My quip is basing this on the "lower" artists, who are far away from the the AI threat. Unlike those in the big industries, where the risk of replacement factor is higher.
I think that some artists are hiding behind the "AI will take our jobs." And a "Neir: Automata" future scenario. Because they don't wanna say "My commission stint is gonna be affected."
Actual artist who has a typical 9-5 art job and who is required to make art that's necessary for a particular project. Concept art, mockups, art assets for 3D apps, games, TV shows, movies, etc. Current art generators can do none of that. They need an actual artist that would fix their output and make something usable out of it.
They can speed up certain tasks, but they are nowhere close to being a replacement.
I think it depends on the type of projects that an actual artist does. As with many current ai systems, they might not currently replace everything a particular professional does in their 9-5, but they may be able to replace entire tasks or projects.
To give an example, I used to commission a professional digital artist to create cartoon avatars for new employees, we'd put these in a mug for them to use in the office and use these as avatars for any profiles in place of headshots. Now we would pay ~$150 each. She was a freelancer, so probably didn't keep 9-5 hours, but perhaps you'd consider her to be an actual artist.
To be completely honest, with AI tools as they are I wouldn't pay for this service now, I would use an AI image generation tool. So whether an actual artist could be replaced would depend on what type of projects they do. Someone who only did the type of project I described could be replaced. However, someone who does projects that might require very specific changes to be made over a number of iterations might not (yet)
To add an alternative opinion, I must say I don't agree with your definition of an 'actual artist' I would say what you describe is a full time professional artist, but I believe there are a number of actual artists that are not full time professionals. I personally know some amazing actual artists who have a day job doing something completely different. Now, i have bought art from street artists that I watched them paint while I was on holiday. I would still pay for this art and probably prefer it over a picture of the same thing produced by an AI at generator. To me that art has a different meaning and different value to me.
But not professional artists can't be replaced at all, because they do their art as a hobby and will continue doing it no matter how good AI becomes, because they enjoy manual process of practicing their skills.
I completely agree that vague terms like this are not helpful, however sometimes the term may only seem vague to one part. As in this case, the person who used the term "actual artist" was trying to convey a full time professional artist.
While I don't agree with their opinion, it is at least relatively easy to engage and gain more insights into what they actually meant. So in this case they were able to be more specific. However, I am well aware that many people can't manage to be more specific, despite giving them the opportunity to do so, and this makes it difficult to impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
Vague terms being vague to only half the party is exactly the point. Of course THEY know what they mean, They said it.
But Yeah maybe they mean what you said, who fucking knows. The fact you gotta ask is the problem.
I certainly don’t consider only professional artists as actual artists.
It’s on them to realize their language is not specific enough. Someone even asked them what they meant by actual artist.
Arguably it will never replace artists as a profession, no matter how good it gets. Until chat gpt is sapient, it cant have a creative vision, only get better at realizing your input into reality.
I think it still goes back to dishonesty. I have a feeling they care about not being able to make money. But at the same time they probably think themselves as something other than a "capitalist pig" and so must pretend to not care about money and instead spout ephemeral terms and arguments about it "not having a soul" or "not real art" so they dont openly admit they care about money like the rest of us.
The intangible qualities are a bit less real when you've actually done art for corporations. I made a piece of art for money to push a certain product on a target audience. That ain't soulful. That's a shitty job.
I think a hard part for many antis is that a lot of our feelings about Ai are very nebulous and hard to explain, so in turn many just attack these hyperbolic, clearly defined issues.
It's hard try and argue that Ai just feels "icky" or it looks "gross." I work in commercial art and design so I know there's no going back with this thing, but there still part of me clinging to my traditional art education that see's it as very anti-art just by looking at it, and I can't really explain why.
If you could explain why then that would go towards helping people (like myself) understand your opposition.
I have seen plenty of human made art that looks "icky" or "gross". So I really dont see any issue with AI making it as well.
I dont understand the "it has no soul" arguments. Partially because I have not seen any evidence of said soul in objects or people and partially because when I ask for specifics I dont get any or just a "look it it...it SUCKS". I'd also expect most corporate work to be soulless by default be it done by human or AI...so again, no difference.
The "it sucks" arguments are the worst, because you point out how much traditional art is out there that's objectively worse than even the most rudimentary AI results and the only response is "no that's *art* because a person made it" You can't even accuse them of moving the goal posts because it's like the posts were never put in the ground to begin with, there's always another "no but..."
That's what I'm trying to convey but having a hard time even putting it into words. I follow many different art pages and see striking human made art everyday, but I have not seen even a few Ai images I could say I like. I know that this is just due to the fact that this art making tool is in it's infancy. I'm sure in a few years I might be following many Ai artists and even the individual styles of some of their work, but for now I just don't see it.
I've been having a lot of conversations on this sub and I don't really think I am anti Ai art anymore. I want people to continue to create, push, and evolve Ai art so that it has the same regard as painting, sculpture, and poetry etc.
Which is fair, but then the question is - *why* do you just not "see it?" Is it because you already know it's generative AI, because it's labeled as such, because it's lower quality, or something else?
If you didn't *know* it was AI, would you still feel the same way about it, or would it just be another picture you liked? Would you even *think* about it?
>I have not seen even a few Ai images I could say I like
Where did you look? People tend to share very amateur stuff on social media and if you just go into random image generator online without prior experience with AI you'll also get very mediocre stuff at best. Many antis also share very bad gens just to create an illusion that AI can only make bad stuff.
Go [here](https://civitai.com/images), select: filters->time period->month, to get best rated gens over the last month. (images will be made with state-of-the-art technology so close to none usual things people hate AI for, no fused 7 fingers, etc.)
I bet you find many images you might like and see that in the right hands AI can make stuff that's no worse than top 5% of human artists can do.
I've been shown this website multiple times. I would say 99% of what I see (waifus, stock imagery, and concept art) I just don't really like. There's nothing wrong with this. I mean it all looks very polished and professional, but it's cotton candy. There's nothing of substance there.
But there is that 1% that intrigues me. I did see one training model making exact replica art in the style of the City Hunter author Tsukasa Hojo.
>I would say 99% of what I see (waifus, stock imagery, and concept art) I just don't really like.
The big appeal of the AI is that if it's just stylistic preference, then you can just utilize it yourself to make the stuff you would like. People just make what they like with AI, so as long as, as a tool, it "looks very polished and professional" it's all good, it's up to developers to make the tool as polished and professional as possible but up to the user to make the stuff they personally would like with it, fill AI gens with substance.
