AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

Kiwisee said:
This is exactly why I’ll never understand Redditors who say that redrawing AI generated images is a bad thing, or that it’s “art theft” even when you’re just redrawing from scratch. It’s a great exercise in not only showing that you can create better content than AI, it’s also great for teaching yourself to get better at fundamentals so that you can dodge most AI allegations.

Then again, every single video I’ve seen of artists getting falsely accused of using AI has always been via Twitter and Reddit. Neither of which are artist platforms in the first place.

They should probably stick to using actual art platforms instead of appeasing psychos on Twitter.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if you're supposedly better than A.I; you'll never be faster.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, lolcow yoghurt, Linoone and 4 others
MagneticTowels said:
It doesn't matter if you're supposedly better than A.I; you'll never be faster.
Click to expand...
Speed matters only to people without the ability to understand delayed gratification, which is something most Lolcows on the death fats section of this site don’t have. Scammers also lack the ability to understand what delayed gratification means, which is why they resort to get-rich-quick schemes instead of investing/saving money.

AI maybe here to stay, but since it can’t be copyrighted (to avoid legal nightmares for studios), it isn’t going to be profitable.

People generally want things that are human made. Speed matters only to people who are without the ability to understand delayed gratification.

AI art is good for wanting free art.

Why pay someone to produce AI art when you can make it yourself in the same amount of time? Which is exactly why people aren’t making much profits from AI art when they’re being transparent about using AI. Only a stupid person who, for whatever reason, is too lazy to google “how to prompt”, is ever going to pay for AI art.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, Cnidarian, 𖦹Junkpop𖦹 and 6 others
MagneticTowels said:
Or maybe some of us value our time and want everything to be as efficient as possible.
Click to expand...
That’s fine when it comes to coding. Art is a bit different.

Like I said; AI is great if you want some free art. It ain’t profitable to sell AI art, though, because the type of people paying for art want specific things.

Anyone who pays for AI art is a complete retard. Prompting isn’t hard to do, as some AI-Bros make it out to be.

You can admit you don’t like artists or the art community. It’s fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linoone and YellowIsACoolColor
Kiwisee said:
AI maybe here to stay, but since it can’t be copyrighted (to avoid legal nightmares for studios), it isn’t going to be profitable.
Click to expand...
AI can easily be copyrighted. The copyright office even gave the explicit example of inpainting in MidJourney as examples of human input into the process, a clear decision that personalizes the image and shows human expression. And anyone who is serious about doing anything with AI doesn't need to be told to inpaint, they'll do it on their own because no image is perfect out of the gate.

For the same reason that Zarya of the Dawn's text and order of the comic panels were copyrightable, any AI used for video as part of a human-dictated series of events would be equally copyrightable.

For example, the Coca Cola AI ad was copyrightable. It was not generated in one shot, it was many small 5 or 10 second segments, whose order was decided by a human, which counts as copyrightable expression.

Why pay someone to produce AI art when you can make it yourself in the same amount of time? Which is exactly why people aren’t making much profits from AI art when they’re being transparent about using AI. Only a stupid person who, for whatever reason, is too lazy to google “how to prompt”, is ever going to pay for AI art.
Click to expand...
Why would someone pay for bottled water when you can just get it from the nearest tap or drinking fountain?

People pay for AI because they are in fact that lazy, or that uncreative. They like what someone is making and don't want to bother learning how to make it themselves, so they'll pay to get more of it.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: secret watcher
Runch said:
AI can easily be copyrighted. The copyright office even gave the explicit example of inpainting in MidJourney as examples of human input into the process, a clear decision that personalizes the image and shows human expression. And anyone who is serious about doing anything with AI doesn't need to be told to inpaint, they'll do it on their own because no image is perfect out of the gate.
Click to expand...
I could have sworn that AI software was the thing that developers themselves could copyright.

Making AI images look good is going to take effort either way, as you’ve said. I’ve seen some nice looking before vs afters floating around. Those who do come out with nice results already have prior training to know exactly what to fix/how to fix it. I’ll have to find the person, as I recall seeing an artist who modifies AI images for his gallery. He said it can take hours to make an AI image go from “okay” to actually looking appealing.

People pay for AI because they are in fact that lazy, or that uncreative. They like what someone is making and don't want to bother learning how to make it themselves, so they'll pay to get more of it.
Click to expand...

I play around with AI a bit, so I’m just under the impression that anyone who pays for AI art that hasn’t been modified is just a next level lazy retard.
 
Kiwisee said:
I play around with AI a bit, so I’m just under the impression that anyone who pays for AI art that hasn’t been modified is just a next level lazy retard.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why it's profitable.

Do you realize how many things are dead easy and take only the slightest amount of mild research to become an expert in the eyes of the general public? You know the IT joke about "did you turn it off and then on again" forever remains relevant, and people stay employed just to say this to next level lazy retards? Zoomers are terrified by command prompts and file paths.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Disagree
Reactions: Wright, NOT Sword Fighter Super, linchan and 1 other person
MagneticTowels said:
Or maybe some of us value our time and want everything to be as efficient as possible.
Click to expand...
This is very much true. Even for non-monetary activity like recreational art you can't escape the opportunity cost that is time. All time spent on cultivating art skills and producing work could have been spent on other activities.

