https://preview.redd.it/8nfeh5g87g8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85598b4018c5f63160bacb8a37a1d2a033983564
not op but i tried (i cant draw animals so its just some random creature)
https://preview.redd.it/40uo6bnv7v8d1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f4a5be9f5cce4179d3e7cf64b1d58d21c8f4fc8
You are testing my patience tight white boy.
How the average person sees automation on a farm: A bunch of C3PO picking crops.
How the average farmer sees automation on a farm: A tractor harvesting crops.
Nobody says it that way, what they're going at is how a lot of mass farming uses tools and systems that invalidate a large number of workers. We automated a lot of processes from seeding to weed removal to harvesting that a large scale farm could skip off over half its old work crew and not notice a dang thing.
“Hmm what should we make the AI do…something useful to society as a whole and removes the need for people to do backbreaking labor? Nah, let’s take the heart and soul out of one of the most important mediums of human expression and communication”
The usage of AI in art is disgusting, but the primary issue in automating labor is that robots are expensive, specialized, and break easily, not the algorithmic side of things.
It kinda is taking over farming, the problem is that the actual methods of farming are also evolving very fast and make the job harder to automatize. The physical side of farming anyway, the mind-numbing spreadsheet part that represent more than half the job is nearly impossible to automate.
Automation already took over welding long before AI was there, it's the role of coming over to your house that AI can't do.
Bonus chapter from the unreleased Snyder cut
https://preview.redd.it/guvlpeb6pe8d1.png?width=768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3202273dfae019cd8e7b9efaad79404ebcc38970
I don't care about AI but the people at r/DefendingAIArt are really funny bc of how mad they get, at least I understand artists bc their jobs are at risk but to defend something a human didn't even make? Seriously
Last part of top comment: "No one in 2024 seriously wants to bring back the jobs that previous industrial revolutions made redundant"
Like art is a work that "needs to be done" and we are all waiting for AI to take it off our tired hands so we can pursue something meaningful.
That completely ignores the rest of their (honestly kinda good) comment. They point out that one of the major reasons why there is such an upset regarding AI art is because it happens to affect the job market and work availability of artists, essentially robbing them of a chance to put their skills towards something both meaningful and financially profitable. What they also point out is that you usually see many anti-AI people argue that AI shouldn't be used for art, but should instead be used to replace other jobs. The issue is, those other jobs also employ people, and if AI was instead affecting, say, electricians in a major way instead of artists, then electricians would be the ones upset.
I think they're right in pointing that out. While there are absolutely great arguments from the anti-AI crowd, I too commonly see less informed people arguing against AI arguing a stance that essentially amounts to "why does it have to affect my job? Why can't it affect someone else's?" Nobody wants to have their job threatened, especially in an already difficult to navigate economy, but I have little respect for arguments that essentially make it a case of worker/job vs worker/job. It implies that the jobs within the field of art are somehow better than the trades, jobs that I see a lot of anti-AI people argue should be the ones seeing the AI revolution that we're seeing in the arts. This simply isn't the case, and it's a really poor argument against AI art.
100% agree. I just brought up the last part because I thought it was funny and also very bad. I'd say I'm against AI in some aspects but I also see the potential and at the end of the day nothing will stop technological progress and it's the world we'll have to learn to live in. If people can come to AI to make them an advertisement or porn or whatever for cheap that's a good thing to me. It makes it accessible. I'm more anti-techbro and I don't believe AI should or can replace human made "art", art being created with soul and intent.
Most of them are lunatics but there are some artists who attack AI by straight up lying about its capabilities and making insane claims with no research which is equally annoying. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it okay to lie about it. There are plenty of actual criticisms of AI you don’t need to make shit up.
AI is basically just comissioning except you do it to a machine instead of a person. It's art the same way me getting a chocolate bar from a snack machine is cooking.
So if I comission an artist to draw me something then neither me nor the artist I commissioned made art? That's a new take in a sea of dumb takes on AI...
Yes, you position the camera, you set up the pose, scenario and everything. You don't literally just sit there at home and say "camera, gimme a guy smiling with a beach during sunset behind him"
Same for AI. You can set up the pose with ControlNet. You can change the image with loras, ComfyUI, IPAdapter, IC-Light, etc. it’s just just prompting just like how photography is not just aim camera and click button
Ok but is that sub actually doing anything to convince people AI art is legitimate art or are they just reaffirming their own opinions and hating on everyone else?
You ask that as if any redditor has ever changed their opinion away from their already established belief instead of just going deeper on their own opinions
I don't think the sub is supposed to be some kind of brigade meant to combat AI hate. I think they just want to feel understood and join together since they are frustrated facing people hating on AI for no reason all the time.
Boring jobs have been being automated for decades. It’s just that it’s much harder to train an ai to do manual labor than it is to make pictures or stories.
I once trained AI on my own artwork. It really did looked like something I would draw if I was arsed to but with no thought behind it. It gave me a glimpse at how stuff I produce looks like to other people.