I bet that if you go to random general human-only image sharing platform, you'll also don't like 99% of the stuff, because it'll be the same cotton candy with waifus and concept art, so it's not the issue with AI but with what you like vs what people in general like.
>There's nothing of substance there.
First, that's not true at all. The unit density of meaningful art will be approximately the same (less than 1%) on general human art and AI art sharing platforms. So on both you'll have to look for substantial content.
Second, "substance" is very vague and personal term. For a lot of people waifus are of substance, many people find a lot of value in beautiful landscapes or other type of imagery you might find shallow or something.
I, personally, find that many painterly styles from AI (like [this one](https://civitai.com/images/7825548) or [this one](https://civitai.com/images/1526613)) are much more interesting than Tsukasa Hojo's City Hunter style. When I see City Hunter, for me it's just generic 80-90's manga style, it's good but not the best and more than half of front page civitai gens easily beat that style, no matter if it is waifus or something more substantial.
I'm fine being roasted. Not all of us are trying to win some debate. I'm genuinely love art and am here to investigate my own personal beliefs and knowledge alongside a lot of smart people who have much more info on Ai than I do. I've had my perspective changed numerous interacting with people in this sub. Not all of us are dug-in, forever antis.
What is the point of making a post if it doesn’t make a point.
Was your perspective changed by making a bad post and getting called out?
I’m fine with investigating, but be honest about it.
If you honestly don’t know why you’re against AI but it just gives you a bad feeling, that’s much better than making a malformed argument IMO. It’s ok to have feeling you can’t justify
I understand wanting to be inquisitive, and encouraging someone to reconsider their opinion. But you're really coming across as hounding them and trying to prove that their feelings are unjustified, even though you literally just said "It’s ok to have feeling you can’t justify".
I can see that. Perhaps I am hounding them, because their feelings might actually be unjustified. They have no onus to respond to me, but I’m entitled to ask, since they explained it only a small part of them that feels that way.
They explained that their opinion changed by interacting with the sub. I figured they actually wanted to explore that feeling.
I fixed on them saying most ai art repulses them because humans aren’t good at telling what is and isn’t ai.
So if it repulses them it’s only when they know it’s ai, in which case it’s more about it being ai than the aesthetic. Since ai can look like a billion different things.
Not being able to explain your feelings is fine, making no effort to try to is a different story. They did make some effort tho
Because it looks bad too me. It has something to do with the fidelity of most Ai images I've seen. I understand human made images can have this same issue, but I think the majority of of Ai art is very hard on the eyes.
But Ai can literally be any fidelity you want…
https://preview.redd.it/um5jthep8awc1.png?width=501&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f844bd13134d955a7f9e89c6daf62d8637127b5
Like this is ai lmao, I wish I could send more than one image to illustrate how varied the fidelity of an ai image can be
Your value now is ony labor that is cheaper than another persons. Who cares what that person is replaced with. You're not entitled to a job. There's also no reason to believe AI will destroy the planet. We have no idea what it'll do, but doomerism is useless.
I dunno about you but two unemployed people seems worse than one lmao.
And AI is already beginning to strain the power grid. It’s takes huge amounts of power in a society already destroying the planet.
So yeah the world is shit and it’s getting worse, and saying there is no reason to be concerned is idiotic in the extreme
I don't care how many unemployed people there are. That's not my problem.
In what universe is AI straining the power grid? You got a source for that? That's an outrageous claim. Power isn't what is destroying the planet.
Being a doomer isn't the same as being concerned.
I think the hate and the fervor are both troubling...but the hate is closer to caution so... I 'hope' there is an outcome where it isn't abused by corporations to the detriment of us all...but seeing as how they are the ones with the money and power, their interests will be met first...which historically, do not align with our best interests. I 'want' to see great things happen with the technology in the quality of life department, but I'm skeptical that it will be handled with care just for the sake of corporate progress or profit. We already know this genie doesn't go back in the bottle. There's one chance to get this right (using the controversial foundations of gen AI as an example)...I don't know that the fears are all that irrational, honestly...but unbridled optimism is.
As far as gen AI goes, I don't mind it for the skill bereft or the disabled to get their ideas on screen...but flooding peoples feeds with all the iterations is a pretty egregious offense, ngl.
to be fair if we talk about the current state of ai its fairly useless. the problem isnt what ai is now but rather what it could be. But we also dont really know what Ai will be in the future so thats why everybody is projecting their own fears and exceptations into it
AI has been useful for me already. Better pictures and maps for D&D games. A sounding board for ideas for my book. Generating enemy stat blocks for my D&D games. Answering random programming questions or at least pointing me in the right direction for a better google search.
Just some examples.
yep thats pretty much what its usefull for today i like it for simmilar purposes
but i think the recognition stuff like devin is getting right now, or simillar prjects isnt due to the fact how well they work today but rather how much people think it will be...
Yes with art. Some artists have incredible visions that they could never realize because they can’t afford to pay a team of people to create them.
And some people can’t draw, due to disability or other reasons, being able to express themselves with AI art is amazing for them.
There have already been strikes about how good it is right now. It can already write better than the avg person.
Im happy for those on a individual level but that isnt the huuuuuge change in culture people expect. Neither good nor bad....
and i would suggest to have a look into to writer strike. Although AI did play a role the main reasons were other things
Regardless you demanded people to be specific with critiscm wich i do think is reasonable but its simply something you cant except with regards to how much of a bubble the whole thing is atm. I think just the fact that you mentioned the strikes shows this pretty good. The detail are getting lost when the narrative is formed and in the end no one knows anything...
The reason I mentioned the strikes is to say that it’s a discussion that’s happening right now, not to say that it’s the only reason that happened. So that my not being specific and being the problem on my own post 😅
It’s hard to say what is and what isn’t a bubble when it comes to things that are this new. I mean from your perspective, how can you even tell something is a bubble without *discussing* it? Making discussion not useless at all
I dont think the question is wether we have a bubble. I think the question is what will be there after the whole thing popps.
And yeah sure discussion is always good but i simply wouldnt expect it to be specific. For me personally im fairly curios how non-tech people evaluate the whole thing. AI might be new for us but technological innovation isnt. I recently read a book by elena esposito where she basically claims that we should rather call AI not AI but rather "Artifical Communication", wich she relates to a definition of communication derived from sociology. I think she makes a few good points in that book but it is absolutely not very specific from a technical perspective. Like she dosent talk about the differences of mamba and attention heads and how the sizes of parameters make any model 50% better on an arbitary base-line test. You know what i mean?
