Fuck AI art

[Marc_LFD]

i agree, i hate the way ai art looks

It always looks and sounds the same, if I come across a YT channel that uses AI voice... Pause, and leave.

 

[handy333]

I wonder if it'll one day force Pixar to use another art style.

 

[previous_member]

Any entity that uses AI for cheap art or free art is an entity that does not care about customers or care about releasing anything of quality. They only see customers as stupid walking wallets that will shell out money at anything.

AI is the tulip craze of the current day. The shine will dull soon enough.

As far as I can see AI will never be a true threat to artists. True art made by artists have soul. You can train AI to copy the style of an artist, but no AI no matter how advanced could ever create true art.

 

[wartutor]

Any entity that uses AI for cheap art or free art is an entity that does not care about customers or care about releasing anything of quality. They only see customers as stupid walking wallets that will shell out money at anything.

AI is the tulip craze of the current day. The shine will dull soon enough.

As far as I can see AI will never be a true threat to artists. True art made by artists have soul. You can train AI to copy the style of an artist, but no AI no matter how advanced could ever create true art.

No company cares about customers...and i mean none of them...all they give a fuck about is profits. And Ai proves it. Just wait until Ai develops along with robots and all jobs are done by them. Mass starvation and only 5% of the population with money. Ai will be the end of mankind.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Its really funny to me how AI art is always labelled as "cheap" or "free". It's neither of those things.

Every single major AI company is a money furnace, they lose money every time someone uses them. AI companies would be more profitable if nobody used them. Even paid subscriptions lose them money.

The entire thing is heavily subsidized in the hopes that AI will magically become the next big thing, if they just pump enough money into the furnace, they can keep it going long enough to pump stock prices and find an actual effective use for it. But there isn't one.

Generative AI is bruteforce by design and any attempts to make it more than a very slight niche have to live with that. Like when researchers tried to get it to "simulate" Quake - by which I mean they downloaded a bazillion images of it, and fed it into an AI so it could generate a Quake-y picture based on a previous one and an input. Look, an AI game! Except it has no concept of any actual gameplay mechanics, like a map, enemy spawns, or even a way to end the level, because it is a proc-gen Powerpoint.

It cuts off at the two minute mark to try and hide that you aren't making any progress, you're watching a slideshow that is brute-forcing memory by adding the previous five seconds of images into its own prompt to desperately try and maintain a coherent map design. Turn around for too long and when you turn back, it'll have forgotten where you're supposed to be. How can AI fix that? Only with more bruteforce, ten seconds of images, twenty, whatever. And every time the costs of processing that go up exponentially.

Or you could just play Quake. On your toaster. Every fix is either ruinously expensive or to just not use AI.

Eventually the big tech companies are going to run out of money for the furnace and the whole thing will come crashing down. https://www.wheresyoured.at/wheres-the-money/ is an interesting read on the economics of the situation, which is basically a royal family tree of companies loaning to other companies and pretending that Everything Will be Fine.

 

[previous_member]

Its really funny to me how AI art is always labelled as "cheap" or "free". It's neither of those things.

Every single major AI company is a money furnace, they lose money every time someone uses them. AI companies would be more profitable if nobody used them. Even paid subscriptions lose them money.

The entire thing is heavily subsidized in the hopes that AI will magically become the next big thing, if they just pump enough money into the furnace, they can keep it going long enough to pump stock prices and find an actual effective use for it. But there isn't one.

Generative AI is bruteforce by design and any attempts to make it more than a very slight niche have to live with that. Like when researchers tried to get it to "simulate" Quake - by which I mean they downloaded a bazillion images of it, and fed it into an AI so it could generate a Quake-y picture based on a previous one and an input. Look, an AI game! Except it has no concept of any actual gameplay mechanics, like a map, enemy spawns, or even a way to end the level, because it is a proc-gen Powerpoint.

It cuts off at the two minute mark to try and hide that you aren't making any progress, you're watching a slideshow that is brute-forcing memory by adding the previous five seconds of images into its own prompt to desperately try and maintain a coherent map design. Turn around for too long and when you turn back, it'll have forgotten where you're supposed to be. How can AI fix that? Only with more bruteforce, ten seconds of images, twenty, whatever. And every time the costs of processing that go up exponentially.

