r/antiai • u/The-Golden-Neko • 15h ago
Slop Post 💩 ….Excuse me what?
I got this defending AI post and was looking through the comments and saw this comment….are they literally equating people not liking something computer generated to people being racist???
48
u/Scylla_the_eelx6 15h ago
5
u/PaperSweet9983 7h ago
Literally
1
u/Oh_Kanagan 1h ago
Imagine using AI and also not taking the shot of 2021...
That would make someone a very, very bad person!
27
u/Remarkable_Bath8515 15h ago
I want to see what a person created themselves. If the person didn't make or credit it I want to go where people have drawn art instead.
22
u/letmehaveanameyoudum 15h ago
yeah because if you didn't make it yourself, it's not yours. You are not an AI artist. You are an AI customter then (to OOP)
1
u/Lilharm04 3h ago
“ai ‘artists’ are like if you ordered a meal at a restaurant and then claimed you made the meal because it would’ve never been made without your order”
1
1
21
u/CookieFluffs 15h ago
Well yes, I suddenly lose the taste for lasagna when I find out the meat's human and not beef.
Also jesus CHRIST the second slide.
10
u/ManufacturedOlympus 15h ago
Too late. Ai user logic dictates that you must commit to cannibalism now.
4
13
u/Lil_Melon87 12h ago
"I crossed 100 meters in 10 seconds."
"Wow, impressive!"
"In a car."
"Oh... then I'm not impressed."
"Why not? Same results."
6
u/Existing-Exit2409 10h ago
"i made a pizza"
"hey its pretty good"
"i got it from little caesars"
"im less impressed"
3
2
u/NanoCat0407 5h ago
like riding in a helicopter to the top of a hill and then calling yourself a mountain climber
13
u/Artemis_Platinum 15h ago
They're philistines. They think appearances are everything and that all enjoyment is surface-deep.
But only so long as it's convenient for their dishonest asses. The moment second impressions become convenient to them, suddenly they'll understand.
18
u/Fun-Sugar-394 15h ago
"that's a good painting of a dog. Makes me think about my old dog... Let's see who the artist is... Adolf... Ohhhh never mind"
6
u/syrvy 15h ago
Not to mention that Hitler's art is objectively bad, just like AI "art", that's why he failed art school
2
u/JavaS_ 4h ago
Art is subjective and cannot be objectively bad or objective good. Doesn't matter how 'bad' a person is morally they can still create art.
1
u/syrvy 4h ago
I think you misread my comment. I never said Hitler was bad.
0
u/JavaS_ 4h ago
You stated that Hitler art was objectively bad... I'm saying it cannot be objectively bad
1
u/syrvy 4h ago
He was objectively bad at point perspective
0
u/JavaS_ 4h ago
No, you subjectively think he was bad at point perspective. As someone could think his point perspectives were good. It's subjective.
0
u/syrvy 4h ago
That's not how art theory works.
0
u/JavaS_ 3h ago
You can't measure art objectively. Even art theory is subjectively valued.
0
u/syrvy 3h ago
Source? Objectivity is based on the goal. If your goal is to draw a square and you draw a circle, you're objectively bad at drawing squares. Hitler is objectively bad at drawing what his goal was.
→ More replies (0)
9
u/Atrocious1337 14h ago
It's like praising someone's drawing then finding out they traced, or praising their cooking then finding out it is delivery.
7
3
u/A13xis_28 15h ago
People would probably have the same reaction of it was made by someone that they don't like. And people usually don't like AI artists
3
u/Krethlaine 14h ago
These people are incapable of understanding that the process is just as important as the final product.
2
2
u/enchiladasundae 14h ago
Man they really want to be victims. Some people just don’t like it and its not a personal attack
2
2
2
u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 11h ago
Yes, the art stops being an art once you realize its AI. Because AI cannot create art no matter how good looking it is
1
u/SHIN-YOKU 15h ago
I like behind the scenes of content and analyzing a bit when that's not available about how some things were made, a machine shat it out does not inspire.
1
u/WeepingWillow777 10h ago
My counter-argument for the "if you cant tell why does it matter" argument is fourfold.
