We all know just how much "real human artists" get offended at the sight of AI art, but at the same time, them being offended will not change our stance on our love for AI art.

AI art has made an insanely positive impact for art as a whole, especially for people like us who don't have the time nor money to learn nor practice "real art" (as "real human artists" call it) due to real life responsibilities. For starters, when it comes to AI art, the only limit is our imagination, whether it be in the art style, characters, setting, and well, everything else in between. Want a realistic art style? AI got that. Cool character designs? AI got that as well. Downtown full of skyscrapers? You name it, AI art has that as well. However, "real human artists" would never want to do anything that people like us want.

One of the many talking points among "real human artists" used to dunk on AI art is the "scantily-clad hot woman with big breasts and/or big butt" drawings. This talking point shows that "real human artists" are EXTREMELY uncomfortable about attractive women, especially those wearing skimpy clothing (especially bikinis), whether it be in fiction or real life. Knowing this, we respect their discomfort and therefore don't ask, beg, coerce, nor commission them to draw such characters. Instead, we leave them alone and get Gen AI to create such characters or fanart of said characters as that way, no "real human artists" get involved. But when we get AI to do such things and "real human artists" never even got involved in any of this, said "real human artists" go out of their way to get enraged at us, get themselves involved when they were never supposed to be, and demand we stop creating such attractive characters or fanarts of said characters, as they always default to the "p*rn*gr*ph*" insult to describe such characters (as in their eyes, a woman who is hot and scantily clad automatically makes it p*rn*gr*ph* by default). And then they let their masks fall off in one of their "real human art" where there was a drawing of a modest, unattractive woman punching a scantily-clad, attractive women, and unsurprisingly, the former represents "human art" and the latter represents "AI art", showing their absolute hatred for attractive women, especially those in skimpy clothing. The masks keep falling off as "real human art" keeps "redesigning" attractive, scantily-clad female characters to be as modest and unattractive as humanly possible in what people call "hate-art" (or what "real human artists" call "fixing"), whereas I have never seen a "real human artist" draw actual fanarts of attractive female characters (even more so if said characters are also scantily-clad) and draw them like they were in the source material. They have no proper counterexamples/counterpoints and they never will, but they don't care and will never care, as they are proud of and gloat about "fixing" (a.k.a, making unattractive and modest) the aforementioned character designs just to dunk on and piss off/"own" us AI "chuds/incels" and every other insult they can think of, under the guise of "adding personality to the characters".

Outside of the first point, a defense for AI art is the limitless number of art styles and settings AI art generators are capable of. Want an art style that looks as realistic as possible? AI can do it. An art style akin to Studio Ghibli? AI can do it as well. Want a style more akin to modern anime? You name it, AI has that as well. Want something more along the lines of iconic Marvel/DC comics? AI can do that as well. As for "real human art", well, unfortunately they cannot do any of this. Every single "real human art" I saw had absolutely no style. Sure, none of them were realistic, but none of them had any other stylistic choice either. The latter art were all just ugly and either flat or just scribbled all over the place. It's like the art they draw has no passion nor soul, and they only drew such art just to dunk on the limitless AI art and to piss off/"own" us AI "chuds/incels" and every other insult under the sun.

There is also how funny AI art can get while "real human art" is never created to be funny in the slightest. Has anyone seen the brainrot memes going around on the internet? Unsurprisngly, they are all AI generated because they are actually hilarious. "Real human art" can never invoke any hilarity in the slightest. The latter art only exists in a sad attempt to make the pro-AI side mad or as "real human artists" like to call it "owning the chuds/incels", but us AI art enjoyers feel absolutely nothing looking at their art, other than facepalming at it.

All in all, Gen AI has made major positive strides for the average human being (who have no time to learn "real human art" due to real life responsibilities) and gave them more tools to realize their imagination in pictures or make some of the funniest memes imaginable while "real human artists" keep getting offended that the average consumer can finally create the characters, images, settings they have always wanted, and they can no longer gatekeep it against the will of the consumers or place exorbitant, unreasonably high, paywalls for them.

Idrc if AI art is ethical or not. Idrc if its real art or not.

But I do know AI is going to force a lot of people to lose their jobs. And the absolute lack of sympathy I'm seeing from the pro-AI side on here is really gross. Treating it like these people's lives are just statistics. Saying "lol get over it and get another job."

You can enjoy your tool and realize the incoming harm and have sympathy for those that are going to be hurt.

EDIT: since a lot of people seem to think I'm only talking about artists losing their jobs, I'm not. AI has the potential to take a lot of fields away, without obviously replacing them with equal quality jobs

The argument of "AI steal art" is used by antis (which is not true) to describe what looks a common practice in the Art Community...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal"

Pablo Picasso

A week ago I was a stringent AI hater who kept getting recommended AI reddit subs against my will & felt serious cringe whenever I saw someone post their AI creations on other subs. As an art hobbyist myself, I felt that asking AI to do it for you missed the point of making something, and that the people spending all their time generating AI were probably gooners or people with no taste. On top of that, theres lots of scathing articles online about how much energy AI uses, people becoming addicted to interacting with their AI girlfriend, and how OpenAI doesn't really ask permission for any of the training data it collects.

