Fuck AI art

[Skv0ra]

I completely agree that we need to learn how to do it!

However, AI can be part of that process, as it's just another tool at your disposal.

Should we teach math? Of course, but that doesn't mean we can't use calculators.

This is just the beginning and it's not going to stop, so we need to start adapting and evolving, because AI is here now and will be here long after we die.

When the calculators are made from wrong answered math questions from the WORLD, where 99% of answers are wrong to even the simplest of questions by the unbeknownst collective...........................................?

 

[Magnus87]

So your problem with AI isn't whether it's a tool or not, but that it can give wrong answers?

 

[nkpad]

Interesting Thread...

So, AI art is just bad, companies like NVIDIA wants to replace everything with AI (example: Coding, Art, Animations, Everyday use devices)
Without taking in account the possible risks that this can bring...
(Scams...)

In my opinion, if you wanna use AI,  DONT humanize it, or use it for your own stuff, that will prevent things like the ones Im concerned about...

 

[Noctosphere]

Here is my honnest opinion, as someone who is studying in 3D animation (a mere beginner, but still).

I think AI is here and will stay here. There is no point in trying to fight against its use. It is a tool that should be used to help us in our work. Obviously, it should not be used to do our job (since it will most likely fail to in any cases) but more as a support, as a mere help.
I think those who refuse to use it at all (such as 3D animation, modeling, VFX, etc.) are those who are more at risk of losing their jobs. For example, if a TV show uses a lot of VFX and other animation stuff, it would require a lot of staff to work on VFX and all, which would increase the time and cost of production. If AI is used as a mean of help, it could reduce the time and cost, make the show last longer and keep the fewer jobs running.
AI is there and should be used. Fighthing against it is pointless.

 

[Cranesbill]

Yeah, just a tool and nothing else

Tho about that thing with people losing their jobs, or at least gets set aside, it’s already happening

Coca Cola made another AI Christmas add and according to the Director, it only needed less than 20 people to make it
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/coke-new-ai-holiday-ad-video-1236416491/


Those who are refusing to use would prefer to stand their ground on their values and principle of human reliance, and not cheap generative

 

[Noctosphere]

Yeah, just a tool and nothing else

Tho about that thing with people losing their jobs, or at least gets set aside, it’s already happening

Coca Cola made another AI Christmas add and according to the Director, it only needed less than 20 people to make it
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/coke-new-ai-holiday-ad-video-1236416491/


Those who are refusing to use would prefer to stand their ground on their values and principle of human reliance, and not cheap generative

I'm sure there are tons of exemple of places where they refused to rely on AI and ended up losing their jobs anyway.
If we take TV Shows as exemple, it always keep costing more to produce a single episode. If you can cut the budget for VFX by having less employee and more capable ones who can make use of AI, the production cost is cut by a lot, profits get higher, and there is more chances for the show to be renewed for another season and for those job to stay alive. Of course, we still need human reliability, but humans also need to evolve with their time. Those who refuse to are the ones who will be left behind.

As of now, I'll be the first to admit that SD is a very great tool to generate at will some good jerking material

 

[Cranesbill]

I'm sure there are tons of exemple of places where they refused to rely on AI and ended up losing their jobs anyway.
If we take TV Shows as exemple, it always keep costing more to produce a single episode. If you can cut the budget for VFX by having less employee and more capable ones who can make use of AI, the production cost is cut by a lot, profits get higher, and there is more chances for the show to be renewed for another season and for those job to stay alive. Of course, we still need human reliability, but humans also need to evolve with their time. Those who refuse to are the ones who will be left behind.

As of now, I'll be the first to admit that SD is a very great tool to generate at will some good jerking material

Yeah you sure, but you don't have anything to prove it

No tv show has ever went that route

 

[Noctosphere]

Yeah you sure, but you don't have anything to prove it

No tv show has ever went that route

Of what? Not using AI? Having too high cost of production? I only have one right now, but I'm sure there are more. (The Wheel of Time, cancelled after season 3 because it became too expansive, not because they had low viewership or anything)

 

[Cranesbill]

Of what? Not using AI? Having too high cost of production? I only have one right now, but I'm sure there are more. (The Wheel of Time, cancelled after season 3 because it became too expansive, not because they had low viewership or anything)

You have a high budget for a show if there's a large viewership, if there isn't, then there was a clear imbalance

Stranger Things costs way more, but it's justified for its viewership

+ There was a change in leadership with Amazon at that time, new direction

I don't think using AI to help relieve the budget would help either, because the controversy would still come up, and then half of the audience would boycott it

 

[Noctosphere]