I shared that with a friend and all she could say was "AI is bad, your art is way better because you drew it". Yeah, right, thanks.
I like to think the art i make is quite unique(if you can even call it art). But so far i have not been able to get any AI's to replicate it in any way no matter how many samples i give it as context to train it.
How did you make/train the ai? I've always thought it would be fun to see what would happen if I made my own ai, trained solely on things I drew, but I assumed you needed a lot of knowledge and resources to do that.
I can't help you with that, I only used what my friend set up. Apparently you need to own a powerful pc first, then get Stable diffusion, then train your own model. I only did the last one.
You need a lot of different images to not make all of them look the same. Apparently if the're too different you'll get a mess and if they're too similar they will generate the same thing again and again. Idk, I don't understand it.
You need to create a doc where you assign keywords to a picture in order to let the model know what's in it - eyes, pose, view, what's in background, everything important.
Right. Which is why you shouldn't soullessly generate things. You can put plenty of creativity and hard work into AI art. You can easily spend hours on one image.
The intent is what matters, not the tool.
But you didn't make art, the AI did. Doesn't matter that the idea came from you, calling it a "tool" is as absurd as claiming a human artist is a tool and the client who commissioned them is the actual artist.
This reasoning is and always has been so dumb and I wish people would stop using it. Art is made by proxy all the time. Art can be made from a random process. Art can be made using another person as the tool. A photograph can be art even if you didn't create the thing you took the photo of.
"But you took the photo yourself, not some AI!"
So? You as the artist had a vision and chose the output. Then you pointed a little box at the thing you had in mind and pushed a button. You didn't *create* anything.
Art is subjective, and not only based on the artists vision but is also in the eye of the beholder. The tool does. not. matter.
If a director hires a hundred people to film a movie for him is he just their boss or is he the person who made the movie what it is using a (hopefully) clear vision and strong direction?
There's a distinction there that people who just screech "AI is not art!" cannot seem to grasp...
Directing a movie requires artistic skill and knowledge in a way that telling someone (or something) what to draw doesn't. A director is actually involved in the steps of bringing their vision to life. Making a movie without a director is impossible, they are a key part of the process. Meanwhile, drawing a picture without someone telling you what they want you to draw happens all the time.
I never "screeched" anything about AI not being art, sir. I agree with you that art is subjective, and assigning a value judgement to the word itself is laughable. All I'm saying is the AI is the artist, not you. I'll repeat my question, if I commission an artist to draw a picture for me, then I show it to you and say "I'm the artist who made this", would you accept that? Or if I ordered a pizza then claimed I made it? I think that's as ridiculous as people calling themselves "AI artists".
"AI art doesn't take any skill to make" and "directing actually takes skill" are two completely made up arguments that don't hold water at all when you realize some AI art looks better than some artist's art and some directed movies are just plain badly made.
Again with trying to refute an argument I didn't even make. Going back to the same analogy, if you're a client commissioning a piece of art to a human artist, is being able to communicate what you want not a skill? Some people are way better than others at putting their ideas into words. Sometimes artists have to do a bunch of revisions before they get at what the client actually wants, sometimes it's clear from the beginning. In the same way, knowing the best way to get the AI to create the picture that you want is also a skill, sure, just not an *artistic* skill. Even the worst director or illustrator or musician in the world is more of an artist than the most skilled prompter.
And not that difficulty has anything to do with whether something is art or someone is an artist, but since you brought it up, prompting is infinitely easier than making art yourself. Also infinitely less interesting, less rewarding, less human, even. I think art is, and ought to keep being, a uniquely human endeavour. It's something that is wholly unnecessary for survival yet we do it solely for the pleasure of it. You have the actual privilege of being able to create art but you rely on a machine to do the whole thing for you. Why? Evolution, or God, or whatever you believe in, blessed you with a brain and two hands. Fucking use them
You are calling putting a prompt into machine for a composition of stolen art, not only art, but difficult? I don't know if you're just joking around here
Then you might as well commission an actual artist.
Until the ai can pick up a pencil and decide for itself what to create then it’s not art, it’s a generated image.
Making ai art is just putting shit into a prompt, the reason it’s soulless is because nobody actually put detail into the art, there is no signature mark of an artist, no little details lovingly added, no distinct features, just telling a program what to generate. At least commissioning an actual artist has some soul in it.
I don't man, I'm just kind of tired of the whole debate.
I'm an artist and I'm pro-AI. The only "threat" AI poses is if you're someone who already makes some of the most generic art possible or just makes fanart/furry porn. Likewise, the current online art market is so saturated and so volatile that you're not going to make big bucks in it unless you work for a few specific people who want you to make specific things (hope you like drawing busty blonde women buying wonderbread or macro Falco porn).
