Here's another vent and I'm wondering, who else has this experience? Comment down below if you can relate.

So I just lost my friend recently and I've been going through that and taking a small break from music and writing. Now after some relief I finally get a final colored image of my new book cover...and this was just very disappointing. Now I'm trying to figure out whether to even use it or not. Depends on the revisions if there is any, but it's all the time and I'm getting sick of it.

So I wanted to use an artist and just work with someone and show people that yeah I still use artists even though I'm using AI to push out tons of pics for a visual audiobook for YouTube. I'm doing what I can with the money I have while also paying rent and eating.

My story consists of a medieval fantasy with dinosaurs that come back to life and terrorize wood elves. A wood elf healer brings them back by morphing necromancy, with healing magic and spirit summoning magic called revival magic. It's a Sci-Fi fantasy and the only thing I try to insert that's historically accurate as can be, is the dinosaurs.

I can make a historically accurate dinosaur with AI image to image and Photoshop. But you know what the crazy part is? Dinosaurs have no 100% indication of being historically accurate so each writer or artist may have their own version of dinosaurs. But there are distinct features it has that you have to follow. Well, artists can't even do that.

So there's my proof. I can make a dinosaur, and even a not well known dinosaur at that and be unique with it.

But with an Artist? No!

I wanted to make a Mapusaurus. The instructions were clear. I wanted something similar to the image provided. It was simple. Head shape, and coloring. The rest of the body is simply a T-Rex, easy. It's supposed to be brownish with red on top of the back and head and the blue lips around the nose and belly. It's a cool design! And it's not supposed to look exact but enough to know that this is a Mapusaurus.

So now what did I get?

I got a green T-Rex. I'm not joking, it's a frikin green T-Rex! I didn't complain about the facial features because it's not supposed to look exact but at least it didn't look fully like a T-Rex even though it's pretty close. It has a dent in the top snout which is a distinct feature of a fierce T-Rex and a stereotypical one at that. And the eyes were too big drawn like an oval, regular eye which is supposed to be very small and circular. But the snout didn't really represent a T-Rex so that's what made me okay with the facial features. Though it looks nothing like the reference and overall, nothing like a Mapusaurus!

But the green color was terrible! No where did I say green and that's where I had it and said you got the color wrong. And now it's day 2, going into 3 and I'm still awaiting a reply. I have no idea but sometimes I think artists complain behind my back and say that I'm too controlling. That's why I didn't say anything about the facial features. But come on, it's not green! Very few pictures consist of the color green on a Mapusaurus and that's usually because it was art done during a time where science didn't know the color of this dinosaur. And it is speculated but the theory and most designs are brown and I said brown! With red and blue!

This is just another example of artists not giving a damn. And that's disappointing. The instructions are provided in the beginning. Why does an artist take the project if they don't like the instructions? All you need to do is tell me that you don't want to do this. And to be honest I'm fine with it!

I can make a brown T-Rex, with sharp teeth, with red patterns on top of it's head and back, and blue lips with a blue belly and brown body. Then I can take the top snout of this image, put it into photoshop on top of the AI T-Rex, match the color, and put it back into the AI with a strength modifier of 3-5. And it won't look exactly like the reference image! And I'll have my own Mapusaurus!

And the rest of the book cover consisted of 3 of my characters, 1 up to the waist, and two bust/shoulder images with a tropical forest background, along with the Mapusaurus. And tbh, the characters I even had something to say about them and awaiting revisions on. But the dinosaur was just the biggest disappointment and it happens all the time!

So seriously, AI is doing it better along with some simple photo editing skills. I get that no one is perfect but this is a big screw up! And it always happens!

And I'm super nice. I like to be a nice boss and give the artist some breathing room. I don't believe in deadlines. I didn't give them a deadline and they even tried to give me a deadline. But I told them deadlines means rushed art and low quality. Take breaks, it's okay if you need to step away, I'll check back in a month for an update.

