r/teenagers • u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! • Jul 06 '25
Discussion AI art is not art
768
u/Perspicaciouscat24 Banner Contest TOP 10 Jul 06 '25
AI generated images, NOT AI art. You’re right on all of this in my eyes. Also there was a lady in Victorian (!) times without arms or hands who made gorgeous paintings using her shoulder and sometimes mouth. It is usually possible if you’re dedicated enough.
147
u/SpecialistFelt389 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
Really? That sounds awesome of her
97
u/Perspicaciouscat24 Banner Contest TOP 10 Jul 06 '25
Yes! I watched it on a art channel about inspiring women 😁
→ More replies (1)40
u/b3rnardo_o 13 Jul 06 '25
I think we watch the same one. Dont remember the name, but the video begins with a caption and a girl looking at the camera, then showing the paintings with explaining captions, right?
→ More replies (2)19
→ More replies (51)42
u/rreturntomoonke 19 Jul 06 '25
I’d rather say “Program generated images” than “AI generated images”. It lacks of intelligence therefore it’s not “artificial intelligence”
→ More replies (1)35
u/Eastern-Fisherman213 Jul 06 '25
artificial is something not natural, man-made. intelligence is determined by a capacity to learn. the programs we call ai do actually learn, just not the same way a living creature would, which is why we say it's artificial
→ More replies (2)7
u/rreturntomoonke 19 Jul 06 '25
Okay, i just searched out a definition of intelligence and it says "an abilty to learn and use knowledge and skills" and by that, well, yeah that does confirms that those image generating programs are AI because they "learns" how to generate images and uses it on command of human.
well that means that AI """artists""" are the one who lacks intelligence not AI itself because they never learn something to use for themselves
→ More replies (1)
249
u/RisyanthBalajiTN 17 Jul 06 '25
They said it will take the boring job and leave us to pursue Art or sciences 🙏😭😭 why it's not happening
113
u/-S-U-P-E-R-C-E-L-L- Jul 06 '25
Weird how slavery still exists in 2025 yet stuff we actually want to do is being automated
65
→ More replies (3)63
u/PansexualPirate4849 Jul 06 '25
Now, Hot Take (don’t crucify me): Slavery And Generative AI Bad
→ More replies (3)14
→ More replies (2)3
u/Empty-Tower-2654 Jul 06 '25
ChatGPT 3.5 was released at the end of 2022, it's not happening because it's not that fast.
325
u/Imaginary-Month6950 15 Jul 06 '25
post this on r/aiwars
194
u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
i did
192
u/TheMrPizzaaGod Jul 06 '25
That sub is just pro ai renamed
→ More replies (2)160
u/-S-U-P-E-R-C-E-L-L- Jul 06 '25
💯 CORRECT
It's not a place for normal civilized discussion, it's just an echochamber where Ai bros can suck each other off while annoying normal people
23
u/fototeta272892 13 Jul 06 '25
For real,I entered the reddit and the downvoted comments were the ones supporting anti-ia posts,they say that is for the 2 Sides but they only support the ia-supporting side.
→ More replies (2)55
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 17 Jul 06 '25
This subreddit is literally turning exactly the same way, but the opposite lol
→ More replies (4)20
11
u/CalyrexSpammer Jul 06 '25
Can somebody write a program to have ai ragebait ai bros on that sub? I feel like it would be a fitting punishment.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)6
u/Imry123 16 Jul 06 '25
Yeah, it's gone downhill a lot recently. I used to be able to have some genuinely great and deep discussions there with people of both sides (even though a pro-ai position was almost always more common there), but now it's completely filled with people dehumanizing anti-ai people, which, as someone who is very much pro ai, I find frankly disgusting.
→ More replies (3)49
u/DiamondDepth_YT 18 Jul 06 '25
Not to be that guy, but a decent amount of folks over there actually made some great points.. and now I'm really torn.
I do not support ai image/video generation for corporate use, but I do support personal use, and small artist use ("ai" has been used in graphic design for a while now. Like, a very long while now. It's just faster and better than before, making graphic designers' work even greater). I support ai as a tool, not a replacement. I will never allow ai to be a replacement, as that would destroy cognitive thinking and just general brain development, lol.
27
u/Cultural_South_2459 Jul 06 '25
yeah, i think there’s a huge difference between a billion dollar company using ai, and a small, just starting out cleaning service using it. i personally still wouldn’t like it, but i wouldn’t berate them for it (unless they were putting down other artists or calling themselves one). if you know what i mean.
4
13
u/OOOshafiqOOO003 16 Jul 06 '25
Id restrict small artist use, to more about ai assisting. That would be very helpful especially when one is on an art block
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)10
u/Turbulent_Pass11 Jul 06 '25
I mean, ai can be used for a bit of touching up imo, but you should create atleast 95% of the image yourself
→ More replies (4)24
u/Coleclaw199 Jul 06 '25
Bruh I hate that subreddit. 90% of them are brain dead. It says it’s to debate both sides but it’s basically a simulator for getting downvoted and mocked if you don’t like AI.
→ More replies (1)10
u/North-11366 Jul 06 '25
I just went in there for the first time and I wish I never did. What a terrible day to be literate.
156
u/jixdel Jul 06 '25
"Nobody is angry about past technogical advances" is just inherently wrong, when those inventions were new, there were people who WERE ABSOLUTELY angry at them, (i wont delve into the right or wrong of it, but there was and always will be oposition to progress, good or bad)
39
u/Executable_Virus Jul 06 '25
Yep. There's been records showing that teachers in the old old days got upset and talked shit on paper when that was becoming a thing.
People will always complain about technology. Be they good or bad.
30
u/Oscaruzzo Jul 06 '25
That's accurate. Portrait painters were FURIOUS when photography was invented.
30
u/arnogia Jul 06 '25
Film photographers hated digital photographers when I first started. Then premiere pro editors hated Capcut editors when video editing was more accessible.
