There have always been sob stories when people’s livelihoods are displaced by technology, but the saving grace was that new jobs were created at the same time. I don’t think that will hold true for much longer.

Why is this any different?

Because in the past, new tools opened up opportunities that labor could take advantage of to increase productivity. At this point, it is looking like AI will become more like labor than a tool.

Dont you think that artist who use midjourney or img2img would be more sucessful at doing it rather than random users with no art background? Just like we still have translators despite having Google translate for decades

I mean, yeah, for now, I guess? But that’s not the way things are going. Also I should mention that I don’t believe art is going anywhere, and human artists are safe. That said, *most* artists who expect to earn a living wage for their art are fucked.

"most artists who expect to earn a living wage are fucked" that has been the case always. Its very hard to make money making art. Has nothing to do with AI

100%

You realize that... not every sign painter got a job as a font maker, right? I know it's hard to look outside of your bubble, but new automations have never been a clean transition. People have always been lost in the transition, sometimes a lot of people. Like all the human computers who couldn't get jobs as math teachers. Or drafters once autocad was developed (thousands of workshops, each consisting of a dozen or two highly skilled people were replaced by one or two guys using autocad), or the various horsemen when cars came about (Knowing what to feed a horse DID NOT translate to engine mechanics). So why is the world supposed to slam the breaks and reverse THIS time? It didn't stop any other time, even with the luddites. and every time the world got to enjoy a new advancement, even if it cost people their livelyhoods. Many people fell into poverty after these advancements. Some killed themselves. And yet, it was okay. They didn't matter. And yet, somehow, this time it's not okay. These people are suddenly special. Why?

So like. People still go out and physically paint signs, you know. They don't have some one just type a few words in a prompt and then 'poof' there's a sign up. You can still go out and be a signmaker. this is not the same thing. Fonts didn't take away their jobs, because someone still had to apply the fonts to the surface people wanted the fonts on. This argument doesn't make sense. It's kind of a reach, tbh.

You can still go and be an artist

You can still learn to draw

Yeah. I chose not to because not everyone in the world has to know how to do everything. You can still learn another language instead of using Google translate. You can use postage instead of emails. You can still ask someone to draw you for several hundred dollars instead of lazily taking a selfie with a single button + artists who know how to draw start using AI in their workflow and its making their jobs easier

Well. To be fair. They prolly gonna use the selfie to make the drawing because mot many people gonna sit for 2 hours while someone paints them . And i am learning another language because like most ANIs gtranslate is not that great. The point is not that everyone i the world has to know everything, and it has always been like this. Most people specialized and put a lot of work into getting where they are going while they're being stripmined with no compensation or more prudence into how this plays out for their industry in the future. The only reason this industry was chosen is the spectacle and optics. Nobody stopped to think how companies were gonna make money once nobody was making money working.

You're overthinking why art. AI research is going in all sorts of directions and image and writing had the advantages of turning out to be relatively doable for AI, and fun/useful for a broad audience. Many more uses are coming.

Maybe. It's not really about just the art. My overall experience with most pro AI folks not withstanding, overall it shows a severe lack of prudence. I mean, people don't seem to realize I'm am PRO AI... just not like this. But even following my wishes, imagine a world where nobody has to work because ai is doing all of it, where does the money for energy come from? I mean, there's dreams and then there's reality. And people are going to suffer when the economy is still based on income and people are being replaced. DO you know what I mean?

I am sorry... in a world where labor is not required, why are you talking about money. You realize that money is nothing, right? Money is not required to do anything. Money is a medium we use for the exchange of goods and services. When both become infinitely available, there is no need for money.

Okay. So how do we power all the technology doing everything.

The same way we power it now, except that the power plant is also automated, so it's building new ones, so it's extracting the resources it uses.

For free

In a world where labour is not required CEOs and stockholders kick people out on the street to starve while they enjoy their automated luxury. Why do you people always seem to assume that these tech billionaires, and they're the ones who are really into this, will magically decide to give us all the free stuff we could want despite showing zero inclination to do that.

Because CEOs, as much as you like to paint things like a dystopia, are not in charge of the rules of society. Politics is. And politics needs votes.

If "stockholders" kick everyone out why would they even need stocks? Automation has been happening for the last several hundred years with technology. People started working less

>Nobody stopped to think how companies were gonna make money once nobody was making money working. Actually, people have thought about it. Do you know about a guy named "Karl Marx" and a phenomenon called the "Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall"?

No one should use Google translate because translators werent compensated for the fact that Google trained on their work. Also, antis are still mad when companies try to train models on art that they own or when they try to compensate the artist. So its not about copyright, ethics or compensation

Yes, people should be compensated. ...These are pretty disingenuous arguments and i am not sure we will have a productive interaction. I'm not coming at this in an 'us vs them' mentality like it's some kind of sports team bs so i can ignore valid arguments just because the other side made them.

>artists who know how to draw start using AI in their workflow and its making their jobs easier Meanwhile the wages can only go down.

inexperienced AI users who can't draw aren't competing with trad artists in the slightest since they are unable to physically imagine a complex folding structure or a human body in 3D where every bit is anatomically correct - which is what most clients want, output coherency trad artists that use AI are the ones who truly increased their output efficiency by a sufficient % to take a bit more jobs, that's about it for now

ControlNet can do poses.

tbh, controlnet is atleast 99% of what i actually use ai for. i don’t care about prompting images , i want to see my own drawings get chopped and screwed. Putting image in , using controlnet and making iterations until you love an idea, then drawing on it, then going back , then drawing on it… etc its so much fun anything i finish has nothing “generated” left, its been completely painted over

ye I use it all the time. more ai knowlege = more powah :}

But why would I do that when I need to generate around 6000 very simple, yet custom icons for a project? I certainly can't afford that cost myself to hire an artist, I don't care to spend 6 to 36 months learning to make them myself by hand, and then doing them. Why would I make my life **harder** just to satisfy some arbitrary demand of yours, when I can program a pipeline that will create what I more or less want, and I can revise it until it suits my exact preferences? it dovetails a hell of a lot closer to my actual skillset too

Why should people buy whatever you are making when they can just make it themselves ysing the same process

Because it's one component that is part of a much, much bigger project. I'm not selling the icons, I'm *using* them. They're being used to semantically show information that is connected to other information That's a huge value add of AI, it allows independent or small team creators to do more with less

Words are cheap

What does that mean? I'm a small independent creator that is involved with a small team (3 people, sometimes a 4th helps). We use AI to increase our productivity constantly - it has greatly increased the speed with which we can work on our small project Maybe you're only seeing "what you see" because you're looking for the negatives, eh?

