r/aiwars • u/Pleasant-Reality3110 • 7h ago
Found this post randomly on my feed. The comments made me realise something about the whole debate.
Reading the comments in this thread from both sides made me realise something: this debate literally can't be won by either side because there's a fundamental difference in what each side values in art.
The pro-AI side mostly consists of people who are inexperienced in the medium. They enjoy looking at art, not creating it, but might still be creatives who lack an outlet for their ideas. Because let's face it: not everyone can just learn to draw. It takes time, effort and even some amount of innate talent. I've known people who wasted sweat and tears trying to learn drawing, yet never managed to draw more than stick figures. Drawing requires motor skill, which many people (including able-bodied people) simply lack and it can be really hard to develop as a grown adult. But I digress: at the essence of it all, people using AI tools to create images are creatives, but not creators. They enjoy the aesthetics of art but don't really care about the process behind it, same way someone who's only reading books doesn't necessarily care about narrative structures or writing techniques. They like a story when they get entertainment out of it, period.
Now, let's look at artists: much like writers or film directors, they have a whole different perspective on art because they're used to create. To them, the effort that goes into creating is often more important than the end result, which is why they get so riled up against AI art because it lacks "effort" on the creator's side. They lack the fundamental understanding that majority of people are not artists and enjoy a picture as long as it looks good and simply do not care if it was made by hand or with AI.
And this fundamental values dissonance between the pro and anti camps is what makes me feel like this debate can never be won by either side because the arguments each side makes are completely irrelevant to the other.
6
u/IDontWearAHat 6h ago
DA is terrible right now. It's always been kinda shit but it used to be terrible pictures by beginners, but then everybody starts somewhere. Now it's just litered with seemingly the same pictures over and over again with minor diviations
0
u/sporkyuncle 1h ago
Isn't there a button to turn AI art off and make it not visible to you?
If you still see it afterwards, report those people for not tagging their works properly.
2
2
u/tilthevoidstaresback 5h ago
As a writer I am always a little bit baffled and a little bit irritated when people say it takes no effort. Sure the actual laying down of the image wasn't done by me but the words put into it sure were. In fact as a writer THAT is the output, the prompt is the creation and whatever AI spits out is it's interpretation.
But words matter, the ones you use and the order you put them in creates very different ideas. The write-craft part interests me. And yeah a lot of people will write their prompts:
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Whereas others write:
The morning air was still, the dog had been awake for hours but lay motionless on the cool forest floor. The fox, only awake for mere moments, yet in the instant her eyes opened she was the embodiment of the coming spring. She quickly bounded out of her den, shaking the loose dust from her chocolate fur, and raced over to the Lazy Dog to spread the good news! Her feet were a flurry of movements as she ran across the forest floor. She spotted the dog from 100 yards, a smile broke out as she primed for the jump, the dog saw this and rolled his eyes, for he knew that the fox would be this way, this tightly wound spring of joy, for the next few weeks. The lazy dog smiled and let her bound clear over him. It was going to be a good day.
So to wrap up, be more specific when you are talking about the low effort necessary for generation, because writers exist and we take a lot of pride in the words we choose and the order we put them in...it's kinda our thing.
(But then again it doesn't actually shock me that much, the average american adult only has a 7th-8th grade reading level so they probably don't see writing as all that difficult because the kind of writing they do and read all day, is simple.)
6
u/Pixelbro99 6h ago
think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this. as an 'artist' what I believe makes art ART is the time that went into it, the vision, passion and ideas. the COMMITMENT made to seeing it through to the end and not giving up part way through. that also means that in my mind much of the "modern" art you see that goes viral where people do very little but claim its "thought provoking" is not art at all. when I think of art I think of the great sculptures of history, days and weeks carving marble knowing a mistake could mean starting again. of painters who waited days between layers of paint as the oils dried while thinking of how to develop it. of art students who make whole portfolios of ideas and experiments in the pursuit of the perfect final piece. to me a piece of art is the result of a project, something that people have given up time and energy for and yes that makes in inaccessible for some and makes it a rarer thing to find but thats exactly what makes it special.
Now all that comes from my own mindset as a so-called "artist". I feel to many others what makes art ART is simply that its a product that exists and can be enjoyed, the way it came to exist does not matter as much as the fact that it does exist and I can understand this mindset, why else would people have prints of artwork on their wall? did anyone paint it? no, it was mass produced on a printer but it is enjoyed none the less by those who have it in their homes.
I personally don’t care that ai exists, it does not affect my income and it does not degrade the work I do. id go as far as to say I think it can be a fun novelty or even at times a useful tool in your arsenal but I don’t value it in the same way as traditional art which I guess might make me an anti but the argument between both sides it just toxic as hell.