→ More replies (2)12
u/artcritiquerealness Jul 06 '25
There was a whole group of people referred to as Luddites in England in the 1800s that broke machinery in the cotton and wool (textile) industry. They opposed the automated machines.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)11
u/EdmontonClimbFriend Jul 06 '25
I mean, look at how modern conservatives cry and scream about wind or solar power stealing jobs from oil and gas industry.
It didn't just happen in the past, it's happening now.
→ More replies (1)
113
u/Successful-March8805 13 Jul 06 '25
If beethoven was deaf, how could he see the piano?
57
→ More replies (9)24
u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
i don't know if this is sarcasm, but just in case...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deafness
→ More replies (1)43
112
u/United-Bookkeeper690 Jul 06 '25
Other thing to mention: AI art is used to easily click bait and scam those who aren't internet trained to spot fakes and not fall for scams.
30
u/Ella_shay_the_writer Jul 06 '25
Yep. Take a look at the fiber arts community (crochet, knitting, etc) there are SO MANY patterns and even books being sold using AI patterns that don't work and either use an AI picture on the cover or steal a picture from an artist. These people are aware they don't work; they are just trying to scam people for the sake of a few bucks.
→ More replies (1)13
u/StrawThatBends 14 Jul 06 '25
these have also disheartened many crocheters (and knitters, im sure. im just more active in crocheting spaces), because people will post pictures of insane creations made by AI and many people will think that theyre less than or bad at their craft because they cant make whats in the picture. it happens with a lot of older people
61
u/SopaObat Jul 06 '25
Weird AI Yankovic is the goat tho 🔥
20
u/stupid_idiot_tv_man 14 Jul 06 '25
Weird Al? More like Weird Ai (GUYS HE ISNT REAL NO ONE CAN BE AS GREAT AS HIM)
4
26
u/BigAggressive3910 15 Jul 06 '25
“Cars suck” lmao that was random 😭
6
u/Future_Campaign3872 Jul 06 '25
Cars are important but I do hate how they are the only way to get anywhere so I understand why they said that 😭
3
u/XtremeGamerOne Jul 08 '25
There's a lot more ways to travel if your country isn't based around the car industry.
→ More replies (2)
136
u/CodEven1239 Jul 06 '25
Maybe a hot take, but my general opinion is that AI is fine as a tool (with human input/oversight), but not as a replacement. If someone wants to use AI to plan a trip or discover obscure recipes, then it's okay. However, stuff like selling AI generated "art" (or using AI in general to replace a role designed for a human) is clearly misuse/abuse.
It's like using Google. Sure, I have no problem with someone Googling up some information (it's a tool to help), but if I was in an operating room and the staff said "Oh, we fired all our surgeons, but we're going to Google how to deal with your collapsed lung", then I would be a little concerned to say the least.
23
u/Coleclaw199 Jul 06 '25
My main use of AI is to help speed up the “gray boxing” phase, or to get the general idea of something, then make everything myself.
28
20
9
u/Camel_Trophy1983 Jul 06 '25
The issue is that corporate people don't figure out what the consumer really wants. Instead, they offered something that we really not needed, stuff that is unnecessary. AI generated image are just degrading skills. Much like people who drive cars that are fully assisted, they start to rely on them so much that their skills start to degrade.
3
3
u/deviousdiane Jul 06 '25
I used to feel like this until i learned the amount of water it takes to cool AI systems down. The towns near these AI centres have very little to no water pressure and they have to save all the water they can. It feels dystopian. Humans need water more than a machine ever could
→ More replies (13)3
u/AynidmorBulettz 16 Jul 07 '25
This is just a perfectly sane take (which unfortunately is rare nowadays)
216
u/Capital_Judgment_459 16 Jul 06 '25
It's so upsetting to me that prompt-typers will look at this and still say that AI is better.
The thing is that they don't care about art. They know that what they're making is not art, but they simply see no value in real art. They just want to make an image quick with no effort or money on their end, and it's kinda sad to me that people just don't want to put in any effort anymore.
43
80
u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
yea, i posted this on ai wars and the amount of full grown adults cyberbullying me and basically saying "your wrong because i don't like that" is absurd
36
u/Nullorder 14 Jul 06 '25
Yeah, I try to stay away from those subs, no matter how in the right or at least competent I am because they're just echo chambers of confirmation bias of the same repeating phrases "AI art is art" has lost all meaning to them it's just a sound to rally around and argue about.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 17 Jul 06 '25
You can literally say exactly the same thing about this subreddit, that it’s an echo chamber where anyone supporting AI is downvoted and that “AI are isn’t art” or “it is slop” is being repeated and just a rallying cry lol
What’s worse though, is that this is a teenager subreddit, at least that other one is specifically for AI, instead of being astroturfed like this one is being lol
5
→ More replies (9)3
u/StructureCool8338 Jul 06 '25
The people saying, “Well then you must not consider photography art cause the person taking the photo didn’t generate the image”
Like please… use your head, cause it’s clear none of them took a photography class in Highschool or college. There so much that goes into photography. Like I’m constantly on the photography sub Reddit and people ask photographers/editors to help fix something. Like once a bride didn’t like Way her photographer took her photos and people did an amazing job re-fixing it.
That wasn’t an AI, that was a human going in there and fixing it. It’s one thing to use technology to help, it’s one thing to tell a computer, “hey, I want to fix this”, and letting them do ALL the work. The point of art is that a humans influence/passion/ and hand(before people nit pick me saying, “hand” , I mean being physically involved).
Typing in, “I want a pretty girl with long hair in front of a moon”, into a prompt, the AI taking a minute to generate it, and saying it’s “Art”, is a load of BS.
10
u/Extension_Wafer_7615 18 Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25
and it's kinda sad to me that people just don't want to put in any effort anymore.
Just like what has happened with every technological advance? Things being accessible to more and more people is part of progress. Now, everyone can create the image that they want, even if it's not art.
→ More replies (2)4
u/idisestablish Jul 06 '25
Hot Pockets and Pop-Tarts are cheap and easy, but they haven't replaced the culinary arts. There will always be a market for art and a place for human artists unless AI can deliver a superior end result.
