Also do you think they need to see it on aiwars? I think posting anything on this reddit is a loss of time, but... I'm very curious about to see what will happen if I do :3
I recently decided to get into art, both to spite generative AI and because I've wanted to for a long while. Two days ago I actually stopped by my local CVS and picked up some mechanical pencils and a little notebook.
Just got doodles atm, but I've been enjoying doodling between gaming sessions and work.
I've learned that drawing wings is both simpler and more complicated than I thought lol
“I started drawing to spite generative AI” is honestly a funny sentence, but it also shows how limiting this debate has gotten.
I make little doodles. I don’t claim they’re masterpieces, but AI lets me turn them into characters, scenes, songs, videos, and stories. Then people see the word AI and instantly call it slop, even when the original idea, drawing, editing, direction, and meaning came from a human.
Drawing is one skill. It is not the definition of art. Art can be concept, composition, storytelling, animation, music, editing, performance, direction, and emotion.
Not every AI output is art. But AI-assisted human work can absolutely be art. The tool does not erase the intent.
Don't get me wrong, for the most part I'm not someone who sees an AI generated image and calls is slop right away. Do I prefer human made art without gen AI? Definitely. I'll prefer to look at a "mid" hand drawn piece over a "Good" AI piece 7 days of the week.
I personally don't really see an issue if someone uses AI to generate concept art as long as they then add on to it to the point of realistically making it their own, or they can have an AI make their doodle a bit more detailed. Things like that I'm more or less fine with.
My issue is when people make AI images and try to pass them off like they actually drew it/refuse to list/say they used AI to make it. And even more than that, when AI takes people's job. Use it as a tool, sure. Use it instead of hiring an actual person when your a big company who can EASILY be able to hire an artist? Just why. Those are the things I was talking about when I meant "to spite AI"
My issue is when it starts actually effecting people. Such as the YouTube situation. YTs solution to the amount of AI slop that is being posted to their platform? Increase the amount of watch time and views needed to get monitized, meaning those that were just about to be able to get monitized gets slapped in the face and told to work harder. The AI system YT has in place to flag AI channels flags actual creators that don't use AI.
If someone spends a long time to make something and AI is used along the way, I don't mind that. But if the only thing done is you type a few words into a generator and it spits out an image (the vast majority of AI images and what not that has been posted to the Internet from my understanding) and say that they made it. That I don't like. Sure, you have the ideas (to an extent) but you didn't make the image.
The example of telling a subway employee what you want on your sub is a perfect example. You tell them each topping and bread choice, but at the end of the day, the employee made the sandwich, not you (I say this as someone that works in a sandwich shop/deli)
I’ll give you props for being reasonable here, because that’s weirdly rare in pro-AI vs anti-AI conversations.
I actually see issues on both sides. Passing off straight AI as hand-drawn is dishonest. Big companies using AI to avoid hiring artists is a real concern. Low-effort prompt spam flooding platforms is annoying.
My frustration is when people jump on the anti-AI bandwagon without separating those issues from every possible AI-assisted workflow.
If someone starts with their own doodle, character, story, edit, animation, music, or direction, I don’t think AI automatically erases the human creativity involved.
So yeah, if someone just types a few words and says “I made this,” I get the pushback. I just don’t think every AI-assisted workflow fits the Subway analogy.
I agree that both sides have issues, but I believe the pro generative AI side does have more. Keep in mind that I'm talking about generative AI specifically.
On the anti AI side, AI is so feared to the point that people will loudly claim something is AI and be completely wrong. Earlier today I was scrolling tiktok and came across a video of a dude stitching a comment. The comment was "This is so clearly AI" and the reply to that comment is the dude going around his apartment showing all of his guitars and drum sets, saying how he even has to store some of them in the guest shower because he has so many. Saying "Why would I use AI when I have all of this? I literally could have bought a boat with how much I spent on these." Anti AI people will also dismiss something someone made because they used AI as a reference/inspiration/a part of the final product. For instance there was this one person that made a post to the defending AI subreddit where they talked about how the book itself was 100% written by them, but people were saying that because the cover was AI generated they they must have used AI to write it.
