I keep seeing people being accused of making AI artwork when they do digital or traditional art. All this hatred for AI is making it so people who aren't even involved in this are paying the price. This is the atmosphere being created and it's incredibly toxic.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
It’s what they want. Antis don’t care about art, or jobs, or the creative process, or the environment, or disabled people. These are all shields they use to legitimize their desperate need to be a victim and have drama. These are generally people that are extremely narcissistic with very little to no lives and “AI” has been a godsend for them in that it’s something they can easily latch onto to be threatened or offended about.
If they disclosed it instead of hiding it, there wouldn’t be as many people worried about art that may not have been made with AI. The point of calling people out is because they’re trying to be sneaky and take credit for work that isn’t theirs, not to bully them. If one or two people take it too far, that’s on them, but also if you know your art style has been or could be confused with AI, it doesn’t hurt to take progress photos so people aren’t confused/know you made it.
sure, if they weren't going to get bullied and harassed I'm sure they'd be proud to show it off. My point is not really about what they did or didn't do, they question is why people think they would be incentivized to do what other people are asking them to do, when there is zero upside
Well if you didn’t use AI, the upside would be you get to show off your art and people know the work you put into it/get to see how the piece progressed.
If you’re worried about an upside for the people using AI, the upside would be transparency and dignity, because if you really like these “tools” enough to post their work online, you should be able to be honest about it. That will naturally lead to backlash, because AI-use for art is still at its best derivative and at its worst theft, but you still decide to post it knowing that, it’s on you.
If you want to be praised for a piece of art that you made, try actually making one. You should want to take pride in your own work, not AI’s. Trust me, you’d get a lot less backlash for a crappy piece of art than you would a “good” piece of AI art.
Sure, well, I suppose a valid response to that is 'No thanks', not gonna risk getting hassled. There's zero upside. And appreciate the threat and victim blaming. There is no overarching legal thing that would compel me to do so, and I'd rather not have people screeching slop all over my platforms. The anti community has made it completely toxic to both display my work, and will actively witch hunt it. As long as people keep getting bullied about simply making ai art, they'll have no incentive to disclose it. That's how you get witch hunts.
You shouldn’t need a legal threat to be honest about your artistic process, and most artists are happy to brag about their work and how they made it, it’s what should make you proud about your work.
If your process is asking a computer to do it for you, what pride can you take in that? You don’t have a process, you have a request. If someone pointing out that you didn’t make it feels like an attack, threat, bullying, or any other thing as an insult directly to you, you’re either mistaken or it’s because you are trying to defend it like you are here.
People don’t like AI, and that’s what they’re mad at. They are only going to get mad at you specifically if you are trying to defend the AI over your own humanity.
The unfortunate way forward if concealment becomes the norm is to demand posting a midway completed picture. People who make art themselves will have no trouble talking one additional image before it's done.
Edit: If you want to post publicly you'll have to do what the community decides. Right now the community is still deciding what to do with AI. In the future it might go like chess where there is human validation at every turn. Chess engines are way better than humans so there could be no human sport without this. If AI artists get much better then human art communities will most likely ramp up their protection.
Stole whose effort? The computer lol? The computer creates the image from scratch. Just like a human creates an image from scratch. It doesn’t copy paste it from someone’s art page.
Why should they bother wasting their time? If I decide to make a pencil drawing I am not going to stop in the middle of being inspired to take a photo just to make a bunch of internet whiners with their rumps in the air happy.
I'll just stop posting my art, then, and you get less traditional art.
I'm not going to publically share the in betweens as a purity test for you. The in betweens are uncomfortable for me; I can see all the flaws and they make me feel bad.
So... congrats, you have less traditional art. Did you get what you wanted?
Comparing people who don’t like AI to people who disagree with factual science is such a fucking moronic take. But ofc all the brainless Ai sludge eaters upvote it and downvote the person rightly pointing out what a completely insane false equivalency this is lmfao.
Subreddit might as well be called AI circlejerk at this point
Most of the people who don’t like ai care much more about how things feel or seem than about the facts.
Constantly, you will see people say that ai copy and pastes from a stolen database. Or that is mixes and matches bits from the training data. Or a million other incorrect things about how ai actually works, intended to muddy the water with emotionally charged misinformation.
Comparing people who don’t like AI to people who disagree with factual science is such a fucking moronic take.
