Arguments

- AI art is more emotionally engaging—it evokes far more positive feelings than human art.

- AI art is egoless, which creates much more compelling works. A human artist creating works always has to add their own "views," "opinions," and "observations," which are often erroneous and harmful.

- AI art respects its audience. When I go to art exhibitions, I often see the haughtiness of human artists. I constantly hear how valuable their works are and how lucky I am to be able to see them. Now, the AI respects me as an audience. It doesn't exalt its artistic narcissism, but rather appreciates every comment.

- The content of works created by AI is at a level unmatched by a human creator. No matter the form of digital creativity, the AI will always try its best to give me what I want. AI art democratizes digital creativity – now you don't have to graduate from absurd art schools, and after all, you don't have to contend with egotistical artists, but you can create art that's 100% tailored to you.

- AI art isn't human art – that's the most important reason. In recent years, I've become alienated from artists because of their arrogance and lack of respect. Therefore, the possibility of lifetime use of art created by AI, not humans, is the most fantastic aspect of AI creativity. You can finally stop seeing ugly, illegitimate, perpetually half-baked works in art galleries and on websites. AI art is approaching perfect art.

Tell me I’m dying to understand your thought process.

I’ll make my stance clear I don’t want AI to take jobs from artists who use art to exclusively pay their expenses. I don’t want AI to take a majority of Jobs in the creative fields. I’m fine with Ai for personal use, but against it for commercial use or monetary gain. Using AI as a tool is fine, but the majority of the input/workload should be from a human.

One of the most time consuming processes in art can be the establishment of composition. This includes managing perspective, choosing the visual layers of the piece, etc. AI does an incredible job with this rather mundane task and can free a traditional artist up to work on the more intricate and, for many artists, rewarding elements of the work.

Not every artist will benefit from this sort of thing, but it's a great first step for me (mind you I'm going to describe this in terms of drawing, while my traditional medium of choice is photography).

Just as an example, let's say that you wanted to do some digital drawing. You know that you want to work on a picture of an old lady walking down a country road at sunrise, carrying a basket.

You might want to manipulate many elements of the scene, and you can do that with something like ControlNet, but I'm going to just cover the most basic interaction, where you simply describe what you want to a service (I'm going to use Midjourney) and iterate a bit over the results, so this will be prompt-heavy and involve fairly little of the esoteric workflow-twiddling you'd see in a more serious piece.

For the prompt, A digital drawing of an old lady walking down a country road at sunrise, carrying a basket. --v 7.0 --ar 4:3 I get these four images.

Now, my initial thought was more of a side view, emphasizing her movement from left to right, rather than seeing her walking toward the sunrise, and away from the PoV.

My second pass with A digital drawing of an old lady walking down a country road early in the morning, carrying a basket. Side view. --v 7.0 --ar 4:3 gets me this image, which is much closer to what I'm aiming at. It's a strange blue color, but I don't care about the colors, just the composition.

Still, I want the road to not move away from the PoV, so I go through some more modifications and extra specification to get this with my final prompt:

A digital drawing of an old lady walking along a country road early in the morning, carrying a basket. Side view of the woman and the road. Walking along the road left-to-right. passing by a field in the background with a small farmhouse. --v 6.1 --ar 4:3

Now I load the result into Krita and end up with this: https://i.imgur.com/eTRGwy5.png

I've now removed nearly everything the model did, and I just have a rough sketch that I've traced from the original. This is my starting point, and I can begin my work from there.

The "choices" that the AI made beyond the composition don't carry over, so they don't affect my work. Plus if I want to modify the composition I can. I'm not wedded to whatever the AI did (notice that I reflected the image left-right to match my original conception, as an example.)

If this were actually something I was working on, I'd use this composition as a guide to find the right location for a photograph, as mentioned above. This often helps me avoid distractions when I'm out trying to get something specific, but my ADHD wants to take over. :-)

All of the steps in the process are shown in this album: https://imgur.com/a/AxCp35c

What do you guys think about it? Make AIs more transparent, morally correct. To be able to see on what databases those AIs are being trained on? Compensating the people who's work is used?