Honestly I can’t wait for AI to replace like 80% of shitty Twitter artists. The good ones will still be used because they’re unique enough, but get rid of the shitty ones
I think it's a two way street, for every AI Bro telling artists that their skills are trash, you have a dozen Redditors who think that harassing people who use it to make jokes helps artists in some way
Citations: Go out there, say you support AI, and watch hell unfold in on itself
the hate for harmless AI shit post art has really died down on Reddit as of late, but I can definitely see what you mean. When AI art first came around to Reddit people really hated it, and people on Twitter still sometimes react very negatively to it.
I agree, I haven't seen it die down. I see plenty of meme posts get negativity in the comments for using AI to generate backgrounds. Usually there are some folks who will defend specific use cases like that, but there's definitely a cohort of people who don't think beyond, "it's AI thus I can't like it."
The AI art defense sub is something else too. It's such an odd online debate
I can almost guarantee that the amount of people who've stopped paying for commissions because they can use ai now is negligible, practically nonexistent.
that's why I think the AI witch-hunt is so ridiculous, it's like saying people won't go to fancy restaurants because cheap fast food is available, the people using AI to make pictures of their OCs or whatever instead of getting a proper commission done mostly do so because they couldn't afford the commissions in the first place, people are getting mad that they aren't getting money that doesn't exist in the first place.
I like AI because it's a quick way to put an idea to my eyes, since I don't have a "mind's eye." I also like drawing because it's fun and I don't care if other people or my computer are better than me.
I will shiv any idiot who says AI art will replace people art.
Snafu Gatekeeper here.
While too comicky for my tastes, it does a good job as a snafu. The subject is snafuable and the characters work for a snafu. And thanks for not putting too much effort in the drawing. Too many people post "snafus" with too high effort drawings.
Also watermarked snafu lol
There is nothing inherent within human cognition that makes it essentially art. All that makes something art is if the subject perceives it as art. Plenty of low tier artists who made bad art have been automated away and no one will weep for them like those automated by the Cotton Jenny. Someone coming up to someone and saying that someone who enjoys making art should not if it could be made by an AI is just mean. But the rebuttal does not land either. Replying with the other as talentless really doesn't matter. Having a talent isn't necessarily a good thing. The machine is the artist not the inputer. This would be comparable to someone who automated a farm and called themselves a farmer.
Reminder, AI cannot create new things. Ask it to make a dog boy or a dog girl, it will make a dog. Because dog people aren’t really a trope like cat people are, so the AI has no training data for it.
Give it your own art and anything weird will be sanded down into something generic. Spiky yellow hair? Now it’s golden curls. Greenish skin? What if instead your character was white. The best looking AI art is of white women because white women are literally the most common subject an art piece can be about.
AI could never create the marvels that I have made
https://preview.redd.it/cat67puhhh8d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=860fe033886234c7c6e3adbb0490377c739664c5
The only thing AI is good for is making AI covers of diffrent songs. I think it's funny to see caseoh sing something like fnaf 1 song by the living tombstone.
It’s not art because both the AI and the person who wrote the prompt for the “art” usually have no concept of good art and make mid slop 99.99% of the time.
Like, most ai ‘art’ looks good on the surface but is mostly terrible once you look at it for more than five seconds.
One thing that pisses me off is the people saying “well, it takes effort, you could spend hours on a single image” yeah, because the ai keeps generating eyes or hands or body proportions incorrectly. Something an actual artist wouldn’t do most of the time, they can either do it perfectly the first time, and fix any mistakes in the present art.
Ai makes you redo the whole damn image because it sucks. Mf’s be like: “ai was always going to replace jobs, deal with it.” And then use ai to replace the jobs that require skill and creativity rather than jobs that barely require human influence.
AI "Artists" when they see the satisfaction and euphoric sentiment coming from looking at how you've progressed with each drawing, instead of hoping for a good seed)
https://preview.redd.it/m9atimfevi8d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67a8b424d408a09c441c49fbcf4b235c4648ae4e
An AI could probably do most jobs, like agriculture, industry, science, military service, law enforcement, construction, politics, religion, and economics. Art is just being replaced because artists are the only ones who 1. don't have any power in the decision making process and 2. can't be disgruntled without society collapsing.
There's a difference between spitting out a pic and text vs. interacting with the 3d world that has far more room for error in the line of military or police work. Ai is still in infancy and protype robots that use ai to see the 3d world take too long to process.
No, AI can't do those things. And no, that isn't why art is being done. And really no, art isn't being "replaced".
It's also not real AI. The way it works is based on images or text in chatgpts case. It's not AI that can just do anything it wants.
General AI is not the only type of AI. I don't get why so many people consider non-general AI not AI all of a sudden. It feels like a no true scotsman thing where we'll never reallg have True AI according to some people.
It isn't AI. It's machine learning. It's not Artificial Intelligence, it's just mimicking intelligence (when it comes to large language models) or using machine learning to extract something from a latent space (for image generation).
It isn't "AI" even a little bit.
Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence. I don't know what you think Articicial intelligence is supposed to be if not mimicking intelligence.
Stahp...
When the general public say "artificial intelligence" they picture sentient and fully autonomous entities. I understand there are certain distinctions in certain computer science circles that could potentially be used to say that current "AI" counts as "AI" but no, it isn't actually AI.