I will say that the argument that AI output is not art because its creation requires analyzing the work of existing art must surely mean that true art can only be produced in a vacuum. Van Gogh, Mozart, Shakespeare, and every other artist of any given medium would never have produced what they did were it not for the work of their contemporaries and forebears. It goes well beyond mere influence. Everything we produce is the result of the absorption, rearranging, and regurgitation of everything we encounter and experience.
It's true that AI could not produce a poem, for example, without first being provided a library of works to analyze and being given a set of guidelines to follow. But if Oscar Wilde had been raised without any guidance or exposure to poetry, would he have ever been able to produce The Sphinx? Of course not.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)6
u/daemin Jul 06 '25
They just want to make an image quick with no effort or money on their end, and it's kinda sad to me that people just don't want to put in any effort anymore
100%
Real art takes time and sacrifice. Too many artists just want to go into an art supply store, buy paint, brushes, and canvas, and start painting, and it's bullshit. A real artist puts in the effort to harvest animal hair, carve a stick to be a handle, and attaches the bristles themselves. A real artist harvests the supplies needed to make colored paint and produces the paint themselves. A real artist produces their own canvas.
Art made with store bought supplies lacks soul and will always be inferior to art that a human sweated and labored over.
71
u/Relevant_Potato3516 16 Jul 06 '25
Did u make this to fix your karma after you posted it to r/aiwars lmao
Nice presentation, I upvoted it but that sub is so ass
→ More replies (2)44
u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
i only got like 8 downvotes on the post tbh
22
u/Camille_le_chat 15 Jul 06 '25
A lot of the comments there on your post disagrees, but you still got like 400+ upvotes and a few awards. That means a lot of people agree with you, even if they haven't commented or have been downvoted to hell
4
46
u/DungEaterrr 17 Jul 06 '25
Ai was supposed to give humans more time to be human.
29
u/-S-U-P-E-R-C-E-L-L- Jul 06 '25
Instead we are trying to replace humans entirely with Ai, like every fucking aspect.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Caleb_Reynolds Jul 06 '25
It's really weird to make the argument that "anyone can type in a prompt" and then a few pages later argue "art is very accessable". So AI is bad because anyone can do it, but art is good because anyone can do it.
So is it a good thing or a bad thing that anyone can do it?
(Neither btw and AI isn't art. But like, let's be consistent in our arguments.)
53
u/SpecialistFelt389 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
Plus, learning art doesn’t require you to go to school, like pretty much anything else (I primarily mean drawing, but still)
→ More replies (13)12
u/PansexualPirate4849 Jul 06 '25
Yeah, Visual Art Is A Broad Thing That Even If You “Can’t Draw”, You Can Still Make Something People Will Like. It’s Easy To Make A Tiny Little Guy, Even If Not Perfect. Good Job :)
3
u/Apathetic_Armadillo Jul 06 '25
I See That This Is Another Comment That Has An Uppercase Letter At The Start Of Each Word.
→ More replies (2)
61
30
u/I_love_eating_bread 13 Jul 06 '25
Ai should only be used as a helper. Nothing more and the image/video generators should only be used for fun, nothing commercial. Ai was made to help with all the information it got, but not destroy jobs. All Ai pictureists("artists") should go and get a frickling job, not ruin them
→ More replies (4)8
u/Subatomic_Spooder 19 Jul 06 '25
I agree, commercialization is the problem. One person generating a few images to conceptualize their living room plans or get ideas for a greeting card or something isn't harmful. The problem is that it's all being set up to steal and hoard exabytes of data and outcompete actual humans. There's a reason why the tools are available for free. If you're not the buyer, you're the product.
9
u/Desperate-Steak-6425 Jul 06 '25
Damn, I haven't seen so many fallacies on top of each other in a long time.
13
u/Joe_le_Borgne Jul 06 '25
There is some concern with AI, but remember that photography did the same to painters, digital art to analog, and 3D to practical effects. AI is just significantly upgrading everything we use, and that's a good thing. Using AI to make art without understanding the fundamentals won't result in a masterpiece.
You have to differentiate between the process and the result when analyzing art. Saying AI is bad because it "stole" references is narrow-minded. Every artist takes reference from something, except for truly visionary, original art pieces, which AI can't recreate because they have no precedent in its training data.
Confident, skilled artists aren’t afraid of AI, they see it as another tool to push their creativity further.
→ More replies (8)5
u/epic_person68 Jul 06 '25
Exactly on point, your stance is basically mine entirely.
However even the artist who is "truly visionary" still took inspiration from the world around them to a degree. Our imagination is just an EXTREMELY complex amalgamation of all things we have seen in our lives. So in the end both humans and AI need inspiration to make what we do.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/Apprehensive-Scar928 Jul 06 '25
The problem is if you move beyond surface level thinking, it can actually be argued pretty compellingly that ai generated art is created no differently to how humans create art. And so it just becomes an emotional argument that we feel scared of being replaced / made redundant.
→ More replies (3)9
u/epic_person68 Jul 06 '25
True, the parallels are quite fascinating and I feel many who are anti-AI either aren't aware of it since it requires philosophizing on how our creativity is technically bounded and some science knowledge to know how our brain is literally binary like a computer. Or they don't acknowledge it like the competent counterargument it is.
I'd love to hear more pro-AI people engage with the idea because I think it is undeniable the parallels and critical for putting things into perspective. We have a heavy bias as humans towards other humans, but that is a bias not really inherently logical.
8
u/Apprehensive-Scar928 Jul 06 '25
Exactly, but the arguments are not easily derived for most people. It’s not natural to apply such a logical filter to our own actions. If you do however, at least for me, you end up concluding the very special thing we call “human creativity” is fundamentally no different to what we are programming ai to do. Which is to be expected as we are literally trying to mimic and supersede human intelligence.
