Fuck AI

Honestly, LinkedIn influencers aside, AI art seems to be dominated by two types of people

1. Techies. Not "tech bros", like people genuinely excited about the technology. They often create AI art as a way to better understand the technology, push the limits of what is possible, and produce art that exists in their head, but they wouldn't otherwise have the skill to create.

2. Degenerate gooners. Basically they've spent so much of their life gooning that they've come to hate the current state of online porn. Not like in a "I need a weirder fetish" sort of way, but in a "modern porn is often low effort, and you have to sift through a lot of crap to find something you like". They work tirelessly to adapt AI image models that weren't meant for any sort of nudity into their own personal spankbank generators. They are also extremely willing to share all their tricks and tuning, because their idea of a perfect world is where everyone has their ability to casually generate personalized porn.

The two things those groups have in common is that they aren't making money, and they put in hours and hours a day to perfect their craft. I don't know if I would call it art, but I would definitely say those people can do things a layman can't.

People are openly selling AI art?

AI is a glorified paint bucket in MSPaint. If there's an automated task, it can help.

Tools for coloring, shading, even cleaning up sketches are all things digital artists have had at their disposal. Adjusting hues, contrast, saturation, etc. Drawing in blue and just screening it out with a filter is a nice technique.

That's the stuff AI can actually be useful for.

That said I don't think good works of art tend to feature prominent use of the MS Paint bucket.

I don't think anyone is selling AI art. They're showing off AI art as an example of what their diffusor model can accomplish. The whole goal is literally the last panel. This isn't the pwn that you think it is. I have literally paid Canva because their generator was really amazing for logos, line-art, clean details, and a lack of that general 'fuzz' that shitty models generally output.

No, but it does empower solo indie creators to do something beyond that. Like a dude who’s a solo programmer can now make a reasonably okay looking game without dipping into “programmer art”.

Obviously once their game gets enough traction they should pay a real artist to do it right but it’s not a bad idea to prove the concept first using low effort AI art.

Good post but I don't see how it is anti ai at all

Wahhhaa I can't figure out how to type words into text box.

This same argument happened 200 years ago after the invention of photography.

They saw photography merely as a thoughtless mechanism for replication, one that lacked, “that refined feeling and sentiment which animate the productions of a man of genius,”

Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.”

https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/

"AI art will never take off or be more popular than traditional art!" says the increasingly nervous traditional artists as millions flock towards using AI art.