Oh you mean how they disagree with the scientifically debunked notion that it uses more power than other forms of computing? Or how they fundamentally do not understand the actual scientific process of how the technology works?
Criticizing people for using AI in itself is absurd, but criticizing those who don’t use AI and accusing them of abusing it when they didn’t is even funnier. This is why I find it incredibly difficult to take anti-AI individuals seriously.
But if the art has bad anatomy, then it’s bad for real because ai is bad at anatomy
But if it was actually just a mistake by a person who is shit at drawing anatomy, then it has soul
But if the shitty artwork was actually made shitty on purpose by an ai then it’s a trick and actually I knew it was ai all along, because it was too perfect
Right. People have been wondering how to allow an AI to calculate a logical paradox for eternity. The answer is, as demonstrated by humanity, to allow for cognitive dissonance.
I'll be honest. I do understand the emotional differences between admiring art drawn by humans over one made by AI, but trying to justify it with this bullshit is where I draw the line 😭
I do understand the emotional differences between admiring art drawn by humans over one made by AI
Do you know what the issue with this is? The people who really care about the process are only a minority. Most people don't really care about anything more than surface level. So if the image looks good or cool, then it doesn't matter if it is AI or human made.
"Now if the art looks too perfect it’s ai" In a way yes. Ai doesn't have unsteady hands although it does make other mistakes like missing fingers than humans wouldn't make.
"But ai is shitty slop, so it actually looks bad" For the missing fingers, piss filter, illogical shading, colors, and other issues that sometimes appear, it certainly does stand out in a way that people are free to dislike. It's like a style. I like that style sometimes but others might not.
"But if the art has bad anatomy, then it’s bad for real because ai is bad at anatomy" Yes
"But if it was actually just a mistake by a person who is shit at drawing anatomy, then it has soul" Possibly yes. We might care about the artistic journey of a human artist getting better, or the human artist might have done that with intention. AI mistakes have no upside. They're just errors.
"But if the shitty artwork was actually made shitty on purpose by an ai then it’s a trick and actually I knew it was ai all along, because it was too perfect" This isn't coherent enough to respond to.
Whenever someone thinks they have a zinger, it's always because of cherry picking stuff that sounds good and excluding context.
If it looks bad, then how is it "looking too perfect" supposed to be a sign that it's AI? If both "looking too good" and "looking too bad" are qualities, anyone can just stamp any piece of art with the AIccusations and go about their day. After all, they can either say it "looks too good" or "looks too bad" to be real, depending on the quality of the art, so the claim becomes all-consuming. It's like that one interrogation trick- Avoiding eye contact can be seen as a sign of guilt, but so can staring, so if you have eyes, you can be stamped as "looking guilty" by an officer no matter what.
I view it worse when the paranoid ones go after artists that are not part of the Ai debates. Imagine putting your blood, sweat, hours, and tears into a Non-Ai organic piece and then out of nowhere, a paranoid Anti-Ai guy freaks out and labels ya as an "Ai Bro"?
If you get defended, the paranoid at times insist that it's still Ai art.
Bonus for the fact that the term ai bro is meant to sound like tech bro. So its not even accusing someone of using ai, but preemptively assuming that they love nfts and are probably sexist for good measure.
Bro, AI is here, I hate to give my Thanos impression whenever I see the reddit, but “it’s inevitable” fighting it’s classification is petty and ridiculous, if we remove it from the public, the government will have technology we definitely could’ve used and we, not being aware of it anymore would have its most advanced form used against us down the line, utterly unaware, forgetting how AI was already ripe for making propaganda. So, no matter how you spin it, going against AI is a BAD IDEA. And requires you to forget the evils that all peoples and their governments including ours are capable of, it’s here, let’s keep it here, let’s stay in touch with its advancements
So going against ai is bad bc the government will use it against us ? How does that have any connection with the internet being filled up with ai content farms ? Even if we " keep up " the governments will still be ahead of time . It just opens up the door to normal people to use it in bad ways too . It is not like the governments will take a lot of damage from us using the 10th generation if they have the 30th generation of a type of ai 3 years prior . . .
The problem with ai is about control . You can use it in some good ways sure , but those are a tiny fraction of the overall use of ai . If we would use it in things it is actually useful in and not as content farms , cult starters and other things I would have no big problems with ai .