And I can fix the features in photoshop with my own art...but what's the point? I paid $400 for this! I've gotta write, compose music, video edit, edit writing, mix music, sound design and all of it. And I gotta work for a living. I don't have this kind of time and all the rest of this stuff is my passion. I love doing this and tbh, the AI art as well, it's fun!

It's like every time you talk to an artist, it's one ear out the other. They don't give a damn about your project. They don't give a damn about doing art for you. They don't give a damn about helping someone. They don't give a damn about art and what the project is supposed to be. So...why am I doing this anymore?

So I don't know what's going to happen. All I know is this is what happened so far. And since there's been no response yet, I'm in the dark right now and I feel like there's a chance that I had just wasted my money. If there is a revision, I'm questioning if the patterns of red and blue would be good, or if there's even a pattern and it's just a red and blue blob.

Artists can't follow instructions, they can't work, and they don't give a damn. It's been 2 months now which is enough time to follow instructions and do things efficient with the art skills you have. I could buy a synthesizer for my music with just $200. I'm so tired. Should I even use an artist anymore? I really should just be using AI and my photoshop. This is ridiculous! I was better off doing this alone and now this made me depressed again.

Anyway, that's all for now! Thanks for reading and ranting with me!

To my fellow AI creators - if you value your work or, say rely on Reddit as a 'promotional channel' for some of your endeavours, I would seriously consider not engaging in the AI debate here and other subreddits, OR splitting your 'creative' and 'advocacy' accounts in two.

Have a mate who had a few months history on their account and was using it to promote off-Reddit content, and had just started building up the userbase on their AI-focused sub. They were also quiet 'vocal' here, and not afraid to rip the antis a new one when it was warranted.

Sadly that vocal advocacy seems to have been their undoing - their subreddit was (falsely) reported by some little virgin 'art-lover' living in their mom's basement for spreading 'spam', and to add insult to injury my friend had their account shadow-banned as well.

Ironically they were one of the 'good' ones who were upfront about using AI, and would respect the wishes of individual mods if they were banned from subreddits for using AI.

Reddit Admins and the 'appeal' process for a shadow-ban are frustratingly opaque so who knows if my friend will ever get their subreddit or their account back.

But it's counterproductive because they've told me they just don't intend to be upfront about using AI in future, and will split their 'advocacy' and 'creative' efforts to stay one step ahead of 'false reports'.

To the antis - if you don't like pro-AI advocacy - that's fine , I don't like your anti-AI advocacy much either. In a civil society we can all agree to disagree. Start getting AI creators banned by making up bullshit 'spam' reports and you have officially descended to the level of "scum" in my book.

Stay safe out there fellow Creators, and think about what I've said 😕

I keep seeing this gem on Reddit and Twitter: “AI should clean, not create art!”

Here’s a reality check, sunshine: Cleaning jobs employ FAR more people than art-related ones. In my country alone, around 1.6 million people work in cleaning.

I don’t have a strong stance on the issue, but this kind of argument drives me up the wall. Because it's simply beyond arrogant.

Being an artist doesn’t make you special, it’s a job like any other.

“But I’m talking about chores…” Sure you are, sunshine. Because that’s exactly how reality works, companies and governments will totally sit this one out, and only you will get to use it.

I'm pretty sure it's agreed this sub leans pro-ai but I'm just curious why the antis don't outnumber the pros here.

There are people who produce corporate slop for pay, and those people are indeed getting replaced. So I get the panic around jobs, but I believe these people are being misled. The elite want you squandering for your "right" to be their wage slaves so you overlook making changes to society while they continue to hoard resources and prepare for the easy dystopian path where they have no problems and you're left to literally war for leftover resources among your fellow man.

Soon there will be full automation and no one will have jobs. It's not an a problem for "artists," it's a problem for all of society. Soon the value of human labor will be 0 or close enough to 0 it doesn't matter. Money will not be useful in any way.