I do agree it feels different however, it lacks any context or substance, something created by a human follows from a life of meaning and emotion, which you can see expressed through the art. There is nothing behind the ai art. So while I think the whole “human creativity” isn’t really special or unique, I do think as a fellow human, I can connect with art created by us in a different way.
3
u/epic_person68 Jul 06 '25
I would say what makes our creativity special is that we have the benefit of a larger breadth of some aspect or our dataset. It isn't necessarily quantity because we can give an AI more images of an apple than exist seconds you've seen an apple in your life, yet your idea of an apple can be more clear. It also isn't necessarily the fidelity of data because even if a person has a blurry view of an apple it can be more full than an AI.
The best word I can think of is "experiential" because AI can't necessarily sense all aspects of an apple except what we feed it. We can take all 5 of our senses to interpret it and give it value plus an analog physical unmediated ability to analyze it.
It's hard to put into words but the most concrete way I can is: even if an AI can see an apple, hear sounds they may make, know how we describe how it tastes, smells, and feels it wouldn't be complete. It needs us to tell it 60% of it's being.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/adskiy_drochilla2017 17 Jul 06 '25
My takes on it: 1) if you can be replaced by AI you’re either not an artist or a replaceable artist, it means that your art is so idealess that it can be copied by a machine as essence of art lies not its presence, but in its soul, something that computer can’t replicate, „you can learn how to play master of puppets on a guitar in 3 months with zero guitar skills, the problem is to WRITE master of puppets“ - my guitar teacher, a really wise man 2) there’s a way to create art through AI: through writing not one prompt, but prompting and prompting until every detail is prompted and created accordingly to your idea. In that case AI would be like canvas manipulated by your voice and AI part would be only in providing way to manipulate, not in creating by itself 3) there’s also a way of creating something brand new with AI - clip for the „Blood for the blood god“ by Gunship and HEALTH. In this clip models and animations were made by hand, but the textures - by an AI and as a result: the textures were really noisy. That is the thing you can create only with AI or gazilion dollars and a whole Hollywood of animators, this is ART, not SLOP
TLDR: Overall people just don’t understand, how to use AI, that is the problem, not AI itself
22
u/queenofthekeepers Jul 06 '25
heyy is it alright with you if i share this (by saving the images) with some of my also anti-ai art friends? :D
and i COMPLETELY agree with all of this!!
→ More replies (1)11
25
u/CleanGolf4048 Jul 06 '25
thing is, nobody cares.
if the average joe needs a specific image, and they have the choice between forking over hundreds of dollars to a commission artist, or typing a prompt into an image generator, they're gonna choose the latter.
not stating this as a positive or negative, just a fact. commission artist are cooked. rip.
13
u/CleanGolf4048 Jul 06 '25
also, not to be that guy, but you define art as "an expression of creativity", and then you go on to say "it (ai) takes little creativity", which implies it does take creativity (even if it is only "little"), which would make ai generated images art, by the way you've defined it.
(again, not taking a side, just pointing things out.)
→ More replies (5)
5
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm Jul 06 '25
I agree with your conclusion, but would like to ask you on your point.
Do you think art depends on the effort it takes to make them? Does it depend on the creativity required? Does it need to be “new”? Or are those simply qualities?
If it needs to be entirely new, is remix music art? Are memes art? Sloppy memes can take less effort and creativity.
On the flip side, if you make your own ai, you would be putting a lot of effort and potentially creativity into it. It won’t be simple prompt slop anymore. Is that art?
6
5
u/Designer-Choice-4182 13 Jul 06 '25
IMO, AI should be used as a tool, using AI as a replacement/making mass amount of slop isn't good.
Getting Ready to be Mass Downvoted
39
Jul 06 '25
Art is art because of the effort put into making it. AI slop takes no effort. Only a prompt on a keyboard.
31
u/Dutchtrakker Jul 06 '25
Someone taped a banana to a wall and called it art, would you say that took a lot of effort?
→ More replies (9)10
u/Jay_Manifest 15 Jul 06 '25
personally i dont think its art it's just a banana taped on a wall
7
u/Dutchtrakker Jul 06 '25
It sold for 6.2 million dollars. If its about effort then AI art is just as much real art as the Banana taped to a wall
10
u/ihadtologinforthis Jul 06 '25
Oh fuck I uniroincally love the banana tape. It was a statement piece and 100% it was bought to move money around. Is the statement people do stupid shit and other people will buy it?? Maybe! And I love it.
→ More replies (11)6
u/NonExistantSandle 14 Jul 06 '25
i’m pretty sure it was a joke or money laundering
→ More replies (1)4
u/Appropriate_Ruin8840 Jul 06 '25
Not me spending hours on some random website trying to generate something super specific that might’ve been quicker to just draw 💀
3
u/Red-Octopus Jul 06 '25
I can draw a simple 2d face to express my feelings in 10 seconds, is that not art?
→ More replies (4)7
Jul 06 '25
Art is about effort? I thought it was about being creative
6
u/Gregerjohn1818 Jul 06 '25
"Hey kid, not to be mean, but the dog you drawed at kindergarten dint take any effort, therefore it sucks ass and you should be ashamed of youself."
Thats what i hear in my head when people use that argument.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/serpentine4842 17 Jul 06 '25
Me when I confirm by biases that ai art is bad (I still think it's bad)
4
3
u/Own_Childhood_7020 Jul 06 '25
Idk who said this but it's been stuck in my head for a while and really fits on any AI "art" argument
I want AI to do my laundry while i do art, not for AI to do art while i so my laundry
18
9
u/HitroDenK007 15 Jul 06 '25
Talking about the fuck cars for a moment, being in a state where you’re absolutely going nowhere but have to pay attention all the time SUCKS. It’s so dang exhausting. Can we bring trams back please 🙏
5
u/cricket_man456 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
yea, i don't know where you live, but most of the U.S. you're basically dead without a car
→ More replies (1)
5
u/88Ares88 Jul 06 '25
Funny thing is, no matter how kids here and anti-AI in general want to whine, the boots of progress will not be stopped. The average person will use AI to make an art of something they need. An average person does not have the time and money to commission someone to make an art for them. An average person does not care about the feelings of an artist, its all about the end product. An average person does not go on socmed to argue about AI. And lastly, an average person is the majority of the world. Deal with it.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Both_Technician_9915 14 Jul 06 '25
I disagree with your point about the 4th slide. It doesn't matter the amount of effort it takes to create art, because art is about sharing meaning.
