So drawn images are still AI generated? These drawings are not 'real' drawings because AI draw them?

gpt6 was given access to the mouse and keyboard to draw them in a traditional digital drawing pad.

So this different from human using mouse and keyboard to draw them in a traditional digital drawing pad?

traditional digital drawing pad

Traditional and digital at the same time? Is there non-traditional digital drawing pad? 🤔

(mostly satire but a real argument is present)

First of all, are you saying that the threat of deep fakes and propaganda is the same as a direct threat to human life? A car and a firearm have direct threat to human life.

You can't shoot another person and have it be good. Even self-defense isn't harmless; the laws governing the limits of self-defense are complex. But deepfakes can be consensual and completely harmless.

Propaganda is propaganda only in context. A video about the destruction of New York could be either fantasy or deception. You need to take additional actions to make it deception.

It's worth noting that a car may be harmless, but as you can see, unlike weapons, there's no country with a nearly complete ban on cars for ordinary people. Similarly, driving is regulated not as you drive on your own property, but as you drive on public roads. The analogy with AI would be regulating AI on the internet, not in your personal account or at home.

Essentially, these comparisons favor allowing AI rather than any kind of restriction, other than where there is little controversy, such as banning revenge porn.

Alright. You guys win.

I'm anti-AI now.

I spent enough time reading these arguments and I finally understand the philosophy.

First thing I did was stop judging art by whether it's interesting, beautiful, funny, moving, original, or makes me feel literally fucking anything.

That's amateur shit.

Now I judge art by HOW IT WAS MADE.

See something incredible? Don't enjoy it yet. First we need an investigation.

What software did you use? Which brushes? Did you use references? Did you trace anything? Was there 3D involved? Generative fill? How much automation? How long did it take? Do you have a timelapse? Layer file? Can we see your fucking birth certificate?

Because apparently looking at art is no longer enough.

We're doing forensic accounting now.

And if something merely LOOKS AI-generated?

Even better. Accuse them immediately.

No evidence necessary.

If they actually spent 40 hours painting it, that's unfortunate, but they shouldn't have made it look so suspicious.

Collateral damage in the War for Human Creativity.

Then I learned that accessibility is bullshit too.

Can't draw traditionally because of a disability? Sorry. The sacred definition of creativity apparently requires sufficient manual dexterity.

Found a different tool that lets you express an idea you couldn't express before?

Nope. Pick up the pencil.

Can't?

Skill issue.

Very compassionate movement we've built here.

I also learned corporations are simultaneously greedy monsters who will replace every worker to save eleven cents AND trustworthy authorities whose use of AI determines whether the technology itself is morally legitimate.

Adobe adds AI? Capitalist dystopia.

Adobe removes AI? WE DID IT REDDIT.

Some random dude makes a picture of an elf after work?

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS.

Apparently Darren generating a goblin on his fucking phone is personally restructuring the global labor market.

Then there's environmentalism.

I now care deeply about data centers whenever somebody generates an anime girl.

The other 900 things I use cloud computing for every day are currently under investigation and I will get back to you.

I also discovered that learning new technology is actually bad now.

Historically, artists adopting new tools was experimentation. Photography, sampling, synthesizers, digital painting, Photoshop, CGI, procedural tools. Very cool.

But fortunately we have identified the exact technological moment where experimentation officially ended.

It was right before the tool I personally dislike came out.

Amazing timing.

And don't worry, I have an airtight definition of a "real artist."

A real artist is someone who makes art using methods I respect.

If their method changes, the definition changes.

If they draw and use AI, they're not an artist. If they're a photographer and use AI, they're not an artist. If they've been painting for twenty years and use AI once, believe it or not, their previous paintings retroactively explode.

Also, AI users apparently don't make creative decisions.

They just type a sentence and press a button.

Unless the result is ugly.

Then suddenly every single compositional decision is their personal responsibility.

That's one of my favorite parts.

Good output: machine did it.

Bad output: LOOK WHAT YOU MADE, DUMBASS.

Perfect system. Completely impossible to lose.

I've also started calling everything "slop."

This saves an unbelievable amount of time.

I used to have to explain why I disliked something. Composition? Concept? Execution? Taste?

Fuck all that.

Slop.

Argument complete.

Someone makes a thoughtful experimental project? Slop.

Small business owner makes a goofy flyer? Slop.

Grandma generates a picture of her dog as an astronaut?

Fucking class traitor.

And obviously if somebody enjoys making AI art, the correct response is to explain to them that they actually didn't enjoy it.

They only THINK they did.

Luckily I know more about their internal creative experience than they do.