Or you could just play Quake. On your toaster. Every fix is either ruinously expensive or to just not use AI.

Eventually the big tech companies are going to run out of money for the furnace and the whole thing will come crashing down. https://www.wheresyoured.at/wheres-the-money/ is an interesting read on the economics of the situation, which is basically a royal family tree of companies loaning to other companies and pretending that Everything Will be Fine.

Well written and knowledgeable post. I didn't know that's how it works. I thought "cheap" and "free" was the whole point of generative AI - put in a prompt and it vomits out content to be marketed and pawned off to the hapless consumer.

I think the technology behind AI certainly has some positive uses, but otherwise, I can't wait for the AI content thing to come crashing down.

 

[Cranesbill]

.

 

[SylverReZ]

"I want to share some difficult news directly and with the respect you deserve.

Yeah, this reads like it's been written by AI, for sure.

 

[Ligeia]

Yeah, this reads like it's been written by AI, for sure.

View attachment 506219

IA detecting and reporting IA... Kind of ironic and somehow poetic in a weird sense

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Yeah, this reads like it's been written by AI, for sure.

View attachment 506219

AI "detectors" are garbage, by the way, there's no secret trick, they're just guessing. Any moderately formal piece of text has a recent chance of being flagged.

 

[Skv0ra]

AI "detectors" are garbage, by the way, there's no secret trick, they're just guessing. Any moderately formal piece of text has a recent chance of being flagged.

Plus you can't expect a tone-deaf algo to pick up on actual tone.

 

[ChibiMofo]

I second this. Fuck this whole AI thing as well. I hope that this trend dies in the worst way possible.

While AI's rapid growth might appear like a fad, it's more likely a sustained wave of development with significant potential. While some might argue AI is overhyped, the technology is already integrated into our daily lives and has the potential to transform industries, according to various sources.

And that was like totally not written by AI. Just as this recently discovered uncatalogued painting by Frida Kahlo is completely real.

In all seriousness, AI has made my life MUCH better, and I rely on it each and ever day. And my reliance on it has created new jobs. That always happens with technology displacement. People who aren't that talented/don't have much to offer society lose. Others take their place. No biggie.

But you should read some of the articles from the late 60s and early 70s about how robots were going to ruin everything for society, and I don't mean in the Battlestar Galactica/Terminator way. Those people were wrong then and you are on the wrong side of history if you bet against AI. It's here to stay and will only be used FAR more next year than this year. Deal with it or be a luddite.

Post automatically merged: May 23, 2025

Not too mention that AI art literally steals existing drawings from other artists

You know the phrase "good artists borrow great artists steal"? Because if you do you'll realize how hypocritical it is for any artist to level that charge against AI. ALL ARTISTS STEAL! No artist in history has simply invented a new form from out of nothing with absolutely completely original ideas. Ask any artist in any field who inspired them. You can ask AI the same thing. You'll get an honest answer about the same percentage from each.

 

[Deleted member 705600]

My position is that, at this point some AI art can look visually appealing, even to some trained eyes

But I think that kinda misses the point, my enjoyment of art doesn't come from the fact that something looks "good", and I personally think that is a very shallow position, as I can even enjoy bad art with a good history

Art, in my opinion, exists as the combination of human experiences, knowledge, who the person was and is during and before the creation of a particular piece, plus any sort of artistic inspirations that are also a mix of all of that.

Yes, all art is derivative, and that's okay, because in the end it tells something about YOU, the mix of emotions, chemicals and experiences. So yeah, I think the idea of asking a machine to try and replicate that rings hollow. I don't want a pretty picture, I want meaning.

This is obviously a notion moved by pure emotions but god dammit, rationalize it as much as you like, we are extremely emotional beings, if art doesn't have that, we have nothing to show for

This is just about generative AI, any other technical uses in other fields will be useful in ways we will probably not know much about, but it's always welcome. And is also a more artistic perspective, I ain't really gonna get into some of the other more environmental, political, educational, etc etc issues that can (and are) arriving from this

 

[OilFreak]

AI has made my life MUCH better, and I rely on it each and ever day.