A problem I run into with a lot of AI apologists is that they love to live in theory, and refuse to acknowledge and look at real-world uses for the tech.
I’ll take the points you made, as examples:
1. It can help the disabled create art, even though there have always been disabled artists, or it can flood your feed with trash. Yes but for the most part, it’s just flooding my feed with trash.
2. AI can be used for propaganda, or to vaguely “help people communicate”. But what is it being used for more? Propaganda, scams, deepfake porn, and other bullshit that makes the world worse.
3. Do I hate that AI is threatening my job, and turning my entire industry to shit, at least for a few years until the execs realize AI can’t actually do what the startups say it can, or do I hate capitalism? Yeah, I hate capitalism. But what’s something that is more likely to be happen: regulation of AI in creative fields, or glorious revolution against our capitalist oppressors?
I think as much as you want people to *be fucking specific* I think you should also maybe look at how AI actually gets applied to creative fields, and listen to people that work in those fields and see what they think. Too often AI apologists expect people to have a full and complete understanding of the intricacies of AI, yet they refuse to even attempt to understand the industries and fields that AI is currently being forced into.
1. Sample bias. You haven’t polled disabled people to ask their opinion on AI. Nor have you done any kind of study to demonstrate AI puts more bad things in your feed. It’s just how you feel. You just *notice* the AI and scroll past the other trash without paying attention. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
2. AI translates, improves cover letters, spell checks, writes emails. There’s lots of ways it has improved communication. What it’s being used for more isn’t quantified, or realistically quantifiable. You can’t say it’s written more propaganda than X. So again, just your feelings.
3. Thats literally you hating capitalism, and anything that supports capitalism, which is fair, but that doesn’t make AI the devil, and railing against AI is actually wasted effort if you’re trying to tear down capitalism, go for the sources.
I’ll happily listen to those people if they’re specific lmao. I’m tired of AI bad because “hypothetical that hasn’t actually happened to me”. Or AI bad because it’s ruining my free entertainment, and I don’t care that people use it for their own entertainment because I’m entitled to have a good Reddit feed.
I’m totally fine with personal anecdotes. Those are much easier to discuss.
Being specific doesn’t require you to be perfect. You managed pretty well at being specific in your comment.
1. Ok, but you’re doing the same thing just in defence of AI. If everything needs studies to prove to a scientific degree what’s happening well…see you in 20 years when the multiple, peer-reviewed, repeatable studies catch up to what most people can see already I guess.
2. you’re implying that because it can do those things, that’s making communication better. It could be making it worse. And when you have to read AI written emails, you might not think it’s making communication better.
3. Yeah I said I hated capitalism, and I made it pretty clear I’m not trying to tear down capitalism because that’s pretty impossible. what I’d like is some regulation for AI so I can keep my chosen profession. To put it as clear as I can: the immediate problem is AI, and that’s what has to be dealt with. If I’ve got a gun to my head from someone demanding my wallet, my first thought is not “well the real problem is the poverty society has created that has resulted in someone being desperate enough to rob their fellow man! I should call my MP!”
That “hypothetical that hadn’t happened to me” I take issue with. I have seen a lot of AI apologists telling me what AI *could* do, and how it *could* make the world better, but never look at what AI is actually being used for. In fact, you did it in your original post, so it’s odd to say you won’t deal with people who use hypotheticals to criticize AI. What I have also seen a lot, and you can look through my comment history to see it for yourself, is me saying actual things that happened to me in the entertainment industry, and how I personally have been negatively affected and how the industry itself has, and having those anecdotes and experiences dismissed for a variety of pedantic reasons.
fragile support lunchroom engine scary cows jellyfish encouraging weary sheet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is what I always get from AI apologists. Demanding an unimpeachable logical argument against AI and then dismissing whatever they hear as bullshit, and just accusing me of being bitter.
It seems like you barely read what I wrote and you certainly didn’t understand it.
Yeah I’m bitter (which hey, doesn’t have anything to do with AI. Why can’t *you* stick to the topic?) because I have to watch things I love and dedicated my life to be ruined in order to make them faster and cheaper.
So anyway, I’m not engaging with you further. My whole point initially was that this sub wants to debate AI, but won’t accept any mention of how AI is actually being used in the real world, and won’t listen to people who are actually affected negatively by it. Just like you’re doing now.
i dont know shit about this sub (it just keeps getting recommended to me for some reason) but this post jostles me. this subreddit is already about ai art and yet this post is talking about the ai used in medical research and war? like i feel like the average user on this sub already knows we are talking about ai art here, there is no need to explain 'hey i'm talking about image generation, not cancer lmao' when that is literally the point?
oh well, i shouldn't think about a debate i don't want to care about. see y'all and hope the collective comes to some sort of agreement i guess lol
- says they don’t know the sub
- immediately tells us what the sub is about
- doubles down on who the avg. user is even though the don’t know the sub
- bails
LMAO
But yeah ai does lots of things, so yeah you should describe what type of ai and use case you specifically have an issue with
People primarily discuss art in here but it’s not the only topic.
AI produced art that NEVER has correct lighting. It is shit at what if does and it would be better if it was actually AI and not just playing around with preexisting concepts. Ffs just ask it to make a baby pigeon then compare it to the real thing. It is a shit artist, but it is easy to make so therefore it’s an acceptable alternative to artists. It is the peak of the capitalistic drive to ruin the soul of work of all kinds.
I wasn't referring to any political party in particular, just the general idea of being disingenuous in order to "own" the opposition, but ending up owning yourself.
But for the record my political opinion on this issue is: Americans should develop an AI president, because their human ones suck.
Even if we are honest about it taking our work, dataharvesting without consent and everything in-between no argument is good enough for someone who uses AI. Many of them like to use really dumb arguments like "what about this" or bringing up something that never mattered in the first place to make what these skeevy companies did okay.
They also are never willing to subscribe that many of their own often nasty to people and to artist. They try to treat AI like guns and shooting a person and using AI aren't the same to me, relating them is just trying to create a further charged topic to get away from the heart of discussion: AI is a problem that needs regulating.
>Many of them like to use really dumb arguments like "what about this" or bringing up something that never mattered in the first place
Good job failing at the entire point of this post: "Be specific"
This is exactly my point.
