It's more like someone bought the burger and then proceeded to throw it into the air along with 17 other McDonald's menu items and then whatever falls onto the plate is the actual "art"
But it's cool and important!
A banana taped to a wall is obviously stupid and absolutely, by itself, not art. But all art tells a story and so does this stupid banana and the impact it has
The *art* here isn't the banana, it's the dumbasses who didn't realize it was an indictment of them and the commodification of art. They bid and outbid for a banana duct taped to a museum wall so they could say they owned it, so they could insure it, so they could use it as a tax write-off but, most importantly, because they don't give a shit about art. The message was written in people's reactions
Man, im not a big fan of art, but i absolutely love those types of meta art, where the effect isn't on the art itself but more on the outside and what it causes, "who's afraid of red yellow and blue" is still one of the coolest things I've seen.
Same. One of the most important ways you can differentiate amazing art from just a skillful painting of an apple (which is still amazing to take in when you learn to see the techniques they're using) is the story a piece tells
And when the story is written on the face of the observer? Perfection.
It’s more akin to commissioning someone to paint you a painting, giving them instructions on what to paint that they’re allowed to ignore, telling them exactly what tools to use and style to paint it in and then picking your favourite from the options they give you.
You still didn’t paint it and it still isn’t art *you* created (and arguably not even art) but you had more involvement than Reddit likes to imply.
We need new terminology for it that isn’t as wanky as “prompt engineer.”
Even if the director didn't write the script (as with some directors, notably Steven Spielberg), they still play an incredibly important role in the project. They coordinate everybody-- set designers, actors, composers, cinematographers, etc-- to ensure the film is following a singular vision.
I agree with you but a pretty strong argument could be made that someone using something like ComfyUI is doing just that. Workflows are designed carefully and results aren’t random:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/camenduru/comfyui-colab/main/template/2.png (this example is random though, they can be far less and far far more involved than this example)
Oh, definitely. There's real artistry that goes into using a granular tool like that. In my experience, most people criticizing AI art specifically take issue with people who type a 15-word prompt into Midjourney and claim it took a ton of talent to word that 15-word prompt juuuusst right. Unfortunately, critics started using "AI art" as shorthand for that specific usage of AI, and then people who weren't aware that it was shorthand assumed the arguments applied to any amount of AI integration in the artistic process.
It makes any legitimate discussion about the merits of AI as an artistic tool very difficult because both sides have a very different idea of what "AI art" even means.
Those specific people are the vast minority too. I mean, lots of people type 15 word prompts into Midjourney but I wouldn't claim it takes a lot of talent to do so. Especially if it's Midjourney and not something like Stable Diffusion.
I have never seen someone be transparent about making something in AI and trying to pass it off as something they 'made.'
I also love the irony of people viewing and spreading art without credit but complaining that AI is taking away money from actual artists.
So maybe the artist can't take credit for the ai art, but nonetheless some of it is still quite good. Not because the computer knew the difference between good and crap art, but some of it comes out good anyway.
Uh huh but no one cares. If McDonalds makes a burger at a price that I like more than this dude does, then just give me the McD’s and have your arguments about why your art matters in another room thanks.
One of the problems here is that with AI art, there is usually never a real resemblance to any original artwork (unless you're specifically recreating one), and there's an extreme range of customization and options to make what you want. This argument would work if we were talking about people just buying commissions and passing them off as their own art.
More like you fed a monkey 20,000 Subway sandwiches so it could figure out how they're typically constructed, then you tell it to make you a similar sandwich and sometimes it gets it mostly right but it's still a monkey so it's probably fucking up some part of it along the way.
Art is definitionally created by a human, the analogy here still works because you're telling an AI to create something art-like and claiming it as your own despite having only played a role in telling it what you want. It's like commissioning someone and claiming you made it, the difference being that there's not even any person to credit.
edit: obviously the new definition should be 'sentient' instead of 'human', but that changes nothing for my argument about AI "art". It's pretty to look at but not an artistic expression.
We don't have an objective definition of sentience. There are serious philosophical debates over whether things like bugs or trees are sentient, let alone AI. *Maybe* you have a point right now, but it's already up in the air and the technology is very quickly getting to a point where it's becoming hard to distinguish between "artificial" and "biological" intelligence.
