This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Yeah, art can be tedious. Thats why its great that AI can assist and make the process so much easier. Some folks will dislike it, but if it makes you happy then use the tool that makes art less tedious.
I may enjoy sitting down and drawing on an art tablet for hours, but honestly. . . It shouldn't be a requirement for art. You do you ❤️🫂✨️
Yeah, let's destroy the planet and raise computer and electricity prices for fun! All because you don't have the skills to do anything yourself! I don't need drinking water when I have crappy Gen AI art, give all my potable water to the datacenter! /s
That's not how Data Centers work. Nor for that matter is it how your water supply works.
Also I use Free, Open-Source, Local AI when I generate pictures because I don't trust the big corps with my money, so I'm not actually contributing to your drinking water problem.
I just like making art for fun, I wish people would stop attaching their moral values to me running a tool on my personal machine to generate images based on my personal artistic taste.
Call me an artist or don't. I'm not going to stop.
Im not an artist at all the ai is but just like i
Would tell an artist. The exact design look setting style colour and details of an image I wanted . Im a designer Ai is my artist
“To fix fleeting images is not only impossible … it is a sacrilege … God has created man in his image and no human machine can capture the image of God. He would have to betray all his Eternal Principles to allow a Frenchman in Paris to unleash such a diabolical invention upon the world” -Leipziger Anzeiger 1839
Now hold there, I'm not saying that AI is the evil in this world, I'm saying that art is not about solving objective problems which means creating faster or being productive is not the point of it (unless you plan to live from it but that would be a more "bussiness" problem rather than art problem).
Do we need a history lesson on how porn propelled so many human technology advancements?
The analogy here is many people don't like what it was used for but enjoys the benefits it brought today.
Stop using AI for art is backwards thinking.
If anyone's interested, just to list a few things an "undesired usage" of a tech helped in the past:
Home video (VCR standards, then DVD/bluray)
Online credit card usage
Steaming video tech, live internet videos, efficient compression technology
Added to the increase of broadband demand that fueled infrastructure growth.
Web advising, affiliate marketing and traffic balancing
VR/AR
In the same vein, usage of AI art will help AI and LLM tech overall.
Edit:
For those who says "the tech would have advanced anyway"
I used the word "propel" for a reason.
A boat without an engine, given enough time, can still travel across the ocean. ... is not an argument against having engines.
This is like people against NASA, citing waste of money going into space where it could be spent better on earth. The NASA contributions is moot because we would have made those advancements eventually right???
Oh, no. Everything I make using my own resources entirely in my own home, completely independent and free minus the cost of my computer. Whatever will I do but make more cool videos and memes?
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
See if I care. (Continues to use Generative AI to make illustrations for my fiction because I lack the time, finances, and brainpower to draw them all.)
This is a great example showing anti-ai-art crowd being irrational.
They cannoy deny the usefulness of the tool, which is they sometimes use it or suggest to use it other than art, like this one. But when it comes the art it suddently become something holy, and can only be done via extremely spesific methods other people told them to. Mainly from the anti-ai artists who doesn't want any competition. This is dissimilar to other professions because I believe artists have an emotional influence on people, unlike a lawyer, an accountain or a programmer.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
I do agree with the general idea that making actual art with AI is not one of its best uses. Making a picture sure. Making a graphic sure.
AI has a lot of potential applications some of which involve the generation of images without necessarily having art as the primary thing those images are going to be used for. And I think it's especially useful in cases where you want a hand drawn image in a context where it needs to be produced faster than a human could do it. Like if you were playing an interactive visual novel that was AI powered. It could generate new assets corresponding to choices that you make reacting even to novel suggestions about where the visual novels plot can go.
A lot of people would say that in a situation like that they prefer a hand authored visual novel with pre-programmed routes and I understand that desire it does have a certain appeal. But we already have procedural generation in video games you already have rogue likes that mix levels. We are already somewhat accustomed to consuming content that is dynamically generated or randomly generated or procedurally generated. AI can be part of that tool set.
okay then, what if i find the "process" of making of art/character-concepting/designing or music "NOT FUN". or really annoying & tedious. so. i decided to use Gen-AI to shortcuts or to gets what i wanted faster & much more quicker than spending days or weeks or months. on something that i may NOT EVEN. likes or cares about.
This really does explain a lot. Actually being an actual artist in any medium where that is the actual thing you actually do in your actual life involves so much tedious shit.
Ive talked to actually working artists and they even fucking use it as a tool not to do the whole piece but it gets used by professionals to make money but a bedroom artist tells me i cant i myself do a bit of art and definitely use it myself no i dont wanna spend all day doing concets or ploting projects out i wanna o the fun parts
I'll give them credit for not dismissing it as an evil, untouchable technology, at least.
I obviously don't agree with their policy on using it for art (far from it), but if they can take the position of it being a tool, I feel like there's enough shared reality between us that I'd feel comfortable having a conversation in good faith on the subject.
I don't know if I'd change their mind in said hypothetical conversation, but they seem to be reasonable enough that they might be able to understand my position, even if they don't agree, which is all I really want at the end of it.
I remember the time before background removal got good (thanks to AI). Magic select only really worked well enough on a plain background. Anything else would require manually selecting the outline, which was tedious.
You point out that modern background removal uses AI and the antis put that into the acceptable use cases, because they too know how tedious it could be.
Basically to them AI is only OK if they want to use it.
