this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
267 points (97.8% liked)
Anime
2538 readers
112 users here now
This community is the place to discuss and ask questions about anime, anime news, and related topics.
Currently airing show discussion threads are created by our resident bot, rikka@ani.social. If it doesn't make a thread for an episode that you want to discuss, see the user guide on the wiki for instructions on how to ask rikka to make a thread for you to use.
Check out our wiki to find:
- Episode Discussion Thread Index
- Weekly Discussion Thread Index
- Bot User Guide
- List of shows currently monitored by the bot
Rules
More complete rules on the wiki.
- Posts must relate to anime or similar (donghua, etc.)
- Discussion threads for currently airing media must be made by the bot. If there isn't a discussion thread made for a piece of media you want to discuss, then request it via pm.
- Ensure that all series spoilers are tagged. See here for details.
- Memes should be directed toward !animemes@ani.social (or similar) instead of this community
- Do not post explicitly NSFW material. Please use your best judgement when marking lewd material as NSFW, unmarked material risks being removed.
- Please redirect discussion of piracy towards a more appropriate community
- Any clips from currently airing shows cannot include content from episodes released within the past 7 days.
- All posts and comments must adhere to the ani.social Terms of Use
- In general, keep things civil and avoid attacking other individuals.
Related General Communities
- !animemes@ani.social
- !anime_irl@ani.social
- !avid@ani.social - Videos
- !animewallpapers@ani.social
- !manga@ani.social
- !lightnovels@ani.social
- !anime@lemmy.eco.br (Brazil community)
- !anime_es@ani.social (Spanish language community)
- !aum@ani.social (Myanmar community)
- !otomegames@ani.social
- !visualnovels@ani.social
- Megathread of other communities on the fediverse maintained by @MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's striking isn't it how the debate around generative AI is essentially drawn along the line that separates good taste from bad. To win the debate we're going to need really good art.
It's a fundamental issue understanding what art is for sure. People who could really draw well could already copy his style perfectly, but just because you can perfectly copy it doesn't make it original, and thus have the same value. It's not that it has no value, just considerably less value than his films.
It's that total lack of originality with AI slavishly copying a style like this that shows its lack of creative value. It's like pressing play on a keyboard programmed with 20 top tunes of the 80s and randomly pressing the high hat key.
Sure, it enables someone who can't play the piano to "play" a song, but not really. It's the same getting AI to copy by rote someone else's style they developed, it requires no effort or application of originality.
I think you're barking up the right tree, but the way I'd put it is this: it gives people the ability to imitate an aesthetic without ever engaging with the thinking that underlies that aesthetic. It's almost inherently anti intellectual, in that way.
Ghibli's art comes from a profound love for liveliness, wonder, nature, and beauty that also respects the pain endured by its subjects. People talk shit on Ghibli as "the Disney of anime" but it's a backhanded compliment at worst because I think they're obliquely referring to how well Miyazaki executes on those feelings.
Or a lot of irish car bombs, and I don't mean the drink
It definitely tracks that this same post in Reddit is overwhelmed with people supporting OpenAI on the matter.
I think the show Arcane is one of the best examples of commercially released art in recent decades; interestingly, what happened is people actually accused it of using AI where there was none. Also Variety et al did a whole round of balking that anyone would invest in something so frivolous as serious animation for adults
There's always gonna be Capitalists who try and commodify art, but fundamentally humans are the the only ones who can make NEW insights that resonate with people RIGHT NOW. If AI IS ever able to observe the world and reflect on it and offer something new, in the way humans are, it would still be from their own perspective, not ours.
And much like that line, people confuse their personal taste for some kind of universal Truth that has to apply to everyone.
I'll take that L if you find me one professional artist who uses genAI and not ironically.
I know a graphics designer personally (from work) who used an AI generated video clip as part of a proposed background video for the landing page of a marketing-style website that was getting a refresh on one of our projects. That one ultimately didn't end up getting used -- not because it looked bad, but because of other branding considerations. Frankly, I'm glad that he didn't have to put much effort into making something that ended up getting canned.