You have a high budget for a show if there's a large viewership, if there isn't, then there was a clear imbalance

Stranger Things costs way more, but it's justified for its viewership

+ There was a change in leadership with Amazon at that time, new direction

I don't think using AI to help relieve the budget would help either, because the controversy would still come up, and then half of the audience would boycott it

And that's my point. They would boycott because... what? Most people don't even know why they want to boycott it.
Nearly everyone who say "fuck AI" don't even know why they want to ban AI everywhere. Just like parrots, you know?
Why should we boycott a show because it used AI as a way to help them? Using no AI at all can also lead to some backlash.
Have you seen OPM season 3? Kind of an extreme example, but when you look at the animation quality they gave to their fans VS what AI can fix on these animation (And I'm talking about amateurs using AI, not people who actually know their shits), I'm pretty sure fans would not be as angry as they are today.
Again, being against AI just because "they are taking away jobs for humans" is not a good mentality. Take a look at some modern employees and tell me an AI would not do a better job.

 

[Axido]

And that's my point. They would boycott because... what? Most people don't even know why they want to boycott it.
Nearly everyone who say "fuck AI" don't even know why they want to ban AI everywhere. Just like parrots, you know?
Why should we boycott a show because it used AI as a way to help them? Using no AI at all can also lead to some backlash.
Have you seen OPM season 3? Kind of an extreme example, but when you look at the animation quality they gave to their fans VS what AI can fix on these animation (And I'm talking about amateurs using AI, not people who actually know their shits), I'm pretty sure fans would not be as angry as they are today.
Again, being against AI just because "they are taking away jobs for humans" is not a good mentality. Take a look at some modern employees and tell me an AI would not do a better job.

Have you asked everyone?
I boycott AI, because looking at AI slop hurts my eyes. If any product uses AI and it doesn't suck, I don't see a reason to boycott that product. But if it shows that the job has been half-assed and a human creator was fired for that, guess what I'll gladly do? Boycott that shit.

What does that OPM example have to do with all of this? If something has bad animation, that has nothing to do with not using AI. You are entitled to your perspective that AI could do it better, but from what I have seen, those elusive people who know their shits, as you phrased it, simply don't exist. When AI fails I always hear "You just have to use it right", but I still miss examples where the results don't look weird or the amount of work put in to get a statistical model to do the job on par with a human was so high that there was no benefit over having it done by a human in the first place.

 

[Noctosphere]

What does that OPM example have to do with all of this? If something has bad animation, that has nothing to do with not using AI. You are entitled to your perspective that AI could do it better, but from what I have seen, those elusive people who know their shits, as you phrased it, simply don't exist. When AI fails I always hear "You just have to use it right", but I still miss examples where the results don't look weird or the amount of work put in to get a statistical model to do the job on par with a human was so high that there was no benefit over having it done by a human in the first place.

I never said that OPM used AI (quite the opposite actually). I said that if they used AI, maybe (just maybe) they could have gotten a better result. Again, I said AI should be used as a mean of help, not as a mean of replacing humans. I think you read all I said wrong. And of course, there are people who knows how to use AI and people who don't. Don't act like "I write some prompt and I get result" was how AI actually worked. If that's really what you think, then of course all you will get are floppy results that stink AI from miles away.

 

[Cranesbill]

View attachment 537344

I never said that OPM used AI (quite the opposite actually). I said that if they used AI, maybe (just maybe) they could have gotten a better result. Again, I said AI should be used as a mean of help, not as a mean of replacing humans. I think you read all I said wrong. And of course, there are people who knows how to use AI and people who don't. Don't act like "I write some prompt and I get result" was how AI actually worked. If that's really what you think, then of course all you will get are floppy results that stink AI from miles away.

Bro that does not substitute it + the context is that he slides down the hill, the problem is that there was no depth in the animation to look that way

The line between help and replacement is pretty blurry. Even well-intentioned use of AI can dilute the human voice or lead to predictable outputs. Even with the prompting skill, it doesn’t change the fact that AI tools generate based on existing patterns rather than genuine understanding or inspiration behind artistic work.

Soon it will just look cheaper in a way that it's cookie-cutter and this type of output will be used in a different form of animation if we take this route of AI filling in the gaps in the following years. Like when Disney had an era of recycling their animations in their films, and it was noticeably cheap, despite it doing the job

 

[Noctosphere]

Bro that does not substitute it + the context is that he slides down the hill, the problem is that there was no depth in the animation to look that way

The line between help and replacement is pretty blurry. Even well-intentioned use of AI can dilute the human voice or lead to predictable outputs. Even with the prompting skill, it doesn’t change the fact that AI tools generate based on existing patterns rather than genuine understanding or inspiration behind artistic work.

