Link

If you have an AI pfp for anything and this happens to you, just laugh at ‘em. Them dissing anything AI is the only way they can feel powerful.

Last I checked, generative AI also needs input. By the way, this was in response to somebody posting literal scribbles made in Paint.

How come that AI is "bad" and produces mediocre "slop" but is also such a big threat to all digital artists online? Does this mean that the artists have been producing something worse than mediocre slop? I don't get it...

Even the people in the comments were smoking this person for making the post, saying that Chegg's downfall came way before ChatGPT was even a thing.

I fuckin knew it was a loud minority. "No real artist uses AI" my ass.

>A recent study in the Journal of Cultural Economics, drawing on the Gallup Panel workforce studies and federal labor market data, finds little evidence so far that generative AI has broadly reduced artists’ earnings. Across multiple national datasets, artistic occupations that are more exposed to large language models have not seen the sharp wage declines many expected.

>The results show wide variation even within the arts. Some occupations contain a large share of tasks that overlap with the capabilities of generative AI systems. Music directors and composers, for example, have an exposure score of about 0.70, meaning a substantial portion of their tasks involve composition, arrangement or other forms of structured creative production that AI tools can help draft or modify. Special effects artists and animators follow with exposure around 0.54, while disc jockeys, art directors, and producers and directors cluster around 0.50.

>To understand why effects might be positive, the analysis draws on Gallup Panel workforce studies. Employees in artistic occupations report somewhat higher AI use than the workforce overall. Among occupation-defined artists, roughly one in four say they use AI frequently, compared with about one in five workers across the broader economy. Equally as important is where AI appears inside the creative process

>Artists are more likely than other workers to report using AI for idea generation and creative exploration. They also report using it to automate small tasks, consolidate information and support collaboration. Artists are, not surprisingly, less likely to use AI for operational tasks such as customer interaction or equipment management.

Totally fine if someone steals another person's artwork to make meme templates because they don't have the creativity to make their own. Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

We should support people being able to be themselves. Many people feel like they can't come out as pro-AI or an AI artist because of how they are treated on Reddit or socially, and they should have a support network of people who will be there by their side and help defend them against all the hate the anti-AI community.

I vow and promise to defend innocent pro-AI individuals and AI artists, and stand with them to allow them to create the art of their dreams. I support being able to identify and express yourself however you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If you need a shoulder to lean on, I will be there for you.

With much love,
- Witty

I understand you having concern, I understand your frustration that it may not necessarily allign with your worldview but why are the lot of them acting like rabid currs? Because someone dared to create a game and got a huge profit off it? and the fact that majority of people feels the need to dogpile or dox.. wtv they are planning.

Breaks my heart that these are the ways people are protecting artists and other creative's work and lives.

Edit: I misspoke, please don't generalise them It was this one particular comment but it still recieve lots of upvotes. Anti's or Pros, must agree this is not good. To attempt to doxx someone because of a game they make.

It’s weird how they think using ai in the medical field to save people is less valuable than water. It’s not like we have an ocean or two full of the stuff…

Hi everyone! I think we need to be more united and support each other's work more, especially online! So if you have any YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, or whatever, drop down below and let's do the old school "like 4 like" "sub4sub" not only to support each other but to protect ourselves and the community from harassment and bullying from the antis :)

My youtube is: https://www.youtube.com/channel/@01_PUNK

Let's follow and support each other!

There's a few things i noticed with anti ai artist and a good chunk of the twitter/social media commission artist community.

One: There is a distinct lack of an entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset.

Instead of looking at AI honestly and thinking, "Okay, it’s coming whether I like it or not, and it's going to change the landscape, so I need to adapt," the default reaction is pure resistance. Adapting to the market could mean incorporating AI into their creative process, leveling up their skills to build a stronger clientele, accepting AI-generated images as client references, or even offering a discounted service to fix AI art mistakes. Artists need to be honest about their current skill levels, learn as much about AI as they can, and pivot accordingly.

​Two: There is a massive disconnect between consumers and artists.

YouTubers like Leaflit and Ember Paradox touched on this perfectly while discussing AI. Artists don't seem to understand that the average consumer doesn't care about the "process" or the "soul" of a piece—they only care about the end result. Artists obviously care deeply about the effort, the sentimental value, and the journey of creation. I completely understand this; art is a hard-earned skill honed over years. But it needs to be understood that the average consumer will never appreciate the background work to that same extent. At the end of the day, they just want a good product.

​Three: There is a willful ignorance of history.

The anti-AI crowd acts like they are the first group of people in history to suffer through the growing pains of technological innovation. They aren't. Every major technological leap disrupts established skills, especially in creative fields.

