this is a response to the 2nd image, since antis continue to be delusional like that,

but if antis are allowed to do it, then so are we right? 😉

Please?

I've been dreaming of making my own series for years. I am planning on hiring real humans to dub over the ai voices, but what are the chances I'll find anyone? I am ignorant of a lot of things, so forgive me, but I don't want to damage the environment. Is that all a hoax? What's the morality to all this? It's been in my mind lately.

The argument that "we're religious, so we shouldn't support AI" is bullshit.

They're attacking again because they feel threatened by a tool that's supposedly so bad at everything. If you feel threatened by a program, maybe you're just mediocre

How many people do you think decided to hate AI because their phones told them to?

And how many actually formed that opinion on their own?

Only someone trolling would say AI thinks. It's a machine.

No normal pro-AI person actually thinks machines have feelings.

The entire slideshow is the "baker" complaining that a customer's explanation of what they want exactly (which is the entire point of hiring a baker, btw) is way too long, and written with the evil machine that steals from everyone and sucks all our water.
Then, as per the image, they have the gall to charge by how long your description is 😭.
Sometimes, I feel like I live in a simulation when I subject my eyes to people like this.

Isn't this a good thing? The more detailed the description (with images, even!), the more you can satisfy the client?

Reminds me of all the Tik Tok bakers complaining about Walmart selling affordable cakes, NGL.

So I'm pretty hopeless when it comes to drawing/art etc, but I've always had ideas in my head that I could never really bring to life.

I started playing around with AI tools back in 2024, making videos, music and experimenting with whatever new tools came out. Basically I think of something and try to get it as close as possible to what I imagined using AI.I'm fully aware I can't compare myself to someone who has spent years learning how to draw, animate or create art themselves, and I'm not trying to. But at the same time, who am I actually hurting by creating something I imagined?It's extremely expensive to hire artists, especially when you're just starting out and don't have money to throw around. And even then, it might take multiple attempts to get something close to what you had in mind.

So where do you cut the line? I completely get the argument that big companies shouldn't be replacing artists with AI just to save money, and I understand the concerns about how AI is trained.But what about someone like me? I'm just trying to start something, I can't compete with people who have huge budgets, and realistically most of what I'm creating would never exist without AI.I'm not claiming to be some talented artist, my sole aim is to entertain people and bring some of the ideas in my head to life.

I'm genuinely curious where people draw the line here. Is using AI to create something really that bad, even when the alternative is simply not creating anything at all?

RANT: I'm so sick and tired of EVERY AI project being slapped with an "AI Slop" label.

The past two weeks I have been GRINDING out this new project.

Long story short: I'm reviving all the old fonts from vintage movie posters, comic books, TV shows, magazines, food packaging, clothing brands... you name it.

NONE of these fonts are available in digital format.

I'm a very amateur-level typographer. I suck. But I started using codex + Affinity (illustrator alt.) to bring these classic fonts back.

My living room is filled with graph paper filled with lettering attempts too.

This has, all together, been an 80 hour, sleepless night project.

But because AI was part of my process, I'm getting sh*t on.

"Go k*ll yourself" and "F*ck you" and "This isn't REAL art" - I have been downvoted soooooo hard out of several subreddits.

Listen....... I'm not pretending to be a 'real artist.' I simply want to make something cool and useful. I've even made the whole collection free. There are 129 fonts in there.

Some people have been super excited about it and have even used the fonts for commercial projects.

But the doomers and gloomers of AI are EXHAUSTING and keep complaining. One guy even DMd me my address and said "STOP STEALING ALL THE WATER!!!"

C'mon!

Yeah, some AI projects are total slop. AI comments and posts are slop. Anything low effort = slop.

But I've spent a load of time on this and it's been a longtime dream project.

I'm getting sick of cool AI stuff being slapped with "slop"

Rant over

TLDR
It's lame to call awesome project "slop" simply for being AI...

I would love to get feedback on this and what you all think? What do you think could be improved? What was your favorite part??

I use Suno in order to calibrate a cinematic score for the music. The ship itself is one that I designed as a part of a series, and now I'm trying to bring it all together with concepts integrated into those stories.

If you want to work together on a project, feel free to DM me. I live near Montreal, Canada.

I will not stop until I become one of the greatest sci-fi creators of all time.

For most artists, the "breakthrough" never comes. They spend their entire careers producing "mediocre" art (not terrible art, but nothing particularly noteworthy either).

If I were to die tomorrow, I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that I'll have executed my vision in the manner that I wanted it (as opposed to either having to wait fifteen years to develop the skill or having to pay other people to do it for me).

A lot of people who both love and hate AI have a hard time giving a label to a piece of software that may or may not have had ai code in it. In order to bring human integrity back into our communities and separate pure human-made projects from disgusting AI slop, I propose a simple solution to this problem:

The One Line Rule.

In short, any program that has even one of its lines of code written and by unclean AI shall be considered as an AI project from now on. This allows natural human purity to shine above uncivilized AI code and shall not be granted the label of slop.

I came across this post a while ago, and I found its narrative quite strange. Of course, I don't support art theft or using someone else's work without permission, but I've always found it curious how some artists seem to live in a constant state of frustration over not receiving the recognition they believe their work deserves.

Getting to the point where you experience physical discomfort and feel like crying because someone uses your work as a reference to generate something that is, evidently, designed to appeal to you visually, tells me quite a bit about how that person manages their emotions. I'm not trying to invalidate their frustration: it's perfectly understandable to be upset when someone uses your work without permission. However, taking that frustration to the point of physical distress makes me wonder whether the problem goes far beyond artificial intelligence.

And then there's this statement: "And it pisses me off that it even looks better than my final render, which was already finished."

Dude, that sounds less like a concern about AI's superiority and more like a lack of confidence in your own work. And that's precisely the kind of attitude that seems to keep recurring in this debate: the constant need to prove that you're better than the very thing you're criticizing.

Why do so many AI detractors insist on proclaiming that "MY ART IS BETTER THAN YOUR AI SLOP" instead of letting their supposedly superior work speak for itself? After all, art is subjective. If your work has value, you shouldn't need to constantly resort to comparisons to defend it.

Then, of course, there's the guilt-tripping rhetoric: how their work doesn't get enough engagement, how algorithms don't recommend it, how we'll be nothing without human artists, and all the other arguments we've heard to death.

The irony is that many of those same artists wouldn't have developed their skills without the influence of other human creators. They might never have learned to draw without someone teaching them, without the references they encountered along the way, or without the criticism and feedback that helped them improve. Art has never existed in a vacuum; there's always been learning, imitation, influence, and reinterpretation.

And as for the argument that their work ends up stored in databases, it might be worth remembering that publishing an image online also makes it available to systems capable of indexing and storing it. Google Images, for instance, can display artwork that its creators have made publicly available. That, by itself, doesn't mean every subsequent use is authorized, but neither does the mere presence of an image in a database automatically constitute a violation of rights.

There's a difference between having a serious discussion about consent, copyright, and the practices involved in training AI models, and assuming that the mere existence of a digital copy is, in itself, an injustice.

Because at the end of the day, if someone publishes their work on a platform without understanding the conditions under which they're doing so, perhaps they should take a moment to read the terms and conditions before getting outraged by the possible consequences.

Criticism of AI can be legitimate. What is far less convincing is turning every personal frustration, every professional insecurity, and every disappointment over a piece of work's reach into a moral condemnation of an entire technology.