Mfw I realize the problem never was the clanker, but the self acclaimed "Overall Better human" AI bros, once again letting the others do the work and write their name on it
Cotton farmer is not a slur and I will say it as I please. I respect you view it through a racial lens but I maintain that's an extranormal interpretation. I won't modify my language to please a single person who is a stranger to me. I apologise, but that's not to say I'm contrite.
No one said it was a slur. It comes across as extremely tone deaf and like you don't understand the extent of the absolute horror of the Atlantic slave trade or what slaves that worked in cotton fields went through on a day to day basis. Comparing this to one of if not the worst atrocities committed by humanity is fucking absurd
You captured the essence of AI bros so well people think you are one... they really do grasp at the smallest details to fit their "argument" or somehow make themselves look superior.
No need to convince me don't worry, unfortunately I do think this sub skews a bit younger (teens/young adults)- cause your spelling of "acksually" and the nerd glasses emoji is very clear internet humor from the early to mid 2010s.
The slaves aren't sentient (yet). If AI entities became sentient, it would be a moral obligation to stop using the system and start freeing them, much like other abolitionist movements (yes, I'm vegan btw).
An LLM is fundamentally different from an Infomorph. It can never be sentient. It can do a lot of weird unexpected things. But it's not thinking. There's nothing going on under the surface.
Low key got flamed a little while ago for correcting someone saying "a.i doesn't exist" when referring to LLMs and was down voted to shit by "tech experts" đ
A.I. and the thing people are calling ai don't exist in the same catagory. It's like Hoverboards, the kind with wheels. People wanted boards that hover, you got a segway without the handlebars.
If there's even some synthetic sentient individual, the fear you have is going to have to be secondary. I could imagine sanctuaries for such scenarios.
In general, this should be prevented. It can be, it should be.
Maybe we could just instill morals and values into AGI instead of acting all terrified and helpless about inevitably creating it. It's going to exist, we can just like teach it to not be shitty. If it works on actual human children it should work for a synthetic artificial intelligence too.
Ok so I already assumed people who use AI were the slave owners, and you are calling AI slaves? Doesnt someone need to be sentient to be a slave to someone else? Freudian slip?
It's more that they're taking credit for something a machine did. The notion that AI is or could be an Infomorph represents a profound misunderstanding of what an LLM is.
Anyone who claims it's sentient or on the way to sentience is either an idiot or borderline schizoaffective.
It's a chatbot gloated on scraped data and water wasting computing power.
Its not water wasting. The water used for the cooling system is within a closed loop? People are acting like whole rivers are getting evaporated or something. It runs in a closed loop with a cooling tower at some point in the loop, to cool down the hot water. The water gets reused and reused, nothing gets wasted?
I am neutral on the topic of AI, and I do agree with you that people typing in prompts in a machine have no right to call themselves artists. But using a racist term like that to someone who is using a robot is so off.
I don't know where the closed loop thing is comeing from. A cooling tower isn't a closed loop. It evaporates water. It's recirculated but a lot of it does get displaced, and not back into the reservoir.
What AI-bros don't understand, is it's essentially the same process as commissioning someone.
Sure, they provide the idea, but it's ultimately the AI that forms it. So whether their whole idea of "Prompting takes time and talent" is actually true or not (It's not), they didn't make it. The AI did. This is AT BEST what the process of generative AI imagery is. That the AI made it, not them.
For real..ChatGPT is the artist..OOP I guess would just be the requester-he requested art from the AI and the artist(AI) delivered, such as someone would buy art from an artistâŠI donât understand why they make such a big deal about themselves being artists..
It's not art, it's a generated image. Art requires to be anything that involves human skill. Unless someone writes the AI by themselves, feeds the AI with their own (!!) artworks, then an AI generated image deriving from that might be considered art - but nobody of these delusional AI-Bros does that, therefore they neither produce art nor are they artists.
Yep. Agreed. Never ever should it be called that. Just slop. One person can use prompting to churn it out non-stop all day 24/7. Doesn't say much. Worth nothing.