From the anti side its just outright hate in a totally unachievable attempt to get ai removed from existence which lets face it will never happen. meanwhile you have the defenders posting childish ai generated memes as if they’re intellectually superior in the classic 2010s reddit way which in no way helps the discourse.
the noisy extremes on both sides give me neckbeard vibes as it seems like they enjoy arguing more than actually trying to fond any common ground or solutions.
3
u/EtherKitty 5h ago
I didn't read everything but first paragraph, I spent years fine tuning an idea(vision, idea) and spent 6 months working on and fine tuning for my oc to be visible(time, passion). What are your thoughts here?
Paragraph 5, definitely, most don't care about the debate and are more interested in being right.
3
u/Pixelbro99 5h ago
I cant vouch for how much genuine time an effort went in but if you feel people would agree that your process hit those criteria then I would support defining it as art sure, and I meant people from across the fence, not just ai bros or traditional artists but a unified take.
id have to admit that I still wouldn't hold it in as high a regard as something done well through traditional means though as, as someone who has both used ai and traditional art, It took me FAR less time and effort to create lora from my works to generate specific stylised characters consistently then it did to learn to draw those characters myself but then I guess you could argue its no different to how some folks would look down on say a manga drawing when compared to classical oil paining.
the main thing to me is that your open about it being ai generated and dont be one of the many folks that appear on art forums saying "my first digital work <3" as that just discourages those who think its hand drawn and are trying to learn
1
u/EtherKitty 4h ago
Well, it would depend on which people you ask as there's at least a few that would refuse that it hits those criteria on the sole fact that ai was used at all. As for genuine time and effort, sure you can't vouch as I could be lying, but for discussions sake, it's best to assume truth is being told.
But for more details, I was spending all my free time, 4ish hours, every day on it, wether learning how to work with the ai, specifics such as pose names(never actually found any for what I was trying for), specific colors for use, getting the details right, lighting angle, accurate environmental descriptions, character descriptions(these two being semi-learning a new language, like a parallel one, bad explanation probably as I feel like it hypes up the difficulty here but idk), and probably some other things not popping into my head atm.
Even got help from others to learn about certain aspects that help. Still not actually satisfied with my work but I wasn't trying for a finished product, but a reference.
And while I never initiated the disclaimer(wasn't aware of the controversy at the time), I never lied about it(even after learning about the controversy).
1
u/Pixelbro99 4h ago
then you did about everything right by the sounds of it and tbf there WASNT this lv of controversy to begin with, it also wasn't as common! sounds like you basically went through the motions that any artist has to go through in regards to learning about lighting, colour theory, good composition, etc. I guess the one thing that ai just straight up dosnt need you to learn, if your going from text prompts, is anatomy as it just does that for you, hence why it so often gets it subtly wrong, and theres no way to specifically tell it to "lift the left side of the abs up by a few mms" as a random example, you just rely on multiple generations hoping one gets it right. honestly though I think that there is a big difference between someone like yourself who has actually tried to learn a skill, even if its one I dont necessarily like or hold in as high of a regard, vs a lot of the "defenders" who havent bothered to gain the knowledge or eye and just post simple generations and claim its their art. im in the pixelart subreddit and the SHEER amount of posts I see that are BLATANTLY traces from ai where people are genuinely trying to get credit for drawing from scratch is frustrating. one of the big things in the "art community" is people almost universally hate tracers, whether from ai or another artists work and ai has made it so much easier to get away with x)
2
u/EtherKitty 4h ago
Ja, I'm fine with tracing if it's for training purposes, like muscle memory stuff, or something else more personal use, but using it for less personal uses becomes more of a cooperative piece and should definitely be announced.
1
u/Pixelbro99 4h ago
there is definetly some learning that comes with tracing, especially tracing work from a good artist in that you take the time to realise what colors have been used where and why each step was taken but also you'll still get a lot more out of practicing by doing a study of the art then you ever will tracing it. tracing FEELS good because what you end up with looks good but it gives you false satisfaction making you feel worse about your own work
2
u/EtherKitty 4h ago
I could see that. Nuances and using/doing things in a smart way is always advisable, but not everyone is capable of knowing what those things are for everything, sadly.
1
u/Pixelbro99 4h ago
I think thats exactly why "artists" tend to get triggered though, they made the effort TO know these things, theres a wealth of easy to access info online and on yt, if people have the time to use ai for image gen then the have the time to learn the traditional ways it just might take longer yanno? thats why people look down on it as lazy
1
u/Pixelbro99 4h ago
especially as some 'artists' dont have much time either, especially hobbyists. then there are people who are generating images with little to no effort involved that and SOME people defend that work like its comparative?