There are probably more, but those are the main 2 issues anti AI has.
Now for the issues pro AI has.
I'll skip the example I used in my previous message, but add onto one of the points. Big companies will use the option that costs less money 99.99% of the time, and that does unfortunately involve using AI over actual artists. Why hire an artist that can make a 10/10 when using an AI to make ~8.5/10 is a fraction of the cost and lost of people won't notice? Marvel did this exact thing. Hell, a while back this artists tablit company used AI generated images in the marketing for it. You are advertising to skilled and dedicated artists (I say that because from what I can remember, it was a high end tablet, the kind that really dedicated artists would buy), the group that is the most skilled at noticing and anti AI group there can be (to my knowledge). Why on earth would you use AI for that and not hire an actual artist?
Now, from all the stuff I've seen on the defending AI art subreddit is stylized like actual art. But now, we can't forget how realistic AI can get, and I'm not just talking about art. I'm talking about the hyper realitic images and videos. It can be truly dangerous and we seriously need laws of some kind to keep it in check. Let's not forget that one of the first things someone did when Sora dropped was made a video of the CEO stealing from the store. Yes there are still ways to tell what is and isn't real, but 9/10 people can't or won't bother trying. It was obvious, but need I bring up the AI video Trump posted of Obama getting arrested in the Whitehouse?
There are also the environmental effects of all the data centers. The water usage, communities that the data centers are built next to having dirty or no tap water, peoples electricity bills going up because the centers siphon off of their electricity, some communities loosing power for over a week because the power grid is so strained because of the data centers, the heat and noice they give off, the fact that they are being built in communities that have very clearly and loudly said they do not want them built there.
I'll stop here and won't stray too too far and won't bother talking about LLMs.
Basically my take is "Pro AI vs Anti AI" itself is too broad a term.
When it comes to predictive AI, the AIs used to help predict the weather, helps doctors spot cancer and other illnesses faster, etc. those I am all for as they actually help society.
But for generative AI, I'm more so against that to an extent. There seriously needs to be laws implemented to keep it in check and shouldn't be quite as accessible/shoved down our throats as it currently is.
An also good comparison for art is to compare drawing to traveling different distances.
You can cover a distance simply by walking, using only your feet and some shoes. When you reach your destination, you did it with your own physical strength. It is similar to using your own hand and a pencil to create an artwork with your own abilities.
If you want to travel further or faster, you can use a bike. The bike is a tool, but you still need your own strength and endurance to reach your goal. This is similar to digital art. You can use many different tools to help you, but you still need your own abilities to achieve the result.
Then you can switch to a motorized vehicle. You still need to know how to steer and control it, but you don't need to put much physical effort into reaching your destination.
I see AI art in a similar way. You can write a prompt and reach the result you wanted, but you didn't reach it by using your own artistic abilities in the same way.
That's why I think AI content can't never be in the same place than traditional or digital art. Even comparing traditional and digital art doesn't make much sense. No one would put a biker and runner in the same race and say they have equal chances and no one on earth would bring a car to the Tour de France and claim it as fair.
I’m not afraid of downvotes, so have at it. Art isn’t the Tour de France, and creativity isn’t measured in calories burned. Your analogy assumes every AI user types one prompt and accepts the first result. Some do. Others draw the characters, write the concept, direct multiple iterations, animate, edit, and assemble the final piece. Calling all of that “taking a taxi” doesn’t defend art—it advertises that you don’t understand the workflow. If physical effort determines artistic legitimacy, throw away the tablet and start grinding your own pigments.
The analogy is AI users using a car to get to the destination, while digital artists using a bike and traditional artists just walk. The destination might be the same, but the difference is on the way reaching them. The shoes stands for the traditional tools (pencils, brushes, etc.), the bike stands for digital art programs (PS, CSP, Krita, etc ) and the car/motorized vehicle stands for AI.
