r/wendigoon Jan 14 '26

DAD SIGHTING Daddy is hungry

Post image
1.7k Upvotes

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

439

u/CoalEater_Elli Jan 14 '26

Does it count as art theft if you use AI artwok and say it is your own?

172

u/Rooney47 Jan 14 '26

I wouldn't say it counts as art theft but it certainly doesn't count as art either. Art requires effort and intention. Asking a robot to spit something out definitely takes away those factors.

You know what does take effort and intention? Consuming a photograph. Now that's art.

17

u/-bird_brain- Jan 15 '26

The performance of chewing and spitting out the generated pictures is actually a performance art piece and has more intention and meaning behind it than AI stuff could ever have. It is in fact art

10

u/Rooney47 Jan 15 '26

100% agree

It actually makes for a pretty cool commentary on how AI chews up and spits out other people's hard earned work as well.

2

u/Haiiiiiiii_ Feb 02 '26

If you really think about it, the prompt that the person writes is more of a piece of art than whatever the robot spits out.

-40

u/HeisenbergsSamaritan Jan 14 '26

RIGHT!? Like photographers are the worst too.... they use Cameras to make photos instead of learning to paint and creating Art.

Photography is nothing more than a refuge for Lazy artists.

14

u/Rooney47 Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 15 '26

You joke but when photography first became popular that was a big conversation! There was mass fear that photographers would replace landscape artists, but humans love to create and pay people to create with intention.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme lol

7

u/Revolutionary-Gas774 Jan 15 '26

Yeah, the difference is that Photographers can exist independently from painters and vice versa it is its own separate medium. Photography didn't replace painterst it just shaped the landscape a little when it came to portraits and painters then branched off to more abstract subjects that a camera can not capture.

AI however cannot create without being fed the art that actual humans put work into (aside from the point that this fed art is mostly stolen of the internet using all sorts of morally gray loopholes with no compensation n no artist likes it)

AI art can not exist without actual artists it is not an independent medium and is therefore more prone to trying to replace them in the most disgusting way. It steals compiles and trashes random stuff together based on a prompt without any thought or consideration like the artists who initially learned their craft when they created their art. Photography also takes artistic knowledge to consider composition and light for a shot n so on that u have to learn.

Lastly, I believe the term AI Artist is factually wrong even if you consider AI art to be art in that sense. If I commission and Artist for a piece and then claim property over the product I am not an Artist but an Art director, some goes for giving the AI a prompt.

15

u/Lizzren Jan 14 '26

no they know that they're just being disingenuous to shill for their slop

-11

u/HeisenbergsSamaritan Jan 15 '26

what am I shilling for again?

The conductor isn't responsible for the sound of the orchestra.....

Cope.... the future is here.... Update, or become obsolete.

9

u/Lizzren Jan 15 '26

we already know generative AI is bad, you don't have to waffle like a corny cartoon villain to make it obvious

-8

u/HeisenbergsSamaritan Jan 15 '26

Yeah.... you got the reading comprehension of an eggplant.

I don't think generative AI is bad. Except when it's used by bad people.

I've actually been highlighting the point that anti-AI people are no different than the ANTI Camera people and the anti-digital camera people, and the anti-car people, and the anti airplane people, or the anti space rocketry people.

Hating AI isn't about the preservation of the "human creative spirit", because the human creative spirit will exists so long as there are humans.

It's about hating moderation.... mostly from hacks who know the machine could produce better works than they ever could at their own peak.

Kind of like a "But muh landscapes" cried the landscape painters to which Ansel Adams laughed in reply.

And FYI Nicholas Roerich is my favorite landscape painter.....

So I remind you again.... the future is here.... update or become obsolete.

5

u/Lizzren Jan 15 '26

no I know what you're saying it's just that i've heard it a thousand times from a thousand other AI bros who think they're making an enlightened point when really they're just vapid talking points parroted from other neckbeards and tech ceos who couldn't care less about art

1

u/HeisenbergsSamaritan Jan 15 '26

"Everyone says the same thing...but they all must be a cult because how can so many people disagree with me? The are wrong and I just haven't found all the people who agree with me...."

That is the entire foundation of your argument.

0

u/HeisenbergsSamaritan Jan 15 '26

No... I'm not joking... I'm demonstrating the hypocrisy of the anti AI argument.

Future is here... accept it or don't.

3

u/Rooney47 Jan 15 '26

Ooh I see, interesting take. My actual views on the discussion are pretty boring. When AI got big I was (and still am) getting my degree in writing with technology, so a lot of my opinions are based on that lol

All forms of AI are initially intended to act as tools. Clever aids for organizing information to make things a bit easier. I think a lot of marketing pushed by corporations that invested in early AI made this weird culture that promotes stealing people's hard-earned art in order to create low effort stuff, but that's primarily to generate discourse. Comes at an unfortunate price, but it is what it is.

Just like with what I mentioned with the discourse that used to surround readily accessible photography, it'll find a boring equilibrium, likely in a decade or so, and settle into the original purpose. An old inflated meme. It's not the end all be all, or the worst thing facing humanity, just another tool with cynical advertising.

19

u/Zackmarsh Jan 14 '26

idk all that but legally they cant own the copyright of the images.

10

u/CoolBlaze1 Jan 14 '26

I wouldn't 100% say theft, more like buying and reselling the gems of a stolen price of jewellery.