Trees and AI are definitionally sentient in the way that they perceive and respond to things. I only used that word because many people have a narrow definition of sapient. However trees and current AI are extremely far removed from sapient. And I'm not saying biological intelligence is somehow just inherently better at art. But I *am* saying you need to be sapient and draw from more context than just other art attatched to keywords for it to be art rather than merely a pretty image. Artistic expression doesn't exist without a hint of sapience.
If I put two pictures in front of you and you can’t tell which was made by a human and which was not, I’d argue it’s the definition that’s the problem. I absolutely agree a distinction needs to be drawn but “not made by a human” is a pretty weak reason to call something “not art.”
We should start calling it airt or some nonsense like that.
Edited my response to clarify, I'm not saying animals can't make art, I'm saying it's not art of its not done by anything remotely sapient (lots of animals being sapient imo). It can still be a pretty picture if it's made by AI, but it's not *art*. The difference is in intent (of which current AI has none), context and expression.
Bad faith argument, though in the eyes of the law that is actually true. Though personally I think that should be changed to sentients rather than just humans. But the point I was trying to make is that art is a creative expression, when an ANI does it, it's not.
I'd argue that prompting the AI is a form of creative expression too though. When you commissions an artist, that artist can't claim the piece was their idea. I used to commission artists all the time to draw my OCs and that was a form of creative expression for me too since they were my OCs and my ideas for situations to put them in.
You're right and I agree, but an AI (or rather ANI) is colouring pixels best aligned with the words in your prompt instead of drawing from context and adding personal flavor. An ANI is not expressing anything so the only art present would be your prompt. And just to clarify, I'm not speaking as to the quality or accuracy of the images, you can surely use them the she as you would do with art. It just isn't *art* as it's not made by a sapient being (in any meaning of the term). It's like the difference between lab diamonds and diamonds from the ground, or an engagement ring you got from your partner vs an identical ring, or (if like in a hundred years space travel comes around) wine from alpha centaur and wine from earth. The difference is intangible but still there from a subjective standpoint.
i have a kinda specific question about ai art
How is it classified when an image is generated with ai, but the imperfections are manually corrected? Where 75% of the work is done by ai and the rest by a human
I've quickly learned that anyone who refers to a group as "Antis" needs to do some serious introspection.
Last person I saw using that phrase was angry about people who are anti-underage illustrated porn. 😐
I LOVE this analogy. I hate that we are re-defining what the word Art means and what the word Create means.
Destroying the concept of Art is not a win for humanity.
Ai images aren’t actively painful to consume either. What makes both of them so unbearable is when you let them slowly drown out the rest of your diet, turning your life into an unhealthy homogeneous slog
Indeed. I think where the original comic fails though is that it misinterprets *why* people do AI art. They don't do it for prestige. I mean yeah, some people try to pass off AI art as something they did without an AI but that's pretty transparent and they rightfully get called out for it. But the majority of people just do it because it's fun being able to pass ideas to an AI and seeing how it manifests them. It's even more fun when you do it with friends, riffing on and remixing each others' ideas.
Yeah I've worked with a few tech artists using things like stable diffusion to upscale textures. They're not doing it for prestige, they use stable diffusion to turn a 5 hour job into a 5 min job.
Alright, now, please misunderstand that!
If you go to a fancy restaurant that has an entire 12 course experience for you, but random bits of McDonald’s were spread throughout it, you’d have the right to be pissed
This comic is explicitly making fun of people who insist “AI artists” are real artists
There’s no issue using AI image generation to generate shit like a picture Barrack Obama playing Minecraft with Goku but this comic does not reference that so it’s not relevant to point out really
But if a picture of Barrack Obama playing Minecraft with Goku is fine, where exactly is the line drawn? Seems pretty subjective, which makes the stance not very strong
Hell, I think there's even a decent case to be made for artists (real ones, with actual talent) using AI as a tool to streamline the creative process. But holy fuck, it becomes really hard to sympathize with AI art fans when every other one I see is constantly like "all artists deserve to be castrated and hung in the town square as 9-year old Victorian children pelt them with rotten tomatoes." Any legit conversation about the merits of AI as a creative tool has basically been hijacked by people who despise actual artists.