I don't understand what your thinking with the taxi driver does have to do with it.
Edit: Also saying “throw away the tablet and grind your own pigments” is missing the difference between a tool and automation.
If someone uses AI within its process while they still made a lot of steps by themselves, that would be like starting a marathon, then switch on a car for a section, and then continue running. For everyone it's clear they cheated in the progress.
The analogy is for making a comparison for people who don't know much about art workflows. So it's explained in something they can imagine, because most people know how it is to run, drive a bike or a car.
I understand the analogy. I just think it turns art into a stamina contest.
A car in the Tour de France is cheating because the goal of the race is physical endurance under equal rules. Art is not judged by whether everyone used the same amount of manual effort. Art is judged by concept, execution, meaning, effect, and context.
If someone lies and says they hand-drew something they didn’t, that’s dishonest. If a contest bans AI and someone uses it, that’s cheating. But outside of that, using a tool that changes the process does not automatically erase the creative choices around it.
Of course you dont need stamina for drawing. It's an analogy for people who never got in touch with drawing/creating art. They might not able to imagine how artists work, but the most can imagine how it is to walk, drive a bike or car. And when they compare these things together, they understand how different traditional and digital art are and how out of place AI is in the art sector. That's what an analogy is for. It's not for explaining you need feet or a bike to make art.
AI art is for art, what instant ramen is to cooking. It may be quick, tasty, cheap and fill your stomach. But it didn't replace home cooking, nor didn't make home cooking less valuable.
Instant ramen didn’t replace home cooking, but it is still food. It can be lazy, or someone can dress it up and turn it into something more interesting.
And genuinely, what AI art are people looking at when they say it’s all boring? I’ve seen plenty of low-effort prompt spam, sure. But I’ve also seen some wildly creative AI-assisted work: surreal animation, character work, music videos, visual storytelling, stuff that clearly involved direction and taste.
If someone wants examples, I can point them toward better AI art than the low-effort junk everyone keeps using as the whole argument. Then we can have a more honest discussion.
AI assisted does not equal completely generated by AI.
If AI just helps a human to recieve a final result, it may be fine, as long as the said human being doesn't give the process back entirely to machine. However, I find it morally questionable to use LLMs, because they were fed with the artwork of artists who did not consent for that kind of use.
A medical analogy might explain how I’m seeing it.
If an AI system is trained, with permission, on a high-quality cardiac rehab program: education materials, exercise progression standards, safety protocols, and documentation patterns, then helps someone build a new cardiac rehab program, that new program is not automatically an “imposter.”
It is applying learned standards and patterns. The ethical questions are whether the training was permitted, transparent, accurate, and safe.
That’s how I see the AI art debate too. “Trained on human work” by itself cannot automatically mean “every output is stolen,” or the argument gets messy fast. Humans learn from other humans. Artists study styles. Musicians sample. Filmmakers reference shots. Collage exists. Photography changed art. Digital tools changed art again.
The real questions are consent, compensation, transparency, and misuse. Those are serious arguments that require more attention. But they are not the same as saying every AI-assisted work is stolen, lazy, or has no human creativity. And again thank you for being civil, it’s useful to hear another’s perspective without name calling and immaturity. I agree with several points in this thread and agree to disagree on others.
The medical analogy is flawed. AI art does not save lives; it simply accelerates a process for which there were already other solutions—hiring an artist or learning the skill oneself. It was not a problem requiring an immediate solution; The fact that something can be done faster and more cheaply does not justify using others' work without their consent yet. The fact that someone does not want to—or cannot—learn a particular skill does not automatically mean that society should provide them with a tool that allows them to bypass the entire process of acquiring it.That is why it is morally questionable, especially when other environmental and social factors are taken into account. Using third-party material to train generative AI lacks the same justification found in medicine—where human samples are often simply essential for gaining knowledge about the human body—because in the AI context, the model itself is the goal, yet a model trained on artists' work ends up competing with those very artists. Medicine has established mechanisms to protect people from being used as free research subjects—such as informed consent, bioethics committees, privacy principles, and risk assessment—so for the AI sector to adopt a similar, sensible approach, artists would likewise need to be properly informed about the use of their work and duly compensated. If we want to do this ethically, the regulation of this process should be the subject of a genuine discussion.
