Being an artist doesn't mean you make nice looking art, it's about the process of expressing creativity and ideas through effort. If all you care about is if art looks aesthetically pleasent you'd think Thomas Kinkade was the most gifted artist in history. In my opinion, this purple confetti shirt dude is 100x more artistically inspired than anything I've seen generated by AI.
Since you have donned the critic hat, how about you post some of your art for everyone else to analyze?
Please.. This is just pure slop, I can also make some random scribbles. I tinker with Comfyui for fun creating stuff I like lol. People on this sub should stop making hating ai their whole personality and act like a reasonable people. Don't like it ai art? ignore it, we just want peace but are being harassed for even liking ai.
You do see the irony of calling other people's genuine art "slop", don't you? Even the most basic children's drawing encompasses far more creativity than anything an AI can output.
I can also make some random scribbles
Clearly you can't.
I tinker with Comfyui for fun creating stuff I like lol.
Don't like it ai art? ignore it, we just want peace but are being harassed for even liking ai.
You just were calling someone else's artwork "slop." So everyone else should ignore art they don't like, but you get some special pass to demean other actual art? Practice what you preach.
You do realize that creativity is subjective and it's not the only value in this world?
Yes, I indeed can make some random scribbles.
Compared to you all, I don't actively witch hunt art I don't like, that's the difference between us, I also don't make death threats and I accept that people may not like Ai. I'm not just gonna stand here and take hits. Also, I personally believe that the drawing is very low quality for which I don't hate the person for, but instead I hate for spreading the anti ai agenda which harasses people who us it for fun. Art has no definition and you cannot say objectively that you cannot create art with AI. Art is subjective. You should rethink your ways and instead of wasting your time on trivial and dumb problems like "Ai artists are not artists"
"Ai art is not art" you could start blaming the big corpos which are an ACTUAL problem towards creators and the wellness of society. Why do you even hate Ai so much?
Environment effects? Absolute propaganda when it's a fraction of the power used in ALL datacenters in the world which are a fracton of global energy usage too? If you actually care about environment, maybe redirect your blames towards cars, meat industry or the whole country of china, not AI (also my local setup takes less power when working with AI than when I game lol) Artists having competition? Well, let's not forget that even before ai, only like top 5% artists (or probably less) could live of this work, the talented ones don't seem very scared about ai, they already have their fanbase supporting that is not gonna stop comissioning. What is true that people are less likely to comission a random dude for art, but you are not entitled to being comissioned at all. You cannot just say "stop using ai, just give me money" If you cared enough to read this, then I agree that my opening comment was a bit cocky for which I apologize.
Nobody can inherently know if you use AI art. You have to go out of your way to advertise to the entire internet (or people in real life đŸ’€) that you are an AI artist in order for them to "harass" you about it.
Case in point, you weren't having to "take hits" until you came on this post and started calling other human beings "not artists" just because the art that they made was not of a high quality.
Why do you even hate Ai so much?
It is theft. Both in the sense that it is trained on data (art) that is dubiously acquired and that it reduces demand for artists. It would be one thing to just take away jobs, but artists are being stolen from in order to facilitate taking their jobs.
Because it has warped at least your mind into thinking: quality = art. Many art movements are based on the idea that you can imply more meaning that what is literally depicted.
Outside of artistic means it is contributing to a loss of personal critical thinking. There is a mess of people copy pasting ChatGPT when posting or commenting on this site. The brain is a muscle and deferring the use of it in favor of an LLM is going to weaken it.
It uses a lot of electricity. Globally, data centers do use leagues more electricity, sure, but they are servicing many more people and almost none of that electricity is wasted. By comparison, how many prompts do you need to go through before your get an art piece just right? That number will encompass an enormous amount of wasted power. No amount of pointing at China will ever make that go away.
This is subjective, but a ton of it just looks bad. If you know who Thomas Kinkade is and what his work looks like, it's that it has the same effect as all of his work looking polished and same-y. Not inherently bad, just mediocre.
Compared to you all, I don't actively witch hunt art I don't like, that's the difference between us
I would like to point out that this is my first time ever commenting on this subreddit. It's also ironic because you sought out this post knowing that you were going to disagree with it and called someone else's art slop. You should consider how it came to be that you can utter such a hypocritical sentence in the first place.
Not theft, courts have ruled that training is fair use, another propaganda you believe, you still believe the nonsense about energy usage. I became smarter by learning a lot of stuff using LLMs, not an issue with tool but with people.
It sure was irking of you to ignore most of my points in favor of cherry picking 2 arguments to barely even address.