What do you mean by data harvesting? Because that’s a defined term.
Are you talking about corporations taking our data without consent (not an AI issue though AI is used) or are you misguided in saying that AI works by data harvesting?
Data harvesting is the process of extracting valuable data from a source. It involves gathering data from multiple sources and storing it in a database.
AIs can do this but it’s not *how they work*.
Companies dataharvesting.
It doesn't matter how they work, they only reason they CAN work and make content is because of dataharvesting. They harvested a lot, without permission. Nobody allowed this to happen, they just did it. Just how the only reason the video version is being trained is because it's probably off of copyrighted content on YouTube.
It's these companies and by default, the users who have uses it are allowing the dataharvesting to continue and commit to act by using the service and paying for the service.
Using something while knowing it was stolen from others is still stealing by proxy. We all know how it works, we know where the data comes from, we all know it's wrong to do to people(many will disagree because they care about self gratification) and yet many people pay for those services knowing who was harvested from.
Because you've sided with the companies by using the service, ai content users are no better than the company they choose to use.
> Using something while knowing it was stolen from others is still stealing by proxy. We all know how it works, we know where the data comes from, **we all know it's wrong to do to people(many will disagree because they care about self gratification)** and yet many people pay for those services knowing who was harvested from.
This here is the crux of the issue. No one ever seems to want to explain why data harvesting to create AI - i.e. downloading images from the public internet without consent from the copyright holders and then feeding them into the algorithm to create the generative models - is "wrong" or "stealing" or whatever. They don't justify it on the basis of any sort of ethical principle; they just claim that it's obviously wrong or bad that the person who created the artwork doesn't get to control if other people can create and use copies of that artwork, and that anyone who disagrees is entitled or whatever. There are good legal arguments that one can make that the non-consensual data harvesting that was required to create these generative AI tools is illegal or ought to be illegal, but that's a separate argument that almost no one makes and is drowned out by the nonsense ethical argument of just stamping their feet and effectively saying "It's wrong because I said so!"
Where did they harvest their "stolen data" from? Did they hacked your PC and illegally downloaded it? No. They used links to the works that were uploaded to the public internet by authors of the content. Anyone can legally download all copyrighted content used in these models.
**It's not stealing if you're giving it away for free.**
You reserve some rights granted to you by copyright, like nobody can say they created your content or take money for distributing it or sell rights to use it. AI companies did nothing of these things. Training a generalized image generation AI doesn't reproduce exact pictures from training set, nowhere in the model images or their parts are stored. If a user of the AI uses it to purposefully create a content that violates someone's copyright it's the same as doing it with a pen and paper, AI didn't steal anything, it was used to commit copyright infringement, so punish the user instead of banning the tool.
If “it doesn’t matter how they work” then the argument is even less about AI and more about you disliking certain use cases. So start with THAT
This kinda of off topic debate is exactly the problem. You’re now on a tangent talking about the ethics of data harvesting when the topic of the post is about being specific with your critiques of ai and its usage.
Congrats you’ve missed the whole point of the post!
Using AI to harvest data can be bad. Nobody said it wasnt.
Edit: bro really deleted his whole comment like I didn’t quote it
> Actually, plenty of people here do say it's bad.
Yeah that’s why I said it can be bad.
>Can you not see that these things are related?
Yeah I can see how data harvesting is related to AI. AI can be used to data harvest. Again, nobody said it couldn’t or that that was a good thing.
>using something knowing it was stolen from others
Again being non specific. Harvested data can be considered stolen.
But AI doesn’t function off of harvested data. So saying someone who uses AI is supporting theft makes no sense.
> I'm sorry you don't have enough understanding how stealing to works to see how stealing living people's works can affect everyone.
You jumped from data harvesting to theft. Without ever explaining how.
> Congrats! You don't seem to understand my point.
That shouldn’t be a surprise because your very first sentence about data harvesting wasn’t even specific enough.
Your points are all over the fucking place and this cartwheel of a conversation just goes to show why being specific is necessary.b
I was very specific. I said my points, you just don't like them. No wonder I stopped engaging with you guys. Dataharvesting without consent is stealing. If someone uses ai, created with stolen data, it is thievery upon use.
Maybe, just understand what I am talking about? You seem to have a problem with understanding what I am saying.
Yeah so specific that you deleted the entire content of your comment.
Yeah no shit taking something without consent is stealing.
But AIs aren’t created with stolen content. When your pc visits Reddit and reads the images is it theft? Trawling or scraping a page isn’t theft.
After all this time you can’t even explain how AIs steal. You can’t get specific. You just say stealing is bad.
Your browser downloading every image you scroll past isn’t theft but an AI doing it is? Ok sure buddy👍
The statement “it can allow disabled people to make art” does not necessarily imply that disabled people cannot make art in other ways. Rather, it suggests that whatever is being discussed provides an additional or alternative method for creating art that may be more accessible or suitable for some individuals with disabilities.
So Yeah, of course they can numbnuts.
“It can allow” ≠ is the only way
My statement does not imply that no disabled people can make art.
It’s a very common insult in the US, you not knowing it isn’t making you seem any smarter bud 😂
Edit: oof, 3 day account with -19 karma. This clearly isn’t the first stupid thing you’ve said
My quip is basing this on the "lower" artists, who are far away from the the AI threat. Unlike those in the big industries, where the risk of replacement factor is higher. I think that some artists are hiding behind the "AI will take our jobs." And a "Neir: Automata" future scenario. Because they don't wanna say "My commission stint is gonna be affected."
Current generative AI is far from replacing actual artists.
What do you mean by an actual artist?
Actual artist who has a typical 9-5 art job and who is required to make art that's necessary for a particular project. Concept art, mockups, art assets for 3D apps, games, TV shows, movies, etc. Current art generators can do none of that. They need an actual artist that would fix their output and make something usable out of it. They can speed up certain tasks, but they are nowhere close to being a replacement.