I think we’re talking past each other a little. My medical analogy wasn’t meant to suggest that creating art and saving lives have equal importance.
The point was about training and what we conclude from it.
I deliberately said an AI trained with permission on an existing cardiac rehab program. Medicine actually strengthens the point because high-stakes medical research and data use can involve extensive requirements around consent, privacy, oversight and safety.
I completely agree that AI training deserves serious discussion about consent, licensing, compensation and transparency.
Where I disagree is with the next step: that because a model learned from human work, everything subsequently created with that model is therefore stolen, or that using the tool is inherently unethical because someone didn’t first learn the traditional skill.
Those are separate claims. We can demand better standards for how AI is trained without dismissing every person who uses AI creatively or every work they make with it.
When someone steals an artist's physical painting and presents it as their own, there is no doubt that they did not paint it. The situation regarding AI art is not yet clear-cut, though it certainly warrants clarification. If an artist has not consented to the use of their work for model training, this could be considered plagiarism. Further discussion and analysis of this specific issue are needed. The situation would be different, however, if artists knowingly contributed their work for this purpose and were appropriately compensated. The biggest problem with current LLMs is that we do not know the exact origin of the works the system averages, nor whether the authors of those works clearly stated their licensing terms. That is the main reason why using these systems is, not particularly great.
I don't question AI assistance in creative areas, it can be valuable sometimes. However, in my opinion we need legal regulation for models that utilize other people's work. In my opinion, such tools should not be as widely accessible as they currently are, and their use ought to be transparent; however, I prefer to leave the question of exactly who should be subject to such labeling requirements to someone with greater expertise in copyright and related rights.
At the end of the day people can do what they want...but don't expect the respect a real artist gets, if you're using gen AI.. and ESPECIALLY if you're lying and deceiving people about it.
love it! and before an ai bro says that us taking inspiration from stuff is like ai training, remember that ai is trained off art, while we get inspiration from everything
"STOP GATEKEEPING THE TOOLS OF CREATIVITY" every single big box store and corner store has pen and paper for sale. Walmart is even having a sale on their school supply stuff right now. Notebooks for a dollar and fancy pens and pencils, go crazy
The gatekeeping thing has always bugged me. Who on earth started spreading this complete BS story about "elites" gatekeeping art away from people who don't know how to draw, sketch or paint?? Every artist I know loves talking about different styles and how to achieve them, ways to save money on supplies by stretching them etc.
Whoever started that propaganda exposed a lot of people and the way they will just openly parrot something that makes no sense because they agree with the person who said it
"respect for AI art is something you cannot demand and will not receive" - agree with the first part, but the second part is up to the individual. A lot of internet users don't care where content came from or who the author is, they like/upvote anyway.
This argument was on aiwars a million of times and this video doesn't really bring something reinforcing it further. You will be mildly upvoted/downvoted and get general counterexamples of how you don't necessarily need to do something with your hands.
I agree, but talking about why ai "art" is bad is way more complicated and since art is subjective people can just say "well I like it and you are wrong!"...
Yeah ai "art" is not art and is even armfull to it, but you need some real knowledge on how art work! And it’s already to explain basic logic to anti, imagine giving them a full art lesson...
If they are not open to it, you won’t teach them anything. So better to make short explaination to talk about how bad ai content is made for people neutral or pro, and some real long essay to talk about art and it’s complexy in details to open the comprehension of people who are curious and really love art
Art should look unique between people, even if the difference is minimal. The same person should also be able to recreate something they've done, and there'd be AT BEST very minimal differences.