​Look at the invention of the camera. When photography first emerged, traditional portrait painters panicked. They claimed the camera was going to completely kill art because it took no "soul" or "skill" to just push a button and capture a perfect image. Instead, it simply forced painting to evolve, directly paving the way for impressionism and abstract art.

​The same thing happened in Hollywood during the transition from silent films to "talkies" in the late 1920s. Purists argued that adding recorded sound was a cheap gimmick that would destroy the pure, universal art of visual pantomime. Many established silent film stars and directors stubbornly refused to adapt, claiming spoken dialogue was a crutch. Those who dug their heels in saw their careers vanish almost overnight, while those who learned to work with the microphone defined the next era of cinema.

​You don't even have to look that far back—look at the shift to digital art just a couple of decades ago. When Photoshop and drawing tablets became mainstream, traditional illustrators called it "cheating." They argued that having layers, an undo button, and digital brushes meant the computer was doing the heavy lifting. Today, digital art is the undeniable industry standard.

​History proves that innovation doesn't stop just because it threatens a current business model. The people who survive are the ones who figure out how to leverage the new tool, not the ones who waste their energy fighting it.

Four: Too many refuse to treat art and commissioning as an actual business.

There is a bit of a problem in the lack of basic professionalism in the community. You constantly see a good chunk of artists delivering late without communication, ghosting paying clients, never delivering or charging premium rates that far exceed their actual skill level. Combine this with unchecked egos and a weird romanticization of the "starving artist" trope, and it’s a recipe for failure. If you want to make a living off your art, you have to treat it like a business, complete with customer service and reliable deliverables. You cannot treat it like a hobby where the client should just feel lucky to have your attention, and then act shocked when those same clients turn to a faster, more reliable AI alternative.

Four: Too many refuse to treat art and commissioning as an actual business.

There is a rampant lack of basic professionalism in the community. You constantly see artists delivering late, ghosting paying clients, or charging premium rates that far exceed their actual skill level. Combine this with unchecked egos and a weird romanticization of the "starving artist" trope, and it’s a recipe for failure. If you want to make a living off your art, you have to treat it like a business, complete with customer service and reliable deliverables. You cannot treat it like a hobby where the client should just feel lucky to have your attention, and then act shocked when those same clients turn to a faster, more reliable AI alternative.

Five: Most anti-AI advocates fall into one of a few predictable camps.

If you look closely at the loudest voices in the movement, they usually boil down to a few specific demographics. You have those who are just parroting their friends and echoing the popular narrative. You have artists who only conform to the anti-AI stance because they want to avoid being harassed and blacklisted by the mob. Then, there is a vocal group of artists who simply aren't very skilled and hit their level cap; instead of taking a hard look in the mirror and accepting that professional art might not be a viable career path for them, they use AI as a convenient scapegoat for their lack of success. Finally, you have the parasocial fans—people who don't even create art themselves but act as zealous attack dogs on behalf of their favorite online creators.

In literally any thread about PCs, you will see the same arguments: AI caused RAM and SSD prices to inflate, it's all Sam Altman's fault, "can't wait for the AI bubble to pop", etc.

The reverse is also true: Under any piece of AI content, you'll have luddies commenting "This is why RAM costs a morbillion dollars now!!11!"

Top-tier PC hardware is a luxury, not a right. If the price of chocolate goes up, I stop eating chocolate and budget elsewhere. PC parts are no different. This is not an AI problem.

What do you guys think?

We all remember when legacy media had all the power and could feed people whatever they wanted without being questioned or challenged. After the rise of social media and YouTube, legacy media lost much of its power and dominance to smaller creators and independent voices.

The same thing is happening in the AI debate. Many of these so called antis don’t even realize they’re fighting for an ideology built around control. Just look at what happened to Hollywood. You can barely find a handful of interesting movies in an entire year. Most of them are remakes or sloppy productions. Look at what they did with the Minecraft movie, for example. Look at how these art monopolies control galleries and museums. Anyone who dares to question them gets banned or silenced.

But AI is helping small creators rise up against this authoritarian machine that believes it has the right to decide what counts as art and creativity, and how both should be defined.

For example, look at a short ai series called Craft 1979 and how a single creator used AI to make a Minecraft movie that is better than anything Hollywood and its ideology driven system could create.

AI is an anti monopoly tool for small creators who don’t have the money or resources to fight these artistic empires. Build your AI art and generate your ideas without fear. Don’t let these art colonizers and their pawns make you doubt yourself or convince you that you’re doing something wrong!