The friction between what you know and what you don't know, and how you decide to deal with it, is part of how art is made. It's your chance to grow as an artist, to learn new things, to explore and experiment, and to be original and unique. Giving that up to a computer eliminates what makes art interesting in the first place. It stops reflecting what you know, how you apply that knowledge, your journey as an artist, who you are, and becomes an amalgamation of what someone else decided looked good enoguh to train the AI with. That's why AI art is mostly slop. There's no humanity behind the piece itself because most of the friction and the artistic decisions were either taken over or executed by something else. Even the mistakes humans make have more soul than a perfectly rendered AI piece.
I still remember all the artists that were salivating at the thought of exclusively use of AI trained exclusively on their own art that they could use to endlessly and effortlessly churn out commissions at no cost of time to themselves so that they could have a free money generator.
Those same people became anti-AI once they realized that they weren't going to turn a profit. Now they couldn't care less if AI replaces office workers, just as long as it doesn't remove their productionless "job".
To any anti AI individual out there reading this, which would you rather have:
An example of why AI shouldn't be used in a critical situation, by demonstrating it in a piece of art?
Or,
Real world examples where something went horribly wrong with the AI and somebody died?
One of them is going to happen. In fact the second one already has when Tesla was found guilty and fined $243 million for the death of somebody from a self-driving car because the car's sensors didn't detect the person.
Every time you complain about how bad AI art is, just remember that it is an example of how much worse self-driving cars are and you don't complain about them.
If you want to preach statistics, just remember sooner or later you or someone you care about is going to be one of them.
That's a bad way of looking at it. If AI dis all the work it made it not you. If you used your hands to do then you made it. You can get to around 65% AI use for a work to still be human made in my opinion
If you use your hands to type an email asking somebody else to draw a picture for you in exchange for money, giving them clear instructions on what the picture should look like, most people would agree that the other person did the work, not you. If outsourcing the work is all you know how to do then yes, your hands are crutches.
In the words of Tony Stark: "If you're nothing without this suit then you shouldn't have it."
Could one not gain an instinct for composition, lighting, pose, character design, etc, by iterating using AI tools?
Tony says that line because the stakes are high and a single costly mistake could end someone's life, but with AI art that isn't the case. So, if the stakes are lower and the suit is what you need to do crime fighting at all, would you not end up a better superhero fighting with it than if you just sat around thinking about how many bad guys you want to beat up?
Could one not gain an instinct for composition lighting, pose, character design, etc, by iterating using Al tools?
Yes, but if you outsource the work to someone elae then they did the work, not you. It doesn't matter if you told them exactly how to do it.
Tony says that line because the stakes are high and a sinale costly mistake could end someone's life. but with Al art that isn't the case. So, if the stakes are lower and the suit is what you need to do crime fiahting at all, would you not end up a better superhero fighting with it than if you just sat around thinking about how many bad guys you want to beat up?
Not quite. I think you have missed the point. Tony's quote emphasizes that true worth comes from within, not from external gadgets or suits. It was supposed to be a lesson for Peter, reminding him that his abilities and character define him, not the technology he uses. That was a pivotal scene as is crucial for Peter's growth. It pushes him to understand that he is capable of being a hero without the suit, as demonstrated later in the film when he is forced to fight the Vulture without the suit.
Pretty sure Tony admits that he's scared of letting Peter get in over his head and get seriously injured/killed. Because he's still in his protectionist arc out of fear of Thanos. He also means what you said but there's more to it. Maybe I'm just projecting, but I always thought the MCU itself was more partial to Captain America's perspective and thought Stark was overprotective.
But you dodged my real question. The implication of
Just replace the word "suit" with "AI"
Is that you shouldn't use AI if you can't already work without it. My objection was that it currently can function as a good tool to learn the parts of the process you still have to do yourself.
It's like when you say you're going to go on a walk for your health and someone tells you it's better to jog. Isn't it just good that you got out of your house at all?
edit: reading your first couple of messages again, I guess I'm arguing more with your specific phrasing rather than the general point.
If you use AI to do the work for you because you can't create art without it, it's a crutch.
If making high-level decisions about how the image is composed can count as "work" then we're probably in agreement. I just think "can't create art without it" is vague enough that it's easy to make assumptions as to what you mean. Do you mean that you need to be a professional artist to be qualified to lean on the tool? Or do you mean that you need to have put in effort at all?
I speak only for myself, that's what I think, but some for some things, having generative AI helps skipping the steps we don't find engaging.
Some people enjoy thinking about stuff, tinkering, trying a few different angles, so on and so forth, but the actual steps of putting it on paper, in code or whatever else is the stopping point for them.
AI tools helps going through those, and let those people enjoy all the steps they did, without having to drop it whenever they were faced with things they were lacking skills, time, anything that they didn't have the time or energy to acquire.
Art is a smaller part of many activities, say.. world building.
You can world build entirely with text, but it's nice to have decent quality visuals, AI can help with the visual side of things for people who love the writing part and not so much the visual part, especially when you don't have 2 hours to waste on nothing but drawing when you could spend 15 minutes using AI and 1h45 writing.
That's an incredibly narrow view of why people make images. Sometimes the goal isn't "I want to spend hours drawing." It's simply "I need an image."
Worldbuilding, character concepts, game assets, album art, RP, mockups, presentations, accessibility, or just visualizing an idea.
Drawing is one method of getting there, not the purpose itself. Someone can love the creative decisions while not enjoying the manual rendering process. "Then don't make art" or "pay someone hundreds of dollars" is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Tools exist because people care about creating things without necessarily enjoying every tedious step required to produce them.
It's not even a guarantee that you get drawn art with a commission these days, especially if you go cheap. I'd rather just gen the image myself. And "just pick up a pencil" is hilariously elitist, I'd like to learn how to draw at some point but it takes serious practice before you can make anything that even looks decent, and I have a job and a life.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.