nah that’s just stocksounds (KIDDING BTW)
2 Likes
ai is a tool
I’m also 100% certain the artists here didn’t make the programs they use to make art, now did they?
you’re telling that to the wrong person
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A FUNNY POST NOT START A WAR
Comparing an ALGORITHM to doing art manually is just completely wrong
1 Like
are you actually fucking comparing doing digital art to writing a 1 minute prompt
Holy shit you’ve never done art in your life and it’s actually obvious
Unlike using AI, you have to put in EFFORT and take the time to LEARN for your art to look good. I don’t think that should be comparable to being able to render something like that by typing specific keywords using a generator.
1 Like
Generating an image to look at and hand-drawing an image are as different as photography and painting.
Can’t really compare them.
Since a screenshot is like photography, and you wouldn’t get away with calling that a work of art unless it’s suuuper well-taken, I think we should apply the same sort of thing here.
4 Likes
1st did you use AI to write this (hypocrite much)
2nd, when tf did I say that we shouldn’t do stuff about it at all?? either way, ANY technology has has an environmental impact. all I just said is that it happens, so it shouldn’t be a big suprise 
and obviously we should try to do something about it since apathy isn’t the solution lol.
also you completely misunderstood how AI works. it ain’t “stealing” in the way you think lmao. It learns from patterns, just like how artists learn from their influences. but unlike copying, AI sorta synthesizes information into new, original outputs. so like its not a direct reproduction but instead a reinterpretation of the patterns it’s learned. the human has control over the process, guiding the AI toward a vision, much like how a director guides a cinematographer n stuff.
and yeah tbh ur right, artists do have nowhere to go lol. BUT the solution isn’t to complain and rant like you did just now, but to instead change/adjust the system. this issue is actually being addressed nowadays, as I’ve read that any platforms (like DeviantArt and ArtStation) are beginning to offer ways for artists to opt-out of having their work used to train AI models 
also you’re not just “salting” an AI’s output, It’s more like collaborating with a skilled assistant
Brother I don’t know if you didn’t realise others are capable of formulating a decent essay without the use of ai but they exist
1 Like
You do not realise how energy consuming (wasteful) training an AI model is
1 Like
Even if we grant the argument that it’s creative—which I would disagree with—the Ai generation still works by mashing together pieces by non-consenting artists. It’s still theft. The concept of copyright exist for a reason, and Ai image generation blatantly violates it.
The sin isn’t in someone’s lack of effort in creation—plenty of people do that, and it can be legitimate—it’s in sponsoring a program that steals from people who don’t have the means to pursue legal retaliation against the corporation stealing from them.
1 Like
no, actually they’re 100% right.
artists have their works copied and fed into AI art bots all the time to use without the artist’s consent.
that is theft.
once again: putting it straight to you.
continuing to argue this point is a really really bad idea.
3 Likes
Debatable, I think it’s no different to just looking at a technique somebody uses and applying that to your own work.
It’s not really stealing, it’s just seeing what success looks like and doing that, every artist does that, the robot isn’t much different.
What do you think?
1 Like
I think its debatable but in the end one’s a human working off of inspiration and the other’s a machine designed to mass produce images using specific referance material near-instantly for a profit.
2 Likes
I think that’s just poor application. It doesn’t matter what tool they’re using to do it, it matters that they’re filling the internet with ugly garbage.
I’m also fairly certain taking inspiration won’t give you the ability to instantly use said technique in art otherwise I think everyone here would be painting the Mona Lisa on a daily basis or something
The difference is that humans have the capacity to be creative, this act of “synthesizing” other references for AI art falls apart as the AI is incapable of putting its own creative spin on it, it can only use other references
I think it matters that the tool does 99% of the work.
A tool should be a helping hand to assist a person making a work, the person shouldn’t be the helping hand to assist the tool making the work.
If that’s all AI art was, I don’t think anyone would really care.
5 Likes
Indeed, and that’s exactly why I think art can never be replaced. AI can’t be creative, so there’s nothing to worry about for artists and their jobs, an AI can’t do it.
average forumer reaction when talked back to:
1st, I literally have done art 
2nd, effort and learning are still part of using AI lol. are mastering prompts, refining outputs, editing results, and guiding the process all together not require a certain set of skills? ai is just another form of art with a different skillset. that’s all. it’s not a “cheat code” dude.
I myself don’t think AI can replace humans and stuff, I just use it to make funny shitposts like this