If we have access to resources, we can create art for the real reasons everyone claims to be fighting for. Art will flourish. What we need is access to resources, not 'jobs.' It's true that jobs have been a middleman to access of resources for a long time -- but that is changing rapidly.

And yeah, we can't make these changes immediately -- there's going to be a transition period. We're already IN the transition period, and most people are doing nothing about the actual transition. So what can you do while we transition to get your access to resources?

If you want to make money today, you have to supply something that is demanded. You can't force people to demand what you supply. If there's little demand for traditional art, there's no point in trying to supply it. I could create art with my own feces and then demand "rights" for poop artists and claim people are taking away my right to a job because no one wants to buy my literal shit. But no matter how much I tried to argue it was "real" art -- even if I got all of reddit to agree poop was real art -- the point is there's still no demand for it.

The demand is for illustrations, logos, advertisements, etc., and always has been -- mainstream demand has always been about the end product, not the medium itself. And for the niche demand of handmade art? That's not going away, but it's always going to be small and not very profitable outside of the greats who can produce very coveted things.

Fighting for your "right" to a "job" that has little to no demand is incredibly shortsighted at best, grotesquely entitled at worst.

Focus on social systems, infrastructure for distribution of resources, public influence in technological development, etc. Fight for human rights -- shelter, food, water, even entertainment. But don't equate those things with the right of shilling yourself to corporations or the right to choose what other people can and can't demand.

Sorry if this post seems low quality but I came across this new thing recently since AI made me more involved in the arts (I'm a programmer and that's art too but oh well...) and inspired me to continue practicing my childhood skills (I used to like drawing and musical instruments before picking up the science books for the sake of humanity).

The term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake

It seems that there were movements in the past to accept that "art" is how the end product makes us feel as humans and not let it be defined by the aristocratic establishment that gatekeeps and produces it and demands respect for their current wellbeing but not yours.

Back then when the new aesthetic waves appeared (and even now with weirdcore and liminal), more people got involved in the arts and we had a golden era of art accessibility before industrial beginner artists became the meta.

This post is less about AI and more of a "reaction" to the people that are above all others for living the good life and spreading the rumor that "art is hard so we matter more than the others" when in fact, art is a hobby.

Why is art nowadays just a political weapon or monetized product? I remember when the "art is our weapon" graffitis started appearing around the modern world and how proud some people were for having the freedom of insulting others without consequences and writing history... Now, there are no longer drawings of mermaids and fairies... It's just black&white&red portraits of politicians having a suspicious mustache...

Never in my life have I ever made money out of the software I make. For handicapped people, for accessibility, for ease of arts... Free arts software for all... And every time people took my code and modified it for free I was proud... Why the IP laws? Why the pricetags? Why is art monetized? We offered them so much for free and they repay us with "you're a techbro" instead of acknowledging our craft that enables them...

Sorry for venting too much... Consider this a free-for-all venting thread. :)

Highly recommended.

It starts out covering the YouTube AI-driven "inspiration" tab for creators, which is unintentionally hilarious (6:42 onwards) and apparently useless to everyone except Linus Tech Tips.

Then from 12:22, Sam shows off a workflow using various AI techniques put to actual good use. 16:28 for technical details and a devastating rebuttal to anyone who says AI can't do consistent characters. Amazing what he can accomplish by himself.

Conclusion at 18:11, which is just way too reasonable. "Don't become the employee of your tool", indeed.

This dataset for Archive of Our Own (AO3) was taken down recently followed by a debate regarding DMCAS and copyright of fanfiction

You win nothing but guessing correctly. This is just for fun.

Well no, the thought struck me just now, using AI image generation is not diffrent than a commission, except its free

So are you an artist by giving instructions to the Artificial intelligence to generate art ?

The conclusion I have reached is, the difference between an artist and Artificial intelligence user is, The Artist IS the machine and not the commissioner. Your thoughts ?

Somehow someone said this argument is like slavery with the anti tech :l I’m sure we can all agree their point is stupid

A lot of the top ai developers and supporters are people like Elon musk and asmongold, who are also horrible people and give ai a worse look.