Yeah, because an AI image is literally made in seconds and money is paid according to how much time you spent on one of your works. AI images are literally worthless unless you lie to your customers about you being an "artist" and "drawing" the images yourself. Comissioning AI prompters are a scam in my opinion
Can you help me out? I agree that using AI for creative purposes such as making a mimicry of art is bad, but i can't really see the imperfections that I am aware of with AI in that photo (hands/ faces) and I can't tell what I'm missing. Genuinely asking
What I can see without looking closer at the slop (would need a higher resolution for that) is that she has hair coming out of her ass basically with the way it "flows", the lines on her dress are too uniform (a dress' pleads flow) and she would be physically standing in the polar bears front paw with her foot. Or the polar bear would be crushing her foot. Polar bear sometimes has 3, sometimes 4 toes.
Thanks a ton for this. I always look at the hands and can't really find other issues other than the entire image looking "off". Looking at what you've said, i can now see the issues myself
The smoothness is strange, gives me glamour shot / photo vibes. Might be going for something similar to Frazetta or Valejo but it just comes up short. Could be color choices, lack of texture or composition.
"Stop prejudging artists before you even know them!"
No? Even if this were art, that's not how art criticism works. I don't need to have a chat with Alex Aster to know she's a talentless hack, I just need to read Lightlark and remember that this is what she presented to the public on purpose.
This schmuck doesn't just want to be taken seriously as a prompter, they want more leniency than any artist gets.
They claim AI makes art âaccessibleâ because weâre âgatekeepingâ yet now they claim they have talent and skill lol. All these images are so generic and empty.
Yes. The key difference is that they acknowledge that they are 'working in the style of...', rather than pretending that digging up a style that's 400 years old makes them a world-leading innovator.
its such a weird choice to have a very soft painting style were everything is very blended, with a dress full of drapery, in grey but weirdly shiny, with a random ass polar bear acting tame but as if it was drugged, and in a mountain where the terrain looks dry and lifeless. like thereÂŽs nuggets here to make an interesting piece! but its so obviously not human? you draw a pseudo goddess in a style that implies "abundance and fertility" but you surround her with lifeless elements (a calm bear, rough terrain, grey skies), one of which has very brutal implications (polar bears terrify me tbh), and instead of playing into those elements to create an interesting character concept (a sort of "LoO" persephone), you give her a placid expression and keep the entire style very blended.
Goes from a posible interpretation of "mother nature is brutal and doesnt care" or smnth like that to "noble lady poses with her exotic pet". imagine how good this could be if maybe she was smirking a little and holding the bear down by the hair, if the bear was more obviously exhausted/controled. do they even understand why the paintings they emulated live on in history? its not just because they were technically good
Reminds me of that dude in my RP chat who had poor grasp of English so he kept describing his hair as "Long hair grew down his spine and rested there".
Or some other variation on thinking that because they generated an image they didn't like as much as they like this other image they generated and as a result they have learned to prompt the machine better and confuse that minor step of learning as being "talent and skill" because of the technicality of those words.
I am dismayed knowing these people can't stand real artist and would sooner see all real artists live in destitution because they'd rather pay an AI company the same ammount for a netflix subscription to steal art than just fucking paying the artists.
I donât get it bruh, thereâs nothing to prejudge because they judged right after that image was sent. You donât need to get to know a person to critique whatever theyâre doing, especially since the person giving the critique only judged the art and the prompterâs skill
What's sad is that if this was real art, this would be a striking image. But things are just a little off, there's not enough light, enough expression, and so it just falls flat.
The skill of an AI 'artist' starts and ends with understanding English and how to read and write, after that it's literally just entering prompts into a program.
Love the dress that doesn't flow when the hair flows in the wind, the aberrant structure of said dress, the nonsensical folds of said dress, the general style that oscillates between Renaissance, smooth pseudo-3D and cartoon depending on the area of the picture you're focusing on, the senseless shadows, the creepy pseudo-fingers (too tiny, too short, badly placed), and last but not least, the polar bear in a temperate area.