There's a LOT of art out there that's functional. Few people stop and pay attention to it as art in itself -- and it rarely lasts more than a few years before getting swapped out for something else in rebranding -- but someone with design sense still needs to make it or a product will be less appealing.
There were images created, in part, by generative AI in some recent Call of Duty game. The person who created the piece was employed professionally by the studio that makes the game.
Grimes, shared AI that copy her voice, claim to use AI: https://time.com/7212502/grimes-ai-art-interview/
I think we can do better than Grimes.
...unless you're lookin' to warm up that chrome.
I'm feeling safe unless you got any artists who managed not to fuck Elon Musk
Arent you moving goalpost, you asked one professional artist.
Here another one: Jess MacCormack
That'll do. I'll take this L but I'm still with Miyazaki on this one. Art opinions on Lemmy always getting me into trouble.
You asked to find an human with some opinion, of course there will be at least a few.
I'm not ideologically opposed to genAI, it's just that the people who own these tools don't view them the way you do. They want to get rid of all paid work, and not in a Star Trekky "fully automated luxury gay space communism" way like we'd all prefer. They want infinite wealth and power concentrated to as great a degree as possible. Confining the discussion to mere art is fully insane, and I stand with Miyazaki.
To equivocate yet more, I have enjoyed some genAI content (doopiiidoo on YouTube is doing really unique stuff with it) but the other point I really need to drive home here is that no matter how good our tools get, nothing is ever going to beat hard work - at least when it comes to art.
I'm willing to cede that this tool is of some use as part of a toolkit, but this is like saying Volkswagens from the 40's were pretty fun to drive. Yes, but...
I disagree on a thing, the amount of work does not make something a better artwork.
Maybe more impressive, but not necessarly better.
Unspecified value judgment acknowledged, have a great day
I owe you a non-joke answer. It's not just a matter of personal taste here. Art is fundamentally the study of choice. A product that entails no actual choices is not art, even if you have a salable product that happens to be pretty. All genAI lacks the underlying meanings that evoke thought.
The premise here is that AI is generating art. That's simply not true. People make art. AI is a tool not an artist. 'AI art' is art made by people using AI tools. The paintbrush doesn't understand underlying meaning, it is a tool used by a person to create art. A diffusion model doesn't understand meaning, but it also doesn't create anything by itself. it is a tool that a person chooses to use.
The person chooses what to generate, what to manually create and how to mix those elements to create a composition that they, a human person, decide is what they want.
It's no different than using Krita or Photoshop, with their various plugins and image manipulation capabilities (which also don't understand meaning), to create art.
It's just a tool, there is no 'AI art', it is all created by people.
If I throw a bucket of paint on a canvas and call it art. You can say that it is bad art, but saying that it is not art because the bucket of paint doesn't understand art is nonsense. The same is true of any other tool that a person chooses to use to make art.
Well, there's a word for art that was made by someone using tools: art.
This has mainly not been what people use it for, and far more importantly such people aren't even the target market. It's exceedingly poor form to pretend otherwise.
People use Photoshop to create cat memes and manipulate pictures of Vice President J. D. Vance but that doesn't mean that the use of Photoshop disqualifies the output from being considered art. Even the cat pictures are art.
If a person decides they want to create an image in the style of a film that they love and they make something that fits their vision then who are we to say that it isn't art? Do we have the right to examine their entire process to determine that they used only the tools that we approve of and only the methods that we approve of? Are they disqualified for using generative fill to fix some complex shading?
What if they generate a tree, is the rest of the piece now 'Not Art' because they used an AI tool?
That's why this position against generative art doesn't make any sense. The line you choose to draw between 'Real Art' and 'Not Art' is always going to be arbitrary and no two people will have the same definition.
I think this is a great example of people confusing their personal tastes with some universal truth about the world. "I don't like art generated with AI tools' is perfectly valid. But to simply declare that my personal taste is THE Definition of Art is hubris.