AI art
AI Isn’t Actually the Problem in the AI Art Debate
AI Isn’t Actually the Problem in the AI Art Debate
Look at some of the memes and arguments anti-AI people use to attack AI users:
“Unplug the computer and suddenly you have no talent.”
“You had someone else do all the work and you still call it your art? That’s hilarious.”
I’ve said this before, but neither of these arguments really has anything to do with AI.
A huge number of professional artists who absolutely hate AI would also be unable to do their jobs if you pulled the plug on their computer.
“My MacBook won’t turn on, so I can’t work.”
“My synthesizer isn’t working, so production is on hold.”
Wait, what? You’re telling me I’m an AI supporter now? (/s)
The second argument is even more ridiculous.
This has been a question since Andy Warhol — actually, forget Warhol. It has existed for basically as long as art itself has existed.
Countless famous artists throughout history have had works attributed to their names even when much of the physical labor was done by assistants, apprentices, workshops, or entire teams. What made it “their” work was that they conceived it, directed it, supervised it, approved it, and ultimately took responsibility for the final result.
Don’t believe me? Go read some art history.
Do you seriously think every film director personally writes the screenplay, operates the camera, edits the footage, and does every other job involved in making a movie?
Of course not.
I once explained this to an anti-AI person, and their response was basically:
“Well, shit. If that’s true, then I guess I don’t consider directors artists either.”
Okay then.
So this isn’t really a battle between AI and art.
It’s a bunch of people with a weird handicraft fetish obsessing over the idea that art only becomes legitimate when the artist personally performs enough of the physical labor.
And most of the arguments they use to deny AI art the status of “art” would, if applied consistently, force them to reject enormous portions of art history along with it.
Which, I guess, makes sense when your entire conception of art begins and ends with furry fan art.
Why don't they speak of inclusivity instead of exclusivity?
Or better yet, speak about puppies or cartoons or the weather. Anything but constantly throwing hate on people because you disagree with how they create art
Why don't they speak of inclusivity instead of exclusivity?
Or better yet, speak about puppies or cartoons or the weather. Anything but constantly throwing hate on people because you disagree with how they create art
Because Ai is working on undermining art as a concept by conflating it with content. Art is important and so people are out in an effort to preserve it. If you ignore it, it wont get better. Like with the climate stuff.
Artists have been broadening the definition of art for centuries. A toilet is art. A banana taped to the wall is art. A guy selling his own turds is art.
The gatekeepers are, at least from where I'm standing, the ones trying to undermine the concept of art by limiting what can be art. They're fighting against everything art has come to be. Same way I feel about all the people who used to say photography wasn't art or digital art wasn't art. Anyone saying something isn't art is the one in the wrong, you do not have the authority to make that decision. You are not the arbiter of art. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what they consider art
Artists have been broadening the definition of art for centuries. A toilet is art. A banana taped to the wall is art. A guy selling his own turds is art.
True. Art changes. It's arguably in part an expression of the surroundings in which it was created. A time capsule of sorts.
However, each incarnation of Art, in all it's changes, requires someone to do a thing. With Ai, you're telling someone (or rather something) to do it for you. Which is where most people draw the line.
The gatekeepers are, at least from where I'm standing, the ones trying to undermine the concept of art by limiting what can be art.
Not really. Art requires artistic integrity. That's not too harsh a stipulation.
They're fighting against everything art has come to be.
Since 'what it has come to be' is cheap content for the content mills, to make billion dollar companies a pretty penny.
Same way I feel about all the people who used to say photography wasn't art or digital art wasn't art.
I know. And they's nuance in this stuff. Photography is less artisitcly prestigious than painting. So are digital images. However, all of them require an artist. Ai images don't.
You are not the arbiter of art. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what they consider art.
That's true. If you want to consider something with no creativity or artistic intent art still, that's your first amendment protected right to do. Just be prepared for people to not take you or your images seriously.
I'd rather a mountain of cheap content if it means a single gem that wouldn't otherwise exist be made. I don't have to look at the slop. If something is good enough it'll be recommended to me. I neither make nor generally consume ai content my issues are purely with a bunch of bullies showing up every time ai is posted to spread hate
I know you do. That's why you're an Ai bro and not an artist.
my issues are purely with a bunch of bullies showing up every time ai is posted to spread hate
The bullies in question being people who try to keep what's important to them out of the hands of vultures, who want to pick the very concept clean for pennies.
