tools used.
That's when the humanity dwindles.
Regardless if it is great I don’t want it. I want art made by humans.
And yet, studies repeatedly show that humans can't tell the difference between human-made images and images generated by the leading models.
I don't understand how apparently 1200 of you still think that AI images suck when there's been repeated top posts demonstrating how good it is. Just yesterday or the day before, a top reddit post was showing the progression of Will Smith eating spaghetti. I'm wondering which of you upvoted both that post and this one.
"I CAN'T DISTINGUISH THEM AT ALL, AND YET I AM UTTERLY CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A MAGICAL DIFFERENCE THAT i CAN'T ARTICULATE BUT UPON WHICH I RELY UTTERLY TO SUPPORT MY ANTIPATHY!!"
As someone who's done graphic design for many years I personally love it. It cant top human art but it's Hella fun and limitless only to your creativity
I think this is a silly dismissal of something, for the sake of not understanding the direction of technology or simply to villainize it. Keep in mind AI art is derived from actual art and artists. Calling it weird, sad, and ugly is reflective of real art and artists. AI art poses danger but also progress. It just needs a healthy moral oversight.
It makes my stomach turn. I was making some generic tokens for my dnd game and actually started to get sick when I got to the teiflings
That article was very well written.
(Edit: I re-read it this morning, and it looks as if, ironically enough, the editing was at least partially ai-assisted, so that’s funny)
Ai lsub Reddit loosing their mind rn over this post
AI art is weird because it's based on real art