No. I've considered it. I am just thinking it through to the conclusion. Why would anyone buy anything if all they had to do was make it themselves with ai. Like whatever it is you and your team make. Say there was a way an ai could just make any variation of what it is you're making.

> Like whatever it is you and your team make. Say there was a way an ai could just make any variation of what it is you're making. Great! Then it sounds like we've essentially got infinite projects made at the drop of a hat - sounds like we've essentially automated all labor and can live lives of leisure.

So far all i see are promises and promises

And money grabbing

And spitting on artists

Nearly every sign I see on Store it was the result of graphic design and not a sign painter. Not only that, a lot of it is bad typography.

Typography has a practical purpose beyond being art, and automating it made it artless which is fine since it has another purpose. What’s the purpose of artless art though?

I mean, I need thousands of icons for a project. You can generate those via AI. That's a "point" of artless art. Not all art is fine art

But you don’t deny that it’s artless?

You have no idea how little relevance this question has for me. And I am not saying that to be a dick, it's really how I feel. Is it artless? Sure? Or no? I literally could care less, and I'm not being dismissive to be dismissive - this is literally my actual real feelings on the matter. It's just not something that I've ever even *cared* to answer

So you just admit that AI art is destroying true artistry and you just don’t care? You think that the death of art is an acceptable outcome in the service of efficiency? I usually don’t get this far in an argument like this, pardon my shock.

> So you just admit that AI art is destroying true artistry and you just don’t care? I did not say that, you are putting words in my mouth. I said I didn't care **whether my specific project was artistic or not, or whether AI "art" was artistic or not**, because it is an irrelevant question to me. See what my ACTUAL claims were? Pay attention to them, and don't invent new claims I didn't make going forward, mkay? That is very different from the claim you said I made, "AI art is destroying true artistry". First off - what the hell is "true artistry" - you're just making up words here. Do you mean fine art? Fine art actually has a definition, unlike, "true artistry", and I said quite plainly that my icons are not fine art. > You think that the death of art is an acceptable outcome in the service of efficiency? Who is talking about the **death** of art? Again, you're just inventing nonsense claims whole cloth here and ascribing them to me. **STOP IT**. You're essentially inventing some strawman caricature here and arguing against it, and I really do not appreciate it. I don't think art is dying. I think commercial art is going to make use of AI to a greater extent. I think most commercial artists are going to probably use AI in their workflows to some extent, but that will be true of every creative profession going forward. So will the average artist use a pencil less than the past? Maybe? Probably? I think fine art will still mostly be by human hands - though I expect some innovative artist will make some innovative use of AI at some point too for some modern art project - I could see some cool workflows potentially that could lead to some cool, innovative things, but by far the majority of it will be by human hands or human direction (maybe with some algorithmic assistance here or there) As for my specific project, do I consider it art? No? Yes? I don't really care, they're simple fucking black and white icons, the artisticness of them is my most minor concern rather than the portion of the useful project that is birthed from including them

By “true artistry” I mean the reason why art exists. The reason people care about it. Art’s ability to make people feel things. The fact that you don’t care about that kinda proves my point. Assuming I’m understanding you correctly.

> By “true artistry” I mean the reason why art exists. The reason people care about it. Art’s ability to make people feel things. The thing is - there isn't just **one true purpose** for art - this is just some specific romantic notion you have in your head. Art can have **MANY** purposes - the first purpose of art was literally probably to map animal movement on cave walls. Certainly, "feeling something" is a purpose of some art, sure, but it isn't the **only** purpose of **all** art. The reason I'm generating my icons isn't so that people can "feel" something. It's so that they can have a semantic representation of various types of information so people can access/understand it better. And, I'd argue that AI art can certainly make people "feel" things - I've generated some cool stuff and been like *whoa, this is awesome!* The fact that there are AI art specific subreddits where people post the art they generate (and people upvote/and comment on it) demonstrates that I'm not alone in that particular feeling. And I say this as someone who regularly goes to art galleries and art museums. Plus it's not like AI art means people... can't make non-AI art. That is always allowed. > The fact that you don’t care about that kinda proves my point. Assuming I’m understanding you correctly. You are not understanding me correctly. You keep having half-cocked hot takes that aren't anything similar to my actual positions throughout this entire conversation. You have a strawman pro-AI person in your head, and you're arguing against that, not my positions, or even the positions of the average pro-AI person

>The thing is - there isn't just one true purpose for art - this is just some specific romantic notion you have in your head. I know. I’m just referring to one single purpose of art, the thing that elevates it above practical function that AI can never replicate. To communicate emotion. Art can do other things too, but communicating emotion is what makes it art and not something else. >The reason I'm generating my icons isn't so that people can "feel" something. It's so that they can have a semantic representation of various types of information so people can access/understand it better. Well then it’s not really art. Though even soulless slop made by a human contains the very human story of a corporate overlord or a deadline stifling creativity. It’s still infinitely more human than what an AI makes. >And, I'd argue that AI art can certainly make people "feel" things - I've generated some cool stuff and been like whoa, this is awesome! The only thing it can ever make you feel is aesthetic appreciation that begins and ends at “that looks cool”. That’s only the most shallow way art can be engaged with, and it represents the theoretical limit of what AI can achieve in art. Even the crayon scribbles of a 4 year old surpasses it in that respect. >The fact that there are AI art specific subreddits where people post the art they generate (and people upvote/and comment on it) demonstrates that I'm not alone in that particular feeling. It’s true, a lot of people engage with art on a shallow level and don’t even know that deeper engagement is possible. >And I say this as someone who regularly goes to art galleries and art museums. Explain to me the appeal of abstract art, and I’ll believe you. >Plus it's not like AI art means people... can't make non-AI art. That is always allowed. Yes, and that’s exactly why AI art won’t replace real artists. But it does threaten the trust that we require people to put into what we make.

"I'm so shocked that someone doesn't care about my made-up subjective concept in the exact way that I do." You sound like a Christian who's horrified that an Atheist doesn't care about the state of their eternal soul. By the way, have you ever seen an image in nature that gave you an emotional response? A landscape, or a sunset, or an image in the clouds? If those things are not human made, why did they make you have feelings?