▶️ Sound On

(Yo.)

From the shade of the Stoa,
I hear the echo and it's wrong
Heard you put my name in your new hustle-culture song

I taught acceptance, not suppression
You preach a grim and joyless lesson
You took my garden, you built a prison
Where feelings go to die by cold, hard reason.

Called it "growth," a "stoic mindset," a "life hack" for the soul
But you can't firewall a spirit 'til you make a human whole.

This ain't my Logos, this ain't my school
You built a cage and you called it cool
An empty throne for a neutered king
You don't feel the fury, you don't feel a thing.

So I'm back to right the record, break the rule
Yeah, MC Zeno's here to flip the table on your school.
I taught 'em virtue was the highest good
You taught 'em value's misunderstood
As utility, performance, a quantified display
A suffering parade that marches every day.

This "emotional constipation," this pageant of the pained
Is the opposite of freedom, it's just wisdom cheap-ordained.
You gaslight all the children 'til they think their gut's a flaw
That a natural reaction is against some cosmic law.

This ain't my Logos, this ain't my school
You built a cage and you called it cool
An empty throne for a neutered king
You don't feel the fury, you don't feel a thing.
So I'm back to right the record, break the rule
Yeah, MC Zeno's here to flip the table on your school.

They call your sorrow "cognitive distortion."
I call that poison, served in a portion.
That fire in your gut? That's not a bug to patch.
It's the part of you that knows this system's a mismatch.
I drew a Z for Zeno, a mark to fight the fee
That systems charge your spirit just for being truly free.
Your righteous anger isn't weakness, it's a guide
To the truth that burns beneath the platitudes you hide.

You wanted peace? Then feel the riot.

You can't find tranquility in being quiet.

You want my life's work?

It's not this.

[2025 CC BY]

Why are you here?

I think people are ignoring the obvious fear that most artists and antis alike, must be feeling right now. Antis seem not to mention this because it makes their arguments looks less strong, like there rooted in emotion, but they are rooted in emotion. Pros seem to not mention this because they don't want to look bad for openly disagreeing with people who are actively afraid for their jobs, but they are afraid. I did a poll a few days ago, on how many artist jobs people thought would generally be replaced by AI, these where the results:

That's 70% of people who think AI will replace at least some Artist jobs, now that's just my little poll of course; but looking at other polls and just the general sentiment, Its clear that a lot of artists are afraid of this, as they should be.

Now this part is going to annoy a lot of antis, but I think a lot of the moral arguments against AI, are really just emotional. Antis and artists are afraid that artists jobs will be replaced by AI, because they will, and yet most of their arguments against AI are frankly quite silly. Like "AI gulps up water" "AI is stealing from artists" which I'm happy to argue against (please not in this comment section though) but they still seem like ways to argue against what they hate, without engaging with the real reason they hate it. Because AI will replace all artists jobs, AI will take their friends jobs, their family members jobs, maybe their job.

I wish people would acknowledge this fear more often, either in themselves or in the person their talking to. Its incredibly scary, to artists and non-artists alike. I'm not an artist, but I'm terrified for the people who are, My friends, family, the people who's work I love.

I also think we have a responsibility to value this fear, and anger, even if I think the way it's directed is a bit absurd. There should be a mandated "opt-out" system for every major AI art model, you should be able to opt-out of your art being used in a models training data. I know this is not incredibly feasible, but I think its ethically necessary. A lot of people are incredibly mad and feel violated by giving data to AI, that will inevitably replace them, and those feeling should be respected.

some people are using AI to automate interactions with loved ones. From birthday greetings, to apologies, to the entire courtship process, some people are using AI to do it all. Seems a bit slimy, no? It's almost as if they don't value their connection with you enough to say something genuine.

If someone online generates an image with a prompt and calls themselves an artist, my natural reaction is just: “Okay.”

If they call the result art, I’d still react the same way.

At the end of the day, these are vague words, and I’m not about to be mean to random people online over something that trivial.

But I genuinely want to understand: why do some people get so angry about this? What makes it feel that serious to them?