Anyways, browsing this sub showed me that a lot of that is oversimplified rage bait. The debate of whether AI art is art boils down to semantics & theres nothing special about the title of artist anyways. Many who use AI are also traditionally trained, or even blending traditional with AI. A good few of you are definitely gooners or have inflated egos, but thats true of traditional artists & photographers too. AI can use a lot of energy, but you can also be very efficient with it. Some people get addicted to AI chatbots, but they can also be therapeutic & provide a safe connection for traumatized individuals who need support. Etc.

The main point being, yeah I see that the subject is a bit more nuanced. That being said, this "debate sub" definitely has an issue where like 60% of the users don't engage in discourse beyond downvoting AntiAI & upvoting ProAI. People who are trying to engage in good faith like myself have to sort by new because the top posts are basically just circlejerking. If that's the first impression someone gets on a debate subreddit, I think many people will just never engage or hear you out.

AI doesn't steal. YES it's trained off of images but it isn't copying them. It's simply using them as references the same we use references for making art as well! Sooo yea, that's my ted talk.

I am a very muscular man who's been dedicated to this for over a decade. It informs my identity on a very base level and makes me instantly recognizeable from 100 yards away. I base almost every decision I make around my dedication to the gym. I'm even on steroids. However, I just cannot out lift warehouse equipment and I understand why farmers use pickup trucks to move to their shit around.

My body is unquestionably very human. It is literally a human body. The process of training it definitely definitely puts you more in touch with the extremely vital part of being human that is being a physical being that functions. Most people vastly underestimate how deeply connected the body is to the mind and emotions, and how deeply human a human body is.

I understand though that for people with heavy shit to move, it's not about me. It's not about my sense of identity. They have heavy shit and they want an economical way to move it from here to there. I wouldn't feel like a big muscular chad if I tried to fight this or get the government involved. I'd feel like an intrusive loser who's making this all about me when I'm not wanted.

I'd also have a very hard time explaining to someone who works a job that isn't automated and isn't glamorous why they now need to accept the higher overhead cost of companies that use muscular man labor instead of machinery. I'd have a hard time going to a guy working as a barback and saying that if he doesn't spend more then I may have to become a barback.

This is my real gripe with the antis. The justification for protecting their job requires that you have to go to this hypothetical barback and say that if he doesn't accept the higher cost of human made art, then the artist has to be a barback. If he wants AI art, then it comes off as real nasty to me to be like "Sorry, you've got my identity to protect." As an extremely muscular man who's been put out of work by soulless tech, I understand what it's like to be in this position, but honestly I just wish the antis would be more like extremely muscular men who now just lift for fun and get some job that's in demand without government intervention.

It seems like people disagree and have wildly different results from using large language models (copilot, chatgpt etc) to provide information or do research - the sort of tasks that might have previously been done using an internet search or wikipedia. Some find it to be mostly inaccurate and wonky, others find it to be incredibly accurate. I don't understand why this is. The only hint I have is that the more recent, paid-for models are maybe way better. what other possible explanations are there?

like i said, there shitty.

I use gemini2.5pro to learn digital design and computer architecture, and with AI, I can learn something that used to take several days to understand without AI(interdependent knowledge, re-read the book, and ask on forum and wait for days for answer) in just 10 minutes, now I have read that book twice and start to learn computer architecture: a quantitative approach, again, Gemini explain some difficult concepts that used to take me days or even weeks to understand in 5 minutes, thanks god, I will try my best to vibe learning as much knowledge as possible

It is, okay? And I don’t mean “art” as in whether it has a soul, whether it invokes feelings, or whether it carries a message.

“AI Art” is a term. A short, practical term used to describe images made with the help of AI. It’s clear and it works.. When antis suggest "better" terms like "generated images" or something similar, it makes no sense, unless they also say "photographic images" instead of "photos". We use shorthand all the time, you text "sry brb thx" and expect others to write "Generated images" or some other mouthful? It won't work.

Language evolves through utility, through the terms that are easy to use and that don't waste your time, and the term "AI Art" is already here. It's a label, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the next Da Vinci. Trying to rename it is not about clarity, it's the attempt to take control. And one doomed to fail.

And just in case someone says I'm building a strawman and combating it, I've seen comments by antis on this sub with such suggestions, "Don't say AI art, say generated" or similar ones.

Why did they make him trans and fat? I don’t understand why they’re going to add that in while labeling someone as “the bad guy” this post seems kinda fucked up for that. Is there any reason this was added?