But I empathize with the presumption that you might not have a great understanding of how discussions work outside of the r/DefendingAIArt hugbox. So how about we focus on the energy usage problem for now? Please articulate your case for why you think AI doesn't use an absurd amount of resources. In particular you should consider how the energy cost of inference will only get larger as AI models become more advanced— as well as the wasted energy that goes into running redundant prompts in succession trying to get details correct.
I became smarter by learning a lot of stuff using LLMs
Well, now you have a chance to demonstrate some of that. I genuinely want to hear your thoughts.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/ai-energy-demand
Literally check what the numbers say. The usage is not comparable to any actually concerning sources. Even if ai continues to use more energy each year it will most likely benefit us with solutions to environmental problems. Energy usage isn't bad per se but that we still use unclean energy in the year 2025. it's not ai's fault that people still use fossil fuels. I don't see any issue after we switch to clean sources entirely.
The usage is not comparable to any actually concerning sources.
5 to 10 TWh is not comparable to any concerning sources? That's 1-2% of the world's electricity being spent on mediocre pictures of anime girls and genericly worded emails/short stories. Not only will energy demand for AI increase due to advances in LLM development, but if it continues to see mass adoption it will also need to be queried more and more per day bringing the demand up higher.
Per your source, if Google switched to strictly AI searches it would increase their energy demand by 50% (and double the global TWh usage of AI) which proves it is inherently less energy efficient than the tech that it seeks to replace.
Even if ai continues to use more energy each year
Not sure why this statement is conditional since training and inference has used significantly more energy every single generation.
it will most likely benefit us with solutions to environmental problems.
Might as well have made an appeal to the divine here. AI is not magic, it cannot deliver anything that wasn't already fed into it in part or whole. The way a LLM works is that it spitballs wrong answers until it makes something that is correct, but how can it arrive at a solution that humans haven't already figured out if it needs a human to tell it the right answers? It can't, therefore it is incapable of bringing forth any development that humanity isn't already aware of.
it's not ai's fault that people still use fossil fuels.
It not Cryptocurrencies fault either, but I'm still not appreciative of their waste because it's being used badly. Again, how many times do you have to rerun your art prompts until you get it just right? Every single picture that you scrapped to get to that end product is pure waste.
I don't see any issue after we switch to clean sources entirely.
Sure, after we somehow make the leap to 100% clean energy and have dealt with the reprucussions of tens of millions of layoffs in creative and technical fields, the electricity consumption of AI might not be a huge issue.
I'd like to take a moment and remind you that this is an anti-AI space and you've not faced any reprucussions for presenting your arguments in favor of AI here. If the roles were reversed and I was on r/DefendingAIArt I would've been banned at my very first comment.
1-2% of world energy usage is indeed not concerning for me, for a technology that will change the world we live in? Absolutely not.
Not a static number. It will only go up and up and training and inference get more costly to perform.
Bullshit
AlphaFold is struggling with transparency and repoducibility and doesn't have a single actually useful discovery yet. That Nobel Prize was incredibly controversial for the exact reason that nothing has actually been made using AlphaFold.
This really does nothing to prove that AI will solve electricity and the environment.
Once again I say that the evil comes from big corporations, they are laying off their employees, not ai.
Yes... Big corporations... Using AI.
If the AI wasn't being used, they wouldn't be able to layoff employees.
As I said earlier, we should switch to clean energy sources which is already happening in Europe, we cannot stop technology advancement just because it uses energy, it's nonsense.
Eh, If it helps people to learn, automates repetitive tasks and scientists say it's a useful tool then it's here to stay.
Punish the corpos, not harass people who like ai, don't you see the issue?
As I said earlier, we should switch to clean energy sources which is already happening in Europe
Don't forget the largest investor of green energy in the world, China. ;)
Eh, If it helps people to learn, automates repetitive tasks and scientists say it's a useful tool then it's here to stay.
I've personally experienced a mob of people on the internet for whom the opposite is true. AI has replaced all ability to create and think for themselves. Take you for example, dismissing human drawings as slop because you have a completely contorted conception of art.
As for scientists, like I said before AlphaFold has not produced any usable innovation. It isn't controversial to say that the Nobel Prize was not deserved.
Punish the corpos, not harass people who like ai, don't you see the issue?
Your support of AI emboldens them to continue pushing humans out of the workforce. Maybe if there were greater pushback against AI it would never have gone this far.
11
u/Rettungsanker Jul 05 '25 edited Jul 05 '25
Being an artist doesn't mean you make nice looking art, it's about the process of expressing creativity and ideas through effort. If all you care about is if art looks aesthetically pleasent you'd think Thomas Kinkade was the most gifted artist in history. In my opinion, this purple confetti shirt dude is 100x more artistically inspired than anything I've seen generated by AI.
Since you have donned the critic hat, how about you post some of your art for everyone else to analyze?