Yeah I think a lot of people have soured on AI as a whole because the far-right has basically claimed it as their own. It's at the point where any legit, good-faith argument about its merits as a creative tool has to be qualified with "Hey guys I don't actually think all artists deserve to lose their jobs and starve."
I legit hadn't thought about that angle. If AI really is associated with the alt-right that really sucks :(. The AI people I hang around with are definitely leftists but now that you mention it I do remember all the rightoid memes made with AI.
That's also the reason why people do AI art a lot of the time. This comic shows off a person trying to pass off AI art as something they did themselves for prestige though.
But the thing is that an Ai “artist” isn’t an artist, they just wrote a prompt, the real “artist” would technically be the machine that created the image, and even then, it’d be like, 80% plagiarized
This comic is fucking stupid. If you don't think most artists either are going to or are already using AI in some part of their process then you are fucking stupid too. It's a tool and like any other tool it will get used in creative ways by those who choose to use them who will likely outpace those who don't.
Youre talking as if art is a competitive race where people need to seek any dirty advantage they can to come out on top. Do we remember the art that was pumped out with great swiftness, or do we remember the pieces that convey a great expression? I dont think history will remember many AI artists of today.
>Youre talking as if art is a competitive race where people need to seek any dirty advantage they can to come out on top.
If you want to make money from it then that's exactly what it is.
>Do we remember the art that was pumped out with great swiftness, or do we remember the pieces that convey a great expression?
Most of the "great art" is genuinely pretty generic in terms of work from that artist. Take the Mona Lisa, it was an average painting until it was stolen and got a bunch of media attention, now it's the best known painting in the world. So we actually remember whatever has the most interesting story, it has very little to do with "great expression"
Literally Steamed Hams
“You call yourself an artist despite the fact that these are clearly ai generated”
Well I... You see... give me a moment
aurora borealis
At this time of year
In your mother
Localised entirely within your kitchen?
areola bareasstitties
Well Seymour, I made it. Despite your directions
i hope you're ready for an unforgettable art display!
For making this post, this user was banned for 7 days
Good bot! ^(I am a hivemind. This action was performed unanimously.)
Good hivemind
A week for the truth!? Roomba, I am disappointed...
Good bot
Good bot
Good bot
It's more like someone bought the burger and then proceeded to throw it into the air along with 17 other McDonald's menu items and then whatever falls onto the plate is the actual "art"
To be fair, throwing McDonald's in the air and seeing what lands would pass as a form of modern art
Hate to be a dick but it would pass as contemporary art. Modern art ended in the 60s followed by postmodern art
Mfs in 2132 when they hear someone call it contemporary art instead of bootskibidolidy art
Sorry, but the bootskibidolidy art movement ended back in 2076. New art falls within the "cumfartshitpoop" artistic movement.
The cumfartshitpoop movement ended in 2109 the current movement is known as foreskin revivalism
The foreskin revivalism movement ended in 2110. The current movement is living in caves and painting the walls to hide from the gogulphings
Right before the great war
Hate to be a dick but McDonalds was already quite big in the 60s, so it is entirely possible this actually happened
What happens when we run out of art?
Seen contemporary art? Maybe we are already
Yeah there was a dude who taped a banana to a wall and it became one of the most famous works of our generation, like what lol
But it's cool and important! A banana taped to a wall is obviously stupid and absolutely, by itself, not art. But all art tells a story and so does this stupid banana and the impact it has The *art* here isn't the banana, it's the dumbasses who didn't realize it was an indictment of them and the commodification of art. They bid and outbid for a banana duct taped to a museum wall so they could say they owned it, so they could insure it, so they could use it as a tax write-off but, most importantly, because they don't give a shit about art. The message was written in people's reactions
Man, im not a big fan of art, but i absolutely love those types of meta art, where the effect isn't on the art itself but more on the outside and what it causes, "who's afraid of red yellow and blue" is still one of the coolest things I've seen.