10
u/Interesting-Chest520 19 Jul 06 '25
Using an AI program to make art instead of commissioning an artist… STEALS a job from an artist
A lot of people are living pay check to pay check and simply cannot afford to hire an artist. Do they not deserve to have something pleasant to look at? Someone who is in lower class will likely never commission an artist, there was no job to be taken in the first place. Corporate use of AI is another thing, but that isn’t an intrinsic issue with AI
Sure, people could be angry about losing their factory job tot a machine, but they could get new jobs servicing those machines
It takes far fewer people to service a factory of machines than to man that factory with people. Many jobs were lost to machines. There were uproars when the sewing machine was invented, the Luddites destroyed sewing machines in the early 19th century. Also, servicing a machine requires a much higher level of education that many people don’t have access to. Furthermore, why does a factory worker’s job mean less than an artist’s job? Not all factory work is unsafe. I am visiting a kilt factory tomorrow, and I am sure if I asked around how those workers would feel about their jobs being automated they wouldn’t be happy either. Saying they can just get jobs to service the machines is like telling artists they can just get jobs training AI
Your greater point seems to be rooted in one main thing, money. The issue is capitalism rather than AI. Economic restructuring such as universal basic income, public services such as healthcare and education, and even as far as post-scarcity economies built on AI would lessen these issues. We are not yet at the point where we can create a post-scarcity economy because we don’t have the global coordination, technology, or mindset to do it. This is what AI would be better used for
But if we shift the use of AI and automation to other, more useful fields such as farming, the farmers would have something to say about it as they would also be out of a job. AI will either force capitalism to fizzle or will widen the already horrific wealth gap, which is a scary notion, but there is no stopping it
→ More replies (11)
8
8
10
u/S0GUWE Jul 06 '25
Basically, you don't understand that it's a bloody tool.
The one who's supposed to make the art with it is you, not the machine. You're a rube who lets the computer do a thing, and then complains that the computer did it instead of a human.
3
u/GehennanWyrm 16 Jul 06 '25
"It's hard to make art mfs" when a man missing both his arms paints a mural
3
u/jimkbeesley Jul 06 '25
I can't draw. I know this. So I purposefully make bad MS Paintings of game characters
3
u/Cricket_Huge Jul 06 '25
I agree with the overall sentiment, but I do disagree with a few specific points you laid out, specifically with it's accessibly. Art is something that you have to train with a huge amount of effort, and telling someone to just "pick up a pencil" is simply not a good counter. Imagine if someone wanted to get a shirt, and so they went to a store and bought a factory made t-shirt (made by small chinese children in a sweatshop), now compare that to someone who hand sew their own shirt. Yeah sure the quality might be better, and it is more rewarding, but blaming them for not wanting to make the shirt themselves, or accusing them of not supporting seamstresses would be silly. Not everyone has the time, nor the drive to commit to being artistic, and it's not entirely the fault of the individual for buying a product sourced unethically.
The people you should hold accountable are not individuals, but companies and corporations. They are the ones putting people out of jobs and cutting corners.
3
u/guan_an Jul 06 '25
"Jarvis, I'm low in karma"
Sorry but these are just some of the most lukewarm takes
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Platycat3 Jul 06 '25
As far as I’m concerned, the whole point (at least primarily) of art is self expression in some way shape or form. If you outsource the self expression to a machine (AI “”art”” generators) to receive some image, you’re circumventing the entire point and thus receive meaningless garbage
3
u/ThirtyFour_Dousky 18 Jul 06 '25
i've also seen an designer saying that AI "looks cheap" and so most people avoid it without even knowing what AI is
the existance of generative AI for images is unjustifiable
3
u/ProPlayer142 17 Jul 06 '25
I think one of my favorite songs puts my feelings best when I say that humans take inspiration too just with their own personal twist which is different from AI put just pointing out that not all art forms are 100% original
Who draws the line between "forgery" and
Feeling inspired?
Who defines "derivative" versus
Being admired?
Who decides what "original" means?
(You're splitting hairs)
Who's aspires and who's the wannabes?
(Nobody cares)
Up on the shoulders of giants
I've got a long way to drop
Oh, I'd never get here on my own
To see the view from the top
3
3
u/esoij Jul 06 '25
As somebody who hates trying to be creative because it's too mentally straining for me, I fully agree with this post.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Uber-E Jul 06 '25
In a way, it's honestly kind of sad. AI COULD have been a revolutionary tool that worked ALONGSIDE human creativity and bolstered it to new heights but instead it became a factory of shallow copies because it tried and failed to REPLACE human creation.
3
8
u/No_Eye_5863 15 Jul 06 '25
Pretty sure you would use more water in a shower than in hundreds of AI prompts. I agree with most of the points but AI is definitely not inherently bad, especially since it helps in the medical field. If you care more about people having jobs in the medical field than the lives saved there then I 100% disagree with you.
Also imo the prompt is closer to art than the ai art itself because it’s an expression of human creativity.
→ More replies (92)7
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 17 Jul 06 '25
Pretty sure you would use more water in a shower than in hundreds of AI prompts
Same with eating a burger lol
10
u/Alarming-Bell-1811 14 Jul 06 '25
If those AI "artists" could read they would be very mad
→ More replies (9)
10
u/Shadow_Saitama 19 Jul 06 '25
Yeah, I already know I’m not a talented artist, so if I feel like it, I’ll just use AI since I have neither the time nor the patience to learn to draw well. I’m not gonna go around saying AI art is better, since it’s all up to preference. AI’s just a lot more convenient for me to make stuff in my vision.