Soon it will just look cheaper in a way that it's cookie-cutter and this type of output will be used in a different form of animation if we take this route of AI filling in the gaps in the following years. Like when Disney had an era of recycling their animations in their films, and it was noticeably cheap, despite it doing the job

The line is not blurry at all. Of course it will reduce the number of animator for a project. But was you call "a blurry line" is just an excuse to say "Don't use AI". Again, AI is gonna stay, there is no point in fighting against its use. They might as well make good use of it since there is no escaping.

 

[Cranesbill]

The line is not blurry at all. Of course it will reduce the number of animator for a project. But was you call "a blurry line" is just an excuse to say "Don't use AI". Again, AI is gonna stay, there is no point in fighting against its use. They might as well make good use of it since there is no escaping.

Or y'know, actaully add some regulations to it

 

[spinal_cord]

I have nothing against "A.I". I've even been known to press "F7" to spellcheck my documents before.

 

[Magnus87]

Have you asked everyone?
I boycott AI, because looking at AI slop hurts my eyes. If any product uses AI and it doesn't suck, I don't see a reason to boycott that product. But if it shows that the job has been half-assed and a human creator was fired for that, guess what I'll gladly do? Boycott that shit.

As humanity progresses, technology constantly redefines the role of work. From the earliest mechanisms like levers and pulleys, a trend was already evident: each technological innovation displaced functions that previously required human intervention.

This pattern intensified with the first industrial revolution, when automation began to replace manual tasks en masse. Decades later, the emergence of media like television once again altered the labor landscape, impacting entire industries.
The evolution didn't stop there. In their early days, computers were enormous and required specialized equipment to operate. Today, that same capacity fits in your pocket, accessible to everyone.
Even in everyday life, the change is evident. Organizing a party used to involve hiring a DJ and a professional photographer. Now, a playlist on digital platforms is all it takes, and the images are shared spontaneously in the group created for the occasion.
In this context, artificial intelligence represents the next step. Does it have flaws? Of course. It's in its early stages, comparable to asking an Atari 2600 to reproduce graphics from an NES or Master System. But as with every previous advancement, its impact will be profound and transformative.

 

[Exnor]

AI art is not ART. Its an algorithm stitching pixels.

Art needs to be made by sentient being, not (very complex) machines.
We are not talking about sentient machines, and probably never will.

 

[Cranesbill]

As humanity progresses, technology constantly redefines the role of work. From the earliest mechanisms like levers and pulleys, a trend was already evident: each technological innovation displaced functions that previously required human intervention.

This pattern intensified with the first industrial revolution, when automation began to replace manual tasks en masse. Decades later, the emergence of media like television once again altered the labor landscape, impacting entire industries.
The evolution didn't stop there. In their early days, computers were enormous and required specialized equipment to operate. Today, that same capacity fits in your pocket, accessible to everyone.
Even in everyday life, the change is evident. Organizing a party used to involve hiring a DJ and a professional photographer. Now, a playlist on digital platforms is all it takes, and the images are shared spontaneously in the group created for the occasion.
In this context, artificial intelligence represents the next step. Does it have flaws? Of course. It's in its early stages, comparable to asking an Atari 2600 to reproduce graphics from an NES or Master System. But as with every previous advancement, its impact will be profound and transformative.

Unlike levers, industrial machines, or even personal computers, AI doesn’t just replace physical or repetitive functions, it encroaches on cognitive and creative tasks that were once considered uniquely human. It's a different kind of disruption.

Those older technologies evolved within clearly defined parameters

better graphics, faster processors, more efficient machines.

AI however, introduces ethical and existential dimensions that go WAY beyond simple “improvement.” It's raising questions about authorship and accountability

AI doesn’t just extend human capability, no, there's a strong potential for it to substitute for human life itself. When algorithms begin to make decisions in fields such as hiring, law, healthcare, or art, we’re not just talking about displaced jobs, we’re talking about displaced responsibility

How much longer will they keep using the same excuse, "it's convenient," until their life is just completely dependent on it for even the simplest tasks?

 

[Magnus87]

AI art is not ART. Its an algorithm stitching pixels.

Art needs to be made by sentient being, not (very complex) machines.
We are not talking about sentient machines, and probably never will.

And ultra-processed food isn't food. It's just a collection of ingredients with additives.
Food needs to be made by sentient beings, not (very complex) machines.

We're not talking about sentient machines, and probably never will be.

Yet here we are, going to the supermarket every week to buy ready-made food instead of making it ourselves. If we don't have the option, we go to a fast-food restaurant.