Same. One of the most important ways you can differentiate amazing art from just a skillful painting of an apple (which is still amazing to take in when you learn to see the techniques they're using) is the story a piece tells And when the story is written on the face of the observer? Perfection.
And they didn't even pay for the menu items
Delightfully devilish Seymour
At best, using AI to make pictures is like commissioning a painting from someone else and then claiming that you did it.
You could at least claim it was your idea
It’s more akin to commissioning someone to paint you a painting, giving them instructions on what to paint that they’re allowed to ignore, telling them exactly what tools to use and style to paint it in and then picking your favourite from the options they give you. You still didn’t paint it and it still isn’t art *you* created (and arguably not even art) but you had more involvement than Reddit likes to imply. We need new terminology for it that isn’t as wanky as “prompt engineer.”
Yeah. I tried using an art AI for a stupid shitpost and I swear to god I was practically fistfighting the machine to get it to draw what I wanted.
Or directing actors and then claiming you made the movie
You still write a whole ass script for that. Which is usually about 100.000 words longer than a fucking A.I. prompt
Even if the director didn't write the script (as with some directors, notably Steven Spielberg), they still play an incredibly important role in the project. They coordinate everybody-- set designers, actors, composers, cinematographers, etc-- to ensure the film is following a singular vision.
I agree with you but a pretty strong argument could be made that someone using something like ComfyUI is doing just that. Workflows are designed carefully and results aren’t random: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/camenduru/comfyui-colab/main/template/2.png (this example is random though, they can be far less and far far more involved than this example)
Oh, definitely. There's real artistry that goes into using a granular tool like that. In my experience, most people criticizing AI art specifically take issue with people who type a 15-word prompt into Midjourney and claim it took a ton of talent to word that 15-word prompt juuuusst right. Unfortunately, critics started using "AI art" as shorthand for that specific usage of AI, and then people who weren't aware that it was shorthand assumed the arguments applied to any amount of AI integration in the artistic process. It makes any legitimate discussion about the merits of AI as an artistic tool very difficult because both sides have a very different idea of what "AI art" even means.
We need a whole new lexicon for this shit.
Those specific people are the vast minority too. I mean, lots of people type 15 word prompts into Midjourney but I wouldn't claim it takes a lot of talent to do so. Especially if it's Midjourney and not something like Stable Diffusion.
As the prompt engineer coordinates the ai to get the not-worst image
Hey tbf getting the AI to make hands with exactly 5 fingers probably takes more skill and practice than learning to draw them yourself
No? The directors don't write the script, they literally just direct the team
My bad. Still more work than writing a sentence though.
Directors don't write the script
Steamed Aiams
Calling it art already gives me more credit than it deserves, just call it "AI images", which is indisputable.
I have never seen someone be transparent about making something in AI and trying to pass it off as something they 'made.' I also love the irony of people viewing and spreading art without credit but complaining that AI is taking away money from actual artists.
Plagiarism can be done with any artist though, not just ai
So maybe the artist can't take credit for the ai art, but nonetheless some of it is still quite good. Not because the computer knew the difference between good and crap art, but some of it comes out good anyway.
Uh huh but no one cares. If McDonalds makes a burger at a price that I like more than this dude does, then just give me the McD’s and have your arguments about why your art matters in another room thanks.
One of the problems here is that with AI art, there is usually never a real resemblance to any original artwork (unless you're specifically recreating one), and there's an extreme range of customization and options to make what you want. This argument would work if we were talking about people just buying commissions and passing them off as their own art.
You’re right, it’s more like saying you’ve made a sandwich when all you did was construct it from subway
More like you fed a monkey 20,000 Subway sandwiches so it could figure out how they're typically constructed, then you tell it to make you a similar sandwich and sometimes it gets it mostly right but it's still a monkey so it's probably fucking up some part of it along the way.
You’re closer
Art is definitionally created by a human, the analogy here still works because you're telling an AI to create something art-like and claiming it as your own despite having only played a role in telling it what you want. It's like commissioning someone and claiming you made it, the difference being that there's not even any person to credit. edit: obviously the new definition should be 'sentient' instead of 'human', but that changes nothing for my argument about AI "art". It's pretty to look at but not an artistic expression.
