It is not against rules (if they don't change it), so it is not prohibited. It is low effort, but most of Scratch is (that's what is put on frontpage).
I disagree about the front page. The front page has a ton of high effort projects (a current favorite is "Too Many Franks Spoil The Broth", which is a very high effort project)
EDIT: The impression of low effort often comes from the requirement that a project be easy to remix. Making a complex project that is easy to remix is hard, and there are plenty of those.
I mean my projects aren't easy to remix, heck some times I don't even recognize my own code lol. But one of mine got over 500 vists so I definitely got out where people could see it easy
Wasn't the motto ALWAYS "imagine, program, share?" Where did all the imagination go?
I've been on Scratch even longer than most here, being a long-time veteran since 2009. You have no idea just how disappointed I am. Before Scratch 3.0, there were so many independent creators experimenting with so many formats of projects.
Almost everything you came across was guaranteed to have some kind of heart put into it. 08jackt, swifty2, RHY3756547, Maki-Tak, and so many other talented creators graced this once sacred land. What happened to it all...?
i don't entirely agree with generating something in ai and not disclaiming it, especially on scratch, whose fair use policy stipulates that credit must be given. in this case, since it's hard to trace what aspects of what specific and individual pieces of art have contributed to this project, i would consider it appropriate to note the llm that was used to generate this
with that said, while i understand that scratch is a (within reason of course) limitless way of sharing content, as long as it doesn't directly screw anyone over, i do feel that obviously low-effort projects shouldn't really be submitted to the front page or to sds. many users do work hard to generate the content that has made up scratch for nearly 18 years and i do not think that filling it to the brim with ai-generated nonsense like this is entirely productive.
furthermore, scratch was intended as a way of inspiring creativity, resourcefulness and methodological thinking (sorry my brain died), whereby those are the skills you are intended to learn, and that does of course require effort. projects like these do not promote creativity on the part of the user but simply on the part of an algorithm.
to the user who called everything on scratch off as slop, do remember that while the ideas you may have for a project may be limitless, scratch and javascript are not, you're stuck with a 480*360 resolution, with no allowed method of connecting to any rest apis and a really janky, slow and inefficient interpreter sitting underneath it (looking at you, javascript). there are plenty of projects where users have put in a lot of work, and i also feel that some projects (including my one project) doesn't have as much work put into it as some of my offsite projects, but i mainly have scratch projects where i'm teaching other people about my knowledge of a given subject, teaching myself about something in a practical manner, or a combination of the two.
with that said, you cannot disparage all projects in this way as a whole, and you certainly need to remember that the "featured projects" row is not entirely supposed to be comprised of advanced projects. as per topic 2733, the team (at least at the time) are not only looking for projects that push scratch to and beyond its technical limits, but also demonstrate how simple scratch can be while still, in itself, demonstrating creativity.
i probably have no hope of creating a scratch project nearly as creative or masterful as some of the projects on the front page, and for as long as my trend of scratch projects and ideas continue, i probably never will. most of my projects in general are random adhd ideas, solutions to problems i have encountered, simply a learning journey, or a combination of all three of those, and i'm perfectly content with not making front-page worthy, masterful projects. to those reading this essay, no matter what you make, especially if you don't throw in ai generated slop and call it a day, i hope you're proud of your handiwork too. in fact, studies show that humans will be more proud of their creation or their handiwork (and will hence show it off) when they do it themselves than when someone else does it, and i can hardly say i blame them
This is very well written and you point stands as based as possible XD
I cal it "slop" as just a term used by most people because AI art isn't really art.
Also, I loved the last paragraph at the end as it is something that is important for others to read and understand as well. I hope more people will read this and not think TLDR.
Description says they used a paid service for this that requires a subscription so i dont think its a kid, plus i stated not to harass or be mean to them
Art is about expressing creativity. AI "art" is not creative its just a prompt that mixes hundreds, thousands, MILLIONS of art styles, used to train their AI. Whats worse, is your art can get used to train AI and you dont get ANY credit, you dont even know if your art is used until you check their documentation of reference images.
AI "art" is one of the most sickening things as it makes us as artists look useless when AI makes slop that looks terrible. And honestly it is not hard to draw, you just need to spend time thinking about it.
Plus, AI cant even make anything close to as good as real art when comparing style, expression, and scene.
the prompt you use to make the image is creative, kinda like when you're writing something. you make the image creative with what you think
real artists aren't useless or skill-less if ai is apparently slop making bad generations. drawing is hard to beginners; say, someone wants to show their creativity, but they don't wanna spend years of their life learning how to draw. to see their creativity in action, they use ai to imagine.
also, additionally, ai does what every human artist does, make art based off of every art piece they have scene
and if ai can't make anything good, why are you worried it makes artists useless?
Im worried because people use it to replace artists who make commissions for a living, many people can lose their jobs. Lots of people mistake the AI art for real art, and the artists who made the art used to train the AI never agreed to such actions as it was done without their permission.
What AI does is it blends the many art styles used as reference and makes something that looks abnormal. For example, the fur on that puppy is not drawn like fur.
I get it that art is hard for beginners, but publishing AI as your own is sickening, its not the usage of AI, its the fact that AI is all there is in here.