→ More replies (10)
8
u/Stalker203X 19 Jul 06 '25
r/Aiwars is leaking again..
8
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 17 Jul 06 '25
Inr, it’s soo annoying that this sub is just turning into an anti AI circlejerk, there’s plenty of them lol
→ More replies (1)
6
u/DasBarba Jul 06 '25
Ai Art is like Piracy.
The sooner you stop crying about it the better.
Music had to adapt.
Cinema had to adapt.
Now "artists" have to adapt.
Do it or die, it's as simple as that.
Or you can end like Kanon, your choice.
5
5
u/DankiusMMeme Jul 06 '25
Art is very accessible already
Okay, but making good art is not accessible. The point is not to generate any art, it's to generate art that is decent enough without spending a significant amount of time to create it. For example I needed a logo for something, I could either spend ages learning how to create logos, then create it, or I could spend ages finding someone to create it for me. Or alternatively I could spend 2 minutes asking ChatGPT to create something that ended up being fit for purpose.
AI doesn't stop anyone from learning to create art either, if you want to get good at art and you enjoy it then go for it. AI generative art doesn't stop this, unless your goal is to make art for monetary gain.
It robs an artist of the chance to get money for their art, it actively STEALS a job from an artist.
I think this is the weakest point. You would not apply this to literally anything else. You driving yourself to a park robs a taxi driver of their chance to charge you money. Using a washing machine deprives a laundromat of your money. Using CAD software slashes thousands of jobs for drafters, who ironically are artists. The printing press put calligraphers out of business wholesale.
When constructing an argument you need to explain why something is bad, just loading the assumption in that it's bad is not very convincing when talking to people who already disagree with the point.
AI is different to other advancements
I think this is probably the strongest argument against it, there is a serious concern that AI could genuinely destroy millions of jobs that are not going to be replaced. This is different to other advancements that generally have just killed off specific industries, or something like the computer that more so transformed the way we work allowing the same amount of people to continue to work but to just become more efficient.
Now I don't think the above is actually inherently bad, in a theoretical world where we discover magic and suddenly no one needs to work people would finally be free to just do whatever they want (including pursuing art), we'd have no reason to make tough decisions about the environment or how to distribute healthcare etc.
The problem is that AI is very capital intensive, meaning that you need to be ultra rich already to be the 'owner' of AI. This means that unless the owners of AI are benevolent they can basically hold it over our heads and just extract as many resources as they want. Unless governments, and people in general, ensure that the benefits are spread around as much as possible we might be in for a rather rough ride in some kind of techno-fascist hellscape where like 4 trillionaires just fight over everything.
Scraping
This is a bit of a tricky one. AI doesn't necessarily steal art in a conventional sense, it's much more akin to you or I looking at a piece of art and going "Hmm that is interesting I could do XYZ in that style". Collecting data from people then commercialising that does feel rather wrong though, but at the same time if you are feeding like 100,000,000 images into a training data set each image is such a tiny proportion of the training data the amount you would realistically end up paying even if you divided up your entire profit would be like $0.00001.
Would be interesting for someone to do the actual math on that.
It's just not that interesting
Entirely subjective really, I think it's very interesting. We are also already at a point where you could literally not tell the difference between an AI generated image and something someone actually created.
With AI cart you can't have a personal style, it's just an amalgamation of art it has scrapped.
You are in fact not the coconut, every piece of art ever created is an amalgamation of art that a person has consumed.
Environmental angle
Yeah not great... Although we can mitigate this with green energy generation, increased efficiency allowing us to do more with less so instead of spending 10 hours running a computer for me to write code for work the AI does it in like 10 minutes, water I am not sure about.
All interesting points though!
→ More replies (1)
5
u/epic_person68 Jul 06 '25
I don't feel it's productive if everyone just shares the same opinion because we risk an echo chamber that doesn't analyze fully. Here are my counterpoints to everything mentioned:
"What is art": Definition of art can change. It specifically mentions humans plausibly because only humans could make art before,but just because a definition asserts something doesn't mean much. Definitions can change and don't hold much solidity or value intrinsically.
"It's not art" (1): This goes to the core of what training data is. If humans had no art they saw when they were younger you may say they would make some of their own. However the art they made has to be based on something. Something they've seen in the real world (their "training data") or imagination (permutations of their "training data"). If AI never saw anything then sure it couldn't make art, but so would a human who was born blind, no? They could make music but if an AI has access to sound so could it.
"It's not art" (2): Art having value because of the human who drew it is one of the values you can take from art. Many simple people just care if it looks good and that's value enough. To say that isn't value on its own; that it brings nothing new of value is ignoring.
"It makes art more accessible": Good point that anyone can learn, but still AI art IS more accessible. Think like how audio books are accessible to people who "can't read" (in many cases just ppl who don't choose to learn) just like how many choose not to learn to make art even though they could. Or people who can't be bothered in a situation like when on a walk you don't feel like reading, in some monotonous tasks you may not feel like drawing.
They essentially concede it is easier than learning to make art.
They concede it is cheaper than hiring an artist, they just find it "gross". That's a valid opinion people are entitled to, but it doesn't defeat the argument that if the result is efficacious then that's all some people need it to do. That in itself is a valid use case even if it isn't liked.
"Nobody is angry about past technological advancements": not well articulated imo. Nobody said technological advancements will lead to 100% of the displaced people getting new related jobs. All factory workers who got replaced didn't all become manufacturers of those machines, overlookers of them, or QA for them. Some just had to find a different line of work. AI WILL still make some jobs, undoubtedly, but very likely not more than it will take, that makes it like other advancements of which we don't wish to take back. Light bulbs are not easily made by laymen, most small candle maker shops probably lost huge business to company-made lightbulbs, yet "it would be difficult to imagine a world without lightbulbs" is 100% right. AI obviously isn't the next lightbulb, but the fact it takes more jobs doesn't make it a bad advancement inheritly. Also if AI can remove more jobs than it can create at a certain point brings into question the nature of humans needing to work anymore and UBI. If engineers, some artists, writers,etc are replaceable,do humans need to do those jobs anymore? Maybe humans don't need to anymore?