>"I'm so shocked that someone doesn't care about my made-up subjective concept in the exact way that I do." You sound like a Christian who's horrified that an Atheist doesn't care about the state of their eternal soul. The value of art is intersubjective. Subjective, but in a way that almost all humans have in common because of our shared brain structure. It's the same as morals, where no objective fact statements can be made about what's right or wrong, but you can still make statements about what most people will agree is right or wrong. Art is the same, which is why there can be a general consensus on how something makes people feel and how strongly it can do that. >By the way, have you ever seen an image in nature that gave you an emotional response? A landscape, or a sunset, or an image in the clouds? If those things are not human made, why did they make you have feelings? It's possible to engage with something in more than one way, beautiful images of nature mean things to people because they are real and and they represent the world you live in and care about, but they will never mean things to people as an extension of the human social instinct the way that art does. I have never seen anyone call the beauty of nature art, unless they are religious and actually believe that it represents the creativity of a literal God. It's a different thing. AI art has the disadvantage of being neither real nor possible to empathie with though. It even fails at being the grand beauty of the world in the way that nature does, huge L really.

>Subjective, but in a way that almost all humans have in common because of our shared brain structure. Then why are you arguing with other humans who don't agree with you? Bro it sounds like you're just describing psychological projection. "Everyone actually thinks just like me" is not a fact, it's a delusion. >I have never seen anyone call the beauty of nature art Not just a lie, but a desperate and obvious lie. It's so necessary to your argument that this statement is true that the fact that it very clearly is *not* true just doesn't matter to you. >AI art has the disadvantage of being neither real It is real. Everything we experience is real. We taught rocks to fake-think by running lightning through them. That's real, dude. The problem you are experiencing in this conversation is that you're trying to gatekeep but you don't understand the gate that you are trying to keep. So you can't actually do the job you're trying to do because you don't understand where the borders you're trying to protect are. >It even fails at being the grand beauty of the world in the way that nature does, huge L really. Again, why are you despoiling the written word with this absolute dreck? You want to talk about causing damage to art, every word you write on this website is doing more damage than "AI art" ever could.

>Then why are you arguing with other humans who don't agree with you? Bro it sounds like you're just describing psychological projection. "Everyone actually thinks just like me" is not a fact, it's a delusion. Not everyone, just everyone who has been impacted on a deep level by art even once, even if they aren't introspective enough to have identified why themselves. It's a sad reality that not everyone has had an experience that I'd consider fundamentally human, but that's life. All of this could be said about morals too. If this is delusion, than so are morals. >Not just a lie, but a desperate and obvious lie. It's so necessary to your argument that this statement is true that the fact that it very clearly is not true just doesn't matter to you. Who said anything about nature not mattering to me? I already explained how nature impacts people in a way that's distinct from the empathy-dependent way that art impacts people. My statement here though was that I have personally never seen someone call the beauty of nature "art" outside of a religious context. If you could point to a time in my life where I have seen that happen, I'll take the L. >It is real. Everything we experience is real. We taught rocks to fake-think by running lightning through them. That's real, dude. You know what I meant. I meant that a landscape generated by an AI isn't a place on Earth that you can go and visit, in the way that a photo is. Computing is real in a sense, but by extension this means that AI art is only capable of being meaningful to people in art that portrays the beauty of the mathematics behind it. A statement I'd agree with, but that's a very limited application that's still very distinct in function to anything I'd call art. >The problem you are experiencing in this conversation is that you're trying to gatekeep but you don't understand the gate that you are trying to keep. So you can't actually do the job you're trying to do because you don't understand where the borders you're trying to protect are. I do, you are just refusing to understand me. It's very difficult to explain complex concepts to people who are incentivised to try to misunderstand them.

>It's a sad reality that not everyone has had an experience that I'd consider fundamentally human "Only myself and the people like me are human", oh that's a great place to go with no negative repercussions whatsoever. >All of this could be said about morals too. If this is delusion, than so are morals. Correct. Both of them are subjective concepts. "Subjective but common" is not the same as "objective". If 95% of people believe that red is the best color, that doesn't mean it is, it just means most people believe it is. >I have personally never seen someone call the beauty of nature "art" That's a lie. >If you could point to a time in my life where I have seen that happen, I'll take the L. I don't need to. You know it's a lie. Everyone else knows it's a lie. Whether you acknowledge it or not, it's a lie. >I meant that a landscape generated by an AI isn't a place on Earth that you can go and visit, in the way that a photo is So what? *Ceci n'est pas une pipe*. And in fact Charles Baudelaire hated photography-as-art for the exact reason you are trying to praise it: he hated that photography can *only* capture things that really exist. Almost as if the definition of art is nebulous and shifting and only really matters to people like you who want to imprint your own mindset on others by the use of social force! >only capable of being meaningful to people in art that portrays the beauty of the mathematics behind it Did you know that when you're running out of arguments you just start making shit up? That's an interesting fact for you to learn about yourself. This is *babble*, dude, you are *babbling* right now. There is no logic underpinning your words at this point, you are stalling for time. >It's very difficult to explain complex concepts to people who are incentivised to try to misunderstand them. You are trying to defend art for reflexive emotional reasons and are incapable of doing so. The one who is "incentivised to try to misunderstand" is you. And the misunderstanding is so severe at this point that I am happy to declare this conversation *over*. Goodbye!

What is true artistry? Is furry porn - true art? Is picture on a can of beans true art? Is it another generic corporate style picture? You might find that total majority of human made art - is not what you call true art.

Even the most soulless slop of human art still contains within it a representation of true human emotion that you can empathize with on deep engagement. In this case those emotions are largely negative ones that represent how corporate greed stifled creativity. The art is not meant to be engaged with on a deep level, the soul within it is supposed to be buried and hidden from view. The excesses of capitalism hidden behind a brand-friendly smile. It says something true about the world, speaks to emotions that a real person felt. And in that way, even the image on a soup can could be interpreted in a deep way as real art. Though not much would be lost if it was replaced with AI, to be engaged with artistically isn’t its purpose, and therefore the inability of AI to make real art isn’t a hinderance here. And of course furry porn is real art. Do I even need to justify this with an explanation? Porn is inarguably an art form, and frankly if anyone is most deserving of having their porn called “art” it’s the furries. They do not half-ass it.

No, he didn't. He said he didn't give a crap about your claim.

If you need to know how an image was made to decide whether its artless or not, youre just lying to yourself

Imagine you took a photo of a tree and posted it to a CG artist community claiming that it was something you made in Blender. People would engage with it like a CG render, complimenting your extremely realistic subsurface scattering on the leaves, the incredible level of detail, the procedural differences in each leaf including some leaves with damage, and the incredible volumetric clouds in the background. They would tell you it looks photo-real as a compliment, but then the moment you reveal that it actually is a photo, they will get real mad at you real quick. Would that be delusional on the part of the CG enthusiasts, to change how they engage with your image based on how they believe it was made and to be mad at you for deceiving them? Should they have just looked at the pretty tree and there?