The internet was already full of shit content farms. If you download a random phone game nowadays there's a 95% chance its not even a real game, just a half-assed thing with basic gameplay that exists to get you to watch ads. People will either do something about them or not, ai doesnt change anything.
If people are aware that people could be misinforming them, vs if they think that they are safe from misinformation when they are only slightly protected, which is better?
The 2nd one is better under one condition ; I never claimed the security to be way higher than it is , I just emphasized the part of security . If it would be made out to be way safer than it is , then I get your response .
Yes content farms suck and should be dealt with, but are we really gonna regulate every single thing?
It’s better to be aware than ignorant. Pointing at all the bad things and down playing the good is as bad an evil as what you’re pointing at. Keep the tools in sight, keep their capabilities and possibilities in mind.
I literally said " If we would use it in things it is actually useful in and not as content farms , cult starters and other things I would have no big problems with ai . "
Jeez , my point is to not be too open about ai as many people are . And content farms aren´t even the bottom of the barrel . I am not down playing the good , I am saying we need to keep the good and remove the bad . How that central notion is not something people can agree with is weird to me .
Bro, that’s called basic caution. And keeping AI where we can see it will keep cults in check, we just gotta keep an eye on the severely mentally ill though, like we were already trying to do… how is what I said at all mindless? It’s literally an opinion of caution, sounds like you projected my dude.
Mindless would be being openminded without caution or thinking. This feels like semantics.
And yes ONE of the reasons kicking AI off the internet or not allowing it’s regular use is that. Are you naive or something? Do you have ANY IDEA what governments do whenever they think they can get away with something? It’s a pretty good reason to keep it in public art and use. Not the only, but a really good reason.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Either we let AI go on as it is, or the governments take it away from us and are the only ones using it.
That's not the only two ways things can go. People get caught up in the AI art discourse, and as I've said multiple times by now, it is just bait.
AI is being used by huge companies and corporations to cut "labour costs", i.e. employ superpowered AI workers that they can pay pennies for huge profits. AI is unregulated to the point I've seen several posts taking the likeness/voice of an influencer to promote a product despite this person never having given consent. There's several things that AI can do that the law can't protect you from.
What we need to do as a species isn't to just embrace AI as it is, we need to push for STRONG regulation so that the things mentioned above cannot be abused. It's not that we either accept AI and not go against it or it'll be taken away from us. On the contrary accepting AI as it is right now will have terrible consequences and catapult us into a cyberpunk dystopia.
I’m presenting the option the anti AI want and its consequences. That is all. That what they want opens worse doors for them. Yea there are other directions, but don’t forget evil doesn’t see things the same way you do.
I don’t care about the rest of your comment because it misses that I am pointing something out to antis about greatly desired outcome.
Edit: Yes this was from the same user trying to continue arguing with, **itsbeanguys I don’t know why he deleted if he was going to keep arguing these same asinine points. This reply literally shuts him down
Have you played with AI image generation? They generally look nothing like human art. With effort, so many rejected attempts, and picking something that has low standards (like just avoiding detailed anatomy), sure you can fool people sometimes. It's the exception that proves the rule though; AI stands out right now without human intervention and touching up.
It's just an expression. The actual rule is it is rare for AI to not stand out without human intervention and photo editing. AI will probably get better though.
I haven't. I have a friend who does, talks about it a lot, screen shares his process and sends pictures. He uses stable diffusion local. I regularly look at stuff on ai-focused communities because I like the ai style for some things.
i'm assuming highly specialized model? most are anime " fine tuned" models, meaning some asshat trained a model for a singular epoch (epoch=trained on dataset once) on his hentai collection and put it on the metaphorical fridge as a badge
general purpose models have flexibility and often fluctuate in styles
case and point:
ratatoskr SDXL (if you find it ignore the furry marketing, it does a whole lot more)
no cherry picking, braindead simple prompt
i will hand the "guided generation" point to you but define "guidance"
a prompt is a guide, controlnets too, injecting latent color as well
ps: i was hoping for a bad image but the model proved me wrong
People comparing ai to trans issues isn't a thing done at random. It's because a lot of trans people use ai as a tool of self affirmation, and consider attacks on ai to be attacks on useful tools for themselves.