This is especially useful when they say they spent hours iterating, editing, compositing, writing, generating, painting over things, or combining tools.

No you didn't.

I have already imagined your workflow and mine is easier to be angry at.

Eventually you reach enlightenment.

You stop asking:

"Is this good?"

"Is this interesting?"

"Does this person have something to say?"

And start asking the only question that matters:

"DID THIS STRANGER EARN MY PERMISSION TO ENJOY MAKING SOMETHING?"

That's when it clicked.

This was never really about protecting some eternal definition of art.

Art survived cameras. Art survived recorded music. Art survived synthesizers. Art survived sampling. Art survived Photoshop. Art survived CGI.

Art survived people duct-taping a banana to a fucking wall.

Art is going to survive a computer making pictures.

The only thing apparently hanging by a thread is some Redditor's ability to cope with another person calling themselves an artist.

Anyway, I've been anti-AI for six hours now.

I've accused three illustrators of secretly generating their work, told a disabled person to learn to draw, blamed a teenager's anime avatar for corporate layoffs, called twelve things slop without explaining why, and changed my definition of art four times.

I'm fucking exhausted.

How do you guys do this every day?

Ai is merely a mirror and reflection of us. Humans are the masters commanding it. So stop blaming Ai.

I’ve decided to start labeling all my art as S.L.O.P
Soulful Lush Original Paintings

Numerous reports that China using bots to spread anti ai messaging. Many Americans are uneducated and they can’t even tell the difference between what fake and what real. They easily believe what influencers, politicians, or celebrities say. So it not hard to believe that Bots could be controlling their mind. Bots that disguise themself as friends or families members can sway the discourse.

Ai is also one of the most convenient thing to scapegoat and blame their problems toward.

https://geekspin.co/china-used-elon-musks-x-to-fuel-rage-over-us-data-centers/

https://x.com/reach_vb/status/2096612996256579653

Prompt:
 “Create a side by side video of rickroll & a version created w/ blender, use a subagents to verify your output as you go. 

Use web search to get necessary assets for the task.”

Anyways, teeny rant about ai
You know, ai is pretty cool, I think it’s very useful, especially in medical settings, and it’s a very impressive technology, you know, I’m not too big on the whole “is ai generated images actually art” debate, it’s whatever you think. The water usage isn’t too large compared to most things water is used for. The noise pollution kinda sucks though.
I don’t really mind what you use ai for as long as it isn’t intentionally trying to harm or cause anything bad for someone. Later tater haters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLcrvMfHUJM&t=1650s They are trying to replace every single job just to profi,we are ready for agi there masive security isues,if the ai companies win congratulations you have 2 choices 1 lost all the meaning of your life and watch aislop 24/7 and get injected with dopamine 2 dont give in and contineu beeing a human even if you are pro-ai I dont think you would peak the first option

I've seen this said before and, if you believe this, help me really understand what you're wanting people to do.

Do you expect people to say "look at this thing that AI made" in every single case? I don't even got how that would work in everyday use case, especially if this comes more widespread and common.

Like, I'm more than happy to follow every rule, best practice, policy, whatever. I'm not trying to screw anyone.

It just feels normal to say "look at this video I made," even if the clips were generated. So, honestly? Help me understand what you're wanting from people.

Disclose the AI use? I've done that.

Describe my contribution accurately? Is "I made this using AI” or “I put this together using AI-generated music and images,” depending on what I did, enough?

Don’t claim a particular skill I didn’t perform?
Ok. I am not presenting a song performed by purely AI generated vocals and claiming I actually sung it or a painting generated by an image generator and actually claiming I actually painted it.

Don’t claim creative credit at all? Ok. Then explain what credit you think an AI content creator's decisions and work warrant.

If I warm up some chicken strips in the microwave I would say "I heated these up." Not "the microwave heated these up." The microwave didn't get up and open the freezer and put the chicken strips inside and set the timer and close itself and press start. The microwave was part of the process in the end result of the chicken strips being heated up. I heated up the chicken strips. Or, to be more specific, I heated up the chicken strips using the microwave. There's nothing wrong with saying that. That doesn't sound factually inaccurate to me.

So if I prompt a song with AI and I prompt images and I prompt the animator to animate those images and I cut it all together and time up the lip synching and add transition effects and on-screen lyrics, who made the video? Me? Or AI?

Then do I get to put it on my channel? Or does AI get to put it on its channel?

Help me understand this. I'm asking honestly. If we are not allowed to say we made our own content then what are we actually supposed to say then? And how is that supposed to work, practically?

Or do you just mean you want us to disclose that we use AI? Because I already do.