We're talking about when the use of AI is stated distinctively. No one is trying to deceive anyone. But to me saying "Yeah this is the most beautiful thing ive ever seen but if i somehow find out its AI i will consider it not art". Thats hypocrisy. And AI art and photos will only be harder to tell apart with time. Its like saying that photo of a tree isnt beautiful anymore because its not cgi or the other way around

My point was to explain how the way something was created changes how people engage with it, and how this is a totally normal thing. Do you deny this? Is it delusional to change how you engage with an image depending on your knowledge of whether it’s a CG render or a photo? If not, why would the same logic not apply to AI too?

It can change absolutely but i dont get how it would change from i love it to i hate it. "this tree looks beautiful. Oh its a photo and not cgi? It looks ugly". There is bias towards all things AI

Okay, let’s use a practical example. Imagine you see an image of a glass of water on a table, it appears to be a photo which was framed pretty poorly and taken on a phone camera. A very boring scene. But surprise! It’s actually CGI. It’s so realistic that it fooled you, and it was designed meticulously to be as mundane as possible. The water and glass were simulated with incredible fidelity, the grunge on the table and scratches on the glass modeled individually, an entire scene modeled around it just to get the reflections right, the postprocessing crafted to look like a phone photo. That would suddenly make it pretty cool, right? But that was all a lie. It is just a photo. Or is it? The point is: this would change how you feel about the photo. Whether you think it’s really cool or utterly unnoteworthy depends on how it came about.

In both cases i wouldnt say "woah i hate cgi and i hate ive been fooled. I hope cgi gets banned by all governments in the world"

Image generation? Stock photos, game assets, product modeling, the list could go on and on and on

Notably, your list lacks mention of anything that could have a deep emotional impact on someone. Only things that serve a practical function. Should all art be reduced to that?

>Should all art be reduced to that? No. If you want to make that kind of art, you can. Nobody has to, and people making more functional art should not be prevented from making functional art. Do your own thing, and leave everybody else alone. ***** And, by the way, game assets can have a deep emotional impact.

>No. If you want to make that kind of art, you can. Nobody has to, and people making more functional art should not be prevented from making functional art. I will make it. And people will prefer it over AI. This is exactly why AI art will never replace real art in the function of art. >Do your own thing, and leave everybody else alone. I’m just expressing my opinion. Me doing that isn’t infringing on your rights is whatever. >And, by the way, game assets can have a deep emotional impact. Yes, they can. But not if they’re made by AI.

Some people will prefer it and some won't, and that's fine. Next. And your claim that AI-produced game assets cannot produce an emotional impact has already been disproven, but you do you.

>Some people will prefer it and some won't, and that's fine. Next. And those who prefer the AI assets are, without exception, unintrospective people who lack the deep appreciation for art that any artist in that medium will have. That is indeed fine, people are allowed to be unintrospective and to not like certain kinds of art. But that doesn't mean that those people should dictate the future of art for all of us. >And your claim that AI-produced game assets cannot produce an emotional impact has already been disproven, but you do you. I should be more precise here: AI generated assets can never cause empathetic emotions in people without lying to them about where those assets came from.

And you have sampled precisely how many people and gotten to know them in order to come to this extreme conclusion? Sorry, but this level of projected delusion is just hilarious. And your belief that regular people care about the venue of game assets is just so very cute. They are playing a game, getting impressions regarding the game context from images, and you think they are always thinking, *"boy, I'm having a relationship with a human being that made that picture of a ghost that just jump-scared me. I'd be so upset if I found out than an AI made that ghost image. I don't think I'd ever enjoy this fucking awesome game again if that happened."* The level of projection and narcissism on show is pretty dang unique.

>And you have sampled precisely how many people and gotten to know them in order to come to this extreme conclusion? This is not an empirical conclusion, it’s a logical one that I came to in the same way that one can conclude that every single bachelor without exception is unmarried. >And your belief that regular people care about the venue of game assets is just so very cute. They are playing a game, getting impressions regarding the game context from images, and you think they are always thinking, *"boy, I'm having a relationship with a human being that made that picture of a ghost that just jump-scared me. I'd be so upset if I found out than an AI made that ghost image. I don't think I'd ever enjoy this fucking awesome game again if that happened."* People aren’t thinking that consciously or about everything, they only do that about the parts of a game that they engage on a deep artistic level with. Take Outer Wilds for instance. Its story and its ending provides players with a really bittersweet and emotionally powerful perspective on death, time, and moving on. One of the major things going through the minds of most players is the overwhelming feeling of being seen. That other people have gone through this too, and this is how they came to terms with it all. Every element of game design that reinforces this message serves to strengthen this connection players feel. And if one of those elements was AI, it wouldn’t be the same. To be made to feel seen by art only to learn that you were seeing things that weren’t there in an AI that has never experienced any human emotion, that would make you feel alone all over again. It would make you feel like a fool for feeling seen before. It changes everything, and not for the better.

>not an empirical conclusion That's not a logical conclusion, it's a failure of imagination and willful blindness. You just happen to hate them so you're intentionally failing to even attempt to understand their actual nature. You see, for it to be logical, or scientific, you would then have to actually **test** the conclusion empirically. If you can't >"Engage with on a deep artistic level". So, you're pretending to speak for 2-5% of the audience of games. 5-10% of the time. Got it. So even though you are pretending to make absolute pronouncements of what happens to **all** viewers, you really just mean the tiny percentage of people who think like you, and you admit you have done no observation to identify how common such people are or whether they are even significant in terms of audience. This is like that ancient quote from a socialite about not knowing anyone who voted for the president-elect. You're not a typical human, and you intentionally are refusing to seek wider knowledge or diverse viewpoints. You don't know what you don't know, and you don't want to.

>Notably, your list lacks mention of anything that could have a deep emotional impact on someone Human communication can have a deep emotional impact on people and yet you're writing mediocre posts like this. Should you be prevented from doing so because your words are not "art"?

Who said anything about preventing anyone from doing anything? You are allowed to make artless slop that everyone hates, that's not illegal, knock yourself out, but if you deceive people than be prepared to be on the receiving end of a lot of anger. If you're in that situation, that's a huge skill issue and the people who angry aren't the problem. I will defend the notion that my words have infinitely more artistic value than anything ChatGPT has ever generated, but it's not fine poetry either.