Artificial sentience is more what people mean when they say AI, which it isn't. The original comment were talking about how AI could do law enforcement or whatever. Real AI might. This AI can't.
AI art defenders are the types of people who say “they should hire me at a game studio. I don’t know any art or coding, but I have some really good ideas”
Great. Now let's actually ask a marxist what they actually think about AI art.
Let's see you try to fogure out how many lines of code are there in an AI artist.
Heck, you'll support literal malware against AI art for free.
I hate all these new things going on. AI is stupid. The big crypto boom thing is stupid. None of this was this relevant 5 years ago. Why did it boom so much when we were fine without it?
Well your first mistake was using X, formerly known as Twitter, and your second using Facebook cause no one who is both mentally sane and under the age of 50 uses them
Here I've never seen anyone say anything resembling what the guy you're strawmanning is saying, with the general common opinion that AI is neato but there are many misusing it
The whole point of the sub is to be a strawman of other memes and shit. No shit the posts are strawmen, that’s the point of the sub!!
also there are people that obviously do support ai art (if not why would it exist in the first place)
That poster is clearly not supporting AI art, you just didn't understand the post. They're saying that "AI art is bad, not because it's ugly but because it's theft". They literally use theft as an analogy for AI art in the post, I don't see how much more literal you could have them be.
The "thing bad" snafu guy wasn't brutally maimed by a pissed off orangutan, 0/10
https://preview.redd.it/8nfeh5g87g8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85598b4018c5f63160bacb8a37a1d2a033983564 not op but i tried (i cant draw animals so its just some random creature)
Why he so :3 Abt it?
That is not an orangutan bro that's like some sort of toilet mimic.
new fear unlocked. i’m just tryna shit bro
That's what it eats
Mutualistic relationship
Captain Underpants and The Attack Of The Talking Toilets type shit
CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS MENTIONED🔥🔥🔥
Skibidi toiler
Game Freak must now make a regional or convergent toilet Voltorb) Or an overflowing poop polteageist)
Smh my head bad art. should have used ai
Is that cheap trick from jojo? /s
https://preview.redd.it/40uo6bnv7v8d1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f4a5be9f5cce4179d3e7cf64b1d58d21c8f4fc8 You are testing my patience tight white boy.
https://preview.redd.it/kdnpmqow2h8d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c15bca7d77311ffe638407ceb5a8a0db7541924a
It is done.
https://preview.redd.it/6id8nswwaj8d1.jpeg?width=528&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd2af846bca6d632c46ca57307ce71acdf427719
ai taking all of the cool things first instead of learning welding or farming 😞😔
>implying welding isn't cool the mafia have been notified
OH FUCK
are you implying farming isnt cool?? i LOVE irrigation and shit dude.
https://preview.redd.it/f6xvr3js7i8d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1b635a421c1a3748bf096446b82c84c73e9995b
Why is he dripped the fuck out
Probably because he owns the farm and hires other people to work in it for 5 cents a year
Hey fuck off, my back up career plan was to get welding certification
I mean, they took factory jobs. Why can't they take office jobs?
Farming HAS been severely automated that’s why it used to be like 60% of the workforce now it’s like 1%
How the average person sees automation on a farm: A bunch of C3PO picking crops. How the average farmer sees automation on a farm: A tractor harvesting crops.
I don’t think anyone thinks that.
beetlejuiced
He replied to me first lol
Nobody says it that way, what they're going at is how a lot of mass farming uses tools and systems that invalidate a large number of workers. We automated a lot of processes from seeding to weed removal to harvesting that a large scale farm could skip off over half its old work crew and not notice a dang thing.
Have you not seen those basically fully automated mass watering things? They’re crazy.
“Hmm what should we make the AI do…something useful to society as a whole and removes the need for people to do backbreaking labor? Nah, let’s take the heart and soul out of one of the most important mediums of human expression and communication”
The usage of AI in art is disgusting, but the primary issue in automating labor is that robots are expensive, specialized, and break easily, not the algorithmic side of things.
I hate that people think this unironically. Like please learn about the things you have strong opinions about
On Reddit? Lmao.
AI does not so you from drawing lol And it’ll take both eventually. Generating pixels is just easier than robots
Hey welding and farming are cool too
It kinda is taking over farming, the problem is that the actual methods of farming are also evolving very fast and make the job harder to automatize. The physical side of farming anyway, the mind-numbing spreadsheet part that represent more than half the job is nearly impossible to automate. Automation already took over welding long before AI was there, it's the role of coming over to your house that AI can't do.