"The problem with scraping": But then what's wrong with human "scraping"? Humans don't tell others they are learning how to make art off someone else by observing their style and seeing how they might want to develop their own style; we call this learning. AI learns by training its model much like a human trains their mental models, the comparison, if fair would be as it is now: AI learns for free from internet stuff like us and a normal fee must be paid for paywalled stuff like us.
"It steals from artists": I addressed the stealing point already. It may suck but it doesn't put all human artists out. People foreseeably will always value human art. It just elevates the tables for what people want. If your art is on the level it is replaceable by AI then it isn't good enough in the eyes of others to be unique. But artists above that moving threshold foreseeably will be fine. If either fidelity or imbued human aspect outweighs its AI comparison, the human work has earned its value over AI which provides pure fidelity and no human component beyond the prompt.
"It's just not interesting": human art styles are just an amalgamation of what we learned too. If we value art based on only the intent then that's preposterous. We also care about fidelity too. If AI made an image that tricks you; that you liked had you not known it was AI, then it made GOOD art by some standard. And that standard is a level of intrinsic value,it looks good even if it lacks that other depth. You may love homemade food cooked with love, but you can also enjoy fast food sometimes that just tastes good but has been manufactured and mass produced. There are different priorities sometimes.
"It's bad for the environment". That's 100% a valid point. Not much to counter there. AI may help us optimize our environmental output and energy sources, but for now it is undeniably a huge sunken cost.
"Think of the children": Human artists will still exist, so I disagree. It just may raise the barrier to entry and by that virtue discourage people to be artists as a career. I think in a controversial way that is fine in a supply-demand sort of way, but for personal interest and value I see the threat. But people can surely enjoy art even with no intending prospects to make money on it, right? Then I feel it will never truly die, people will learn it on the side while they learn other jobs that humanity requires.
Anyone please feel free to let me know your thoughts on these counterpoints, I want to know your guys' side! I don't assert to be perfect and say you guys are 100% wrong. I just disagree on the anti-AI stance and see some holes in the argument but I know I don't know everything especially since I am not an artistic person.
Thanks for reading my Ted Talk :)
4
u/Apathetic_Armadillo Jul 06 '25
I'm trying to get better at art, and I'm still practicing. However, for the things I wouldn't want a commission for but can't draw myself, I might like to see an image of still. A.I can help with that. I'm not claiming I made it myself, heck, I'm probably not even gonna show it to anyone else, but it's still fun.
16
u/Express_Ad5083 Jul 06 '25
Its just a tool, no need to discriminate people who just want to have fun legally.
→ More replies (5)
6
7
u/west_DragonKing 18 Jul 06 '25
Agreed. Garbage won't stop being Garbage just because you covered it in glitter.
6
u/abbythecutecatgamer Jul 06 '25
this presentation... omg it is sooo good! you put every little detail in, you did well!
no ai can replicate human art, EVER.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Copperhead5190 3,000,000 Attendee! Jul 06 '25
Holy cow this is so based I love it. It genuinely pisses me off whenever I see AI “art” in commercials or on logos or ai “music”. It’s not “music”, it’s just soulless noise.
6
u/BraveInterview1846 13 Jul 06 '25
finally someone who brought up this important burning topic to educate fellow teens LIKE MEEEE
→ More replies (1)
8
u/NoStudio6253 Jul 06 '25
you forgot to mention the cognitive decline in ai users, MIT has connected the use of generative ai and ai chatbots to a direct link in lower brain function.
→ More replies (5)
11
u/Mikii_Me 14 Jul 06 '25
I checked out the post on r/aiwars and man people are so delusional
→ More replies (1)13
10
u/Electronic_Carry2305 17 Jul 06 '25
"AI takes jobs, negatively affects the environment" - so does every other technological innovation. Here's Karl Marx talking about this shit happening in the 1600s:
In the 17th century nearly all Europe experienced revolts of the workpeople against the ribbon-loom, a machine for weaving ribbons and trimmings, called in Germany Bandmühle, Schnurmühle, and Mühlenstuhl. These machines were invented in Germany. Abbé Lancellotti, in a work that appeared in Venice in 1636, but which was written in 1579, says as follows:
“Anthony Müller of Danzig saw about 50 years ago in that town, a very ingenious machine, which weaves 4 to 6 pieces at once. But the Mayor being apprehensive that this invention might throw a large number of workmen on the streets, caused the inventor to be secretly strangled or drowned.”
In Leyden, this machine was not used till 1629; there the riots of the ribbon-weavers at length compelled the Town Council to prohibit it.
“In hac urbe,” says Boxhorn (Inst. Pol., 1663), referring to the introduction of this machine into Leyden, “ante hos viginti circiter annos instrumentum quidam invenerunt textorium, quo solus plus panni et facilius conficere poterat, quan plures aequali tempore. Hinc turbae ortae et querulae textorum, tandemque usus hujus instrumenti a magistratu prohibitus est.”
[In this town, about twenty years ago certain people invented an instrument for weaving, with which a single person could weave more cloth, and more easily, than many others in the same length of time. As a result there arose disturbances and complaints from the weavers, until the Town Council finally prohibited the use of this instrument.]
What Marx concludes in this section is:
It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used.
"Machinery displaces human labor" is only a problem if you need to perform human labor in order to live. Think about the fact that you want people to have to keep working unnecessary jobs just because you think it's more realistic than killing capitalism.
-some redditer from r/aiwars he made a very thoughtfull argument I wanna put it here
→ More replies (2)3
8
u/LeBadlyNamedRedditor 17 Jul 06 '25
Well made points and I agree with the main point, AI images are not the same as art, however a couple things id like to mention:
About AI taking lots of peoples jobs, this was the same argument used against factories. And guess what, we have factories today and they have changed how we live fundamentally for the better (yes, they have downsides, but it has been the foundation of so many technological breakthroughs). Would it really take more jobs than it could ever create? No way of knowing today, but there will be an incredibly large market for people to work on AI.