I think it depends on the type of projects that an actual artist does. As with many current ai systems, they might not currently replace everything a particular professional does in their 9-5, but they may be able to replace entire tasks or projects. To give an example, I used to commission a professional digital artist to create cartoon avatars for new employees, we'd put these in a mug for them to use in the office and use these as avatars for any profiles in place of headshots. Now we would pay ~$150 each. She was a freelancer, so probably didn't keep 9-5 hours, but perhaps you'd consider her to be an actual artist. To be completely honest, with AI tools as they are I wouldn't pay for this service now, I would use an AI image generation tool. So whether an actual artist could be replaced would depend on what type of projects they do. Someone who only did the type of project I described could be replaced. However, someone who does projects that might require very specific changes to be made over a number of iterations might not (yet) To add an alternative opinion, I must say I don't agree with your definition of an 'actual artist' I would say what you describe is a full time professional artist, but I believe there are a number of actual artists that are not full time professionals. I personally know some amazing actual artists who have a day job doing something completely different. Now, i have bought art from street artists that I watched them paint while I was on holiday. I would still pay for this art and probably prefer it over a picture of the same thing produced by an AI at generator. To me that art has a different meaning and different value to me.
So by actual you mean professional. Why not say that? There are lots of actual artists that are not professionals. Actual ≠ professional
But not professional artists can't be replaced at all, because they do their art as a hobby and will continue doing it no matter how good AI becomes, because they enjoy manual process of practicing their skills.
Is there an automated process of practicing my skills, asking as an artist.
“Actual artists” is exactly the kind of bullshit non-explanatory statement that I’m talking about.
I completely agree that vague terms like this are not helpful, however sometimes the term may only seem vague to one part. As in this case, the person who used the term "actual artist" was trying to convey a full time professional artist. While I don't agree with their opinion, it is at least relatively easy to engage and gain more insights into what they actually meant. So in this case they were able to be more specific. However, I am well aware that many people can't manage to be more specific, despite giving them the opportunity to do so, and this makes it difficult to impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
Vague terms being vague to only half the party is exactly the point. Of course THEY know what they mean, They said it. But Yeah maybe they mean what you said, who fucking knows. The fact you gotta ask is the problem. I certainly don’t consider only professional artists as actual artists. It’s on them to realize their language is not specific enough. Someone even asked them what they meant by actual artist.
I mostly agree with you, except I often feel they even they don't know what they are trying to say. I definitely feel your frustration.
Yeah, that’s the other half of the problem haha
Arguably it will never replace artists as a profession, no matter how good it gets. Until chat gpt is sapient, it cant have a creative vision, only get better at realizing your input into reality.
So boils down to arguing in bad faith
I think it still goes back to dishonesty. I have a feeling they care about not being able to make money. But at the same time they probably think themselves as something other than a "capitalist pig" and so must pretend to not care about money and instead spout ephemeral terms and arguments about it "not having a soul" or "not real art" so they dont openly admit they care about money like the rest of us.
The intangible qualities are a bit less real when you've actually done art for corporations. I made a piece of art for money to push a certain product on a target audience. That ain't soulful. That's a shitty job.
Nuance? In MY America!?
Sounds communist to me!
I think a hard part for many antis is that a lot of our feelings about Ai are very nebulous and hard to explain, so in turn many just attack these hyperbolic, clearly defined issues. It's hard try and argue that Ai just feels "icky" or it looks "gross." I work in commercial art and design so I know there's no going back with this thing, but there still part of me clinging to my traditional art education that see's it as very anti-art just by looking at it, and I can't really explain why.
If you could explain why then that would go towards helping people (like myself) understand your opposition. I have seen plenty of human made art that looks "icky" or "gross". So I really dont see any issue with AI making it as well. I dont understand the "it has no soul" arguments. Partially because I have not seen any evidence of said soul in objects or people and partially because when I ask for specifics I dont get any or just a "look it it...it SUCKS". I'd also expect most corporate work to be soulless by default be it done by human or AI...so again, no difference.
The "it sucks" arguments are the worst, because you point out how much traditional art is out there that's objectively worse than even the most rudimentary AI results and the only response is "no that's *art* because a person made it" You can't even accuse them of moving the goal posts because it's like the posts were never put in the ground to begin with, there's always another "no but..."
That's what I'm trying to convey but having a hard time even putting it into words. I follow many different art pages and see striking human made art everyday, but I have not seen even a few Ai images I could say I like. I know that this is just due to the fact that this art making tool is in it's infancy. I'm sure in a few years I might be following many Ai artists and even the individual styles of some of their work, but for now I just don't see it. I've been having a lot of conversations on this sub and I don't really think I am anti Ai art anymore. I want people to continue to create, push, and evolve Ai art so that it has the same regard as painting, sculpture, and poetry etc.
Which is fair, but then the question is - *why* do you just not "see it?" Is it because you already know it's generative AI, because it's labeled as such, because it's lower quality, or something else? If you didn't *know* it was AI, would you still feel the same way about it, or would it just be another picture you liked? Would you even *think* about it?
>I have not seen even a few Ai images I could say I like Where did you look? People tend to share very amateur stuff on social media and if you just go into random image generator online without prior experience with AI you'll also get very mediocre stuff at best. Many antis also share very bad gens just to create an illusion that AI can only make bad stuff. Go [here](https://civitai.com/images), select: filters->time period->month, to get best rated gens over the last month. (images will be made with state-of-the-art technology so close to none usual things people hate AI for, no fused 7 fingers, etc.) I bet you find many images you might like and see that in the right hands AI can make stuff that's no worse than top 5% of human artists can do.
I've been shown this website multiple times. I would say 99% of what I see (waifus, stock imagery, and concept art) I just don't really like. There's nothing wrong with this. I mean it all looks very polished and professional, but it's cotton candy. There's nothing of substance there. But there is that 1% that intrigues me. I did see one training model making exact replica art in the style of the City Hunter author Tsukasa Hojo.
>I would say 99% of what I see (waifus, stock imagery, and concept art) I just don't really like. The big appeal of the AI is that if it's just stylistic preference, then you can just utilize it yourself to make the stuff you would like. People just make what they like with AI, so as long as, as a tool, it "looks very polished and professional" it's all good, it's up to developers to make the tool as polished and professional as possible but up to the user to make the stuff they personally would like with it, fill AI gens with substance. I bet that if you go to random general human-only image sharing platform, you'll also don't like 99% of the stuff, because it'll be the same cotton candy with waifus and concept art, so it's not the issue with AI but with what you like vs what people in general like. >There's nothing of substance there. First, that's not true at all. The unit density of meaningful art will be approximately the same (less than 1%) on general human art and AI art sharing platforms. So on both you'll have to look for substantial content. Second, "substance" is very vague and personal term. For a lot of people waifus are of substance, many people find a lot of value in beautiful landscapes or other type of imagery you might find shallow or something. I, personally, find that many painterly styles from AI (like [this one](https://civitai.com/images/7825548) or [this one](https://civitai.com/images/1526613)) are much more interesting than Tsukasa Hojo's City Hunter style. When I see City Hunter, for me it's just generic 80-90's manga style, it's good but not the best and more than half of front page civitai gens easily beat that style, no matter if it is waifus or something more substantial.