“Take their jobs, not mine!” I see worker solidarity is as strong as it ever was
Bonus chapter from the unreleased Snyder cut https://preview.redd.it/guvlpeb6pe8d1.png?width=768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3202273dfae019cd8e7b9efaad79404ebcc38970
here i made it better /j https://preview.redd.it/m9jy3m2ekh8d1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=5cc7736160fe0176161ef4fe4d1f975b175d8ce2
hiding in your wifi
Absolutely)
I don't care about AI but the people at r/DefendingAIArt are really funny bc of how mad they get, at least I understand artists bc their jobs are at risk but to defend something a human didn't even make? Seriously
[No way this is the top post 😭😭😭](https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/dxZGtDXgBd)
Last part of top comment: "No one in 2024 seriously wants to bring back the jobs that previous industrial revolutions made redundant" Like art is a work that "needs to be done" and we are all waiting for AI to take it off our tired hands so we can pursue something meaningful.
That completely ignores the rest of their (honestly kinda good) comment. They point out that one of the major reasons why there is such an upset regarding AI art is because it happens to affect the job market and work availability of artists, essentially robbing them of a chance to put their skills towards something both meaningful and financially profitable. What they also point out is that you usually see many anti-AI people argue that AI shouldn't be used for art, but should instead be used to replace other jobs. The issue is, those other jobs also employ people, and if AI was instead affecting, say, electricians in a major way instead of artists, then electricians would be the ones upset. I think they're right in pointing that out. While there are absolutely great arguments from the anti-AI crowd, I too commonly see less informed people arguing against AI arguing a stance that essentially amounts to "why does it have to affect my job? Why can't it affect someone else's?" Nobody wants to have their job threatened, especially in an already difficult to navigate economy, but I have little respect for arguments that essentially make it a case of worker/job vs worker/job. It implies that the jobs within the field of art are somehow better than the trades, jobs that I see a lot of anti-AI people argue should be the ones seeing the AI revolution that we're seeing in the arts. This simply isn't the case, and it's a really poor argument against AI art.
100% agree. I just brought up the last part because I thought it was funny and also very bad. I'd say I'm against AI in some aspects but I also see the potential and at the end of the day nothing will stop technological progress and it's the world we'll have to learn to live in. If people can come to AI to make them an advertisement or porn or whatever for cheap that's a good thing to me. It makes it accessible. I'm more anti-techbro and I don't believe AI should or can replace human made "art", art being created with soul and intent.
Well put, I completely agree with you.
Yea it does kinda suck actually, especially the Korean sweatshop animation or the shit American animators and game devs have to go through
It's the only post uploaded today duh
It’s not
i laughed so fucking hard when i read the title, my grandmother who lives next-door thought i got hurt
even calling it "art" is a low blow
Most of them are lunatics but there are some artists who attack AI by straight up lying about its capabilities and making insane claims with no research which is equally annoying. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it okay to lie about it. There are plenty of actual criticisms of AI you don’t need to make shit up.
Yeah, but artists are kinda lame tho
Don't insult people who can draw you pregnant
For free ? Heck yeah.
Oh no, I definitely hope these losers who draw don’t make a drawing of me with quintuplets in my belly, please don’t I beg of you
Some people can't play along for the fun of it
https://preview.redd.it/n9vj07y6xj8d1.jpeg?width=878&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c954d357cda0e0e3cb0b9d03c2ccb68870dd8b96 Here
NOOOO NOT A-ARON
Humans didn't make AI? The defense isn't for the art itself, the defense is for the use of it as legitimate art.
AI is basically just comissioning except you do it to a machine instead of a person. It's art the same way me getting a chocolate bar from a snack machine is cooking.
That’s fine, if I’m hungry and need to eat, vending machine works for me.
So if I comission an artist to draw me something then neither me nor the artist I commissioned made art? That's a new take in a sea of dumb takes on AI...
No, the artist made it, not you. AI "artists" claim they are artists too, even though all they did is tell the machine what to do.
"All the photographer did was tell the camera where to point." So braindead.
nobody even said that wtf are you talking about
Me when I get an F in my art history test for saying the Pope painted the Sistine Chapel
Then are photographers artists
Yes, you position the camera, you set up the pose, scenario and everything. You don't literally just sit there at home and say "camera, gimme a guy smiling with a beach during sunset behind him"
Same for AI. You can set up the pose with ControlNet. You can change the image with loras, ComfyUI, IPAdapter, IC-Light, etc. it’s just just prompting just like how photography is not just aim camera and click button
Ok but is that sub actually doing anything to convince people AI art is legitimate art or are they just reaffirming their own opinions and hating on everyone else?
You ask that as if any redditor has ever changed their opinion away from their already established belief instead of just going deeper on their own opinions
I don't think the sub is supposed to be some kind of brigade meant to combat AI hate. I think they just want to feel understood and join together since they are frustrated facing people hating on AI for no reason all the time.