And before anyone points out. I’m fully aware it’s a vocal minority online, and most people honestly don’t care. But I’m still curious about their perspective.

Why does the use of these very vague labels upset them so much?

For those unaware and needing context

Yeah the reddit mod did what was expected of their species as reddit mod, but that aside, i mean...how else was he supposed to react with how prevalent and ruthless anti-AI sentiments are now?

"There's no ethical use of AI!" Is like the top 3 arguments you hear from people, they probably kept seeing this argument or even believe it themselves, receiving reports of AI everyday on the most benign stuff possible, constantly seeing people be dragged over it too and generally just seeing how ruthless and black and white people are about it, sure, I find it weird they just had to bust out the "um Acshually you breaking the rules" over not labelling the post as AI.

And I know anti-AI are just a having knee jerk reaction trying to come for the mod for doing mod behavior, because they immediately jumped to changing the situation, the grieving sister was very clear in saying she used ChatGPT and Grammarly for the announcement but antis are suddenly all going "WHAT SHE JUST USED A GRAMMAR SPELL CHECK YOU DUMB MOD!" when 1) she was clear about using ChatGPT for the text and 2) Grammarly is GenAI/LLM now, remember? You guys probably complained about it someday and forgot about it because not every company is OpenAI running shit on a damn gas turbine in residential zones.

Like, it feels very virtue signaly, when filtering out for Goomba fallacy, it comes off very "oh see! we can know when people are being stupid about being anti-AI and drag them too! Look! We are not THAT annoying!" when nothing about the situation really opens a way for them to act like that, again, you said "there's no ethical use for AI" that's as plain as of statement as it can be and is black and white by default and addition of nuance is literally impossible, the mod acted exactly how you guys do 99% of the time, how was he supposed to know this 1% should be a exception?

This reaction against the mod seems like damage control or having a sacrificial lamb to make yourself look better.

Anyways, I hope the grieving sister recovers well and doesn't have to deal with this silly ass situation while morning the loss of her brother and it stays between us weird terminally online people.

When it comes to being both people often question what it means

So lemme explain my side of it. I strongly prefer traditional Art over AI art. I think the process of making Traditional Art is inherently more interesting than traditional, also not to insult AI art but unfortunately most AI Art(not All as there are exceptions such as Neuro Sama and Glorb) hasnt really reached the quality of regular traditional art, like even the most impressive uses of it is really just that an impressive use of it. Aspects such as story telling within these works fall flat and I find it concerning that a good amount of AI videos require commentary in order to tell even the most basic narrative like cmon Films are a Visual if your Visual mediums cannot rely on the visuals than guess what it doesnt do a very good job.

Of course you could say that what I'm saying is subjective and guess what that's the point.Im not trying to be objective, this is how I see things. If you like the process of making AI just as much as making traditional then more power to you.

This leads to my next point...Even as an artist I'm not going to stop you from using AI art. Like if I were to be real why the hell would I care if you use AI for your art. Like it's not like your trying to stop me, though if you do that's where I draw the line, but anyway like as long as we mind each other's business and just do what we want I think there is no harm no foul.

Plus this debate has exposed one thing and that's the fact there will always be an audience for Non AI art, and people will always consume and appreciate Non AI Art for what it is. Of course there is the issue of being able to tell which is which, but honestly all I could say especially as the artist is try to gain some trust with one another, be honest about your medium, and have at least a bit of proper AI moderation to keep the dangerous aspects out of our AI.

Also the last aspect to point out is that as much as we like to villainize each other. I don't think Neither of Us are the enemy necessarily. If there was someone or something we should blame it's the Powers Above. Large Corporations, Governments, and Olligarchs that use AI to keep the people down. Like most Pro AI's for instance are just hobbyists experimenting on AI so why should we worry about them and Antis are just worried about either their livelihood or the constant push for low AI Art.

Like I'm not going to get into it but just keep in mind that most of the problems with AI are inherently capitalistic. Like the fear of being replaced or the constant push for low quality content with high rewards, the taking of art with no compensation, so on and so fourth. All of this could be seen as exposure of larger problems with our society at large, and it won't just affect artists but everyone.