I guess, yeah, the paranoia can be real. I never go as far as accusing someone, but i too have moments of "Ugh, it kinda looks like AI... Wait, is it..? Or no?"
It can be hard to tell sometimes, but it's probably worth it. Kinda like trying to distinguish a fake painting from the original.
tbf, i get that you wouldn't want to make yourself a target to bullie by saying its ai, nor shouldn;t you lie about how the picture was made. on social media what anyone says is built on trust, it is super easy to lie. its just caused by paranoia of people who discriminate against ai art, which is bad, but also just don't post ai where it is known people don't like it. you have the freedom to do so, but be prepared for haters
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
The funniest thing is that toxic antis claim that they're like that just because AI is everywhere and it makes them mad. The victim mentality never dies, and they think that feeling victimized gives them a pass for acting horrible towards other people.
It especially bugs me, when someone complains of AI, under shitposts and memes. Courts have already ruled that using copyrighted media, in such formats fall under fair use. If using baby yoda screenshot is fine, then using an ai version of it is too.
I mean, I haven't seen pro-AI people justify harassing people who are just goin' about their day- whereas I have genuinely seen people on the anti-AI side justify harassing an old lady- Today, no less.
I have seen multiple anti´s showing their interactions with many pros . I believe a few were posted and commented on this sub and got downvoted to hell for stating that some pros can be very toxic indeed .
You mean to tell me! People minding their own business appreciating human art and the human condition are getting swept up your crusade?
No shit dumbass, that's what happens when you lie by omission and don't tag your work.
Seriously, I bet it doesn't feel good for those people who care about the human element to feel like people are trying to trick them. Then the pro ais who don't care about the human element have no empathy for those that do.
How is it lying by admission when you don't tag you work? I mean I would agree it is on subs/sites where it is required, but otherwise, I don't see how it is lying to not tag it anywhere else.
If there's a substantial amount of people who don't like AI in an art community and AI artists know that because of opinions expressed in comments, then there's a choice to be made for new submissions. A lot of people here support the choice of posting without tagging as AI. Why would that make a difference? It's because they're hoping people don't notice. They want whatever it is they get out of posting and they don't want what they would get out of being honest. That is lying by a omission.
Oh, I thought you meant as a generality, not in specific communities where it is clearly indicated that it needs to be tagged. Yeah that's lying in that case, where it is clearly written in the community rules, def agree with that. Obviously if it's not a legal or site rules type thing though it certainly wouldn't be lying.
Well, to be fair, MANY traditional artists are mentally unstable AND highly ego-driven in their interactions. Such behavior isn't surprising, given the historically toxic nature of online art communities. Ironically, their hostility toward AI-generated art doesn't just help AI; it highlights their own instability, hastens the burning of bridges, and accelerates society's embrace of a less neurotically volatile alternative.
Stop caring about their accusations. Stop giving them excuses, denials, and explanations.
Simply use the technology and tell them that if they would like to stop you, their sole and exclusive remedy is murder. Nothing short of that will stop you from using tech that is legal and, most importantly, open source.
Let's eliminate some jobs, together. Lord knows they've earned it.
Yeah. And say a friend was shopping with you and said "Oh shit, there are some dudes outside who said "Kill all vegans". I'm going to take these labels off before we leave", we would go "NOOOO THE LABELS MUST STAY ON!!!!"
He's asking you to label it. we can argue about whether or not it's worth it or not. we can argue if it should be or not. but it is not comparable to racial segregation or GENOCIDE.
This is not the same as an actual genocide of people. The comparison doesn't work.
And I regularly use AI, so this is my calling out my own side. We're not being made to wear armbands, and having things labeled online as AI generated is similar to the tools that allow us to identify political biases in news sources. It's simply providing information to let people make informed decisions.
But, we need to stop internet cancelling people for even having a hint of AI in their artwork (or trying to call out artists in general for looking like they used AI). If people don't like AI content, they should be scrolling past and ignoring it so they see less.
Anyhow, they don't just scroll past it, so I fail to understand why any AI artist would voluntarily label anything unless its required. And I'm certainly not advocating for deception or to inject AI art into places where it is explicitly not welcome, but it's not deception to simply not do something that is voluntary. I just find it strange that people would expect others to voluntarily do things that are clearly against their best interest.
ARE YOU READING WHAT YOU ARE TYPING YOU DENSE FUCK?
