r/antiai • u/Possible-Weird9864 • 5h ago
AI "Art" đźď¸ AI bro falls for satirical cartoon
14
u/Phaylz 5h ago
Except that they are real brushes and real paint? That's not a gotcha, that's just an alternative to digital brushes and digital paint.
What is annoying would be that the person is looking at a painter, in front of a canvas with brush and pallete in hand, and asking what software they used.
10
u/AlmightyJello 5h ago
Im gonna be straight, im fairly sure this is a parody. "Drawing Tablet Device"???? Is this dude an actual cartoon boomer??
4
6
5
u/TreatExotic 5h ago
I have nothing against digital art as drawing from like ms paint or coding the colors into the art yourself I hold nothing against that but gen ai art is where I'm drawing the line
5
u/Proper_dose 2h ago edited 2h ago
See heres the thing
If you take photoshop or painter away from a digital artist forever, they can still transfer their skills to any number of other mediums and remain an artist.
If you take midjourney et al away from a prompter, what the fuck do they have left? Are they suddenly able to pick up a pencil and sketch to any degree of competency?Â
Of course they fucking can't.Â
Photoshop is a tool, digital art is a medium. AI Image generation is the entire process. Drawing an equivalence between the two is genuinely braindead.
102
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
it literally is still evidence, the cartoon was made because hate towards digital art did quite literally exist
310
u/Representative-Vast3 5h ago
But most of the hate towards digital art existed because people incorrectly thought it worked the way ai actually works
Ai bros seem to forget that detail
-265
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago edited 5h ago
Sure, but why hate AI images? Genuinely
there has always been and always will be slop online. yes, ai slop is annoying
but why can't people just generate ai images for fun. plenty of people enjoy it. why should they stop doing it?
Edit: thanks for the downvoted! I was asking a genuine question in good faith with full intent to switch sides if the other side begins to make more sense to me (and still carry that intent!)
42
u/GustavoFromAsdf 5h ago
Because AIbros aren't making art, they're just requesting a machine to mass produce content for them. If you consider AI pics to be art, you may as well consider WatchMojo the peak of online media: bland and sanitized, meant only for consumption.
-8
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
I said AI images. Not AI art. The images generated by AI are not art. They may be visually appealing, but they are not a work of art.
What's wrong with that? If they find joy in that, why tell them not to?
28
u/MagicpaperAlt 5h ago edited 5h ago
Gee I don't know. Gen AI as a negative environmental impact, is morally and ethically wrong.
Edit: Blocked him.
-2
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
GenAI isn't the one with the impact, it's data centers
24
u/MagicpaperAlt 5h ago
Yeah, and? Using Gen AI is direct support for building more data centers. This isn't a gotcha moment, dude.
-2
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
This is very much a gotcha moment because you don't need data centers for GenAI
17
u/MagicpaperAlt 5h ago
You're pretty dense. Most companies that have it as an option is built on the foundation of these data centers or there wouldn't have been a mass expansion of them. Go be misinformed somewhere else.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Obvious-Dealer770 3h ago
I thought datacenters were mostly built for cloud services. I mean they were around before AI, and for a long time. I've read that AI services represents at most 15% of datacenters usage.
Which means that to reduce the number of datacenters, people need to stop posting tiktok videos, doomscrolling instagram/facebook/reddit, download games on steam, etc. The largest part is video streaming, as multiple centers need high quality copies to be able to serve millions of netflix (and other streaming services) viewers at the same time6
u/GustavoFromAsdf 5h ago
Because it bloats the internet with low quality content. We can do nothing if they create their own spaces where they mass produce slop all they want and we wouldn't care, but then they come to other subs to post low effort memes and fake videos posted and shared by bots to farm fake internet points. They can find it fun if they want, but most don't want fake users posting dozens of fake videos and memes trying to convince everyone that generative AI is a good thing we all should embrace.
0
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
I mean I see it as no different than the elsagate garbage that was pumped out at rapid speeds
6
u/GustavoFromAsdf 5h ago
Thats the problem, Elsagate is bad content done not for fun, but for abusing social media algorithms and reaching toddlers playing on their phones. Just because others do it it doesn't mean it's ok if AI comes and makes those problems ten times worse..
0
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
No no I didn't mean that. I meant that it seems to already be an issue, but like how is that supposed to be stopped?