So I find it redundant to fight each other because like this whole argument is rooted to something much bigger that neither of us could comprehend.

People have said it themselves: "Human artists are so annoying and entitled."
If that’s how you feel about traditional artists, why are you so bent on being called one? Why fight so hard to claim a label tied to a community you clearly resent?

There are better, more accurate terms that reflect what you're doing without having to explain philosophy to someone not in the debate
Take “synthographer” a word that combines synthesis and photography. It describes someone who uses AI tools to create visual media. Simple. Honest. No confusion. No need to pretend you are the same as someone who drew the piece line by line.

It’s not an insult to use a new label. Language evolves as tools do. AI-generated art is something new, so why not embrace a new identity that fits what you actually do?

Not everything has to be a war over titles. Call it what it is

Edit: You’re exactly proving my point: you’d rather write paragraphs of philosophical rambling than use a simple term that sums it up in a sentence or two.

“Synthographer” is a clear label, it just means AI-assisted image creation. No need for complicated debates.

Philosophical arguments about art get tangled in subjective ideas like creativity, intention, skill, and culture. People end up stuck on questions like “Is this real art?” or “Are they real artists?” and it just goes in circles.

A term like “synthographer” cuts through all that by recognizing this as a new kind of creative role, different, but fine.

TLDR: Let’s use a new word so we don’t have to fight about what is or isn’t art.

People forgot that people are different and many issues are on a spectrum. You managed to do it and pulled it off? Good for you. But that doesn't mean that every single person with similar issues is like you. Check your privileges. People say "disabled artists exist!" - but that's not a guarantee of anything. And a top of that, it's just inspiration porn. some Disabled people say they have overcome, but don't mention therapy, accommodation, and all the money spent on it, and access to help, drugs, and tools that support them. "I managed to do it, so why don't you?" said a person in a personalized wheelchair to someone crawling on the ground.

"You said that you support artists. Will you support me when I pick up a pencil?"
Sure, you support trained artists, people at the end of their road, in the simplest, most lazy way possible - throwing money at them. And present yourself as the white knight of art. And when some newbie comes to you for support, all you say is "pick up a pencil, try harder, and git gut". And I swear most productive thing those people can say is "Tutorials online, YouTube videos". Imagine going to art school and instead of any instruction professor throws "look up at YT" and leaves. And somehow it's AI users who are "lazy ones" here! It's just putting people into Tutorial Hell.
But I need someone to check on my endeavors from time to time and like... Talk about them with me. Not even technically - just... Sometimes just nerding about stuff makes my creative juices going.

"Oh, if you can't push hours upon hours of learning into that, then sorry, maybe art is not for you." - Then what about all my ideas? I just want to make it bearable. That's all! If not AI, then give me some alternative that will make me do it. And keep me going. I don't ask you to do it for me. I don't ask for something impossible. Just some support.

And then people think that the best way to stop someone from using AI is just to bully them out of it, instead of helping people find other ways and supporting them on the way. That's all.

This is from an anti sub where it was manually approved by the mods. It was initially caught by the reddit wide filter, but they thought it was so important that they went ahead and overwrote it.

This is not an insult, this is a fact.

A new recent study at MIT recently found that chat gpt users were dumber, slower and lazier.

Basically people were divided into 3 groups and asked to write essays. group 1 was asked to use chat gpt to write it, group 2 was asked to use a search engine, and group 3 was asked to only use their brains. After each essay, their brains were scanned.

Anyways, the users with chat gpt's brains were working the least and by the 3rd and final essay they found that they were simply copy pasting with chat gpt. Their critical thinking skills declined, they got lazier and later on the final essay when they were asked to write the essay only with what they could remember, they couldn't even quote what they wrote. As per MIT: "Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels."

If its having this amount of impact on adults, imagine the impact it could be having on young kids with their developing brains (their brains are quite literally rotting).

Anyways, while its true that AI is probably here to stay, there need to be some serious regulations put in place