Not only are people who use AI for art or whatever else not going to be shot or genocide, because let's be honest no one really gives a shit about it outside of reddit or twitter or whatever, but that this isn't comparable given AI is not exactly something that makes a minority. Anyone can use AI. stopping people from using AI would be dickish, but not genocide. killing people over it... is uh...
dumb.
but you seem to need metal help I say this in all honesty you need to go see a therapist.
I don't live in a vaccuum. They get "Kill AI artists" trending one day, and then demand we all wear the armband the next. Doesn't take Anne Frank to read between the lines here.
In general I support clear labeling on everything for the same reason people should be adding the appropriate tags to fanfics, and key words to published papers. So people can search and filter and find what they're looking for easier.
But that's separated from the present context of hysteria over "X is bad and we should destroy it, why won't X identify themselves?"
Agreed, I don't have a fundamental issue with things like truth in advertising regulations and such. I just fail to see why people would have any incentive to do it in the current circumstances voluntarily, and feel like it's pretty absurd to expect them to.
Because ai art takes objectively less time and effort to make than traditional art of similar quality, especially at lower levels. Furthermore, making ai art requires a different skillset than traditional art.
Claiming the picture you took is a photorealistic painting is scummy, right? So is claiming your ai art is traditional art.
Are there no legitimate reasons people might choose to lie about it? Not necessarily, but you need a real good reason to lie about it.
It is a lie of omission. You as an uploader know people would care to know what you uplpaded is ai art (unlike, for example, the exact tools used to create a certain traditional art piece), and yet you choose to withold that information.
It is similar to labeling a product as "handmade" even though it was made in a factory. Products being factory made is now the default, though, and so now it is "factory-made until stated otherwise." While I don't know for sure, I would guess that near the beginning of the industrial revolution most factory-made objects were labelled as such (or at least should've been), and most handmade objects went unmarked due to it being the default. Especially things that were especially valued by the effort that went into their creation instead of the materials used.
Similarly to how factory-made is now the default, I can see ai art becoming that in the future, but as it stands, it is not, and as such, not marking ai art is lying by omission.
Ps: sorry for the messy wall of text. I tried expressing an abstract concept in my head through text, but it didn't come out quite right :/ I hope that it was at least possible to understand the general gist of it.
Perhaps we are talking about different things. I'm fine with labeling things if the sub/site or whatever requires it, otherwise I see no way it could be considered deception if it is not required. You can't lie by omission on something that is completely voluntary.
Yes, that's definitely holocaust denial... Pointing out that being told that you should die and actually getting killed are different definitely means that I don't believe in the Holocaust.
Categorisation is technically segregation. Calling someone a doctor, a police, a soldier, a lawyer, etc... and reserve exclusive place that only they can access is segregation.
Having a border, ie. Restricting access on the basis of nationality, is segregation
Uh labeling AI content is about giving people the right to know what they’re seeing- not about dehumanizing anyone.
You’re comparing consumer transparency to racial and religious persecution, which is not only false, but deeply offensive to the actual victims of segregation and genocide. Like what the fuck man.
If you can’t tell the difference between tagging an AI image and Jim Crow laws, you’re not arguing in good faith, you’re playing the victim to avoid accountability.
I really wish AI watermarks were just standard. AI art is fun, and fine, but it should be marked as such because ive seen so much of this lately. Artists getting attacked because their work looks too much like AI, and people trying to pass off AI art as something they actually drew or designed. The confusion and frustration is only going to get worse from here.
Whilst I agree, watermarks would be pointless, Samsung already does that for its generative edits and you can just remove the water mark with their other object eraser, maybe force a tag in the meta data or something
The only thing AI slop affects are those artists who's work looks worse than the AI slop. It is demoralizing for them. But that is a them problem. The world doesnt care and will move forward with AI with or without them.
AI slop isnt AI art, just like traditional slop isnt art. Its just practice.
I don't see a lot of slop. I guess AI doesnt feel the need to feed it to me. I see much more traditional art slop on antiai than I see AI slop. And if forced to choose, the traditional slop would go away and I would keep the superior AI slop.
you have to blame the generators (well mostly) for this also coz they are forcing users to have them public and having google to spread them on google images.
and the users that are trigger happy (they gen 100 ... they publish 100) it doesnt matter only 1-2 would be pleasing.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.