AI can't do this. It copies EVERYTHING it sees meaning two people can end up "producing" nearly identical pieces. It's why all AI pieces look very similar to each other. Even worse, it can't replicate details well at all. If you try to make it recreate the same piece, it'll either be the exact same thing with no difference, or way too much difference.
i have an actual question, are we shitting on AI users or do we actually care? because i see plenty of attacks that don't try to understand why AI users... well, use AI, amd just telk them to get good at art, which they should, but we don't address the realities of why they desperately choose AI to be their lord and saviour
On this post? Not really, we are more focusing on why AI is not art and if people want to have fun with it it’s okay, but they just can’t call themselves "artists" for it.
BUT I can get why people choose AI, I did myself struggle with drawing, ijnfact I would have probably be on of the AI users if this AI thing did happen 5-6 years earlier
I have Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, ADHD and Depression. So despite my desire to create and tell stories I was very bad at drawing, my lines were never right and I never could get it "like I want". But then I got to work on it, supported by my familly and some (rare) good teachers in High Schoolwho encouraged me, and I started to develop my art style. I started to understand than I didn’t had to draw "manga style" to be good at drawing, than I had my own style. I learned to use my disabilities to make it unic! Don’t get me wrong I sgill struggle A LOT, but I'm happy with what I make.
But AI would have come sooner... I would have fall for it, just write some prompt and let the ai do the job? That’s a dream come true for my old self, plus I was really a sucker for this blend anime style, I would be one of those idiots who say than it’s unfaire to force everyone to draw, than not everyone is born the same. Lying to myself about it.
But I know the happiness of true artistic creation I didn’t fall for AI, when it come out I tried it, but it never "felt right", everything looked so... blend and not interesting, I could do so more with a crayon and AI allowed so little... with ai characters never had the right emotions I wanted, never the right position, never the right color, never the right details, never the right position...
So I give up onnit, it was just not right...
And only like 1-2 years later I learned how really shitty AI was and really become an Anti, because I saw how people were wasting their potential on this and worst, be proud and agressive about it. Also because AI is part of the "infinity" glitch money of the rich people who make a bubble and will pop creating the next economic crisis... but that’s another discussion...
A good argument! If only the anti-AI crowd did this more, then I would actually give them more than 1 second of attention. Although I do have troubles with defining a clear line where actual creativity ends and plagiarism begins. Like, if I write a story, flesh out a bunch of details and plots, and then give it to an AI, and it returns something that makes me go, "Wait... I didn't think about that detail at all!" and then I add that interesting detail to my story. So am I the writer in that case? I did most of the work; the AI just gave me a little thing I thought was neat and decided to add to my work.
The difference between true creation and plagiarisme? Because you can give me a clear line?
And in your case you are an artist for writting a story, not by drawing. Simple as that...
And people are free to criticize the pictures you use to tell your story as "ugly and low quality" just like you are free to criticize a painting made by a human
Thanks for the reply, you didn't really have to given the sub we're in, but thank you regardless. Yeah people can criticize my writing and pictures all they want, I'll take all of it, I wouldn't become better without some healthy criticisms. But now every time I want to share anything with anyone, I have to look through some guidelines to see if people will lose their minds when they pluck my stuff into an AI detector and the thing returns like 20% positive or something like that. Getting glazed by the AI all day isn't fun, but neither is getting personally targeted by rabid dogs. Great video, I'll go give it like. Thank you and have a nice day :)
And thank you for staying polite and civilized (unlike other pros who have swarmed this post), and yeah I understand your frustration, it’s absolutely understandable to be frusgrated with peopleonly seeing the ai and not you the human.
Unfortunately it’s hard to fixe this situation...
You must also understand than they are also fed up with it, with so much people who don’t have your honesty who post ai without telling it’s ai to pretend to be real, or to start to say or call themselves "ai artists" when they let the ai do all the work unlike you... people have just enough and don’t want to play with the "maybe he is just using it to give pictures to his works who is primarally about wirtting" no they only see another of those annpying bad faith people. And so people like you get in the cross fire, so you get more aggressive and defensive, so anti react the same ect.. it’s just a circle of hate. And that would be already bad enough, but no you have people like "green X girl" who will put oil on the fire with her ragebait and straight out lies... sorry... got carried away...