For most people pursuing art is not possible not because they physically can't do it but because they are in-between their time spent on their other responsibilities in life.

It just doesn't feel right to shame people for taking a shortcut in art just because they don't want to cut in time for their job, education, or raising their family.

Art outside of work requires some level of leisure that only some people can afford.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, toe_schnitzel6969, He's Ronald McDonald and 2 others
linchan said:
Art outside of work requires some level of leisure that only some people can afford.
Click to expand...
Is that really true though? You specified that you are talking about recreational art, meaning art done for pleasure. People with jobs and families engage in activities done purely for such a purpose all the time, as is proven for example by the existence of the video gaming and movie industries (to name just two among millions of industries centered around providing pleasure,) since if people with jobs and families could not engage in such activities, most people would not be able to watch TV or play games. Since they can, it makes sense to reason that people who would like to engage in art for pleasure have the time to do so.
linchan said:
This is very much true. Even for non-monetary activity like recreational art you can't escape the opportunity cost that is time. All time spent on cultivating art skills and producing work could have been spent on other activities.
Click to expand...
That seems strange given that - as you yourself admit - AI art is a shortcut in such a case. AI art even today is incapable of producing very specific results, only delivering rough approximations of what its user wants (and even that is assuming that this user is familiar with how to most efficiently use AI.) If such a person had not developed art skills, he would not be able to then properly make use of AI as a shortcut, since the part of the process that happens after its use still requires such skills. No?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Disagree
Reactions: linchan, Tofu Dust and Kiwisee
Ferrari Lamborghini said:
Is that really true though? You specified that you are talking about recreational art, meaning art done for pleasure. People with jobs and families engage in activities done purely for such a purpose all the time, as is proven for example by the existence of the video gaming and movie industries (to name just two among millions of industries centered around providing pleasure,) since if people with jobs and families could not engage in such activities, most people would not be able to watch TV or play games. Since they can, it makes sense to reason that people who would like to engage in art for pleasure have the time to do so.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this entitlement people have over other people's lives regarding recreational time spent on the arts. Like most people picking up AI art as a hobby aren't the kind of people who have the time to do art normally, otherwise they'd be doing it from the start. Yeah sure, they probably have leisure, but that leisure time is already spent on other hobbies, like movies and video gaming as you described. You could argue they can take part away from other activities they enjoy but that doesn't remove time as an opportunity cost to why people would want to get into it.

I'm not saying people pivoting to art as a hobby is impossible, but time is very much a factor for why AI art is so accessible for so many people and why see so many people jump into it.

People who cannot understand this reasoning tend to be people who have too far much free time and don't understand why the efficiency and time spent can weigh heavily in the choices people make.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, didelphigina, He's Ronald McDonald and 3 others
linchan said:
I don't understand this entitlement people have over other people's lives regarding recreational time spent on the arts. Like most people picking up AI art as a hobby aren't the kind of people who have the time to do art normally, otherwise they'd be doing it from the start. Yeah sure, they probably have leisure, but that leisure time is already spent on other hobbies, like movies and video gaming as you described. You could argue they can take part away from other activities they enjoy but that doesn't remove time as an opportunity cost to why people would want to get into it.

I'm not saying people pivoting to art as a hobby is impossible, but time is very much a factor for why AI art is so accessible for so many people and why see so many people jump into it.

People who cannot understand this reasoning tend to be people who have too far much free time and don't understand why the efficiency and time spent can weigh heavily in the choices people make.
Click to expand...
What you said is unrelated to what I said. You talked about recreational artistry and using AI as a shortcut - something I think is a valid strategy. I asked whether you believe it wouldn't become an issue when the shortcut portion of the creative process is over and the hands-on portion begins when people lack the artistic skills required for that portion to then finish that piece of art. I'm still interested in your answer regarding that, if you're willing.

I also don't quite understand where you got the impression of "entitlement." AI art generation, especially when used for personal purposes, such as generating a pretty landscape or seeing what your favorite movie character might look like in an outfit that character never actually wore, is a legitimate use of AI. That is unrelated to the topic of recreational artistry, which involves making art through non-AI means for the purpose of one's own entertainment. It's unclear how you drew that connection.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: toe_schnitzel6969 and Kiwisee
Don't mind me, just archiving another AI suicider


Untitled.png

Im not sure if this kind of topic is not allowed here, but I don't care and I want my thoughts to be heard. It just so happens to be art, the one thing I actually love doing, the one thing that I am already skilled in to support my loved ones with, all of it, all those years just gone, just a waste of time, because guess what, you can click a button now skip over all of it! Wow! what a joke. Maybe I'll be reborn into someone less poor. Fuck ai fuck art and fuck my life.
Click to expand...
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, yesman404, southeast_cyandye and 15 others
They can do whatever they want as long as they keep hosting all those models and LoRAs for free. I'm not part of their ecosystem, I'm not there browsing for cool art and trying to become popular in whatever social media playground they've built, I'm strictly a leech from their perspective. Do what it takes to pay the bills to keep it all hosted. I don't know what local image/video gen would do without Civitai, most other sites like Huggingface suck and aren't standardized with a good interface for showing previews of what each model can do, while also promoting preservation of embedded metadata/prompts so everyone can learn from each other.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Toolbox, BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny, Da Capo and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back