What exactly are you doing with AI that constitutes daily usage?

 

[Sir Tortoise]

has the potential to transform industries, according to various sources.

Snake oil is also a revolutionary medicine, according to various sources (people with stocks in snake oil).
Any second now it's gonna revolutionise everything, just needs a few more years.

 

[SDA]

Deal with it or be a luddite.

I will always be against AI whether you'll like it or not!

 

[Cranesbill]

You know the phrase "good artists borrow great artists steal"? Because if you do you'll realize how hypocritical it is for any artist to level that charge against AI. ALL ARTISTS STEAL! No artist in history has simply invented a new form from out of nothing with absolutely completely original ideas. Ask any artist in any field who inspired them. You can ask AI the same thing. You'll get an honest answer about the same percentage from each.

The fact you don't know what "inspiration" or "reference" shows what kind of level of idiocy you are.

 

[bonkmaykr]

My position is that, at this point some AI art can look visually appealing, even to some trained eyes

But I think that kinda misses the point, my enjoyment of art doesn't come from the fact that something looks "good", and I personally think that is a very shallow position, as I can even enjoy bad art with a good history

Art, in my opinion, exists as the combination of human experiences, knowledge, who the person was and is during and before the creation of a particular piece, plus any sort of artistic inspirations that are also a mix of all of that.

Yes, all art is derivative, and that's okay, because in the end it tells something about YOU, the mix of emotions, chemicals and experiences. So yeah, I think the idea of asking a machine to try and replicate that rings hollow. I don't want a pretty picture, I want meaning.

This is obviously a notion moved by pure emotions but god dammit, rationalize it as much as you like, we are extremely emotional beings, if art doesn't have that, we have nothing to show for

This is just about generative AI, any other technical uses in other fields will be useful in ways we will probably not know much about, but it's always welcome. And is also a more artistic perspective, I ain't really gonna get into some of the other more environmental, political, educational, etc etc issues that can (and are) arriving from this

This is roughly how I feel

Which is why I'm also okay with uses wherein most of the work was done by a real person even if it was neural network assisted.

I always appreciate manual effort to get little details right from the beginning when I can spot it, but I don't think art should be gatekept on the basis that using a tool disqualifies your whole work.

There is an obvious line that separates regurgitated content from a text prompt and an actual human idea that was computer-assisted, something we've already done for decades. The idea should be to assist artists in either minor monotonous tasks involved in creating a work or lower the barrier of entry in mechanical skill, not eliminate the design process.

The fact you don't know what "inspiration" or "reference" shows what kind of level of idiocy you are.

Blame anti-AI lunatics who already call it stealing. Nevermind fair use law, all the human art forms that rely on sampling, etc etc.

So when it suits you it's idiotic to call referencing past material stealing, but otherwise it's a problem.

Not to imply that AI can be inspired, the language models aren't sentient, but humans have ripped off more and gotten away with it because of the thoughtful way it was reused. AI training is of a lesser magnitude in the final output to the point I don't think it really counts as the same thing, but many people will argue it is because it furthers their goal of appearing morally superior..

I do think it's right to respect artists who ask their work isn't used to feed a neural network but it's more of a courtesy and not an entitlement right now. Bring the issue to your local congressman if you disagree.

 

[ChibiMofo]

The fact you don't know what "inspiration" or "reference" shows what kind of level of idiocy you are.

The fact that you are so angry that you failed to note that I made no reference whatsoever to "reference" or "inspiration" -- of which I assure you as a published songwriter I know infinitely more than you ever will -- shows plenty about you, Bill. The personal attack at the end was uncalled for. I'm going to give you a moment to compose yourself, recall that you are dealing with a fellow human and not an AI or NPC, and give you the space here to apologize for that last bit.

 

[OilFreak]

You're on a thread called "Fuck AI art". What were you expecting