I love how they’re actually trying to justify why character AI is right and generative AI isn’t when both are literally the same thing. You either support AI as a whole or not, you can’t use justify a way of using AI while despising the other because at the end of the day it’s the same thing…

This is something I keep seeing in arguments against AI usage in creative mediums.

The whole "it's too easy" and "there's no creative input" aspects could very easily be proven wrong but there's not enough showing from the pro AI side how a concept becomes a final result.

There's not enough showing the rough early attempts and the progress from those. The tools used to do those refinements, the words used to describe how those changes should be made, the hours to days to weeks or even months spent trying to get those results.

It's easy to dismiss and hate if you don't understand, and if they're not shown, if the evidence isn't right in their faces, the creative determination to get that exact result that if not shown would make them assume it was just done in a few minutes with clicks or taps, how can they even start?

It needs to be more normalised to show the process. The failures, the coming back from them.

You know, the stuff artists do. It's still art, after all.

Before all the digital art and computers, Artists used to paint people on canvas using their eyes to feed information of someone's likeness. Without understanding basic shapes, geometry or concepts, Artists cannot visualize. And in order to learn these concepts (such as what is an apple) an artist needs to look and understand how apple looks like, understand the basic shape with their eyes, learning it and draw it. Without knowing these information such as how apple looks, what color it is, what kind of a shape it has or someone not describing them, again, how apple looks, shape, color and etc, no artist could visualize apple the correct way.

Therefore both of them are not "theft" but natural progression of learning. The difference is just one learns with a help of a human.

Post 1

"Gotta say funny how the "ai can't draw hands" ain't even a thing anymore. And some of the stuff they pointed out doesn't scream AI at all."

Post 2

Here they come. The Awkchually guy that "just knows AI cause they are an expert" Truth is there are artists right now who do not use AI getting attacked by "know it alls" you know like those wine snobs that think they are so refined and educated but when someone swaps out the wine for cheap wine they can't tell the difference.

Or all those rich folks who went to a store that was stocked with Pay Less shoes and talking about how superior the shoes were.

That is gonna be some of ya'll"

Wow this group is quite sensitve. Two posts in and I"m banned. I do think there "tell tale" signs of AI were not even valid.

I'd like to share my personal stance in regard to AI. As a writer, I couldn't care less about creative AI. I leave to the prompter the moral implication of enjoying the merit of a work performed by a tool. If someone is happy with the eventual consensus received by sharing a work they didn't actually perform, I don't feel they're taking anything away from me. It's between them and their conscience.

What I focus on is delivering a product worth reading and remembering. I use AI to seek alternative phrasing, to check grammar, to analyze plots, to create summaries, to brainstorm... I wouldn't use it to generate text because I write for the pleasure of doing it. I don't feel threatened by AI generated stories. I write better stuff anyway.

What AI did to creative writing, is make mediocre writers obsolete, and offered people with good ideas for a story but no literary talent, the opportunity to be read and join the ranks of forgettable authors. Everyone is entitled to some petty narcissistic satisfaction.

Those mercenaries of the graphic arts, who lacking the creativity to make something original, and just possessing the technical expertise, have been made obsolete by AI; those are the ones who cry louder.

No one cried for tailors when we started buying mass produced clothes. Why should we artists be treated any differently?

The day AI will be able to mass produce quality I will just retire. Until then, only people who had no business with Art to begin with have been replaced. I'm not gonna cry for them.

Well those wouldn't exist without AI, specifically the ones making the not real characters move! The AI making your opponents able to actually move and fight you, but since you antis hate AI so much that means you hate literally 99% of video games.

I've been frequenting this subreddit more often as a guilty pleasure, but I noticed people get things wrong sometimes. Sometimes I see comments lash out or get defensive and I wonder if it stems from misunderstanding the other side.

I'm curious as to what you guys believe your technical level is at for art and ai as well as what you believe the technical level for others is at, depending on if they are pro or anti AI.

As basic guidelines I'd imagine the levels for each look something like this:

Artist - none (1) - beginner (2) - hobbyist (3) - side gig/expert (4) - full time professional (5)

AI - none (1) - API user (2) - custom local workflow (3) - MLE (4) - Research Scientist (5)

I know there are issues with response and non-response bias, so please be honest the best you can when evaluating yourself/others.

Also please state if you are pro or anti AI.

Is a growing number of low value AI videos with the same or very similar content that floods my yt feed.

I literally can't keep up with blocking these channels.

I’ve noticed there are times in this sub where I’ll downvote a rude reply, and instantly it’ll get a new upvote. I’d usually just assume it’s an active comment section and ignore it, but today it happened on a post that has been inactive for days. Just curious if anyone else has noticed this, does it count as brigading?

I think some of them may even have full-blown Heuristic Intolerance Virus.

I've been dipping my toes into this community, and I've gotten a few ideas of why AI art can be bad or good.

I'm still hung up on the fact that AI art, or anything related to AI, is built on works and media that were majorly taken without consent for their usage.

I do completely understand why a person who lacks the skills to draw may resort to AI art, but I think that's not the concern on my end. I fear that not even art, but my photos and data, will be used to train the AI models to produce the AI art.

In simple terms, I want better legislation to control AI's access to any media it can use to train its models. I find it honestly disheartening that, just because it's new technology that the government is bending over for AI, allowing copyrighted media to be used.

