401
Source (Bluesky)
I'm a digital chef, I prompt the dish I want into doordash and it shows up in my home in 45 minutes.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
401 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
2265 readers
382 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Being good at prompting AI to generate art is like being good at using a search engine to find a specific picture.
~~Search engine~~ AI artists!
It's a lot like commissioning something from an artist. You have to describe what you want, with the style, details and mood you want to see, then maybe go back and forth a few times until it's just right. Doing that well is a skill, so are things like art direction. But replacing the humans executing on the direction with a machine doesn't suddenly make the directing human an artist.
You’re being facetious but searching is a skill too. A simple skill but still a skill.
Nobody said it wasn't a skill, just that it isn't the same thing as creating art. You know, the thing that artists do.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
5000 years later:
"And here we see a fertility figure, commonly worshipped in the late Microplastic era".
"And this one is the goddess of youthfulness in adults. According to remaining Tweets, while she looks like she's a 10 year old, she's actually a 9000 year old dragon, who chooses to have this form, and is actually able to give consent to sexual encounters, and is so promisculous she needs frequent corrections. This cult seems to be widely persecuted according to other tweets, in the form of what they called as "cancel culture", since many outsiders thought it would encourage the harm of actual children, and some participants of this cult unfortunately had such occurences."
load more comments
(2 replies)
If you take away an artist's brushes, they can't make art without making new brushes.
All this example shows is that brushes are easier to make yourself than a LLM is.
I don't like AI art, but I don't think this particular argument proves anything meaningful.
There are a ton of other types of art than those using brushes. Hell, the example is using something other than a brush.
load more comments
(4 replies)
In the OP their entire medium and tool set was taken away and they still made art. Not sure how that’s not demonstrating perfectly that an artist can make art no matter what they have on hand.
piss in the snow
Finger paint in blood (your own ideally)
load more comments
(2 replies)
"Nothing will stop real artists from making art."
I think this is kinda an empty sentiment. Nobody is trying to stop artists from making art. They're just trying to stop paying a lot of them for their art.
They didn’t claim anyone was trying to stop them from making art. In the context of the rest of the post, that is about how a lack of a specific tool or software won’t stop artists from creating art.
You’re spot on about them trying to stop paying people for art, though.
Talks about real art being unique and then goes and draws the most generic, cliched furry shit that looks exactly like a million others.
They didnt say it was unique. They said "AI artists" claim to be artists like digital artists because they both use technology, then went on to show that a real artist can make art with anything and that these "AI artists" need their prompts or they can't do it.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who can both draw and type in prompts, just like there are plenty of people who can both draw and use Photoshop.
The more accurate comparison would be people who can both draw and pay other people to use photoshop for them based on what they tell them that they want. Outsourcing the art making process and giving feedback based on what you’re presented with has always been an option, AI ‘artists’ just don’t want to pay for it or admit that’s what they’re doing.
Ahem, that is scalie shit tyvm.
And yet, not being an artist, I couldn't possibly draw that.
That. And the famous equation rendering == art. Like, raw art? not art! Naive art? Not art! Performance ?not art.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Among other criticisms, "using technology" does not mean something is "digital". The example on the rock seems to be analog from everything in the post above.
They weren’t saying that the rock art was digital art.
They’re saying that as an artist whose medium of choice is digital, they can still make art in other mediums and that any artist will be able to do the same, no matter their medium.
So as a digital artist I...
Sure sounds to me like they are claiming this is digital.
And it's just gatekeeping art. I wouldn't tell a painter they aren't a real artist just because they can't play guitar. And all art forms have long history of passing on information across generations. The saying "good artists borrow, great artists steal" is far older than any computer.
There's a lot of problems with AI in general, but most of these complaints I see about AI art in particular are really misdirected complaints about how terrible copyright and other intellectual property laws are. For almost all of human history until about a century ago it was common and encouraged to take and build upon the ideas of others- it's only because capitalists found a way to profit off of restricting ideas that we started to do so.
Did you see that there is a word that comes after digital?
A digital artist—that is, an artist whose medium of choice is digital—is still able to make art in other mediums without ceasing to be a digital artist. That doesn’t make the other art digital, and they didn’t claim that it did.
If typing in prompts to generate images from the stolen work of artists makes someone an artist, then so does commissioning art and giving feedback based on how you want it changed. If you’re not okay calling that person an artist, ask yourself why you’re fine with calling AI ‘artists’ that.
"digital artist" is a term people use for someone that makes digital art as their primary form of art (using programs like Photoshop, krita, or Clip Studio Paint as an example).
Similarly, "digital art" is art made using those same tools as much as "traditional art" is art made without those tools. These are all just labels people give to be specific within a group.
Nobody is saying a digital artist isn't an artist.
Once you take a digital photo of the art and upload it, it becomes digital art... If you like.
But really you're either being intentionally obtuse or you've realised you misinterpreted the statement and are doubling down and trying to dig your way out of a hole.
They used their digits to make it!
This is a true triumph of the human spirit.
As much as I like this post, it ain't true for digital 3d artists. While you can lay down some objects and stuff, it's still extremely limited.
I could be wrong but my impression has been a lot of 3D artists often have sculpting backgrounds or parallel interests because they carry a lot of the same general compositional principles.
Even a 3D artist who has never used clay before is going to be able to make something from it that looks good, just because so many of the same artistic principles and methods of thinking about how to modify what you’re working on to get the result you want still apply.
Give an AI ‘artist’ anything other than a plagiarism machine and suddenly they can’t do anything, because they don’t want to actually put in the time and effort to understand art beyond ‘this one looks good and this one doesn’t’.
Are 3d artists the same thing as AI bros?
No, they are not.
No of course. I'm just saying the post doesn't cover all of the digital artists that aren't shitty
It doesn't need to, because the post is only about AI 'artists', not digital artists.
No no, it's on point. All the digital artists should be covered. They could claim that if 3d artists can't do art without a computer, then according to this post, they shouldn't be called artists too.
Digital 3d artists can generally also do physical sculptures because one is just a digital version of the other. They still understand how shapes in a 3d environment work, and how sizes and proportions work. All they need is a little clay.
People who do colors and textures digitally also understand how they work in the real world. They might be better using digitsl topls, but artists understand the process and can work with multiple mediums just by applying the same processes.
AI 'artists' use word prompts, which does not translate into the real world.
What are the limitations? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering what’s on your mind that couldn’t be made in diorama form
load more comments
(1 replies)
You could absolutely use AI to make art. Almost all AI content you find online isn't that though
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you really understand what your tools do (not how tools do it), you are a true professional (in this case, an artist). You use some tools to achieve a certain effect and you know what it will be like. AI "artists" don't know what AI will do for them in the next moment. At least something like that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›