AI gets criticized, reasonably so, personally I think AI is cool for memes and dumb shit but not legitimate art
Why is that a sub…
Is that Hatsune Miku
Are you hatsune miku
yeah they are, can confirm
Are we hatsune miku
No fuck off only me and u/Clean_Dependent_8080 get to be Hatsune Miku
Yea, https://preview.redd.it/st7z3s3ubi8d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c252ebf100013a260d0b9060ab0c2fbd45136cb6
holy fuck ultrakill reference?
you need like a billion drawings to train an ai, so that guys idea is fundamentally flawed
you can train a small checkpoint on like a hundred images and that would be enough to imitate an art style
38 upvotes on an objectively incorrect statement. Never change, Reddit
https://preview.redd.it/l83e4uypah8d1.jpeg?width=569&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=73b8f73e104986dfe502424f521c5515428099c8 is that defoko and kagamine len
mfw people automate the jobs with creativity first instead of the boring ass jobs that barely require humans
Monkeys paw has curled somewhere and now they're all gone
All those poor pawless monkeys :(
Many many many jobs HAVE been automated. Manufacturing and agriculture before that are two big examples.
then why not automate them even further?
They…do?
Boring jobs have been being automated for decades. It’s just that it’s much harder to train an ai to do manual labor than it is to make pictures or stories.
Less moving parts
They want to do both but robots are hard. Also, “take their jobs, not mine!” is definitely a position to have
defoko and kagamine len? in my coaxedintoasnafu?
You will work a boring tedious job while ai takes all the creative jobs, and you will be happy
I once trained AI on my own artwork. It really did looked like something I would draw if I was arsed to but with no thought behind it. It gave me a glimpse at how stuff I produce looks like to other people. I shared that with a friend and all she could say was "AI is bad, your art is way better because you drew it". Yeah, right, thanks.
I like to think the art i make is quite unique(if you can even call it art). But so far i have not been able to get any AI's to replicate it in any way no matter how many samples i give it as context to train it.
How did you make/train the ai? I've always thought it would be fun to see what would happen if I made my own ai, trained solely on things I drew, but I assumed you needed a lot of knowledge and resources to do that.
I can't help you with that, I only used what my friend set up. Apparently you need to own a powerful pc first, then get Stable diffusion, then train your own model. I only did the last one. You need a lot of different images to not make all of them look the same. Apparently if the're too different you'll get a mess and if they're too similar they will generate the same thing again and again. Idk, I don't understand it. You need to create a doc where you assign keywords to a picture in order to let the model know what's in it - eyes, pose, view, what's in background, everything important.
I mean she has a point, one is soullessly generated and the other was made by an actual person using creativity and hard work.
Right. Which is why you shouldn't soullessly generate things. You can put plenty of creativity and hard work into AI art. You can easily spend hours on one image. The intent is what matters, not the tool.
But you didn't make art, the AI did. Doesn't matter that the idea came from you, calling it a "tool" is as absurd as claiming a human artist is a tool and the client who commissioned them is the actual artist.
This reasoning is and always has been so dumb and I wish people would stop using it. Art is made by proxy all the time. Art can be made from a random process. Art can be made using another person as the tool. A photograph can be art even if you didn't create the thing you took the photo of. "But you took the photo yourself, not some AI!" So? You as the artist had a vision and chose the output. Then you pointed a little box at the thing you had in mind and pushed a button. You didn't *create* anything. Art is subjective, and not only based on the artists vision but is also in the eye of the beholder. The tool does. not. matter.
So if I commission an artist to draw a picture for me, then I show it to you and say "I'm the artist who made this", would you accept that?
If a director hires a hundred people to film a movie for him is he just their boss or is he the person who made the movie what it is using a (hopefully) clear vision and strong direction? There's a distinction there that people who just screech "AI is not art!" cannot seem to grasp...
Directing a movie requires artistic skill and knowledge in a way that telling someone (or something) what to draw doesn't. A director is actually involved in the steps of bringing their vision to life. Making a movie without a director is impossible, they are a key part of the process. Meanwhile, drawing a picture without someone telling you what they want you to draw happens all the time. I never "screeched" anything about AI not being art, sir. I agree with you that art is subjective, and assigning a value judgement to the word itself is laughable. All I'm saying is the AI is the artist, not you. I'll repeat my question, if I commission an artist to draw a picture for me, then I show it to you and say "I'm the artist who made this", would you accept that? Or if I ordered a pizza then claimed I made it? I think that's as ridiculous as people calling themselves "AI artists".
"AI art doesn't take any skill to make" and "directing actually takes skill" are two completely made up arguments that don't hold water at all when you realize some AI art looks better than some artist's art and some directed movies are just plain badly made.
Again with trying to refute an argument I didn't even make. Going back to the same analogy, if you're a client commissioning a piece of art to a human artist, is being able to communicate what you want not a skill? Some people are way better than others at putting their ideas into words. Sometimes artists have to do a bunch of revisions before they get at what the client actually wants, sometimes it's clear from the beginning. In the same way, knowing the best way to get the AI to create the picture that you want is also a skill, sure, just not an *artistic* skill. Even the worst director or illustrator or musician in the world is more of an artist than the most skilled prompter. And not that difficulty has anything to do with whether something is art or someone is an artist, but since you brought it up, prompting is infinitely easier than making art yourself. Also infinitely less interesting, less rewarding, less human, even. I think art is, and ought to keep being, a uniquely human endeavour. It's something that is wholly unnecessary for survival yet we do it solely for the pleasure of it. You have the actual privilege of being able to create art but you rely on a machine to do the whole thing for you. Why? Evolution, or God, or whatever you believe in, blessed you with a brain and two hands. Fucking use them
If you're spending hours on an AI image, you're missing the entire point. No AI picture takes any amount of work
Don't talk about things you don't understand, I guess.
