When I first learned about generative AI, I thought it was really cool. I used it to make portraits for NPCs in my D&D games, and it was tons better than what I could make myself (lacking training and practice)

Then I learned about the millions of giants whose shoulders GenAI treads on without permission, credit, or compensation. Never used it since

Not good arguments imo. Art can be this 'blood, sweat and tears' thing if you are into it, but art also can be an activity you do because you enjoy doing it, without a single fuck given that the result looks like the wet fart of a 3yo. I mostly don't care how people make art. Scratch your art into rock with a baguette if you feel that's the level of pain needed, or paint with your period blood if that floats your boat.

But use AI? It is incredibly bad for the environment, uses other people's work without their consent, and it's being owned by fascist fucking tech bros who want to drown the world in doom. You wouldn't kick a puppy and call it art, same goes for AI.

IMHO, creativity is also not about coming up with an idea, but the implementation of it. Drawing isn't about the initial idea, but how the end result looks, which could take a lot of time. GenAI shortcuts the idea to the implementation, that's also why they look awful.

It's a coin toss as to who's more douchey. The person who thinks the output of their prompt is a reflection of their own creativity, or the cartoonishly pretentious "artist" who wants to lecture you about their blood, sweat, and tears.

You don't need an uncritical belief in the Labour Theory of Value to think that human labour has a special value and dignity to it. The people who want AI to replace many kinds of intellectual labour just don't believe that there's a value to human labour, and I do think this is fundamentally an antihuman, misanthropic way of looking at the world.

People being brutal, people crying over critique isn't "just how art goes", and isn't a universal experience. I would actually call it "abuse" instead.

I mean, isn't making stuff easily kind of the whole point? I doubt AI bros suck OpenAI cock due to their passion for the arts.

I have a hypothesis: Art requires creativity and other skills that are inherently irrational/emotional, so AI bros want to believe that art can be produced with AI running on a cold hard deterministic machine, because that would mean society doesn't need artists and other "irrational" people, and then their TESCREAL "rationalist" dream of a perfect society would be viable.

I have no idea about all this stuff, but I have a question: so you have artists who work with computers. Let's say a 3D artist for the movie Jurrasic Park. So if a computer creates a sphere for you to build a dinosaur head out of it this is "good", because you had to work longer on it, but if it creates the whole head for you to work on this is "bad", because they need less time for basics? They would have more time to be creative this way, or not? I really struggle to understand when something is considered "good" or "bad" in that context. I mean even if someone is working on an elaborate AI prompt to generate an image, isn't that art? Maybe it's not the art of painting, but the art of describing a scene to someone? Just wondering....

Cue that video where an aitechbrodude said that people don't like creating... (music in that case, but still).

I'm not defending the AI bros but....Art has nothing to do with effort in the slightest. Effort isn't part of the equation when discussing the quality of art, it's more of a footnote.

things ~~is~~ are*

AI bros would never be able to handle the downvotes from correcting spelling and grammar errors—only us enthisiasts are passionate enough!

I'm not mocking the post, as i am in aggreance. I'm merely attempting humor.