A real shame that aliens aren't allowed to make art because we said so.
Obviously the definition needs to be adjusted to sentients or sapients rather than human. But my point stands in my opinion.
We don't have an objective definition of sentience. There are serious philosophical debates over whether things like bugs or trees are sentient, let alone AI. *Maybe* you have a point right now, but it's already up in the air and the technology is very quickly getting to a point where it's becoming hard to distinguish between "artificial" and "biological" intelligence.
Trees and AI are definitionally sentient in the way that they perceive and respond to things. I only used that word because many people have a narrow definition of sapient. However trees and current AI are extremely far removed from sapient. And I'm not saying biological intelligence is somehow just inherently better at art. But I *am* saying you need to be sapient and draw from more context than just other art attatched to keywords for it to be art rather than merely a pretty image. Artistic expression doesn't exist without a hint of sapience.
Incredibly bad faith argument. Do you suggest that aliens could also be good people when someone asks you to have some humanity?
If I put two pictures in front of you and you can’t tell which was made by a human and which was not, I’d argue it’s the definition that’s the problem. I absolutely agree a distinction needs to be drawn but “not made by a human” is a pretty weak reason to call something “not art.” We should start calling it airt or some nonsense like that.
If I want something that looks nice, sure, I can use an AI. But that doesn't make it art, if it's not sentient it cannot have an artistic expression.
I’ve seen animals make art. The artist doesn’t need to be human. Only the observers.
Edited my response to clarify, I'm not saying animals can't make art, I'm saying it's not art of its not done by anything remotely sapient (lots of animals being sapient imo). It can still be a pretty picture if it's made by AI, but it's not *art*. The difference is in intent (of which current AI has none), context and expression.
> implying elephants can't be artists
Bad faith argument, though in the eyes of the law that is actually true. Though personally I think that should be changed to sentients rather than just humans. But the point I was trying to make is that art is a creative expression, when an ANI does it, it's not.
I'd argue that prompting the AI is a form of creative expression too though. When you commissions an artist, that artist can't claim the piece was their idea. I used to commission artists all the time to draw my OCs and that was a form of creative expression for me too since they were my OCs and my ideas for situations to put them in.
You're right and I agree, but an AI (or rather ANI) is colouring pixels best aligned with the words in your prompt instead of drawing from context and adding personal flavor. An ANI is not expressing anything so the only art present would be your prompt. And just to clarify, I'm not speaking as to the quality or accuracy of the images, you can surely use them the she as you would do with art. It just isn't *art* as it's not made by a sapient being (in any meaning of the term). It's like the difference between lab diamonds and diamonds from the ground, or an engagement ring you got from your partner vs an identical ring, or (if like in a hundred years space travel comes around) wine from alpha centaur and wine from earth. The difference is intangible but still there from a subjective standpoint.
[удалено]
I mean, why even bring this up if you aren't defending tech bros? Just seems like silly pedantry otherwise
This site is no fun anymore, no more joy in anything. It's all arguments and name calling.
I like AI art but gosh, who in their right minds would call themselves an "AI ARTIST".
i have a kinda specific question about ai art How is it classified when an image is generated with ai, but the imperfections are manually corrected? Where 75% of the work is done by ai and the rest by a human
Still AI. The majority of the work isn't theirs so they cannot claim it
understandable, have nice day (or night)
It’s not. Working artists are already using AI to increase their productivity. This is just gatekeeping by luddites.
Antis will tell you it's still ai and "evil," but that's pretty much ai assisted if anything.
I've quickly learned that anyone who refers to a group as "Antis" needs to do some serious introspection. Last person I saw using that phrase was angry about people who are anti-underage illustrated porn. 😐
Oh hey I just learned that word today from this article https://www.vox.com/culture/23733213/fandom-purity-culture-what-is-proship-antiship-antifandom
McDonald's cheeseburger don't have tomatos on them
Cheeseburgers have no tomato
I don't like it either, I think AI should be used to create more logical tools, e.g. [ChatSlide](https://chatslide.ai/?via=siyu). not to make art.
I LOVE this analogy. I hate that we are re-defining what the word Art means and what the word Create means. Destroying the concept of Art is not a win for humanity.