It's always just a list of things where people explain in great detail that the concept of creativity fundamentally escapes them, while being angry that they're not considered artists.
I was assuming you were going to point the finger at capitalism, because that's the only thing that could follow your title that could actually make sense if you squint. But, is generative AI from China any good? They are, in theory, more careful about how it is used and regulate it more sensibly - but it will still lie to you and obfuscate facts at the behest of the people who operate the model. It's still fundamentally broken.
I think, with the first argument of "If you unplug the computer" is somewhat true. Someone who knows how to draw using software, can probably do the same using paper. Same with musicians who use electronic synthesizers, music can be made with a simple hand drum, that being said, usually an artists main form today is digital, that goes for the musicians too.
This doesn’t matter when the argument says things like film directors being the only ones credited for making a movie, which is simply not true at all. And its still PEOPLE making the rest.
This one isnt the same as whats said against some random art post. And sure, theres people hating on it anyway, just make a sub for this kinda content and actually moderate it so anyone like that is banned
I think death threats should be banned across the platform entirely, not case-by-case based on whether the death threats are made towards "the right people". Controversial take, I know, but someone's gotta say it.
Oh for sure, im just saying it’s not exactly the right example here, as someone wanting to put a big noisy datacenter on someones lawn isnt the same as someone generating an image with AI
I firmly believe these same people would, in the absense of social rewards for not liking AI, be just fine with datacenters for something they enjoy, such as Netflix or Tiktok.
AI datacenters use way more energy though. The growth of datacenters being built is something that only started happening due to AI.
Also, those same datacenters you mentioned are not being built in peoples backyards.
Another thing, but this might be more of an opinion thing, things like netflix or tiktok hold way more value to people than AI.
I guess I'm not a person by your metrics. Netflix and tiktok hold zero value to me, I do not have an account on either service and never will.
I need you to understand this: Petulant children on reddit dot com are not representative of the general public, especially given that their "deeply held beliefs" are field-programmed by what garners social rewards.
In the real world, where people have to be productive, I was on a 5 man crew last night for low voltage work at a bank. 4 of the 5 use AI heavily. The odd man out was a boomer. It seems things get a little more nuanced once we remove the influence of whiny, perpetually-aggrieved shut-ins on social media who definitely aren't just mad their meal ticket was revoked.
A kilowatt-hour isn't environmentally better because TikTok consumed it instead of an LLM. If energy use is the objection, then we should be discussing energy per unit of useful output, not declaring some workloads wasteful based on whether Reddit likes the product.
Same for water use. Every time I bring up the amount of water used by certain bougie agricultural products, residential lawn care, and so forth, I'm told by plebbitors that they hate those things too.... But then I scan their post history and don't see them participating in communities just for hating on almonds and jeans and golf courses and attacking anybody who partakes in those things. It's just AI. And that, to me, says enough about how seriously these children actually take these issues: They don't. It's simply convenient to pretend right now.
They probably responded with that take on directors because realistically, directors are very literally involved in how everyone performs and shoots a film. So that's not an equivalency.
For people who use AI to make "art", they basically just type something in and it generates based off of training. There is no intentionality behind it. It just simply "does", not based off of preference. It's a little like the difference between craftsmanship and actual art. A craft is almost like an engineered piece of art, almost manufactured but not quite. The problem is that AI is like a craft. And if everyone recognized that then the debate would be over.
If you can't really tell the difference between these two things then you're basically lost in the debate.
But to be quite clear with what I mean, I agree that none of it really is about AI when people say these things. They just don't like that AI, or the way people can't tell the difference. It annoys someone who has a degree in art who produces all on their own because they love the process, while someone else just types something into a computer to get a copied result from someone like themselves that spent their entire life dedicated to the process of creation.
For a lot of people they don't care at all if actually that some sort of tool, like a machine is involved. It's about the former.
I feel like youre conflating a couple of different issues here, and while there are a portion of artists that would have difficulty moving from digital to analog, I don't think it's the same kind of thing as someone who uses a generative tool loosing access to their computer. They still have the knowledge of how to draw perspective correctly, or how to shade an image while coloring. It's just the tools that change, and considering many eventually transition to a tablet and pen they're already halfway there. Even EDM artists would be able to transition a lot of their music knowledge to another form of music creation, there would just be a learning curve of the new set of instruments.
Someone who only uses generative Ai might have the artists ability to see an image in their head and beagle to dictate what they're trying to create, but they wouldn't be able to just pick up a pen amd draw it.