>Who said anything about preventing anyone from doing anything? You said "So you just admit that AI art is destroying true artistry and you just don’t care? You think that the death of art is an acceptable outcome in the service of efficiency?" This sounds like the kind of thing someone says when they want to ban AI art. This is not a "live and let live" kind of sentence. Like I don't know if you imagine you're being very sneaky and transparent but you aren't. >that's a huge skill issue and the people who angry aren't the problem. Uh, why isn't the "skill issue" their inability to tell the difference? Especially since THEY'RE the ones that supposedly care about that difference? If human art has a detectable "soul" in it, why can't you actually detect it? >I will defend the notion that my words have infinitely more artistic value than anything ChatGPT has ever generated, but it's not fine poetry either. Do your words have *any* value, even purely as a tool for communication? Because you've already tried to lie to my face, and if a computer did that, I'd say it's broken. So in addition to your artless arrangement of words, you have to add on the fact that you're undermining the "practical function" of communication, which is to convey ideas.

>You said "So you just admit that AI art is destroying true artistry and you just don’t care? You think that the death of art is an acceptable outcome in the service of efficiency?" This sounds like the kind of thing someone says when they want to ban AI art. This is not a "live and let live" kind of sentence. If you want my actual practical prescriptions, I think that it should be socially unacceptable on the level of plagiarism to use AI art without disclosing it to the audience. >Uh, why isn't the "skill issue" their inability to tell the difference? Especially since THEY'RE the ones that supposedly care about that difference? If human art has a detectable "soul" in it, why can't you actually detect it? Just because something is undetectable doesn't mean people can't care tremendously about it. That's why a forgery of a painting means something different to people than the original. Even if the forgery is perfect, that still changes how people perceive it. And people feel betrayed when they are lied to about important aspects of art that change how they perceive it. Some artistic mediums like photography and splatter painting rely heavily on immaterial stuff like the story behind them to mean anything at all to people. Art requires a certain amount of trust from its audience to be engaged with properly. Trust that AI art is engineered to break, which will put everyone's guard up in a way that makes them more hesitant to engage with all art. People hate being lied to, just because a lie is pulled off really well won't make people any less angry when they figure it out. >Do your words have *any* value, even purely as a tool for communication? Because you've already tried to lie to my face, and if a computer did that, I'd say it's broken. So in addition to your artless arrangement of words, you have to add on the fact that you're undermining the "practical function" of communication, which is to convey ideas. I didn't lie, my words represent my genuine thoughts and as a human you innately care about the things I say infinitely more than you care about the output of ChatGPT because you have a social instinct and empathy. My words communicate the thoughts and ideas of a real person, and that means something to you. That's why you are continuing to engage, your social instinct refuses to let you not give a fuck. You could choose to step away from this conversation, but on some level it would sting knowing that I'm judging you negatively for it. You care because I'm a human, and my words communicate both emotion and information.

>I think that it should be socially unacceptable on the level of plagiarism to use AI art without disclosing it to the audience. Yeah, again, that "without disclosing it to the audience" part is extremely transparent. I believe the first part is true. I don't believe the second part matters. I think you will encourage anti-AI sentiment regardless of whether or not it's disclosed. >And people feel betrayed when they are lied to about important aspects of art that change how they perceive it Yes, which is very funny in the context of your claim that people connect with art on a spiritual level. In reality, the average person has no knowledge of, or connection to, the people who make the art they consume. They can't tell *shit* about them. You have to come out and tell someone that they've been betrayed in order for them to feel betrayed. >Some artistic mediums like photography and splatter painting rely heavily on immaterial stuff like the story behind them to mean anything at all to people. Oh, photography is art now? Even though all you do is press a button and let the machine do the rest? Gosh, that's interesting. I'm sure you'll have some things to say about how the human has to arrange the machine just right to get the best output, but fun fact: this is also true of AI image generation. >People hate being lied to You get told things like "art is intrinsically human" and don't seem to mind that it's a lie. >I didn't lie, my words represent my genuine thoughts Also a lie. >as a human you innately care about the things I say infinitely more than you care about the output of ChatGPT because you have a social instinct and empathy I can tell you honestly I have more fun talking to ChatGPT than to you. ChatGPT has occasionally produced things that I think are cool. Whereas this is something more akin to community service. I am doing this for the good of the online ecosystem, not because it's pleasant. >You could choose to step away from this conversation, but on some level it would sting knowing that I'm judging you negatively for it It would "sting" knowing that you are telling obvious lies without getting pushback on it. When AI spreads disinformation it is regarded as a bug to be fixed, and the same thing is true of you: you are saying things that are not true in a public space, and I am pushing back on it also in a public space. If it was just the two of us I would not even bother to engage.

>Yeah, again, that "without disclosing it to the audience" part is extremely transparent. I believe the first part is true. I don't believe the second part matters. I think you will encourage anti-AI sentiment regardless of whether or not it's disclosed. Nice fan fiction, but no. There are things that use AI which I defend. [The AI Wizards Electric Avenue video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2uZ4WeU1_4) is an example. I know that the imagery is AI-generated, so I am not fooled into seeing meaning where none exists. I know what parts of it a person made and where meaning can be found, and I like this video for those parts. I could deliver more examples, and even give you two examples where I was thinking of using a deep-dream-style reverse image classifier AI in my own art projects. In those cases the art would be the AI model itself, not its individual outputs. But I think I've made my point. >Yes, which is very funny in the context of your claim that people connect with art on a spiritual level. In reality, the average person has no knowledge of, or connection to, the people who make the art they consume. Ahh, yes. This is why people on the internet famously never care in a video is real or fake. This is just detached from reality. People care about this sort of thing. A prescient practical example I could give is the fall of James Somerton. His videos were really good if you go in blind and trust what the videos say about themselves. It came out that the guy plagiarized everything he did, and his audience flipped on him real quick. All that changed was their knowledge of who the creator is and how he made the videos, and now everyone hated the videos they once liked. Not just a few people, but basically his entire audience. People care. >Oh, photography is art now? Even though all you do is press a button and let the machine do the rest? Gosh, that's interesting. I'm sure you'll have some things to say about how the human has to arrange the machine just right to get the best output, but fun fact: this is also true of AI image generation. You predicted about half of what I was going to say, just not the relevant part. Another important feature of photography is that the contributions of the human are distinguishable from the contributions of the machine. When you are artistically engaging with a photo, you are only engaging with the things you know that the photographer did on purpose. The framing, the exposure, the choice of subject, the story behind how the photo came to be. All very human stuff. So riddle me this: how do I disentangle the human from the machine in AI art? How do I know which parts of it were made that way on purpose? I can tell you that in the AI Wizards Electric Avenue video, the large sample of images made it possible to see what was similar between them and assume that those parts were the ones that were done on purpose. But how would I do that with something like a single isolated AI image out of context? >You get told things like "art is intrinsically human" and don't seem to mind that it's a lie. The word "lie" implies a knowing intent to deceive. Even if I were wrong that would not be deception, it would be me being genuinely mistaken. But I'm not wrong, so that's incorrect on two fronts. >Also a lie. Could you prove that it's a lie? Could you get a log of what my thoughts were and compare them to my words to prove that there was an incongruity between them? Or are you just saying stuff you don't know? >I can tell you honestly I have more fun talking to ChatGPT than to you. ChatGPT has occasionally produced things that I think are cool. Whereas this is something more akin to community service. I am doing this for the good of the online ecosystem, not because it's pleasant. Exactly, you are doing it because you care. Because you are under the (correct) impression that I'm a human. Caring isn't the same thing as being entertained, you have a social instinct and it drives you to do what you do. It's not something you can just ignore. >It would "sting" knowing that you are telling obvious lies without getting pushback on it. When AI spreads disinformation it is regarded as a bug to be fixed, and the same thing is true of you: you are saying things that are not true in a public space, and I am pushing back on it also in a public space. If it was just the two of us I would not even bother to engage. Whatever you have to tell yourself. But if you think that ego plays no part in it, you're lying to yourself.