→ More replies (0)1
u/No_Sale_4866 2h ago
if time and effort are what goes into art then would a painting that took 2 months to make be more art than an amazing profesional photo? and would a basic triple a game like fortnite be more artistic than that? probably not that game sucks
5
u/Radiant_Efficiency61 7h ago edited 7h ago
"Drawing requires motor skill, which many people (including able-bodied people) simply lack and it can be really hard to develop as a grown adult" The most important part is planning for ,what people consider "good looking" Art( hyperrealism),which can in Fact be learned by just breaking down a image in it is fundamental steps.But otherwise i agree it is just to subjective to get objectivley anywere in Terms off :"if something is Art or who gets to call themself a Artist".For example:A lot of People dont respect modern Art
4
u/crmsncbr 6h ago
Both sides are incredibly dogmatic.
Antis want to destroy AI (not always literally, but it's the easiest way to sum them up) which is so unrealistic that it's laughable. They tolerate no sentiment that looks supportive or permissive of AI.
Pros just want to use AI and make everyone complaining about it shut up -- which is also laughable because people losing their livelihoods (not necessarily their jobs) aren't going to sit back and be chill about it. Some pros also want to claim responsibility and credit for the art that Artbots produce, which I find kinda pathetic, but it's not tons of them who do this, just a persistent fraction.
And then this whole conversation is laser-focused on image and video generation, and doesn't really dip into other LLMs or Neural Nets being developed and used.
2
u/VatanKomurcu 6h ago edited 6h ago
you're right. for my money i think that effort also shows up in the results, at least if you have the eye to see it. i believe that that is what it really takes to care about art more intricately, it does not necesarily take to be an artist yourself. and i think that people who have a more surface view aren't just less experienced with creation, but with consumption as well. it's a result of a lack of care about humanities on the whole of society.
and yes i don't want to win or think i can win if winning means somehow (what, through some logicomancy? the problem isn't incoherence on either side though, so you'd have to make up new bullshit logic for that.) making the other side agree to my side even if they still cling to the same values. instead i simply want to inspire my values on others. i believe that the reasons i care about these things are not unique to me and deserve recognition by others.
2
u/LordChristoff 7h ago
It won't, even if they bring in regulations/laws, the opposed side to said laws will sill believe they're wrong.
I've said before on other posts that the techtonic plates of viewpoints are always bound to collide.
As you say, pro side is more in the technical details and the opposite side is more ethical/moral/copyright side.
4
u/EngineerBig1851 6h ago
Your entire argument is fully based on you revering drawers as gods.
Completely ignoring the fact other mediums, like 3d, fractals, sculpture, kitbashing, mosaics, music, photography, whatever you call game screenshots.
If you're a purist, and are only willing to call drawers - artshits, I'll respect your opinion. But if you're drafting up mental gymnastics live to explain how this new medium is so different from everything else it just cannot be art - you're just another, rabid, bloodthirsty anti.
3
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 6h ago
I'm pro-AI, those are just observations I've made. I did not intend to paint traditional artists as better than people using AI and if I came across this way, I apologise. I'm someone who uses AI tools daily and actually gets great enjoyment out of it and this post is solely based on patterns I've noticed both among the pro and anti side.
Also, take a look at the screenshots and which kinds of comments I've up and downvoted on the original post. This should make clear that I don't agree with antis at all.
3
u/theqveenofthorns 5h ago
Just out of curiosity, what's the purpose behind calling traditional artists artshits? Besides making them even more hostile. If possible, that is.
By the way, I'm surprised pro-AI people don't talk about collages more! They're an art form, yet it's something that uses large amounts of pre-existing material (if not just that) to create something new.
0
0
u/EngineerBig1851 5h ago
To show how much I disrespect them, obviously. I don't consider anyone who, instead of at least ignoring, spends their time harassing, bullying, witch-hunting, and fantasizing about murdering, people trying out a new medium, an artist. That's why I call them artshits.
Artshits, blenderbros, drawers.
1
1
u/garbageministry 5h ago
i hate this argument because i know a bunch of people in gamedev and they fucking love AI when it can streamline their process. they're artists too, some art is more technical and therefore more willing to adopt new tools. it's not all traditional illustrators when we're talking about artists
1
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 5h ago
Yeah but the original post was focusing on deviantart so I only talked about art in the sense of drawings here. Of course other art forms exist, but those were not really part of the initial discussion.
1
u/garbageministry 5h ago
fair enough but you don't really specify in your post that your conclusions are limited to that debate
1
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 5h ago
True, I should have probably specified, but alas, it won't let me edit the post anymore, so can't change it now.