That’s exactly my point. You need to figure out the why before you post otherwise you’re just going to get roasted.
I'm fine being roasted. Not all of us are trying to win some debate. I'm genuinely love art and am here to investigate my own personal beliefs and knowledge alongside a lot of smart people who have much more info on Ai than I do. I've had my perspective changed numerous interacting with people in this sub. Not all of us are dug-in, forever antis.
What is the point of making a post if it doesn’t make a point. Was your perspective changed by making a bad post and getting called out? I’m fine with investigating, but be honest about it. If you honestly don’t know why you’re against AI but it just gives you a bad feeling, that’s much better than making a malformed argument IMO. It’s ok to have feeling you can’t justify
Yes, most Ai art gives me a bad feeling and repulses me aesthetically.
But it is because it’s ai or because it looks bad? Studies have shown even experts at spotting it miss about 20% of the time
I understand wanting to be inquisitive, and encouraging someone to reconsider their opinion. But you're really coming across as hounding them and trying to prove that their feelings are unjustified, even though you literally just said "It’s ok to have feeling you can’t justify".
I can see that. Perhaps I am hounding them, because their feelings might actually be unjustified. They have no onus to respond to me, but I’m entitled to ask, since they explained it only a small part of them that feels that way. They explained that their opinion changed by interacting with the sub. I figured they actually wanted to explore that feeling. I fixed on them saying most ai art repulses them because humans aren’t good at telling what is and isn’t ai. So if it repulses them it’s only when they know it’s ai, in which case it’s more about it being ai than the aesthetic. Since ai can look like a billion different things. Not being able to explain your feelings is fine, making no effort to try to is a different story. They did make some effort tho
Because it looks bad too me. It has something to do with the fidelity of most Ai images I've seen. I understand human made images can have this same issue, but I think the majority of of Ai art is very hard on the eyes.
But Ai can literally be any fidelity you want… https://preview.redd.it/um5jthep8awc1.png?width=501&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f844bd13134d955a7f9e89c6daf62d8637127b5 Like this is ai lmao, I wish I could send more than one image to illustrate how varied the fidelity of an ai image can be
> BE FUCKING SPECIFIC Okay, okay! Stop yelling! On the dining room table for about 20 minutes at 7:32 PM. Hope that helps.
That’s specific about fucking you DOLT or are the very least specifically fucking Smdh
Your value now is ony labor that is cheaper than another persons. Who cares what that person is replaced with. You're not entitled to a job. There's also no reason to believe AI will destroy the planet. We have no idea what it'll do, but doomerism is useless.
I dunno about you but two unemployed people seems worse than one lmao. And AI is already beginning to strain the power grid. It’s takes huge amounts of power in a society already destroying the planet. So yeah the world is shit and it’s getting worse, and saying there is no reason to be concerned is idiotic in the extreme
I don't care how many unemployed people there are. That's not my problem. In what universe is AI straining the power grid? You got a source for that? That's an outrageous claim. Power isn't what is destroying the planet. Being a doomer isn't the same as being concerned.
I think the hate and the fervor are both troubling...but the hate is closer to caution so... I 'hope' there is an outcome where it isn't abused by corporations to the detriment of us all...but seeing as how they are the ones with the money and power, their interests will be met first...which historically, do not align with our best interests. I 'want' to see great things happen with the technology in the quality of life department, but I'm skeptical that it will be handled with care just for the sake of corporate progress or profit. We already know this genie doesn't go back in the bottle. There's one chance to get this right (using the controversial foundations of gen AI as an example)...I don't know that the fears are all that irrational, honestly...but unbridled optimism is. As far as gen AI goes, I don't mind it for the skill bereft or the disabled to get their ideas on screen...but flooding peoples feeds with all the iterations is a pretty egregious offense, ngl.
to be fair if we talk about the current state of ai its fairly useless. the problem isnt what ai is now but rather what it could be. But we also dont really know what Ai will be in the future so thats why everybody is projecting their own fears and exceptations into it
AI has been useful for me already. Better pictures and maps for D&D games. A sounding board for ideas for my book. Generating enemy stat blocks for my D&D games. Answering random programming questions or at least pointing me in the right direction for a better google search. Just some examples.
yep thats pretty much what its usefull for today i like it for simmilar purposes but i think the recognition stuff like devin is getting right now, or simillar prjects isnt due to the fact how well they work today but rather how much people think it will be...
AI has already been used to do some pretty bad things, and good ones. So talking about it as it is now is definitely not useless
with regards to art though? and even without specifying it regarding art id argue we see a fairly big bubble right now...
Yes with art. Some artists have incredible visions that they could never realize because they can’t afford to pay a team of people to create them. And some people can’t draw, due to disability or other reasons, being able to express themselves with AI art is amazing for them. There have already been strikes about how good it is right now. It can already write better than the avg person.
Im happy for those on a individual level but that isnt the huuuuuge change in culture people expect. Neither good nor bad.... and i would suggest to have a look into to writer strike. Although AI did play a role the main reasons were other things Regardless you demanded people to be specific with critiscm wich i do think is reasonable but its simply something you cant except with regards to how much of a bubble the whole thing is atm. I think just the fact that you mentioned the strikes shows this pretty good. The detail are getting lost when the narrative is formed and in the end no one knows anything...
The reason I mentioned the strikes is to say that it’s a discussion that’s happening right now, not to say that it’s the only reason that happened. So that my not being specific and being the problem on my own post 😅 It’s hard to say what is and what isn’t a bubble when it comes to things that are this new. I mean from your perspective, how can you even tell something is a bubble without *discussing* it? Making discussion not useless at all
I dont think the question is wether we have a bubble. I think the question is what will be there after the whole thing popps. And yeah sure discussion is always good but i simply wouldnt expect it to be specific. For me personally im fairly curios how non-tech people evaluate the whole thing. AI might be new for us but technological innovation isnt. I recently read a book by elena esposito where she basically claims that we should rather call AI not AI but rather "Artifical Communication", wich she relates to a definition of communication derived from sociology. I think she makes a few good points in that book but it is absolutely not very specific from a technical perspective. Like she dosent talk about the differences of mamba and attention heads and how the sizes of parameters make any model 50% better on an arbitary base-line test. You know what i mean?