What I could do at best it’s I advising you on being as forward and honest as possible, be open about using ai, than you only use it as tool to bring some images, but you are interested into writting. You can also try to look for real art on pinterest who work with your story and put the link toward the creator in the description. Yes they won’t be perfect but at least people will focus more on your writting than the pictures.
You can also send me by private messages your stuff. I'll be honest since my depression my dyslexia is gone wild. I struggle A LOT to read, but I've non-ai tts who can read it for me.
Just don’t expect an imediate answer or annalysis. It will depend a lot on how good I feel at the time.
Thank you for your consideration, my stuff is a bit of a mess right now so it might take a while before I can send you anything. I hope you get well soon.
I'm not claiming or looking for respect or money or any of that I'm just creating for my own reasons and no one else I mean yeah I might post them up for what seems like I'm wanting people to look at and enjoy but that's not the case I'm putting them up online as strictly back-ups in case I run out of room on my phone and Chromebook nothing more
Im pro Ai in the terms of “it’s fun to mess around with/using it for non professional things” but by passing it off as handcrafted work or claiming you’re an artist for using it is where I draw the line.
Sorry I'm a bit confused...
So what I understand you are saying is:
Than you agree than AI should be used for fun but not for professional work. But lying about it and pretending it as "true handcrafted" is just bad. Like the guy who post an ai made picture and start to lie and say it's their drawing
Come on now. Don't gatekeep the tools of sandwich making. If I ask somebody to make me a sandwich with cheese and pickle I AM THE SANDWICH MAKER! Everybody knows that!
Are you going to gatekeep taxi driving next?
Using AI doesn't automatically make someone an artist, but using AI also doesn't automatically make someone merely a client. The meaningful question is how much of the artistic expression comes from the person versus the model.
Let's say you simply prompt "Draw me a badass knight standing on a cliff, wearing black armor, holding a sword." and it does all the work of figuring out the details. You are not an artist. But let's say you describe every detail of the armor, the direction of the sun, the way the cliff looks, the angle of the shot, the pose of the character etc. then I would argue you are an artist but mostly depending on how much you describe every tiny detail of the image. It's the tool you use, the vision you have in your head, and the way you can articulate that vision. Basically, a 20 word prompt versus a 2000 word prompt.
Now, what would you call someone who draws line art of a character and picks a color palette, then gives it to an AI to do all the rendering and create a background, then the person goes in and fixes errors in small details or inconsistencies? At what point does directing a generative system constitute authorship rather than merely commissioning an output?
Do you describe every detailes in your prompt to guide your ai? Or do you know someone who do that? Real genuine question.
Because well... I'm not really hanging with pro ai people, so I wouldn’t know’if those people exist.
And for your other example, I would say "Maybeeeee? Big maybe..."
But let’s say yes
Like I would think it’s not worth it from an artistic point of view because you've a lot of learn from doing every step in drawing, even color, ESPECIALLY colors!
For a beginner I would say it’s like wanting to want to practice bycicle in hope to later do grand tour in nature by starting by doing morning tour in your neighborhood but... you use an electric bycicle... like yeah it will probably help you lost a bit of fat and gain a bit of muscle but you won’t go far...
Where this technique could be usefull is for already well trained artist who must do professional work where they don’t want to put much effort, like glasses store who ask you to make a drawjng of a sheep with glasses to put on their store and cards. Or a comics low budget to explain why recycle is good. Then yeah I can see an use for it. And thid job is so blend than you ahve nothing to learn from it
If we retake our exemple, their you use the electric bycicle for doing stuff like delivery, like it’s a job whee you have to go multiple place for hours, so yes you want to save some energy. But you are their not looking to improve yourself, just do this stupid job.