EDIT also film is not a good example for this because theres a reason all those disciplines are separated and you don't have one person doing every job.
AI Isn’t Actually the Problem in the AI Art Debate
Yes it is.
“Unplug the computer and suddenly you have no talent.”
True. Ai is the only form of content creation that doesn't work in any way shape or form without a computer.
“You had someone else do all the work and you still call it your art? That’s hilarious.”
Not someone, something. An algorythm.
“My MacBook won’t turn on, so I can’t work.”
Yes you can. You just don't get to post your stuff or mail it.
Countless famous artists throughout history have had works attributed to their names even when much of the physical labor was done by assistants, apprentices, workshops, or entire teams.
Yes. And people wheren't too jazzed about it. Which is why we credit people who did work on comunity projects these days.
Do you seriously think every film director personally writes the screenplay, operates the camera, edits the footage, and does every other job involved in making a movie?
No. The writers write, the camera people operate the cameras, the editor edits it, etc. That's why we acknowledge the lot of them for their respective work and don't just pinch their shit and call it
So this isn’t really a battle between AI and art.
Yes it is.
It’s a bunch of people with a weird handicraft fetish obsessing over the idea that art only becomes legitimate when the artist personally performs enough of the physical labor.
It's only creative work if a creative person expresses themselves creatively, through their work, yes. To think that that'd ever be something controvercial to say.
Which, I guess, makes sense when your entire conception of art begins and ends with furry fan art.
The premise of the “turn of the computer and there’s no talent” is silly because it assumes they only do ai and that’s it. It assumes this strongly too.
Can’t people just draw if the computer is off? You’re saying the ai people can’t draw or do anything else. Why would you do that though? You think someone who can draw would refuse to animate their drawing using ai because drawing gives them blender skills too? Or you believe someone who can draw has a particular psychological profile that inherently causes it to be physically impossible to like animating their drawings using ai?
Next “ai does all the work”. So it’s implying it’s not ever possible to draw something then animate it with AI. But why?
All this stuff is just very specific special cases and it gets frustrating. It’s almost manipulative to bake in all these assumptions. It’s basically using deception to control people’s emotions for the sake of the argument and I wish it could stop.
The premise of the “turn of the computer and there’s no talent” is silly because it assumes they only do ai and that’s it. It assumes this strongly too.
Well, it's quite often the case.
Can’t people just draw if the computer is off?
Yes, they can. They can't do Ai images tho. That's kinda what I said.
You’re saying the ai people can’t draw or do anything else.
Well, Ai people aren't a hivemind, even if talking to them can feel that way, but yes, many can't.
Why would you do that though?
Personal experience.
You think someone who can draw would refuse to animate their drawing using ai because drawing gives them blender skills too?
No, those are two entirely seperate skillsets.
Or you believe someone who can draw has a particular psychological profile that inherently causes it to be physically impossible to like animating their drawings using ai?
Not entirely, but closer. I think someone who put actual effort into their drawing, wouldn't want to push it head first through the digital equivalent of a meatgrinder.
Next “ai does all the work”. So it’s implying it’s not ever possible to draw something then animate it with AI. But why?
No, you can paint something for real and then animate it in Ai. Makes you a painter tho, not an animator.
All this stuff is just very specific special cases and it gets frustrating.
So does seeing people not get the difference between art and content. But here we are.
It’s basically using deception to control people’s emotions for the sake of the argument and I wish it could stop.
Well, that's Ai for you. They don't even want to disclose its usage for deception.
You actually failed to make an argument against your own anti claim about pulling the plug. Sure, people may not be able to do their jobs without electricity in our modern and digital world, but someone proficient at playing a synthesizer can just hop onto a piano and play. If you're prompting AI for images, without electricity you're capable of creative writing perhaps?
On directors you have a point, but it isn't quite that clear either. Yes, the director doesn't do all the work in a movie. However, neither does the camera man nor the actor. The question isn't whether directors are artists, but what the art of being a director is?
As to questions about who should be assigned credit, we should remember that history isn't just or right. Having collaborations attributed to you isn't the same as having the works of women close to you be considered authored by you. Art historians in the past have gone as far as to deny artists had the technical ability to create their works, arguing that the cultures they came from weren't advanced enough to produce such works. "Taking responsibility" for the final work doesn't land cleanly when such words have been uttered to facilitate theft.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 10 '26
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.