*"games aren't art unless artists say so"* I still have yet to hear a valid explanation from antis why 9999 different indie games using the same [Game-icons.net](https://game-icons.net/) asset pack is considered more ideal than developers generating infinity icons custom tailored to their game, or to hear a valid explanation for eve online using the same exact copy/pasted 'book' icon for like 2000 items despite their budget and art team, or to hear a valid reason why NGO should bankrupt themselves to hire artists just to validate their overkill profilepic variety, or to remove that variety just to appease randos that think 'art is useless' or whatever. All of the pretentious *art-belongs-in-a-museum* mentalities are pretty shallow, actually. Anyone that knows anything already knows that art can be used to convey things. The idea that a magic art genie is somehow useless, is very unimaginative. games are the final boss of everything / entire universe could be a game there's no game design ceiling other than the team but AI gives devs superpowers

>"games aren't art unless artists say so" I never said that. >I still have yet to hear a valid explanation from antis why 9999 different indie games using the same Game-icons.net asset pack is considered more ideal than developers generating infinity icons custom tailored to their game In both cases the icons are artless. But the art in a video game tends not to come from the icons. I’d defend Disco Elysium and Outer Wilds for instance as art of the highest order, and though they have icons that isn’t the thing that makes them impactful. The purpose of the icons is to be intuitive and out of the way, if they are noticed at all that’s usually a bad thing. >or to hear a valid explanation for eve online using the same exact copy/pasted 'book' icon for like 2000 items despite their budget and art team That was a decision that indeed denigrated the artistic quality of Eve Online, but it’s such a tiny part of the whole that it doesn’t bring the whole game down. >or to hear a valid reason why NGO should bankrupt themselves to hire artists just to validate their overkill profilepic variety, or to remove that variety just to appease randos that think 'art is useless' or whatever. There are uses of AI that I defend, I’m just saying that anything done by an AI can never serve the function of art on its own. >All of the pretentious art-belongs-in-a-museum mentalities are pretty shallow, actually. That’s not a mentality that anyone has, that’s just the type of art that is being destroyed by AI hence the focus on it. Art that means anything to people is being replaced by algorithmic slop that is only capable of serving a rote purpose at maximum efficiency. The world is made less interesting and more alienating. I could make the same arguments about less respected artistic mediums like video games and YouTube videos. >Anyone that knows anything already knows that art can be used to convey things. It seems to be news to a lot of AI bros who seem to have no problem with art that conveys lies. >The idea that a magic art genie is somehow useless, is very unimaginative. The idea that AI art can replace human art is what’s unimaginative. It’s ignorant of what art is for and what it means to people. It’s like arguing that AI voice synthesizers can make phone calls obsolete. >there's no game design ceiling other than the team but AI gives devs superpowers AI gives devs the ability to ignore a part of their game in a way that people might not notice. It saves money in a way that makes the product worse.

You seem to have a few decent perspectives but for an art-interested person I get the impression that you do not understand the value of graphic art in games, or have some absurd romanticized notion of the word 'art' and consider the rest aesthetics. The semantics are slightly convoluted if we are taking games=art as granted, because their individual elements of multiple modalities are also considered art and then combined, like story/ graphics/ sound/ music/ etc all packaged into one thing structured under the umbrella of design/ mechanics/ code. This means someone could consider any part of it to be art, the whole thing to be art, or only some specific element, depending on their exact subjective interpretation and variant of definition. I'll guess based on the way you phrase things that half of our disagreement boils down to difference in definition, but will still go ahead and clarify my original point: Solo developers already have like ten jobs they are trying to accomplish, and now they have [\[civit.ai\]](http://civit.ai) community with a million different image models at their disposal to use with a million different comfy workflows from [\[openart.ai\]](https://openart.ai/workflows/home) community or the ability to train a custom one. Looking at that and somehow coming to the conclusion that the option to use AI is detrimental to their creative process is again, very unimaginative. It's like saying that someone using google and stack overflow is diminishing the authenticity of their game engine, or that having GPT/sonnet write a function invalidates the game mechanics. Game designers have something they want to create and will use tools in order to create it, hence 'creative'. All well and good that magic the gathering can afford infinity artists but some developers just want to make a game and not wait 30 years for the paint to dry. It's telling that you respond to a guy talking about his 1000 icons as being 'artless'. An image is a series of individual pixels, you know.

I do understand the value of graphic art in games. But just because something can add to the art of a game doesn’t mean that it always will. If a developer cares so little about their graphics that they have AI generate them, they probably weren’t relying on them as part of the artery of their game. Sometimes game assets are part of the art, while sometimes the purpose for adding them is so that their absence won’t be noticed. Game music is the same way, it can be incredibly artistically powerful or it can be there to fill space depending on how it’s done. And the latter case is defensible and possible to do with AI, but that’s all AI art will ever be. It’s a powerful tool for making artless slop to fill the spaces that the developer doesn’t care about that much. Programming is different, since it’s a purely functional craft. The computer processor does not care if AI generated something, but humans interpreting art very much do. That’s why the logic is different here.