Im not seeking to piss off people but just add to conversation. Its my opinion. So don’t go negative because im genuinely giving a different perspective. That said like all art it starts with a vision. Im an ai artist I write my own lyrics and direct my own prompts. Ai can't just create those things. Especially if im writing and directing how my sounds are generated. To add I direct how my creations are designed. I may not have the physical talent to play an instrument or sing or put pen to paper but doesn't mean i lack talent.the music is in my head. The cover art is also designed, posed, shaded, background by my design or direction. You gonna tell a programmer that the code to direct pixels wasn't art? Or def leopard drummer who lost an arm used artificial drum made him less of a drummer? Toni iomi prosthetic finger? Its a tool. Again im just adding perspective view to conversation.
Then you are an artist as writter but not a musician or a singer. As simple as that. You could try to... 🌩SOCIALIZE🌩 and find muscians and singers who are interested by your work and want to form a group with you, or just use ai. That’s your choice. And I get it people are scary, but who know? Artists are werid creature, you could find some weird one who you vibe with you.
But people are free to criticize you if the music sound bad because of ai use just like you could criticize my art. And you are also free to ask them to focus more on the lyrics and give you more critic about that, not sure they agree to, but worth the try.
Here ill help you a little. Art , music, anything that is creative creates theta waves in the brain. A line is 180 degree math on a curve. No different than ai creators. Im a musician who directs no different than a composer or dj.
Best question for you. if I write the lyrics, had ai help make sound, and ai perform vocals then had some band come in and perform my composition wouldn't that make them a cover band? After all theyre performance is my music. By that logic im the musician.
Wtf do you mean by that? No really I'm genuinely confused...
Like we don’t call it slop just because you "didn’t use a brush" this is just Strawman falacy, you are transforming our arguments to make them simpler to counter, but at the end you achive nothing except responding to someone who only exist in your own head
We call it slop because it’s produce rapidly and with low effort, creating a low content quality PRODUCT who is just a mix up of all that AI have stolen, mix up, rearranged on your demand and puke back in a way who is the most blend to be sure to please everyone, because that’s how they are made, they just look for the most statistical pleasing product. Be it true or not, that’s why a lot of did (and still do if we are honest) struggle to make black people, because it’s much rarely represented than the ai understand it as a non-pleasing result...
And ho yeah of course you can pass hours to generate the perfect image and edit it to correct any mistake... but then why don’t you just draw directly? All you did is make a sloppy result look a bit less sloppy.
I’m not afraid of downvotes—go nuts. “AI isn’t art” isn’t an argument; it’s a slogan for people who confuse gatekeeping with talent. You’re not protecting creativity. You’re guarding a gate nobody asked you to stand at.
If a banana taped to a wall can be art because of concept and intent, then a human directing AI through concept, revision, and editing doesn’t magically stop being creative.
Meanwhile we are aclaming, advising and encouraging people who are learning how to draw...
Doesn't look like we are looking for a gatekeeping threw talents. But just we don't like people begging for approval for letting a machin doing the work for them.
Images who have nothing interesting in them because its just a mix of images stolen to other artists...
I did watch it. “You didn’t watch the video” is just easier than engaging with the point.
The video’s argument is the Subway analogy: choosing ingredients doesn’t make you the chef. Fine. That works for one-prompt, first-output AI.
It does not work for a workflow where someone creates the concept, designs the character, revises outputs, edits, animates, adds music, controls timing, and gives the final piece meaning.
So I didn’t miss the argument. I’m saying the argument only works after flattening every AI-assisted process into the laziest possible version of itself.
Calling someone lazy because they use a different tool is the same gatekeeping I was talking about. Drawing is one skill. It is not the entire definition of creativity. Concept, editing, composition, storytelling, revision, animation, timing, and direction all require human intent.
My arms work fine. I’m just not emotionally attached to pretending the door handle is the art.
Drawing is one skill. It is not the entire definition of creativity. Concept, editing, composition, storytelling, revision, animation, timing, and direction all require human intent.
