656
Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
656 points (94.9% liked)
Fuck AI
2417 readers
1127 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
dra... dragonessi....dragoness..es
This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
Archaeologists:
Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
Around the 2000's a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.
Although we studied this acient relicts in great detail, we can not make sense out of the high representation of fertility related dieties in comparison to other typical deities i.e.war or hunting gods. A possible explanation could be a crisis of reproduction caused by the cost of living during this period of time.
ahaha the irony of them understanding the socioeconomic problems but not understand social subcultures like furries.
... actually, as big of a problem as social inequality is, I could see that.
Wanking: The Ritual
New on Steam!
And the movie will be called The Wankening with Mahk Wahlberg.
arouse
Of course Ethel guy who can draw a dragon was with coal does nto need AI lmao. The guy with two legs an a working spine doesn't need a wheelchair.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I've always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it's trying to say.
I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art... presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you'll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.
I don't think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don't think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it'll be for different reasons and in different scales than I'm... eh... moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I'm impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.
The thing is, an AI 'artist' isn't making art. They are generating images with no real meaning or effort put into them.
load more comments
(16 replies)
Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren't trying to replace humans with programs, weren't causing huge environmental impact, and weren't trained on stolen content. It's the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
load more comments
(19 replies)
I think the argument is that an AI "artist" is incapable of creating art. Their "tool" does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.
This pretty well encapsulates my feelings, except for the issue of training the models. AI is cool tech, but the fact remains that people are making money off of scraped content. Not to mention the environmental aspect.
Honestly I find it difficult to reconcile.
In a perfect world, we would have open source models trained on public domain and properly licensed content.
I don’t think AI is going to replace artists any time soon. On the personal side, people create for the joy of it, whatever that means to them. On the professional side, people have a hard enough time communicating what they want to an actual person, much less a computer.
As someone that likely has moderate aphantasia, I really struggle with describing what I want. Being able to tell an image gen to make so many variations of X, and then commission a friend to take inspiration from Y and Z to make something original is really freeing for both sides, imo.
I’ve never gotten exactly what I’m looking for, but it almost always gives me something to point to, without doing a bunch of test drafts. I suppose that’s technically taking work away from the artist, but so does having an ‘undo’ button in procreate.
Idk, it’s a more complex issue than many make it out to be. I’m still further on the fuck ai side than not, just due to its current implementations.
End rant.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Comments here are a shit show.
Here as in... They internet?
The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin...
Supreme Court: that's not art that's pornography. I cant exactly define pornography, but "you know it when you see it."
:P
Also, if you stick a stamp on it and mail it… straight to jail.
that generally criminalize the involvement of the United States Postal Service, […] in conveying obscene matter,[1] crime-inciting matter, or certain abortion-related matter
How specific. We know who perpetrated this law.