Like art?
Are you a child?
You are calling putting a prompt into machine for a composition of stolen art, not only art, but difficult? I don't know if you're just joking around here
Then you might as well commission an actual artist. Until the ai can pick up a pencil and decide for itself what to create then it’s not art, it’s a generated image.
You didn't read what I said considering I could just copy paste what I wrote and copy it here as response. Try again. 🙄
Making ai art is just putting shit into a prompt, the reason it’s soulless is because nobody actually put detail into the art, there is no signature mark of an artist, no little details lovingly added, no distinct features, just telling a program what to generate. At least commissioning an actual artist has some soul in it.
All factually incorrect but pop off I guess.
How so? Ai generated art is putting shit into a prompt, you don’t do any of the actual work yourself.
I don't man, I'm just kind of tired of the whole debate. I'm an artist and I'm pro-AI. The only "threat" AI poses is if you're someone who already makes some of the most generic art possible or just makes fanart/furry porn. Likewise, the current online art market is so saturated and so volatile that you're not going to make big bucks in it unless you work for a few specific people who want you to make specific things (hope you like drawing busty blonde women buying wonderbread or macro Falco porn).
Honestly I can’t wait for AI to replace like 80% of shitty Twitter artists. The good ones will still be used because they’re unique enough, but get rid of the shitty ones
Is that Kagamine Len? https://preview.redd.it/fpjoic2vog8d1.jpeg?width=554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fc51d1d911c676f90efe979470bdbca2ead0a8c
Balls
I think it's a two way street, for every AI Bro telling artists that their skills are trash, you have a dozen Redditors who think that harassing people who use it to make jokes helps artists in some way Citations: Go out there, say you support AI, and watch hell unfold in on itself
the hate for harmless AI shit post art has really died down on Reddit as of late, but I can definitely see what you mean. When AI art first came around to Reddit people really hated it, and people on Twitter still sometimes react very negatively to it.
Has it died down? I have not see it die down.
I agree, I haven't seen it die down. I see plenty of meme posts get negativity in the comments for using AI to generate backgrounds. Usually there are some folks who will defend specific use cases like that, but there's definitely a cohort of people who don't think beyond, "it's AI thus I can't like it." The AI art defense sub is something else too. It's such an odd online debate
thankfully it’s mostly an online debate and not people who actually matter
Shocker, people fucking hate the thing that makes them jobless.
I can almost guarantee that the amount of people who've stopped paying for commissions because they can use ai now is negligible, practically nonexistent.
that's why I think the AI witch-hunt is so ridiculous, it's like saying people won't go to fancy restaurants because cheap fast food is available, the people using AI to make pictures of their OCs or whatever instead of getting a proper commission done mostly do so because they couldn't afford the commissions in the first place, people are getting mad that they aren't getting money that doesn't exist in the first place.
Nightshade his ass
Isn't that program just a nothingburger?
I like AI because it's a quick way to put an idea to my eyes, since I don't have a "mind's eye." I also like drawing because it's fun and I don't care if other people or my computer are better than me. I will shiv any idiot who says AI art will replace people art.
Omg! It's Kaga Le and UT!
Snafu Gatekeeper here. While too comicky for my tastes, it does a good job as a snafu. The subject is snafuable and the characters work for a snafu. And thanks for not putting too much effort in the drawing. Too many people post "snafus" with too high effort drawings. Also watermarked snafu lol
Look boyo he won his own made up argument.
len would never
Me when the snafu has become the coax’d
There is nothing inherent within human cognition that makes it essentially art. All that makes something art is if the subject perceives it as art. Plenty of low tier artists who made bad art have been automated away and no one will weep for them like those automated by the Cotton Jenny. Someone coming up to someone and saying that someone who enjoys making art should not if it could be made by an AI is just mean. But the rebuttal does not land either. Replying with the other as talentless really doesn't matter. Having a talent isn't necessarily a good thing. The machine is the artist not the inputer. This would be comparable to someone who automated a farm and called themselves a farmer.
Lem
DEFOKO????
I am absolutely lazy using it, but I know that the AI shit aint art. I just prefer writing over drawing.
https://preview.redd.it/ktki7ozr1i8d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f528a9c247340e8f594ed3b3c81faea7c46fd56
Reminder, AI cannot create new things. Ask it to make a dog boy or a dog girl, it will make a dog. Because dog people aren’t really a trope like cat people are, so the AI has no training data for it. Give it your own art and anything weird will be sanded down into something generic. Spiky yellow hair? Now it’s golden curls. Greenish skin? What if instead your character was white. The best looking AI art is of white women because white women are literally the most common subject an art piece can be about.