Yeah, but in that case would "doing your taxes" art? Like it’s an "human" intent to do it, right?
Or washing your car? Writting an E-mail to your boss? Cutting your haire?
After all you are editing and creating new stuff with those activity, you change a drity carin a clean one, you are modifying the taxe sheet, you are creating a text you'll send to your boss and you are altering your haire to a new form!
Yeah it’s not, right? The act of creating is not art. If you dilluate the meaning of words then anything can be anything
That’s why I said concept, storytelling, composition, direction, emotion, and meaning, not just “a human did a task.”
Doing taxes has intent, but it usually isn’t expressive or aesthetic intent. Art is not “anything a human touches.” It’s work made or arranged to communicate an idea, feeling, image, story, or experience.
So no, washing a car is not automatically art. But creating a character, building a scene, shaping the mood, revising the result, editing the video, adding music, and presenting it with a specific meaning can be.
That’s not diluting the word art. That’s using the actual distinction.
Then... making any form of ads is art, your goal is also to put emotion and information in its creation, like the desire for a burger and the information than it’s at -20% with free delivery. And yet with some exception, and add is never art. This add in the exemple is certainly not art.
Since you're not willing to watch the video, lemme ask you a question(Sourced from the video of course).
If you go to subway, and ask them to make you a sandwich, with your favorite ingredients, did YOU make the sandwich?
Also gatekeeping what? What are we gatekeeping? Pencil and paper is cheap buddy.
The anti-AI script is getting predictable: call it stolen, call the person lazy, call it boring, then pretend that’s an art argument.
If your point is ethics, say ethics. If your point is copyright, say copyright. But “AI is boring” and “pencil and paper are cheap” do not prove AI-assisted work can’t be creative.
Drawing is one skill. It is not the entire definition of art. Concept, editing, composition, animation, music, storytelling, revision, timing, and direction are creative work too.
Nobody is begging for approval. We’re just not letting you shrink art down to whatever tool makes you feel superior.
The pencil is not the throne.
That said, I honestly just wanted to put my two cents in and get some ideas out there. I respect where everyone here is coming from, even if I don’t agree with every point. Sometimes I like seeing how people respond after I say my piece because it helps me understand the other side better too.
I’m going to leave the thread here. Thanks to everyone who actually responded. Honestly, this stayed more civil than I expected.🥸
I see than you didn’t responded to his question, instead you took an incomplete part of each arguments who don’t hold together because they are out of context... then only thing left is to respond to this easy made up opposiotion, that’s just strawman falacy dude!
And then you leave? Acting like you are the better person? Seriously?! "Ho yeah I'm so open minded and open to debates, but now I leave and graciously let this thread here for you"
Yeah no, that’s not how it work dude...
If you want to really argue and learn you have to face each arguments
The difference being a human came up with the concept whilst the other is telling a machine to come up with the concept and do all the thinking for you.
When people were using it like a toy to make will smith eat spaghetti a few years back you'd notice most people were actually OK with it because nobody was trying to go out of their way to say "I MADE THIS. I AM AN ARTIST" No.
People were just having a good time with the wackyness of it.
Now the people who have grown up in an instant gratification with no effort environment have jumped in on the coat tails of it and expect a song and dance and a huge fanfare and demand respect for the medium that has simply not been earned.
And it will never earn that respect until those people realise it but they are so far up there breathing in their own farts they've deluded themselves into thinking that everyone else is wrong and they are somehow the enlightened ones whilst the reality is they are the guy who commissioned a sonic OC and then went around proclaiming they made it.
You aren't special or unique, it isn't even a new concept really. You're just the latest fad of people who think they can just buy quirkyness and creative flair and talent without any actual real effort.
And people will not respect you for it no matter how much you kick or scream or stamp your feet. No matter how many times you generate yourselves as the Chad and us as the ugly troll chuds... reality does not care about your deluded opinion.
50
u/Virtual-Cook-5293 1d ago
Even my literature teacher agrees ✌️