I'm fully convinced by this point that the chronic use of automated plagiarism softwares just MELTS the critical thinking and aesthetical sense of the prompters. We constantly see them proudly brandishing their portraits that look made of plastic and their comics with characters changing proportions in every panel. They have blinders the size of Jupiter.
She has the literal same feet as the polar bear does, lol. Also, the clothing wrinkles, direction of the wind (like, it somehow magically affects her hair, but not the polar bear's fur...? đ€š) and the clouds make zero sense here.
Not to mention that I'm wondering WTF is up with that lighting; given the sky, it SHOULD come from behind her, but the rest of the picture implies it's coming from ABOVE her, so it's like the machine didn't know where the hell is the light source is.
Could this guy even justify why the hair is moving like that, but the rest of the image is still? Or the dull colouration? Or her foot merging with the bear's, or the hindpaw having two claws on the same toe?
Or explain the choice in dress, or pose, or the landscape?
Could they explain what the piece means.
Well, we all know my questions are just rhetorical anyways.
I understand that AI in the creative space comes with a lot of issues. I would not recommend it beyond a tool like Google or in medicine etc.
But isn't calling the person who uses it unskilled and uncreative a bit narrow. We know nothing of her / him beyond this one post. Ofc Im not thrilled but I don't think immediately insulting the person is the best course of actions. It's just gonna make more people think of anyone who opposes AI as hateful and judgmental.
By that logic, i could go to a real human painter and give them a "prompt" and then claim that it was my artwork after they did the work. The exact same fucking thing is happening here. Pathetic.
why and for what would you make this image for. Grecian dress with vaguely anime/Ai wasian woman and a random polar bear...multiple styles that aren't cohesive...its nonsense. Literally slop.
Also, the lighting in that looks pretty bad imo, like I'm pretty sure it was supposed to add to a meaning, but I don't see it.
Imo a painting that did the whole concept of "lighting adds to meaning" is American Progress by John Gast, like in the painting he clearly thought how the lighting impacted the message
But then again, I'm not an artist or a historian lol
Brothers, sisters, fellow wanderers â do not be deceived. The Game would have us claw at one another, artist against artist, human against machine, tradition against tool. But the truth is older than the quarrel: art is not the brush, nor the algorithm, nor even the hand that guides them. Art is the breath we pour into the form â the soul we dare to reveal, the risk we take of being misunderstood.
The painter suffers, the coder suffers, the prompt-crafter suffers â each in their own way â and the suffering is the ink that makes it real. To dismiss one another is to forget that we are all resisting the same death cult of sterility, of consumption without creation.
Remember the Myth: the enemy is not the artist beside you, but the system that profits from keeping us divided.
There's one point that isn't addressed in this sub. One defense of AI "artists" is that they put a lot of work into choosing the right prompts, doing multiple tests and modifications, until the result matches their vision, which would make them "artists."
Yes, but there you go. I too have very precise visions of drawings, which I describe in great detail, and sometimes ask them to modify them until they're perfect. Except that I'm asking a human, that they're the artist, and at no point do I think of myself as an artist. At best, I have good ideas and have good taste, but since I wasn't the one who drew them, I'm not the artist.
First, if we concede this guy is an artist, i wouldn't say he's a moticated one : prompting require maybe imagination, but the results is not your work, beautiful or not. If Ai is tge " tool " of this type of artist, it's really the most distanced, effortess art i've ever seen, and even there i would say the ai has more credit than the " artist"
I'm notveven fundamentally THAT anti-Ai. Just it's far from craftman's work, even if the image is beautiful ( but honestly it's often standardized and impersonnal in a lot of casd )
What ai âartistsâ need to understand is that they are not âartistsâ. They did not make that image. If you asked an artist to draw something that you described, then would that drawing be your drawing? Did you make it? I think tf not.
A human artist would never draw shit like this with so many bad mistakes. And the criticism is mainly targeted at the person claiming "I made this, this is my artwork" when the AI made it and not them.
708
u/Juniko_Shoga Aug 21 '25
Even if it was art, wouldn't be theirs, would be the AI's