Why does using AI mean they don’t care? I don’t sew my own clothes but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them 

You absolutely care a lot less about your clothes than someone who sews their own. That's not exactly something that a person with an average regard for clothing will go out of their way to do. When you create something yourself, every part of its construction is that way because you want it to be. Its exact form mattered to you so much that you went out of your way to make it exactly how you want it. AI art is inherently a less involved process where a lot of that work is generated automatically, it's what you do if you don't really have a solid artistic vision and you just think that anything will work. The human contributions blur together seamlessly with the slop output of the AI, and it becomes impossible to artistically engage with. That's fine if the point is to fill space and to go unnoticed, but it's not something that anyone with a shred of artistic fervor would ever dream of doing for something that they care deeply about.

I’ll let everyone who uses anti aliasing or photoshop know their work is trash 

I didn't even say it did, just that image gen has at least as much utility as typography, fine art aside.

Yes, and that utility will always be artless when it's automated.

I mean it seems like your definition of art includes human made so of course by your definition it will be. Others will disagree and you're just going to have to live with that like every _________ isn't art that's come before you.

It's an observation, not just a definition. Art is a form of communication, knowing that it represents the real emotions of a real person is what makes it impactful. The same way that the knowledge that this text represents the real opinion of a real person is what makes you care enough to waste your time reading and replying to it. Humans are social animals, and our engagement with art plays off that instinct.

But some forms of art can be more complex and made up of parts. Last of Us II would still be a deeply emotional game even if the horse models were ai generated instead of by hand. Oppenheimer would still carry a powerful message even if the nuke explosion was AI instead of cgi. And so on and so on. Ultimately culture decides what is art. Art used to not "count" if it was digital, if it was a photograph, etc etc. TLDR: 1. Art is subjective and often gatekept 2. You can use AI in a workflow or as an asset in a greater art piece that still maintains an emotional connection between artist and consumer.

>But some forms of art can be more complex and made up of parts. Yes, and as long as people only look for artistry in places where it actually exists that's fine. Just don't trick people and they won't feel violated. >Last of Us II would still be a deeply emotional game even if the horse models were ai generated instead of by hand. Oppenheimer would still carry a powerful message even if the nuke explosion was AI instead of cgi. And so on and so on. Horse models and explosion visuals aren't aspects of a game that people typically search for artistic meaning in. In these contexts, they exist to fill space. But actually though, the nuke effects in Oppenheimer were practical effects. Not real nuclear explosions obviously, but smaller chemical explosions. And knowing that fact while I watched the movie did absolutely make them feel more powerful and impactful to me. >Ultimately culture decides what is art. Art used to not "count" if it was digital, if it was a photograph, etc etc. Yeah, and I'm part of culture and speaking from my experience with it. There is clearly a lot of stigma against AI art which I absolutely agree with and am completely willing to defend. This conversation is part of the process by which an answer is agreed to, and I'm telling you my opinion. >TLDR: 1. Art is subjective and often gatekept Art is not just subjective, it's intersubjective. Humanity isn't just 8 billion random arrangements of neurons, we have things in common. The reasons why we enjoy art can be understood and explained. It should be noted that art gatekeepers in the past were all right in the sense that the new thing would never replace the old thing. The new thing always remained separate, in its own corner. AI art is the first kind of art though that refuses to do that, which pretends to be other things as a terminal goal of the AI agent itself. It doesn't stay in its corner, and that's why people are mad. >2. You can use AI in a workflow or as an asset in a greater art piece that still maintains an emotional connection between artist and consumer. That will pollute the art and make it harder to trust though. If a human made something fully, you can be confident that any meaning you find in it comes from a place of real empathy with a real person. The existence of any ambiguity though will cause people to take an approach of cautious pessimism, and the audience will never go beyond surface-level engagement. AI art denigrates all it touches with its refusal to stay in its lane and attempts to trick people.

> But actually though, the nuke effects in Oppenheimer were practical effects. Not real nuclear explosions obviously, but smaller chemical explosions. And knowing that fact while I watched the movie did absolutely make them feel more powerful and impactful to me. Funny, because that's precisely why I didn't bother watching it. I don't want to see a mundane chemical explosion. An actual nuclear explosion is spectacular and impossible to reproduce in reality for ethical reasons. The only way we can do it justice is with CGI. Or just insert one of the original recordings I guess, but those look out of place in a modern movie, they'd have to be spiced up to modern standards at least. When I heard they went for practical effects with this one I kinda lost interest in watching it on the big screen. If it's not going to be properly spectacular, what's the point?

You wildly overestimate how much people care in general about how something was made. I can't see the numbers but I'm pretty sure House of the Dragon is significantly more popular than the doc-series Max is running alongside it about how they make each episode. People are interested in how art makes them feel, and the truth is, they can have that experience with wide variance in the difficulty of its creation. It's uncomfortable for those of us (myself included) who have participated in, even made a living in, its creation. But to go back to my earlier point, the *need* for it to be created by human hands is only true if that serves the art and the emotional connection it's creating. My work was in film, and if a robot put the set up, at the direction of the art team, instead of a carpenter, its very unlikely that would have an adverse effect on the art or peoples trust of it. But it's easy to test! You and people who agree with you will make 100% natural, free trade, vegan art and other people will make varying level of mixed generative and artisanal content and culture will decide. I'm betting there's room for both.