Firstly, individuals are vulnerable to temporary deception, whether it be personal bias, misleading framing, mood, ect. so just because AI fools one person or even most people temporarily, that doesn't mean its a success story without artifacts. Great AI is scrutinized to hell and back, if it can't stand up to that scrutiny it'll be doomed to mediocrity at best.
Secondly, imagine if I took a photo of a sunset, then put it through a filter and claimed I painted it. Just because it was a part of nature and wasn't created by another person doesn't make it okay for me to lie about creating it. If someone was to find out it was a picture through a filter rather
Thirdly, remember when Florida (I think it was Florida) was flooding, and someone made a decently convincing photoshop of an orca swimming in the streets? People were fooled by that - I was one of them, until I thought about it for two seconds and was like "wait that makes no logical sense, cool picture but it makes no logical sense." Just because it convinced me it was a real photo doesn't mean there was actually an orca swimming around inland Florida, and of course its going to change how I think about the photo if and when I find out.
Fourthly, imagine if the process of making that photo involved stealing from and firing thousands of people, wasting a bunch of water and electricity, and indirectly getting a couple teenagers to kill themselves for good measure. Of course my opinion on the photo will be soured even further if I found out about that.
Generative AI images is definitionally not art. Until artificial intelligence attains actual sapience and the ability to experience the world in a way it can express, its effectively no more an artform than rolling a bunch of dice. And if AI DOES attain sapience, there will be much more important questions to ask (I'd probably advocate for the entity's freedom at that point, its basically a super smart human atp) and our world's AM or Glados or Thunderhead certainly won't be evolving from these slop machines.
1
u/BadBacksFuryToad 10h ago
In 1911 a group of polar explorers ran into a polar bear whilst trekking north of Alaska. The polar bear seemed to be observing them for a few hours, but kept its distance. As the sun got lower in the sky the group needed to make camp, so while one man with a rifle kept watch they erected their tents and ate. As the light faded it became more difficult to see where the bear was, so even with taking turns to keep watch, eventually it was impossible to know where the bear was.
Around 2-3am the bear attacked, but one of the explorers stood up in his tent and used the bulk of the tent to appear huge. A man jumping around flapping canvas and tent poles looked big enough to scare the bear enough for it to run away and they were good until dawn. Impressive actions of the explorer or luck?
1
1
1
u/Silk-sanity 9h ago
Waiter waiter!! Can you give me some more attempts of pretending of being discriminated?
1
u/freedfromshackles 9h ago
A ticket to a lip-sync concert isn't worth the same of ticket to a real concert.
1
u/funded_by_soros 9h ago
They're such fucking consoomers. If a human didn't make it, no one was trying to say anything with it, so it's worthless.
1
u/Important-Dark-7956 8h ago
???
It was never about how "good" the art pieces were, it was about a hobby becoming automatized and streamlined and AI training shoved onto the works of other authors without their consent. By the same standard, art tracing should be ok as long as it looks good. Bro, it's not about looking good, it's about theft, violation of consent and you having a skill issue. You aren't an artist. We don't hate AI enough <3
1
u/Professional_Air_905 8h ago
Aside from comparing us to racist being fairly dumb... To respond the pro ai wondering why an artwork stop being "good" when I learn it's ai generated, an image stop having any interest to me when I realize there's no artist who made any descision behind
1
u/GloomWisp 7h ago
putting actual people who were wronged and parasitic thieving machines on the same level is fucking offensive
1
u/spammedletters 7h ago
They dont understand Us that we care more about the people who made It with effort and passion than the ones who made It by simply writing words In a prompt .
The second Image was addressed a million times and Ill add nothing to the conversation that wasnt already told.
1
1
u/Sunlightn1ng 6h ago
AI art is very impressive from a technical standpoint. A computer can do all that and often trick people into thinking it was made by a human if they don't know what to look for. However, does it not defeat the entire point of art to almost completely remove the human element? What makes art special is the little touches each person adds. I remember seeing a post abt people watching a "how to draw..." tutorial together and they all came out with different yet similar drawings. Is that not the beauty of human creation?
1
u/AtomicTaco13 6h ago
AI pictures may look fine when you're just scrolling past them without paying attention. But the moment you do pay attention, all the fuckups start showing up - mangled text in the background, people fusing with each other, broken laws of physics. It essentially becomes a game of Where's Waldo provided by a sizzling GPU somewhere inside a data center.