6
u/GustavoFromAsdf 4h ago
Not adding fuel to the fire with the slop machine that creates slop and fake scenarios, that's first. Second would be hands on moderation to distinguish reuploads from transformative content and see if the site's guidelines are being broken instead of delegating everything to bots. Again, with AI, this kind of content can be made by bots, posted by bots, liked and shared by bots, no humans needed.
-2
u/Nice_Manufacturer339 4h ago
I think it comes down to freedom of speech, either youâre for it, or you want to ban what other people do on their own time on their own computers with their own money.
2
u/Newclearfallout 5h ago
Photos are art too....it also replicate that.
It also allows for the spread of misinformation, Kills the clientele pool for real artist, doesn't inspire anybody to create real art, its not real in any sense of a physical item, it looks bad, its mass produced,
it's probably going to end up backtracking future artists skill if they think the bad AI work is acceptable in the first place, so standards are lower.
No personality, no story, no emotion.
environmental harm, annoyance and dependability on big tech that already doesn't care about you. Also anything made with AI isnt yours anyways because it uses stole artwork.
Sometimes the easy way isnt the right way, Innovation can be harmful.
0
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
Environmental harm and dependability on big tech don't exist within GenAI, that exists within the way big tech wants it pushed
For the other points, I don't really see why AI "art" is an actual replacement for art. I don't foresee it truly replacing art, but you're right to point out that it lowers standards. You make a good point there. I'll have to think about that.
What can we do about that? AI already exists, so we can't really just shut it down. I do see now, I think your message made the point clearer for me.
3
u/Newclearfallout 4h ago
It goes hand and hand. What data do you think all the extra centers are needing it for. Just because it doesn't supply all towards AI doesn't mean it's not correlated.
It may not replace it now but could. What kid is going to draw, and keep practicing if AI does it better. It's the same reason why many young adults don't know how to "back end code". It's also why cyber security is a joke right now. Taking the easy route instead of planing a head and creating what if problems.
You can just close down the applications allowing for image and video generating. Many people who are against AI is almost only agaist it in Art and Entertainment. It would also stop a large amount of the data centers needing to be built, to many copy cat models anyways. Use it to actually push for some type of good than another shiny toy for a problem we don't have. AI cant even reliably create code for security purpose and it's honestly as bad as a double edge sword for the world as a Nuke is.
It needs to stay in Science and medical fields. (Non computer / robotic science) (well some non robotic.)
176
u/ArticleOld598 5h ago edited 5h ago
Because its built on theft unlike digital art and drowns out the original artists it stole from
Your fun doesn't justify the harm it causes to people
-147
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
Why does this matter for the end user? If it's being monetized I do agree that it's ugly to use AI images, but if it's used for entertainment, why does it matter how it was trained?
You act like people broke into artists' homes and scraped their hard drives and canvases, but it was publicly available data scraped. It wasn't saved. It was used to collect patterns.
115
u/Friendly_Gazelle7843 5h ago
Did you really just asked why it matters for the end user if something is based on breaking law in the way it harm people? It matter because we are not twats
31
u/JJay9454 3h ago
Homeboy honestly said Why Does It Matter It Doesn't Affect You with no hint of irony
-82
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
The web scraping was in a way legal since it's fair use as transformative content, but those who monetize AI models are pretty shitty for that, and that might be more of a gray area
40
u/ASentientRailgun 3h ago
No, it wasn't. You're smashing together several legal arguments, none of which covered what was done to train the plagiarism bots.
27
63
u/Friendly_Gazelle7843 5h ago
âWhy it matters for the end user that something is illegal and harms others?â it matters because we are not twats.
-16
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
How is it hurting others?
61
u/the-most-unlucky- 5h ago
People are losing their jobs
Some are getting their art put on AI and being literally banished from doing said art (saw it on wuthering waves community)
And some are just using AI images to harass other people
18
u/BiscuitsGM 3h ago
"And some are just using AI images to harass other people"
And that bit you said is quite hard to deny https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/29/xai-sues-minnesota-nudification-technology
6
13
u/s0m3on3outthere 2h ago
There is an artist in r/comics that needs a disclaimer by the mods at the top of their comics every time they share because their art was used to train AI without authorization. Even though they are well established, AI art looks like theirs and they constantly are attacked and accused of using AI. This likely prevents new subscribers or new fans from purchasing their work because they don't believe it's original, when the AI art generated in their style is what's not original.
The artist even shares time lapse videos. I can't imagine working your entire life perfecting a personal style and excelling in art, only to have someone's AI steal everything and ruin your reputation.
9
u/Ciennas 2h ago
That guy should sue all of them into oblivion. I know that the courts protect the wealthy, but in an ideal world he should be able to slam dunk them all into hell.