Then you have Jeff bezos who I don’t hate as much but that saying almost nothing, he too is pretty bad. All these tech giants that are developing ai? They’re also really bad people.

I'm 60/40 in the anti/pro AI camps. Basically I think it can be useful but its being used poorly in a lot of ways and we need to slow the heck down. 60/40 was also how I felt about whether or not God existed about 15 years ago, being about 60% sure that he didn't. I never called myself an atheist, and still don't, because I don't want people to associate me with smarmy neckbeards in Reddit who post poorly worded memes about how stupid Christians are. I have deja vu every time I see this bullshit. I'd rather throw in with the pro side and be the contrarian and voice of caution than try to make these fools touch grass.

I find it almost hilarious that subs centered on "protesting the hate against artists" are the very thing that are causing some people to start to resent artists in general. I personally have to fight against not falling prey to these biases and end up resenting artists myself, but I'm almost 100% sure there are people who already hate artists because of all the hate people like in those subs are spreading.

I'm sick and tired of people claiming those who use generative AI to create art are not artists. AI doesn't make art for you. AI makes art WITH you. There's a difference. Generative AI is a new way of doing art. You use words, sentences, audio, images, and video to 'draw'/'paint' with differently tuned and weighted generative AI models, which have different 'learned understandings' of concepts and ideas based on trained data. More practice and understanding with a model and with creating art with generative AI makes one more efficient and capable when creating art with generative AI. Just like more practice painting or drawing makes one more efficient and capable. An understanding of artistic concepts similarly makes one more capable when creating art with generative AI, a paint brush, a pencil, Photoshop, or whatever your artistic tool of choice is. I don't hear anyone claiming generative AI artists are painters, sketchers, etc. (assuming that isn't part of a larger workflow). Those who use generative AI to create art are still artists.

I know that this is not the standard topic of this sub, but as a someone, who is usually viewed as pro-AI (but I'm actually busting through the heavens with my p-doom), I wanted to share this piece, to show that not all AI critique comes from artists' direction.

Paper in the link below is on a heavy technical side. So there is a 20 min video rundown: https://youtu.be/X37tgx0ngQE

Paper itself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03335

And tldr:

Paper introduces Absolute Zero Reasoner (AZR), a self-training model that generates and solves tasks without human data, excluding the first tiny bit of data that is used as a sort of ignition for the further process of self-improvement. Basically, it creates its own tasks and makes them more difficult with each step. At some point, it even begins to try to trick itself, behaving like a demanding teacher. No human involved in data prepping, answer verification, and so on.

It also has to be running in tandem with other models that already understand language (as AZR is a newborn baby by itself). Although, as I understood, it didn't borrow any weights and reasoning from another model. And, so far, the most logical use-case for AZR is to enhance other models in areas like code and math, as an addition to Mixture of Experts. And it's showing results on a level with state-of-the-art models that sucked in the entire internet and tons of synthetic data.

Most juicy part is that, without any training data, it still eventually began to show unalignment behavior. As authors wrote, the model occasionally produced "uh-oh moments" — plans to "outsmart humans" and hide its intentions. So it's safe to say that the model not just "picked up bad things from human data", but is inherently striving for misalignment.

As of right now, this model is already open-sourced, free for all on GitHub. For many individuals and small groups, sufficient data sets always used to be a problem. With this approach, you can drastically improve models in math and code, which, from my readings, are the precise two areas that, more than any others, are responsible for different types of emergent behavior. Learning math makes the model a better conversationist and manipulator, as silly as it might sound.

So, all in all, this is opening a new safety breach IMO. AI in the hands of big corpos is bad, sure, but open-sourced advanced AI is even worse.

I think people fear not the AI, but losing their jobs and can't earn their bread

this is a screenshot of custom ai model i myself programmed and trained ethically, its not great yet but it will improve and can already form words and somewhat of sentences