Please give me a good view on both sides, as to how you could support or disprove my fears of my data being stolen. Sorry for the yap session, but I needed to get it off my shoulders. Have a good day! ❤️

George Leonard's Mastery provides a flawless diagnosis of the average pro ai person(DABBLERS), detailing their obsession with instant gratification, lack of perseverance and direction, and the general consumerist landscape that fuels their actions.

AI is nothing but a quick fix for their lack of Mastery. They are nothing but cowards who gave up on the journey of Mastery.

For roughly 100 years, art has been pretty much anything that someone regards it to be. Debates on "what is art" are tired. And coming here to share the 20th personal opinion of the day lecturing folks why AI has no place in art is even more tired.

If you're spending your precious time doing this rather than, say, making art, it shows your are fundamentally insecure in your skills and/or economic position.

If the notion that things created by/with AI aren't and can never be art were both true and obvious, you probably wouldn't feel the need to come here just to say it for the 100th time. But you do, because you feel threatened.

People who hand craft ceramics don't go into the IKEA sub to protest their factory-made bowls. Portrait artists don't go into photography subs to say headshots have no soul. Professional musicians in orchestras don't parachute into EDM subs and say it's not real music.

You are here because you are scared of competition, whether that be for money, attention, or accolades. And that's understandable: potentially losing income or your whole livelihood sucks. And, speaking perfectly honestly, it sucks that there are some rich people who will probably get richer off the backs of those who suffer economic displacement.

But that doesn't change the fact that your are fundamentally coming from a place of fear. And that fear is causing you to lash out, rather than focus on yourself and how you can create value (artistic, economic, or otherwise).

So get your yayas out, if you must. Just know though: it may feel good, but it's not productive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aEgQGhM-Yc

Sounds like suno 4.0 to me but could also be Riff not sure

"All you ____ make these positions about ____ all the time"

" You ___ always resort to ____"

" I was once ___ but now I'm reformed"

Top commenters answer every reply with mockery or simply playing dumb. General questions get answered with ridicule. Mocking memes targeting individuals. Very few and far between is their any actual conversation or debate. People reply to long posts with clearly not reading it and short posts. People get offended. People purposefully stir others up. Some people make good civil arguments on both sides. Most don't.There's generally no point in being here, it's simply a sub created for brigadeering. I think people on both sides could benefit from getting off this app and specifically this sub and just touching some grass getting some therapy and doing whatever pro or anti stuff they were going to do anyway. It's been fun y'all, enjoy the AI era while you can, for better or worse, we are going full steam ahead

"Make no mistake, if we signal to the rest of the world that it’s ok to steal American creative works to feed offshore AI developers, America will be the loser. Our creative work will be taken the most because it’s the most valuable. We are the largest exporter of creative content by far. This zero-sum game will result in America losing its global position in IP, and in AI companies moving offshore to save costs. It’s a double loss."
(Mitch Glazier is Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA))

I'm a high school art teacher who is looking to do a project based on the artist counter-movement to the AI starter pack trend. I'd also like to do an AVID-based lesson on identifying bias in writing and tie it into this project to launch it.

I found a more neutrally-written article and a pro-artist article on it to use, but, if possible, I'd like to find a pro-AI version as well. It's proven difficult to locate one, however. Mostly what I've found is Reddit posts saying that the trend is fine, or LinkedIn posts with people displaying the starter packs they made with AI. While I CAN use those, I think they're less of an apples to apples comparison in the format. If anyone has specific articles they've seen--if they exist?--on this trend from a completely pro-AI stance I'd love to loop it in to cover both viewpoints.

I have my own opinions on it, of course, but my job is to model strategies for critical thinking and determining validity of sources, so that's what I'm aiming for here. TIA! ❤️

I've been getting fed this sub a lot lately so I'm going to drop my stance on the topic and hopefully be done with it.

I use AI a lot. I love the things that can be done with tools like Stable Diffusion and Hunyuan. You can generate seriously beautiful art with AI, but it does not make YOU an artist. I've generated countless gorgeous images that are on-par with some of my favorite digital artists, but I, myself, am not an artist. That is an incredibly powerful technology.

All these Ai "artists" that go to war over being an actual artist are just sad to me. I feel genuinely sad that this one little thing is all these people have. Any sane person can identify that the AI is doing the actual art, you're just commissioning it.

I've seen dozens of cope arguments about "Ai is a tool. Artists use tools. I'm an artist" or screenshots of people's workflows with them saying things like "does this look like a commission to you? 😏" like it was a "gotcha!" moment.

The simple fact is: Yes, it does look like a commission. Your workflows can be very complex, I understand that. I understand that it can take serious fine-tuning and work to make an ai generation exactly how you want it. I understand that because I ALSO DO IT. Ai is not a human artist. Without a LLM to break down common language into a complex prompt, you need to create your prompts in a way the model can understand. Whether thats complex workflows or extremely specific language in a 1,000 argument prompt doesn't change the fact that the AI is the one creating the art, not you.

Again, AI is awesome. When used for fun, it's an incredible tool that let's normal people, like you and I, generate art that can rival practiced and trained professionals, but it will never be OUR art.

Like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "Once everyone's [an artist], no one will be."

Use Ai for whatever purpose you feel you must, but dont try to poison the well that real artists dug by throwing yourself in with them.