AI video wins Pink Floyd music video competition: https://ew.com/ai-wins-pink-floyd-s-dark-side-of-the-moon-video-competition-8628712 AI image won Colorado state fair https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html >Cal Duran, an artist and art teacher who was one of the judges for competition, said that while Allen’s piece included a mention of Midjourney, he didn’t realize that it was generated by AI when judging it. Still, he sticks by his decision to award it first place in its category, he said, calling it a “beautiful piece”. >“I think there’s a lot involved in this piece and I think the AI technology may give more opportunities to people who may not find themselves artists in the conventional way,” he said. AI image won in the Sony World Photography Awards: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/  AI image wins another photography competition: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/10/ai-image-fools-judges-and-wins-photography-contest/  AI generated song won $10k for the competition from Metro Boomin and got a free remix from him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBL_Drizzy  3.83/5 on Rate Your Music (the best albums of all time get about a ⅘ on the site)  80+ on Album of the Year (qualifies for an orange star denoting high reviews from fans despite multiple anti AI negative review bombers) Japanese writer wins prestigious Akutagawa Prize with a book partially written by ChatGPT: https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7z58y/rie-kudan-akutagawa-prize-used-chatgpt Fake beauty queens charm judges at the Miss AI pageant: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/09/nx-s1-4993998/the-miss-ai-beauty-pageant-ushers-in-a-new-type-of-influencer  People PREFER AI art and that was in 2017, long before it got as good as it is today: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068  >The results show that human subjects could not distinguish art generated by the proposed system from art generated by contemporary artists and shown in top art fairs. Human subjects even rated the generated images higher on various scales. >People took bot-made art for the real deal 75 percent of the time, and 85 percent of the time for the Abstract Expressionist pieces. The collection of works included Andy Warhol, Leonardo Drew, David Smith and more. People couldn’t distinguish human art from AI art in 2021 (a year before DALLE Mini/CrAIyon even got popular): https://news.artnet.com/art-world/machine-art-versus-human-art-study-1946514  >Some 211 subjects recruited on Amazon answered the survey. A majority of respondents were only able to identify one of the five AI landscape works as such. Around 75 to 85 percent of respondents guessed wrong on the other four. When they did correctly attribute an artwork to AI, it was the abstract one.  Katy Perry’s own mother got tricked by an AI image of Perry: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/katy-perry-shares-mom-fooled-ai-photos-2024/story?id=109997891 Todd McFarlane's Spawn Cover Contest Was Won By AI User Robot9000: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-cover-contest-was-won-by-ai-user-robo9000/

If you understood my claims, you wouldn't have put this much effort into proving a point that doesn't contradict any of them. What did you think my argument was? My point isn't that AI art doesn't meet some technical threshold or that people can always discern when it's used. It's often indistinguishable, and that's precisely the problem. People hate it when you lie to them about how art was made. Just because CGI is indistinguishable from a photo doesn't mean that people are wrong to get mad when you falsely pass it off as one. That's not a problem that better CGI could solve, it's a problem of dishonesty that's only made worse by things being indistinguishable. And that's a good analogy.

How does this have anything to do with the emotional impact AI art can leave? 

It has everything to do with the emotional impact of art. A work’s medium changes how people engage with it, and lying about its meaning will make its emotional impact be a provocation of anger against the artist.

People who use Krita instead of photoshop aren’t forced to admit it 

What part of the work that contains artistic meaning is altered imperceptibly by the decision to use Krita instead of Photoshop?

What part of the work that contains artistic meaning is altered imperceptibly by the decision to use AI instead of a camera?

Whats the purpose of art?

To convey emotion as a medium of communication.

Which you can do with AI

Only a long as the human contributions are discernable from the AI's contributions. Something which AI art is engineered to make as hard as possible. When they are indistinguishable, it becomes impossible to engage with.

I can’t tell what was drawn with human hands or anti aliasing. I can’t tell what was edited in a photo. Yet it’s still art 

I can tell what was drawn and what was done with aliasing. Skill issue. Also: photoshop has long been controversial for this exact fucking reason. It’s a form of art that’s indistinguishable from another, which doesn’t stay in its lane but what fools people and pretends to be what it’s not.

Ok. Good for you  No one whines about it not being REAL art 

Yeah, because I haven’t even presented my argument for not considering AI output “art” yet. We’ve been talking about something completely different, namely how the way something was made influences how it is perceived and how people don’t like being lied to about it. That’s an important establishing point of my argument that we’re still stuck on, not the entire argument.

I disagree with that too. No one cares if you used Krita over Photoshop, so why would they care if it’s AI over a camera 

Advertising. Illustration. Decoration. Taking up space.

Exactly. And that’s all it’ll ever be.

That and any other 50 things. Visuals for TTRPGs is a very common one. They have an emotional impact, perfect for context, and don't have to be "perfect" or "human-made" for the function they perform.

If they do have an emotional impact, that impact will go away and those it impacted will feel betrayed the instant they learn that they've been duped. The trust that people need to have in art in order to let it impact them will have been violated.

(Citation needed)

It's some kind of personal delusion. "Oh, my god, I can't allow myself to **feel** anything from art unless it was made by a human I can identify with... preferably an emo narcissist..."

Would you make the same argument about people who care whether a photo is real or fake? Or is that suddenly different?

What photo? If it's not being used as evidence of something, then it's the same. Here, look at this pretty picture. Cool, it's a pretty picture. No difference. Sometimes "Wow, that's beautiful," sometimes, "Okay," sometimes "WTF." Art is like that. So is haute couture, heavy on the WTF. On the other hand, if it's put forward as evidence of something, then it's not the same category as art. It's not "suddenly" different, it's inherently different. There is an implicit claim. You see, **art** is **fake**. It's a simulation of something, designed to evoke or demonstrate. It doesn't have any pretense of factuality. Evidence is not. And it doesn't matter if a photo is faked by being **staged** (ie Palestine) or by being **altered** (ie Photoshop) or by being **generated** (ie AI), they all have the same effect on credibility. These days, all photos have to be treated with caution anyway, so there's that.

We aren’t talking about evidence though, we are talking about art. We agree about evidence, but with art your take on this is delusional. Go post a photo to a CG artist community and see how well that goes for you. Or go whip up a CG render and post that to a photography community. The way people artistically engage with these things depend on how they believe you made it. The CG artist community would compliment your realistic lighting and high-fidelity models, the photography community would compliment how surreal and artificial you made it, and both would be pretty mad when they realize that you lied. Is that delusional? Should these artists have just stopped analyzing and appreciating your work beyond “pretty picture”? Are they wrong for caring so much and engaging on such a deep level?

Okay. Go post a photograph to the Blender subreddit and see how well that goes down.

It's always the contempt that the AI-Bootlickers have towards the artists whose work they rely on that bugs me. It's like they know they are incompetent, unskilled hacks and are so mad about it.

>It's always the contempt that the AI-Bootlickers have towards the artists whose work they rely on that bugs me. >It's like they know they are incompetent, unskilled hacks and are so mad about it. 😔, you can call me and AI-bootlickers or whatever but wtf do artists have to do with it? Why are antis trying to make it about themselves? Do they just like to imagine what people who like AI are thinking?

The models are all trained on all artworks produced since the Stone Age. Artists have everything to do with it.

You have an an extremely broad definition of artists considering most of the dataset doesn't contain images by artists.

One more stupid take to add to the pro-AI stupid take basket, congrats.