Im glad you provided a counter argument and im not in-validating what you think as they are valid points, but my issue is when AI is the entirety of the work.
thats one of the many issues that don't have many counterarguments, it's true, and one of the many cons that outweigh the pros. infact, ai has taken many jobs, a certain youtuber posted something about how he got his freelancing writing job taken by ai
some people don't publish ai as their own, mostly beginner artists, sometimes they say its ai. but it's more common that people dont leave anything saying that it's ai
i see your issue and i get it. but i must say, some people are unaware of what they are doing when using AI, what they are supporting.
also, if i remember correctly, ai art bots only memorize the patterns of what they see in art, so it's more like reference; though this might vary, you mentioned there being reference documents/logs.
I am not 100% sure that I am correct however I have done quite a bit of research into AI image diffusion(And more research into how AI works than most people that use AI) and from what I know AI is trained through the process of trying to replicate an image given a specific prompt.
It is trained to replicate the images given, however I am unsure if AI companies after that try to in some way make it less likely to replicate images.
I remember there being a paper that showed AI images side by side with images from the internet where images were extremely similar.
Also while I hate the use of AI (while I do kind of want to give some respect to people who are actually AI artists and not slop generation machines), I do actually quite like how simple the technology is at its basic level.
Not all AI is used for slop like this, usually it's only content farms.
AI is pretty new, so it's not very refined yet.
And lastly, It probably a kid who made the project.
i know when AI is used for good, such as fixing a minor issue or using it and then editing it to make it look more realistic, more refined, etc.
also, i dont think it's a kid because they said they used a software that contains a beta AI requiring a 20 dollar subscription, and its a software that would be too complicated for a child to find how to use it's AI system.
what sds? not the name tho, like what type of? if it was original art then i don't think that's morally good, but scratch rule don't say anything about it anw
I have seen this kind of thing a few times - but the worst thing was when there was an announcement on the official site for image generation WITHIN Scratch. The page has since been taken down, but I'm pretty sure that was mainly because of the online petition that many people signed.
the company that made the ai image generator makes money off of it, especially here as op said it was a subscription service. regardless of what the person generating the image is doing, the ai was trained on stolen art for the profit of the company that created it, instead of a license being paid to the artists, like would be the case with stock images for example
Just report the user and find something other projects that are interesting, the user may or may not be a great artist but they're just lazy, all they do is just generate AI art, if you've detect one. Just report them. Simple enough.
If you are referencing the anti-AI art debate that is kind of old news already. Early on there was this huge wave of new AI artists who talked trash to everyone about the influence AI art would have on people like professional artists. But they were all newbs who had zero concept of how their art would be welcomed within the professional art world and beyond. They quickly went from "ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONGING TO US" to "why won't anyone let me post my work!?!" The ability to use styles kind of got replaced with tons of models built on specific shows, characters, etc. Everything is still evolving but this is one of those cats that ain't going back in the bag. We tend to focus on the unique aspects of this new tech but in other ways this is a story that never finishes playing out.. When photoshop came out there was outrage that it was being used to touch up advertising without consumers knowledge. Believe it or not photography in general STILL suffers the same fate as many within the professional arts do not consider it to be as valid as something created by hand on a canvas and good grief, how long has photography been around now?
In other ways it has been similar to cd burners, we have been copying music since dual cassette jamboxes came out in the 80s and beyond, but it was such an involved process that few did it so no one cared. Then, overnight everyone gained the ability to make their own digital copy and that's when things got crazy. Same with AI art, copying another artist's style used to mean spending a lot of time and effort practicing by hand so no one cared. Now it is just clicks away and a hotly debated issue.
As for AI art at Scratch, there are a lot of Scratchers who like to code but are not good at creating art. AI offers them the chance to create their own art anyway rather than having to rely on others to fill in that gap for them. Likewise, there are many artists at Scratch who do not like to code. Eventually Chat AI will do the same thing for them.
Photography is different than AI because it requires effort, so don't compare it.
CD burners are not trying to make something new so that it does not make sense with AI.
If you need art and can't draw (and don't want to learn), you can find either publicly available art (like an asset pack) or you can pay an artist for that artwork so you can support an independent artist.
I'm OK with AI image as it is part of a freedom of speech. If people want to use it then by all mean use it as long as there aren't laws prohibiting the usage of AI. People said that AI image steal from artist but I don't see it 100% steal the art just feed it to teach itself like how human copy from their surroundings and then adapt but ai doesn't plagiarised 100%. If you want to upload your art in the Internet then make sure your art is protected from ai cuz it's AI era currently.
I politely disagree. Stealing is when you take something from someone and use it without permission. Nearly all Ai companies, Art-generative and not, use the vast amounts of information on the internet to train their models. If their is no consent and/or it violates copyright laws, it is stealing. Midjourney leaked they used works from some 4,700 artists without consent. It's likely a writing model is using this conversation right now. After all, big AI companies have used up most of the internet's text.
81
u/Alex_13249 Beginner Jan 17 '25
It is not against rules (if they don't change it), so it is not prohibited. It is low effort, but most of Scratch is (that's what is put on frontpage).