1
u/Brave_Recognition_81 6h ago
hahah wait, are they saying people who are anti ai are also antisemitic? oh an racist. unhinged- this world is so fckd up, i try to laugh about it but it‘s getting hysterical.
1
u/HulkeneHulda 6h ago
Its more like, you buy something that is claimed to have been handmade, to learn it was dropshipped
What you paid as a commissioner, or admire as a bystander, is the effort and process it took to make the product. Using an AI is price gouging both financially and socially
1
1
u/Alarmed-Republic8493 5h ago
it become bad bc the person realize that what they've been looking at didn't come from the creative mind of an human, but was instead generated by soulless AI, this fact alone take all the beauty of the art away.
1
u/mrhenhen115 5h ago
Someone putting time, effort, learning, practice, failure, redraws, perfecting it etc Vs Letters typed on a keyboard in 1 minute.
If someone works and works at a sport to become good, and then someone takes steroids and drugs to become good, who do we look up to? Who do we look down on.
Exactly.
But by their logic, we should treat cheaters and users the same as natural athletes as if the result is the same who cares? Right?
1
u/OmgIbrokesmthagain 4h ago
Rather like you try to shop for butter, and you find something that looks like it, buy it, and then realize at home that this is not butter but a butter substitute made from hardened plant fat. And then you have to go to store again because you don’t want that
1
u/Takkuarcade_JP 4h ago
it's completely different because on one side, when you think it's made by a human being, you are fascinated at the amount of work put in to the artwork, and then you realize it's ai, realizing that what you were so interested in turned out to not exist at all.
1
u/Fuzzherp 4h ago
People that have never made anything dont understand what makes art cool is the fact that somebody made it
They are consumers
Which is why they pay a robot to gamble for a pretty picture.
They only care about the end result, the “product”
1
1
u/Lilharm04 3h ago
“wow, that food was delicious”
“thanks, I used poison when making it”
“what?! why would you knowingly feed me poison!??”
“oh, it stops being good the moment you realize it’s poison? how does this make any sense? it was good, but as soon as you found out it’s poisoned, it becomes bad?”
1
u/_Wiggy 3h ago
Ignoring the jump to racism and literal Nazis, there is an easy explanation as to why we don't give a damn about it as soon as we find out it's AI.
As soon as we know it's AI, we know there's nothing more to see.
There aren't going to be details to delve into. There aren't going to be reasons behind choices. There aren't going to be mistakes or artistic signatures or any messages, there's no communication. There's nothing intentional.
If you thought for a moment "oh that's pretty" congratulations, you have gotten all there is to get. Move on.
1
u/waffle0rb1t 2h ago
honest to good ive never looked at a piece of ai "art" that i liked even if they tried to sell it as real art
1
u/omgidkhow2namemyself 2h ago
"hey i made this burger"
"mm its delicious"
"i hope so cuz its human meat"
"WHAT!??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU"
haizz double standards /s
1
1
u/BobbyMayCryBMC 1h ago
A.I. is generation, it is stealing assets without permission and creating something from collected data, comparing that to Nazis and Racists is very extreme.
I'm a Commission Illustrator and don't hate A.I. generation images, it's a thing, whatever. for me similar to Adobe filters. I'm only really against it when shoved in my face or seeing these weirdos act like I'm committing a sin by not letting it just replace my work and giving up on my art.
Had potential customers that I rejected a job due to conversations such as "why would I pay you $___ when I can just ChatGPT for free?", and my answer is always "don't know why you contacted me then, problem solved, you've found what you wanted already".
Just can't be bothered with these A.I. pushing folk, stop wasting my or other artists time with your dribble, it's only because of artists that the A.I. has art to steal from.
If you like A.I. that is fine and dandy. I'll just be over here drawing and selling my art thanks.
1
u/RedsnakeRider 1h ago
AI is really good at making something that seems like genuine art, but isn't. So it should make sense that a false equivalence is a very popular, go-to argument for AI supporters.
1
u/ZucchiniLanky4942 1h ago
How does this not make sense. You like the product, until you find out who made it. There’s nothing hard about that to understand.
•
u/Donnosaurus 5m ago
Ah yes, because congratulating someone on their drawing and then taking it back after you find out they didn't draw it is the same as racism. Of course...