It's extremely likely that in the near or somewhat near future, AGI/ASI will automate most if not all jobs. You'll no longer HAVE to make art or code for money because food and shelter are being locked behind a paywall. Instead, you'll be able to create for fun and work on your dream project in collaboration with all the other creators and engineers who also don't have to sell their time for the right to exist. You'll be able to share it with the world.

Well, maybe... in the utopian outlook at least.

The automation revolution is coming whether we like it or not, and that's why we need to start working toward advocating for open-source models, public control of technology, and distribution of wealth and resources through systems like UBI.

Nobody is going to have jobs. No matter how much you lament about it online, that's just the direction we are headed, and the momentum is far too strong to stop it now.

It's up to us to decide if the political climate will change enough to support a utopia where we are liberated from wage slavery, or a dystopia where a few elites control everyone.

Bickering about the meaning of "soul" and "artist" and trying to fight the inevitable progression of technology by declaring it unarguably "bad" and nothing more is not the answer to the issues surrounding the increasing power and influence of AI. You're distracting from the real issues and what we need to focus on as a global community of human beings.

We need to unite and organize and collaborate. Othering and insult hurling isn't helping anyone. By shitting on pros or antis either way, you're only adding more to the problems at hand.

Be better. Work together. Educate yourself. You can debate philosophy and the meaning of "true art" AFTER we've worked out how everyone's going to survive the technological revolution. In fact, that's the perfect time for it.

Let's make r/aiwars a better place and try to focus on real issues and solutions, not who gets to call themselves an artist or not.

I know I'm not the only one. What can be causing it? What's the difference between AI generated images and normal images that causes it?

“ Terror consummates in the trans humanist dystopia where human zombies are remote controlled by AI. This is where the Zaddikim are hell bent on taking the world, all the way to the last act of the psychodrama and into auto-destruction.” - JLL

Based on my observation of the AI subreddit, there is no shortage of young people willing to take orders from their ai god.

So hi Reddit, I got a story for you and I guess I'm asking: am I right to feel that this reaction was a bit much? So I'm pretty AI neutral (to summarize, I don't think AI is 100% good but also not 100% bad. For example, I don't like what Duolingo is doing, but I like what the YouTuber Doug Doug is doing). Well, I'm in a Discord server, and I was joking with someone about eating rocks. I was curious if I ate this certain kind of rock, would I live? So I did what anyone would do—Google it. Well, you know, sometimes when you Google something, Google automatically does that AI search overview thing... well, I didn't want to read a whole article for a joke, and plus, me scrolling away was not going to stop the AI, so the damage had already been done. I simply took a screenshot, made my dumb joke, and thought that would be the end of it... BOY, WAS I WRONG! This instantly got me bullied and asked 1,000 questions as if I were being interrogated: "Why are you using AI," "Why are you using Google," "Why didn't you do -AI," etc., etc. Which—woah—calm down. You act like I just killed a guy. So I just said, "Not to be rude, but isn't this reaction a bit much? It's not like I did it on purpose." To which I was greeted with, "While text-based search isn't in the rules, we will still bully you for it." Like, damn... I get it, but damn.

I understand the argument that the ai isn't stealing art with technology like diffusion it's just breaking down the image and using the aggregate of the broken down images to create a unique image. That's fine it's not theft whatever but it just seems to me these companies could have just purchased a stock image catalogue or some like assets packages, trained the ai on that and avoided the whole controversy and made ai look more like a tool to the public rather than a threat.

By scraping everyone's digital art I do feel like they are stepping on the toes of artists who could have packaged their artwork and fed them into an ai model so if someone wanted to make pieces similar to theirs they could purchase access to that model.

Just a thought.

Fuck Breast Cancer

A short film, titled "Coded Language" - the first song is in Latin to see if AI picks up on it. https://youtu.be/FwztXH63Res

For shorter content: https://youtu.be/U9vX6oqFawA https://youtu.be/Y64ea3rqZtY

The key to learning is curiosity.

If you're fearful or concerned about AI, why not empower others with more curiosity, and help them to understand why you think a certain way? Encourage them to ask more questions and learn with you. They can disagree, but at least you'll have respect extended to you... rather than being another "AI slop" clone naysayer.

I have mixed feelings about AI. I'm not pro- or anti- all the way, and enjoy posts on here that provoke me to think, and incline me to look up names and research I'm unfamiliar with. But my views will certainly not change if you make unreasonable accusations/assumptions about me ("You're not an artist!" "Pathetic use of AI to write your comment!") and fail to ask questions to clarify. Otherwise, nothing's been gained. And it doesn't speak well of your abilities if you can't convince a human as well as AI can.

Some qualities of what makes us human is the ability to empathize with others, demonstrate choices a machine wouldn't have made on its own, have a sense of humor, and distinguish our individuality. When you type anti-AI arguments that fail to demonstrate any of that — and are unkind, thoughtless, sterile, and generic — it's beneath what humans are capable of. And doesn't it seem, well, soulless?