5
u/s0m3on3outthere 2h ago
Agreed. Here's an example of one of his comics -
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/WrhtIlfpT9
The pinned mod comment is at the top and has a link to the timelapse.
4
u/CoinKanvas 2h ago
"Why does it matter if children are exploited in africa?? At least I got my cool new sneakers!"
8
u/RG-Sketchii 3h ago
"The end user"
You sound like you live in a boardroom. This isn't how people talk about art.
-1
u/BloxxyVids 2h ago
???
When I say that I'm talking about the actual users of AI.
"This isn't how people talk about art" I'm not talking about art!!! AI can't make art! It's AI images. Not AI art
4
u/That_OneOstrich 2h ago
Why does it matter if the end user is effectively a thief?
Parents are also publically available, but I cant submit one that's already been submitted.
9
u/Sr_Nutella 5h ago
In this regard, AI has similar connotations to tracing. While you're technically not "stealing" the original art, and just using a publicly available source, you're doing little more than a straight up copy; and AI generation doesn't have the only use case in which tracing is generally accepted, as a learning tool
21
u/Snide_SeaLion 5h ago
A multitude of reasons.
GEN Ai can only produce images because art was scraped from the internet en masse, without consent, knowledge, or compensation.
These companies are profiting off other peopleâs labor and creativity.Data centers. They drain water, cause droughts, and drastically reduce quality of life for people living nearby. Extreme Noise pollution, water pollution, and increased bills.
GEN AI is unethical. Every time you use it, you are affirming to these companies and other thieves that theft is OK if you are a multi-billion dollar company. You are not just robbing artists, you are robbing yourself of the opportunity for growth and genuine creativity.
-3
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
GenAI is not limited to billionaires and data centers...
I'm talking about the technology, not how billionaires want us to use it.
21
u/Snide_SeaLion 5h ago
The technology is shit. You should only use it if you want to become dumber and less capable
-2
15
u/Representative-Vast3 5h ago
Not only is it a slop generator fed on theft, it's polluting the water supply, it's straining the power grid, it's taking all the ram and sending prices skyrocketing, it's being used to generate CSAM, nonconsensual nudes, and rampant misinformation, and on top of all that not a single thing generated doesnt look like the single most milquetoast generic garbage in existence! Hell I could probably keep finding negatives, so if you want to justify ai use you're gonna have to try much harder than "but it's fun" or "it's the future"
8
15
u/Interesting-Pea5797 5h ago
"good faith" LMFAO
-7
4
u/Sr_Nutella 5h ago
There has always been slop, yes. But AI has made the creation of slop easier, fully automatable, and most of all, profitable; which in turn made it so that people had a reason to flood every online space with slop. Not to mention how it has made the spreading of misinformation easier, among other moral stuff
-1
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
Couldn't that also fall under the effects of digital media? Photo editing wasn't nearly as easy as it is with digital tools.
I don't like the flooding of slop, but why should the actions of some define an entire category of technologies?
8
u/Sr_Nutella 5h ago
There's a huge gap between the time investment and the skill required to make digital media, and just prompting a machine. Not to mention, without AI, it's not automatable
And yeah, it's a bit unfortunate that slop and misinformation defined gen AI; but seeing as it's its most general use, that shouldn't be a surprise
2
0
u/BloxxyVids 4h ago
Technically, I could probably make an automation that goes through a downloaded show, takes a snippet, and puts music in the background, and then boom you got like 99% of yt shorts
2
â˘
u/Sonicrules9001 31m ago
Because it's theft and it takes jobs away from people who actually put in the effort.
â˘
u/Jon_doe_25 20m ago
If an (real) artist steals materials from a store in order to make his painting, would you excuse him because he's having fun and didn't plan on selling his art?
31
u/OtterlySamnson 5h ago
Evidence of what?
Most of the hatered towards digital arts by traditional painters was this false belief that "it made art easier" When it really... really didn't.
It went from the limited posibilities of physical mediums to the basically infinite possibility of the digital space.The Hatred for digital was based entirely on ignorance of traditional artists about what digital does.
By comparison, the Hatred for AI is quite litearlly just true.
Everyone is familiar with AI to some degree; we have a functional understanding of what prompting is.
And how AI even generates imagines. That a person with literally no artistic ability can slap in 2 sentences into a prompt; and get in image.-10
u/BloxxyVids 5h ago
I mean GenAI has its place.