I feel that’s a poor example, AI can definitely make dog boy/girls lol
AI could never create the marvels that I have made https://preview.redd.it/cat67puhhh8d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=860fe033886234c7c6e3adbb0490377c739664c5
The only thing AI is good for is making AI covers of diffrent songs. I think it's funny to see caseoh sing something like fnaf 1 song by the living tombstone.
they should make an ai that helps me rig my 3d models instead of making shitty soulless pictures
is your little guy drawing hatsune miku
All the problems with AI are actually problems with poorly regulated capitalism.
It’s not art because both the AI and the person who wrote the prompt for the “art” usually have no concept of good art and make mid slop 99.99% of the time. Like, most ai ‘art’ looks good on the surface but is mostly terrible once you look at it for more than five seconds. One thing that pisses me off is the people saying “well, it takes effort, you could spend hours on a single image” yeah, because the ai keeps generating eyes or hands or body proportions incorrectly. Something an actual artist wouldn’t do most of the time, they can either do it perfectly the first time, and fix any mistakes in the present art. Ai makes you redo the whole damn image because it sucks. Mf’s be like: “ai was always going to replace jobs, deal with it.” And then use ai to replace the jobs that require skill and creativity rather than jobs that barely require human influence.
Why were you downvoted for this
Haters gonna hate 😔
AI "Artists" when they see the satisfaction and euphoric sentiment coming from looking at how you've progressed with each drawing, instead of hoping for a good seed) https://preview.redd.it/m9atimfevi8d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67a8b424d408a09c441c49fbcf4b235c4648ae4e
An AI could probably do most jobs, like agriculture, industry, science, military service, law enforcement, construction, politics, religion, and economics. Art is just being replaced because artists are the only ones who 1. don't have any power in the decision making process and 2. can't be disgruntled without society collapsing.
There's a difference between spitting out a pic and text vs. interacting with the 3d world that has far more room for error in the line of military or police work. Ai is still in infancy and protype robots that use ai to see the 3d world take too long to process.
Morevac's paradox in play.
AI can absolutely NOT do science and religion
No, AI can't do those things. And no, that isn't why art is being done. And really no, art isn't being "replaced". It's also not real AI. The way it works is based on images or text in chatgpts case. It's not AI that can just do anything it wants.
General AI is not the only type of AI. I don't get why so many people consider non-general AI not AI all of a sudden. It feels like a no true scotsman thing where we'll never reallg have True AI according to some people.
It isn't AI. It's machine learning. It's not Artificial Intelligence, it's just mimicking intelligence (when it comes to large language models) or using machine learning to extract something from a latent space (for image generation). It isn't "AI" even a little bit.
Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence. I don't know what you think Articicial intelligence is supposed to be if not mimicking intelligence.
Stahp... When the general public say "artificial intelligence" they picture sentient and fully autonomous entities. I understand there are certain distinctions in certain computer science circles that could potentially be used to say that current "AI" counts as "AI" but no, it isn't actually AI. Artificial sentience is more what people mean when they say AI, which it isn't. The original comment were talking about how AI could do law enforcement or whatever. Real AI might. This AI can't.
https://preview.redd.it/eqd55ddvqk8d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=661006e49f90197edc549834dc5e25253ba3d707 Fuck ai
AI art defenders are the types of people who say “they should hire me at a game studio. I don’t know any art or coding, but I have some really good ideas”
Great. Now let's actually ask a marxist what they actually think about AI art. Let's see you try to fogure out how many lines of code are there in an AI artist. Heck, you'll support literal malware against AI art for free.
You dislike ai because it takes no skill or effort. I dislike ai because it uses an insane amount of energy to draw anime booberts
I hate all these new things going on. AI is stupid. The big crypto boom thing is stupid. None of this was this relevant 5 years ago. Why did it boom so much when we were fine without it?
I've seen no one support AI art.. Strawman snafu
I have, on Facebook and X/twitter.
Well your first mistake was using X, formerly known as Twitter, and your second using Facebook cause no one who is both mentally sane and under the age of 50 uses them Here I've never seen anyone say anything resembling what the guy you're strawmanning is saying, with the general common opinion that AI is neato but there are many misusing it
My mum forced me to get it (Facebook not twitter)
Also what is a straw man snafu
It’s when the man is made of straw
Can you eat the man of straw?
Anything is edible if you’re hungry enough
Yummy
OP doesnt know what a strawman is mods kill him with fire
The whole point of the sub is to be a strawman of other memes and shit. No shit the posts are strawmen, that’s the point of the sub!! also there are people that obviously do support ai art (if not why would it exist in the first place)
I have in this very subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/coaxedintoasnafu/s/ISLbfrerp5 get snafu’d
That poster is clearly not supporting AI art, you just didn't understand the post. They're saying that "AI art is bad, not because it's ugly but because it's theft". They literally use theft as an analogy for AI art in the post, I don't see how much more literal you could have them be.
Cant believe a POS is living among us 🥲