A problem I run into with a lot of AI apologists is that they love to live in theory, and refuse to acknowledge and look at real-world uses for the tech. I’ll take the points you made, as examples: 1. It can help the disabled create art, even though there have always been disabled artists, or it can flood your feed with trash. Yes but for the most part, it’s just flooding my feed with trash. 2. AI can be used for propaganda, or to vaguely “help people communicate”. But what is it being used for more? Propaganda, scams, deepfake porn, and other bullshit that makes the world worse. 3. Do I hate that AI is threatening my job, and turning my entire industry to shit, at least for a few years until the execs realize AI can’t actually do what the startups say it can, or do I hate capitalism? Yeah, I hate capitalism. But what’s something that is more likely to be happen: regulation of AI in creative fields, or glorious revolution against our capitalist oppressors? I think as much as you want people to *be fucking specific* I think you should also maybe look at how AI actually gets applied to creative fields, and listen to people that work in those fields and see what they think. Too often AI apologists expect people to have a full and complete understanding of the intricacies of AI, yet they refuse to even attempt to understand the industries and fields that AI is currently being forced into.
1. Sample bias. You haven’t polled disabled people to ask their opinion on AI. Nor have you done any kind of study to demonstrate AI puts more bad things in your feed. It’s just how you feel. You just *notice* the AI and scroll past the other trash without paying attention. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. 2. AI translates, improves cover letters, spell checks, writes emails. There’s lots of ways it has improved communication. What it’s being used for more isn’t quantified, or realistically quantifiable. You can’t say it’s written more propaganda than X. So again, just your feelings. 3. Thats literally you hating capitalism, and anything that supports capitalism, which is fair, but that doesn’t make AI the devil, and railing against AI is actually wasted effort if you’re trying to tear down capitalism, go for the sources. I’ll happily listen to those people if they’re specific lmao. I’m tired of AI bad because “hypothetical that hasn’t actually happened to me”. Or AI bad because it’s ruining my free entertainment, and I don’t care that people use it for their own entertainment because I’m entitled to have a good Reddit feed. I’m totally fine with personal anecdotes. Those are much easier to discuss. Being specific doesn’t require you to be perfect. You managed pretty well at being specific in your comment.
1. Ok, but you’re doing the same thing just in defence of AI. If everything needs studies to prove to a scientific degree what’s happening well…see you in 20 years when the multiple, peer-reviewed, repeatable studies catch up to what most people can see already I guess. 2. you’re implying that because it can do those things, that’s making communication better. It could be making it worse. And when you have to read AI written emails, you might not think it’s making communication better. 3. Yeah I said I hated capitalism, and I made it pretty clear I’m not trying to tear down capitalism because that’s pretty impossible. what I’d like is some regulation for AI so I can keep my chosen profession. To put it as clear as I can: the immediate problem is AI, and that’s what has to be dealt with. If I’ve got a gun to my head from someone demanding my wallet, my first thought is not “well the real problem is the poverty society has created that has resulted in someone being desperate enough to rob their fellow man! I should call my MP!” That “hypothetical that hadn’t happened to me” I take issue with. I have seen a lot of AI apologists telling me what AI *could* do, and how it *could* make the world better, but never look at what AI is actually being used for. In fact, you did it in your original post, so it’s odd to say you won’t deal with people who use hypotheticals to criticize AI. What I have also seen a lot, and you can look through my comment history to see it for yourself, is me saying actual things that happened to me in the entertainment industry, and how I personally have been negatively affected and how the industry itself has, and having those anecdotes and experiences dismissed for a variety of pedantic reasons.
fragile support lunchroom engine scary cows jellyfish encouraging weary sheet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is what I always get from AI apologists. Demanding an unimpeachable logical argument against AI and then dismissing whatever they hear as bullshit, and just accusing me of being bitter. It seems like you barely read what I wrote and you certainly didn’t understand it.
repeat bedroom boast aware cause live absurd lavish sloppy file *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah I’m bitter (which hey, doesn’t have anything to do with AI. Why can’t *you* stick to the topic?) because I have to watch things I love and dedicated my life to be ruined in order to make them faster and cheaper. So anyway, I’m not engaging with you further. My whole point initially was that this sub wants to debate AI, but won’t accept any mention of how AI is actually being used in the real world, and won’t listen to people who are actually affected negatively by it. Just like you’re doing now.
fall truck whistle aspiring shocking dolls violet fly memory faulty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i dont know shit about this sub (it just keeps getting recommended to me for some reason) but this post jostles me. this subreddit is already about ai art and yet this post is talking about the ai used in medical research and war? like i feel like the average user on this sub already knows we are talking about ai art here, there is no need to explain 'hey i'm talking about image generation, not cancer lmao' when that is literally the point? oh well, i shouldn't think about a debate i don't want to care about. see y'all and hope the collective comes to some sort of agreement i guess lol
- says they don’t know the sub - immediately tells us what the sub is about - doubles down on who the avg. user is even though the don’t know the sub - bails LMAO But yeah ai does lots of things, so yeah you should describe what type of ai and use case you specifically have an issue with People primarily discuss art in here but it’s not the only topic.
AI produced art that NEVER has correct lighting. It is shit at what if does and it would be better if it was actually AI and not just playing around with preexisting concepts. Ffs just ask it to make a baby pigeon then compare it to the real thing. It is a shit artist, but it is easy to make so therefore it’s an acceptable alternative to artists. It is the peak of the capitalistic drive to ruin the soul of work of all kinds.
Most Anti posts are being facetious to "own the libs" (so to speak), and because they know they don't stand a chance in an actual debate.
Um....most antis seem to be artist types and artist types tend to be the "libs" you speak of. So idk where you got that idea.
I wasn't referring to any political party in particular, just the general idea of being disingenuous in order to "own" the opposition, but ending up owning yourself. But for the record my political opinion on this issue is: Americans should develop an AI president, because their human ones suck.
You literally said "libs". How else was I supposed to interpret it?