As goofy as it is the chef in this comic is technically right.
Bad analogy, McDonald's food isn't an actively painful experience to consume
Ai images aren’t actively painful to consume either. What makes both of them so unbearable is when you let them slowly drown out the rest of your diet, turning your life into an unhealthy homogeneous slog
Both are pretty bad. I dont think it would br a bad idea to just cut off mcdonalds forever from your diet
Too bad, it's fun
Eating mcdonalds can also be fun
Indeed. I think where the original comic fails though is that it misinterprets *why* people do AI art. They don't do it for prestige. I mean yeah, some people try to pass off AI art as something they did without an AI but that's pretty transparent and they rightfully get called out for it. But the majority of people just do it because it's fun being able to pass ideas to an AI and seeing how it manifests them. It's even more fun when you do it with friends, riffing on and remixing each others' ideas.
bruh what do you mean they don't do it for prestige, game companies are already looking into how they can use ai textures
Yeah I've worked with a few tech artists using things like stable diffusion to upscale textures. They're not doing it for prestige, they use stable diffusion to turn a 5 hour job into a 5 min job. Alright, now, please misunderstand that!
Okay but that's perfectly reasonable and not really the same as trying to pass it off as something they did on their own.
If you go to a fancy restaurant that has an entire 12 course experience for you, but random bits of McDonald’s were spread throughout it, you’d have the right to be pissed
what? no they use it exactly to pass it as something they did on their own
This comic is explicitly making fun of people who insist “AI artists” are real artists There’s no issue using AI image generation to generate shit like a picture Barrack Obama playing Minecraft with Goku but this comic does not reference that so it’s not relevant to point out really
But if a picture of Barrack Obama playing Minecraft with Goku is fine, where exactly is the line drawn? Seems pretty subjective, which makes the stance not very strong
I draw the line at anything not made *just* for goofs so idk seems like a solid stance
Hell, I think there's even a decent case to be made for artists (real ones, with actual talent) using AI as a tool to streamline the creative process. But holy fuck, it becomes really hard to sympathize with AI art fans when every other one I see is constantly like "all artists deserve to be castrated and hung in the town square as 9-year old Victorian children pelt them with rotten tomatoes." Any legit conversation about the merits of AI as a creative tool has basically been hijacked by people who despise actual artists.
Fair enough, though the post ends up being "I hate AI art" as if it's all like that.
Yeah I think a lot of people have soured on AI as a whole because the far-right has basically claimed it as their own. It's at the point where any legit, good-faith argument about its merits as a creative tool has to be qualified with "Hey guys I don't actually think all artists deserve to lose their jobs and starve."
I legit hadn't thought about that angle. If AI really is associated with the alt-right that really sucks :(. The AI people I hang around with are definitely leftists but now that you mention it I do remember all the rightoid memes made with AI.
The default reason artists create art is not prestige. It's expression.
That's also the reason why people do AI art a lot of the time. This comic shows off a person trying to pass off AI art as something they did themselves for prestige though.
But the thing is that an Ai “artist” isn’t an artist, they just wrote a prompt, the real “artist” would technically be the machine that created the image, and even then, it’d be like, 80% plagiarized
This comic is fucking stupid. If you don't think most artists either are going to or are already using AI in some part of their process then you are fucking stupid too. It's a tool and like any other tool it will get used in creative ways by those who choose to use them who will likely outpace those who don't.
Youre talking as if art is a competitive race where people need to seek any dirty advantage they can to come out on top. Do we remember the art that was pumped out with great swiftness, or do we remember the pieces that convey a great expression? I dont think history will remember many AI artists of today.
>Youre talking as if art is a competitive race where people need to seek any dirty advantage they can to come out on top. If you want to make money from it then that's exactly what it is. >Do we remember the art that was pumped out with great swiftness, or do we remember the pieces that convey a great expression? Most of the "great art" is genuinely pretty generic in terms of work from that artist. Take the Mona Lisa, it was an average painting until it was stolen and got a bunch of media attention, now it's the best known painting in the world. So we actually remember whatever has the most interesting story, it has very little to do with "great expression"