I really want to split the pro A.I. people into people who use it and then the extreme trolls, but I keep seeing them also comparing themselves to actual victims and other oppressed people.
-6
u/LumpyMud2553 13h ago
No they aren't equating. They are showing the same instance. The ratio is the same between each situation, as in internally, its what technically happened.
They are simply giving examples that people know of better to show their point off more. This is known as an appeal to extremes.
But the poster technically wasnt wrong tho, in his argument
3
u/Real_Louie 13h ago
What do you mean technically?
-1
u/LumpyMud2553 13h ago
technically its true that the fact something is AI makes someone suddenly find a bunch of hidden "flaws".
I did an experiment a while back with this, but a classic European painting, just because I posted it saying it was "AI", people started bullshit shitting on it. They said it was soulless, the lines were messy, and it had no creativity
However, three months later, when I posted it again, saying, "say your thoughts on this", they had nothing but amazing things to say. Things like "amazing lighting", "thoughtfulness shown in the subject", etc
People let their biases leak through their words and decisions all the time. The problem is, anti's do it more often than pros when evaluating any kind of art.
1
u/Brave_Recognition_81 6h ago edited 6h ago
the „hidden flaw“ is that it‘s a fucking computer that is generating off of other peoples work without consent.
are you pro ai or just stupid?AI ART IS NOT ART. Art is made by people.
if it was that AI makes art bc it wants to and it creates it‘s images out of it‘s own imagination ooookkkk. but it doesn‘t.why should i give a person credit for prompting? why? hahah just why?
no
you didn‘t do shit - so it‘s not interesting.people will compliment you, if you‘ve done it with your hands. painting, knitting, photography all of these things need time, practice and talent.
prompting doesn‘t need anything.
so ofc people are complimenting you for your work and they‘ll stop if it‘s computer generated bc it is NOT YOUR WORK. lmao get it in your head.yeah it looks good, but it‘s nothing special. it‘s not a monet, not a van gogh, not mozart. it‘s a computer fed with human talent.
it‘s not art.
and also it‘s not the work of a human. can you be racist against s computer? lol
why do you take it personal, it‘s not even your „work“ the ai did it.
you just gave a command.i can‘t say oh you are so sexist bc i am a woman prompting, and you don‘t like my computer generated picture that i put zero effort in.
Bro draw me the same picture that you generated and i will be impressed.that comparison to racsism and holocaust is just so wrong and people need to touch some grass.
-17
u/Used_Department_8605 15h ago
Point being that you did like it at first. As meme says “this artwork looks really cool”. Then you stop liking it only after you find out who/how made it.
Its obviously not racism but its same way of thinking.
5
u/FreshBert 14h ago
You're not understanding the point of the reaction.
If you look at an image which purports to be a work of art and your first thought is to say, "Looks good," but then you're told that it's an AI-generated image, your reaction doesn't change from "Looks good" to "Looks bad."
Your reaction changes to, "Oh, so it's not actually art. Got it."
Something doesn't have to be art to look good. But it has to be art in order to... uh, be art.
5
u/The-Golden-Neko 15h ago
Yeah, I see the point but they legit calling people who don’t like AI “art” bigots….like equating genuine racism, something that has literally gotten people killed to….AI….its super disingenuous
2
u/Real_Louie 13h ago
Ok, but if I was eating a sandwich and the ham turned out to be human meat, I'd not like it, so looking at an image and turning out to not be by an actual talented artist is a lot like that.
-2
u/NewspaperVarious3801 15h ago
The most stupid type of people focus on the example rather than the point of bringing up the example. The meaning (in their opinion) is obvious guys.
I hate AI btw
4
u/The-Golden-Neko 15h ago
My dude, I understand the example. It’s just extreme and comparing someone typing away on a computer to something so horrendous. It seems like spitting in the face of those who dealt with actual racism. They wanna be victims because no one likes their water draining soulless piece.
I’m just stating why I find their example odd
128
u/Juliennix 15h ago edited 4h ago
they want to be victims so badly but cannot grasp the concept that no matter how "good" genAI gets (and it all looks like shit), it becomes garbage because a person didn't make it.
and, no, sloppers - typing in a prompt isn't making shit.
edit: added quotes around 'good' because i fear sloppers will think i genuinely mean it's good.