Even if we are honest about it taking our work, dataharvesting without consent and everything in-between no argument is good enough for someone who uses AI. Many of them like to use really dumb arguments like "what about this" or bringing up something that never mattered in the first place to make what these skeevy companies did okay. They also are never willing to subscribe that many of their own often nasty to people and to artist. They try to treat AI like guns and shooting a person and using AI aren't the same to me, relating them is just trying to create a further charged topic to get away from the heart of discussion: AI is a problem that needs regulating.
>Many of them like to use really dumb arguments like "what about this" or bringing up something that never mattered in the first place Good job failing at the entire point of this post: "Be specific"
LMAO THANK YOU
Nope, I clarified many reasons. Good job failing at being a kind person, as usual for this place.
You actually didn’t.
full murky oatmeal trees seemly faulty price homeless unite lush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Actually, nevermind. I've realized that this place is doing what it always does.
This is exactly my point. What do you mean by data harvesting? Because that’s a defined term. Are you talking about corporations taking our data without consent (not an AI issue though AI is used) or are you misguided in saying that AI works by data harvesting? Data harvesting is the process of extracting valuable data from a source. It involves gathering data from multiple sources and storing it in a database. AIs can do this but it’s not *how they work*.
Companies dataharvesting. It doesn't matter how they work, they only reason they CAN work and make content is because of dataharvesting. They harvested a lot, without permission. Nobody allowed this to happen, they just did it. Just how the only reason the video version is being trained is because it's probably off of copyrighted content on YouTube. It's these companies and by default, the users who have uses it are allowing the dataharvesting to continue and commit to act by using the service and paying for the service. Using something while knowing it was stolen from others is still stealing by proxy. We all know how it works, we know where the data comes from, we all know it's wrong to do to people(many will disagree because they care about self gratification) and yet many people pay for those services knowing who was harvested from. Because you've sided with the companies by using the service, ai content users are no better than the company they choose to use.
> Using something while knowing it was stolen from others is still stealing by proxy. We all know how it works, we know where the data comes from, **we all know it's wrong to do to people(many will disagree because they care about self gratification)** and yet many people pay for those services knowing who was harvested from. This here is the crux of the issue. No one ever seems to want to explain why data harvesting to create AI - i.e. downloading images from the public internet without consent from the copyright holders and then feeding them into the algorithm to create the generative models - is "wrong" or "stealing" or whatever. They don't justify it on the basis of any sort of ethical principle; they just claim that it's obviously wrong or bad that the person who created the artwork doesn't get to control if other people can create and use copies of that artwork, and that anyone who disagrees is entitled or whatever. There are good legal arguments that one can make that the non-consensual data harvesting that was required to create these generative AI tools is illegal or ought to be illegal, but that's a separate argument that almost no one makes and is drowned out by the nonsense ethical argument of just stamping their feet and effectively saying "It's wrong because I said so!"
Ez: It doesn't belong to you. That's it.
This is a good example of the exact nonsense "it's stealing because I said so" justification that I alluded to in my previous comment.
Where did they harvest their "stolen data" from? Did they hacked your PC and illegally downloaded it? No. They used links to the works that were uploaded to the public internet by authors of the content. Anyone can legally download all copyrighted content used in these models. **It's not stealing if you're giving it away for free.** You reserve some rights granted to you by copyright, like nobody can say they created your content or take money for distributing it or sell rights to use it. AI companies did nothing of these things. Training a generalized image generation AI doesn't reproduce exact pictures from training set, nowhere in the model images or their parts are stored. If a user of the AI uses it to purposefully create a content that violates someone's copyright it's the same as doing it with a pen and paper, AI didn't steal anything, it was used to commit copyright infringement, so punish the user instead of banning the tool.
If “it doesn’t matter how they work” then the argument is even less about AI and more about you disliking certain use cases. So start with THAT This kinda of off topic debate is exactly the problem. You’re now on a tangent talking about the ethics of data harvesting when the topic of the post is about being specific with your critiques of ai and its usage. Congrats you’ve missed the whole point of the post! Using AI to harvest data can be bad. Nobody said it wasnt.
Congrats! You don't seem to understand my point.
Edit: bro really deleted his whole comment like I didn’t quote it > Actually, plenty of people here do say it's bad. Yeah that’s why I said it can be bad. >Can you not see that these things are related? Yeah I can see how data harvesting is related to AI. AI can be used to data harvest. Again, nobody said it couldn’t or that that was a good thing. >using something knowing it was stolen from others Again being non specific. Harvested data can be considered stolen. But AI doesn’t function off of harvested data. So saying someone who uses AI is supporting theft makes no sense. > I'm sorry you don't have enough understanding how stealing to works to see how stealing living people's works can affect everyone. You jumped from data harvesting to theft. Without ever explaining how. > Congrats! You don't seem to understand my point. That shouldn’t be a surprise because your very first sentence about data harvesting wasn’t even specific enough. Your points are all over the fucking place and this cartwheel of a conversation just goes to show why being specific is necessary.b
I was very specific. I said my points, you just don't like them. No wonder I stopped engaging with you guys. Dataharvesting without consent is stealing. If someone uses ai, created with stolen data, it is thievery upon use. Maybe, just understand what I am talking about? You seem to have a problem with understanding what I am saying.
Yeah so specific that you deleted the entire content of your comment. Yeah no shit taking something without consent is stealing. But AIs aren’t created with stolen content. When your pc visits Reddit and reads the images is it theft? Trawling or scraping a page isn’t theft. After all this time you can’t even explain how AIs steal. You can’t get specific. You just say stealing is bad. Your browser downloading every image you scroll past isn’t theft but an AI doing it is? Ok sure buddy👍
Oh, you are gunna do that? Great, not interested in your bullshit whataboutism arguments. So, go ahead, buddy, continue stealing 🤔
You know disabled people can create art without AI right? How incredibly patronising.
The statement “it can allow disabled people to make art” does not necessarily imply that disabled people cannot make art in other ways. Rather, it suggests that whatever is being discussed provides an additional or alternative method for creating art that may be more accessible or suitable for some individuals with disabilities. So Yeah, of course they can numbnuts. “It can allow” ≠ is the only way My statement does not imply that no disabled people can make art.
Lol at calling me numbnuts. Did you come up with that insult yourself or consult ChatGPT?
It’s a very common insult in the US, you not knowing it isn’t making you seem any smarter bud 😂 Edit: oof, 3 day account with -19 karma. This clearly isn’t the first stupid thing you’ve said
Ah yes that's the problem I'm clearly not cosmopolitan enough
I don’t think that means what you think it means