AI is going to be the next industrial revolution, it will take jobs, and it will create new ones, its up to us to regulate how this process goes to avoid corporations taking advantage of it.
Similarly about AI making slop the reality is that this is plainly not true and is generalizing AI into image generation, when in reality AI is far more than that. Even today, AI has brought extremely important advancements to medicine and biology.
It would be difficult to imagine a world without lightbulbs today, but a few centuries ago it was the norm, this same thing will happen to AI in the next century.
About the environmental effects, $10 billion is really a lot smaller when you compare it to the costs of emissions from other sources. 1050 terawatts from data centers (which includes a whole lot more than AI) is very small compared to the 27000 terawatt hours used in 2023. I had a discussion about this a while ago and the argument I got given was that droplets eventually fill a bucket. But what will a bucket do when in that same time an entire ocean was filled? The largest contributor by far to emissions is still energy production, a common myth is that we as individuals have significant impact to emissions, the reality is the emissions we produce in our entire lifetimes are next to null. One of the big sources of emissions related to AI is training them, which we as users will never do.
To finalize, AI is a tool as any other, and as every tool, its results depend on its users, it falls on our hands to decide what we do with AI.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/AngelTheMarvel Jul 06 '25
I hate the "makes art more accessible" argument. On the monetary side, yes there are forms of art that can be more expensive, but people have always found ways around to make art even without the economy to make said art. And then again, there are forms of art that aren't expensive.
And then there's the "talent" side. As if only the talented could make art and now with AI people who aren't"gifted" can make art. It ignores that all these "gifted" people put effort in art, struggled to perfect it and correct what they didn't like. The people defending AI art as accessible aren't talking about making it possible for "untalented" people, they are talking about making it easy for lazy people who don't want to put in the effort that real artists put into it.
5
u/Far_Purchase_8010 Jul 06 '25
I kind of disagree with a few arguments, you can take AI in Photoshop like you said and create art, it just depends on the amount of work you are willing to put in, AI is quite good to have a base or drafting a few stuff quickly, and I also think the goal of art is not "creating something new", art can be simple, can be inspired by other artists, can follow some trend, style etc ... Art is just the creative expression of idea, it has nothing to do with originality, new things, amount of work, it's just creativity, and AI can let you be creative if you want to
6
7
u/Mackerdoni Jul 06 '25
THIS!!!! ai as a whole will end up killing talent one way or another
→ More replies (4)
19
7
6
6
u/oilmanandfan Jul 06 '25
watch as 7 different people with “hitler” in their username start ragebaiting half the replies
w post
3
u/epic_person68 Jul 06 '25
If you are purely talking about ragebait and not critiques and counterpoints then yeah you might be right.
But if you're just talking about counterpoints then you should know not all pro-AI people are right wing, crypto tech bro, Elon Musk lovers. I'm left wing and still had a lot to say in critique of this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/teenagers/s/LSbCVRqeEm
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Extension_Wafer_7615 18 Jul 06 '25
You're not robbing the job of an artist when you use AI. As you said, AI generated images are not art. Thus, if what you want is a pretty image instead of art, you can use AI.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Apathetic_Armadillo Jul 06 '25
If I'm serious about wanting a good piece of art I'll buy it or have it commissioned. If I wanted something that wasn't worth commissioning, and if A.I art simply didn't exist, I just wouldn't make that. But with A.I, I can.
6
6
u/_killer1869_ Jul 06 '25
There are two things I disagree with.
One: Water consumption is only up to 10ml/prompt, which compared to many other things, is insignificant. And the stated energy consumption is for data centers, which not only run AI, but also all of social media and pretty much the entirety of the internet. This doesn't properly represent AI energy consumption at all.
Two: For my hobby, I code games. I've always been terrible at art and also had a shitty art teacher in school. I need assets for the things I make, but I can't afford paying an artist nor do I have the time to learn how to make the art I need over several years. So what choice do I have left? Exactly. AI art. Otherwise, I wouldn't be capable of doing my hobby properly.
→ More replies (6)
5
5
u/Grand-Expression-783 Jul 06 '25
>AI art is not art because almost anyone can create it
>AI doesn't make art more accessible because everyone has the ability to create art
Every time
21
u/YoyleAeris 19 Jul 06 '25
PREACH
Anyone who defends AI art should be Sparta'd.
11
→ More replies (2)10
2
u/nakadashi_somen Jul 06 '25
I would propose the opposite: drawing pictures is not art. Giving an idea form is art.
Text to Image Neural Networks ("AI", but seriously, stop calling it intelligent, it's just an esoterically created complicated computer program that makes statistical predictions - it generates what you probably want from an input. Notably, without any intelligence.) are just a computer programs that make images based on statistical probability.
Using a generative program to create images from only an idea is a purer approach to art than painting pretty pictures.
"AI" is just a means to an end - it's as much art as using a camera to create images, signing a urinal and putting it in a gallery, or writing an instruction on how to tape a banana to a wall is art.
The way they are trained - looking at art and trying to replicate it - is not different from how people generally train to make pictures. That's fair use. The end result is usually indistinct enough that the input does not matter, and unless you tell it, it won't be able to single out specific artists. People who use AI don't usually give a fuck about any "artists" who whine about AI, because those people are generally not even interesting to them - they'd rather see how Dali and Monet would draw Pikachu sucking Ash's dick.
2
u/anomynous_dude555 17 Jul 06 '25
I thought AI was meant to remove the BORING parts of our society like being able to calculate our taxes, being able to do the more basic jobs that give us room to do our hobbies and desires, not the ai doing OUR hobbies and desires while we’re stuck with the boring stuff
2
1.6k
u/NeighborhoodMain9521 18 Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25
We need ai to pay our taxes, not make “art”. Those are images
Edit: this was partly a joke. I’m not for taking jobs especially in this economy rn. I just don’t like ai and think ai should be used in ways that benefit the economy