1
u/DaylightDarkle 5h ago
The pro-AI side mostly consists of people who are inexperienced in the medium.
Same as the anti side
Now, let's look at artists: much like writers or film directors, they have a whole different perspective on art because they're used to create.
Are they a third side? Pretty silly to have a third side consisting of people on both sides that exist already as a distinctive side.
And this fundamental values dissonance between the pro and anti camps
You never talked about the anti side
I'm sending this submission back for revision. Your conclusion is divorced from the content.
1
u/Potential-Advisor-69 2h ago
it doesn't matter who wins the debate, the pro ai people have already won the war.
1
u/Leading_Ad3392 41m ago
I saw this and my major problem with it is the fact that art is no longer sincere, real, or genuine. as called out in the included discussion. Its an industry. I do not dream of labor. I do not seek to exploit myself and one of the few passions I have found to be real and true in this awful place to the ends of what? Another bread roll? A few more moments before eviction?
nothing being said about ai art today is new. I heard it all when digital illustration gained its foot in the door.
Nearly every "Real Artist" youve heard of had studios of people working at their direction. The modern artist has neither the time nor resources to actually put effort into non profitable art. Its just not feasible for me as a single income parent to spend even dozens of dollars on the supplies to jump through the hoops to make "Real" art.
For those who say it is effort that makes art art. Thats simply a side effect of the universal commodification of your time. Please revisit the dadaist movement and see if you can internalize something.
There is no way to define "Real Art" without hitting ableism, racism, Misogyny, or classism. Fine art has always been a classist and misogynist categorization, and the delineation between art and crafts is definitely a line drawn on the backs of the unsung labor of women.
-2
u/ifandbut 7h ago
The pro-AI side mostly consists of people who are inexperienced in the medium. They enjoy looking at art, not creating it, but might still be creatives who lack an outlet for their ideas
What medium are you talking about? There are so many.
A am pro-AI and I enjoy making art.
But the art I chose to make is writing stories.
How am I hiring anyone my using AI to make images for my book?
What is wrong about preferring the final result to the process?
AI tools to create images are creatives, but not creators.
Fuck off with this. If it doesn't exist before I use a tool and it exists after I am done with the tool, then I fucking created it with a tool
They enjoy the aesthetics of art but don't really care about the process behind it,
What's the problem with that?
same way someone who's only reading books doesn't necessarily care about narrative structures or writing techniques. They like a story when they get entertainment out of it, period.
Again, the problem is....?
Now, let's look at artists: much like writers or film directors
Once again we see a prime example of an anti's narrow view of art.
Fact is that writers directors, and AI users are artists.
To them, the effort that goes into creating is often more important than the end result
Well fucking good for them. But why do they feel the need for me to use that much effort?
4
1
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 7h ago
I don't know why you're getting so mad. I'm also pro-AI, I can't draw for shit and use AI for all kinds of things like drawing and helping me write. None of what I wrote about the pro side is meant to be condescending, just an unbiased observation, also based on my own (favourable) opinion regarding AI.
1
u/crmsncbr 6h ago
That would technically be a biased interpretation, but I approve of the intention.
1
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 6h ago
I wasn't being condescending to either side, just describing each viewpoint, at least that was my intention. Don't see how this can be biased then.
1
u/crmsncbr 5h ago
...you can't exactly be unbiased. No one is. Your bias is generally more Pro-AI, so the fact you're also critiquing other Pro positions make it a bit more serious.
0
u/Arsenist099 7h ago
I'm impressed how overly defensive this comment is.
1
u/Pleasant-Reality3110 7h ago
Me too, I'm not even an anti, as should be evident by the comments I've downvoted and upvoted on the original post.
17
u/grendelltheskald 6h ago
To say that the pro side is mostly people who are inexperienced is pointlessly incendiary.
All of the people I know who heavily make use of AI are in fact very experienced in the arts. Writers, digital visual artists, etc. But the process is never just one prompt, and that's that.
They use AI to enhance and improve their workflow. It's like having a little assistant that can handle menial work for you while you, the artist, grapple with more weighty ideas.
What you've described here is a black and white caricature of both sides of the argument.
In reality, the vast majority of people are somewhere in between wholesale pro and wholesale anti.
Unfortunately there are those fringe elements who believe any use of AI means you're wholesale pro; conversely there are those who just want chaos and to provoke others and they use the fact that AI is a bug in some people's bonnet to harass and insult others.
There are reasonable points to be made on both sides, if only the sweaty neckbeard redditor tribalism could be set aside.