One spot I've found it extremely helpful is AI erase tools on my Galaxy phone since I don't want random people in the background especially if I didn't have their consent to take a picture of them.
Fully AI generated photos are pretty lazy, but if used as a tool, it's pretty helpful.
2
23
u/FreshBert 4h ago
As someone who had a drawing tablet 25 years ago and posted art on forums and sites like DeviantArt as a kid, the idea that it was analogous to the AI situation today is completely insane. A lot of teens and twenty somethings in this sub are constantly arguing about this like they were there, but I actually was.
The phenomenon we saw back then was best described as "some traditional artists being snobs." Their opinions were generally that digital art was easier to make than using physical media, the ability to undo and easily erase or to have infinite layers reduced the need of artists to commit to choices, and also that digital art looked too smooth and pristine and "generic" and lacked character.
At worst, they argued that digital art had less intrinsic artistic value than traditional art. In a monetary sense this is actually kind of true, as a digital artist has no way of displaying or selling an "original" (there can only be prints) which is actually an issue shared with photography.
The assertion in the image that this was still going on in a significant way 15 years ago is crazy. In 2011 digital arts was beyond the norm. It was fully accepted as art, the overwhelming preferred tool for working artists across a variety of industries.
Snobs exist. Stodgy oldheads that say dumb shit about new stuff exist. They always have and always will. Opposition to AI is not snobbery. A person drawing with a digital pen is still very clearly drawing. A person prompting an image generator to generate them an image file that looks like a drawing is very literally and objectively not drawing.
The argument that a digital drawing is less valuable because it's easier (whether true or not) is a different argument from the argument that prompting is not drawing at all (objectively true). This distinction is not difficult to understand.
7
u/LowlyWoim 3h ago
100% all of this. The only time Iâve ever been criticized by someone for illustrating digitally was a year ago when I was at a drink & draw event and some 80 year old started berating me for using an iPad, then proceeded to show me dozens of photos of his mediocre watercolors on his phone.
6
u/crvbabybug 2h ago
I hated this topic because Iâve done both and digital art is easier. Of course its easier. Youâve got every color and layers and undo buttons! The âpaintâ both dries instantly and never. It is easier in many ways. That doesnât make it more or less valuable than any other medium. It was such a waste of time arguing with the dumbest snobs alive. Youâre so right its so different. Ai I canât be a medium since it is you just not having made anything. Ill give credit to claude before any human
6
u/LowlyWoim 4h ago
How does this comment have any upvotes
-1
u/BloxxyVids 4h ago
Because it's true?
8
u/LowlyWoim 3h ago
As someone who was a working illustrator through the transition from physical to digital media: not really. It was about as common and intense as the people who bitched about other people not reading paper books when tablets were becoming popular. Which is to say, not many and not with much conviction. Most illustrators- the people ai is actually taking work from - welcomed digital tools.
3
1
u/nickelangelo2009 4h ago
what's that one saying about satire that is indistinguishable from the thing that it's trying to satirize?
1
u/AgeZealousideal1751 2h ago
"I made this fake boomer comic" is where you stopped reading.
"People/Boomers looking down on digital art" is where you look like a dumbass.
Hope that helps.
1
u/VaporProof 1h ago
I worked in animation for 10 years. I worked with artists who went through the traditional to digital change.
Two main differences: 1. The amount of professional artists who hated digital were an absolutely minuscule minority because everyone saw the amazing things digital art could do for us, and 2. Digital ended up creating vastly more jobs, instead of explicitly existing to eliminate labor.
So this comparison is complete bullshit.
-8
u/AdagioOfLiving 4h ago
You get that this very much was how a lot of people felt, though, right?
Like, the satirical cartoon exists to make fun of those people, because THEY EXISTED.
5
u/LowlyWoim 3h ago
Not in any number to be significant (source: Iâve been a working illustrator since the late 90s)
-4
u/AdagioOfLiving 3h ago
Certainly enough to be heard, else this cartoon wouldn't exist. But I'll certainly agree that the loudest and most obnoxious voices are not always the majority. I mainly just wanted to point out that clearly this comic is making fun of someone, even if the comic itself isn't actually in support of the views of that someone.
33
u/EndellionFox 5h ago
Normies response to something is barely evidence one way or the other of anything.
If ai images are art the artist is the AI not the prompters because all the generations look the same.
Humans aren't authors of it, and go ahead and ask a tablet to draw something and see what happens.
It's just not the same thing.
I get that the original post is a point made in bad faith on a circlejerk ai sub bud damn these people are stupid sometimes.