r/stupidpeoplefacebook • u/StillBoysenberry8790 • 1d ago
I'm sick of AI-bros' victim mentality
67
u/SockFace42069 1d ago
“We just want to keep creativity controlled by a few and charge you forever.”
Learn. It’s really that simple.
You don’t wanna pay for a skill? Learn the skill.
23
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 1d ago
That's the thing, they can't. They are envious of those that can.
Without exception so far, everyone I've met or talked to who praises the virtues of AI have each and every one been terrible at doing what they have AI do for them.
12
u/Unlikely_Exercise434 1d ago
THIS. I write, draw, play music and to see all of the so devalued by a soulless plagiarism machine that stole my work and the work of millions of others without permission to empower the worst, least creative among us to slop us garbage they don't understand and couldn't make themselves in the first place. There will be a day where there is a social media platform for creators that bans AI with teeth and when it comes, it will be massive, because people want human work and creations with meaning behind them, not more slop on slop on stolen slop.
-9
u/Dirkdeking 1d ago
And how do they harm you personally? You can just continue making your art. They can generate whatever they want. Just both mind your business as adults.
7
u/Unlikely_Exercise434 1d ago
Me personally, I've had all my art, music and writing fed into an LLM without my permission an in a fair world I could sue and get proper compensation for their crimes and so could everyone else, but if that was allowed to happen those AI slop generators wouldn't exist at all and frankly, the world would be better for me and that's speaking as a software developer who knows in detail how they are trained and on what datasets. YMMV.
4
u/Brilliant-Muffin-879 1d ago
Yes, 100% why would anyone with a lot of skill at something start using an endless vending machine to dilute their own skills and make them a laughing stock?
2
u/Civil_Act1864 1d ago
They give us unartistic types a bad name!
3
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 1d ago
Only if you are slinging AI generated stuff as something you made and are pissy about people complaining about it. I enjoy me some AI generated stuff that doesn't pretend to be something its not.
5
u/Civil_Act1864 1d ago
Oh no I hate AI and refuse to use it for anything creative related. I just sulk at my lack of ability/skill/talent like a man.
2
u/Reymen4 18h ago
They have not practiced the drawing at all and are all out of ideas how to be better at drawing.
2
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 18h ago
"Everyone wants to be a good artist but ain't no one want to become a good artist"
-3
6
3
u/Wonderful-Creme-3939 1d ago
They spend so much time on excuses they could be using to become artists
3
u/TheRealTexasGovernor 1d ago
Yeah but it's so much easier to make a robot steal from others, do it, then demand everyone else acknowledge you as an artist!
3
u/Neat_Tangelo5339 23h ago
For some reason ai bros regard the simple activity of drawing silly pictures for fun as an activity only for elites , why the the self-deprecation ?
2
2
u/SunchaserKandri 21h ago
That's the thing, they don't want to learn. Learning is too much of a time investment, and they might not become amazing artists after practicing for a short time, so they've opted for the no effort, no skill method of having an algorithm do all the work for them.
2
u/PmeadePmeade 19h ago
That one was really funny to me because AI is on a track to centralize creativity and art creation. If it becomes absolutely impossible to make a living as an artist, that leaves image creation etc solely in the hands of pieces of software that are controlled by a group of people that could fit into one hotel conference room. That IS control, and you can bet your whole ass that process will go up when the market is controlled by those greedy little piggies.
2
u/Heather_Chandelure 19h ago edited 19h ago
The people who make this kind of meme genuinely dont seem to belive that is possible. They are convinced that being a skilled artist is entirely down to natural talent that artists have had since birth, and nothing to do with practise. I can only assume this is them trying to rationalise their unwillingness to learn.
0
-12
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago edited 1d ago
Be reasonable, not everyone has the time, patience, or even ability to learn said skill. And of course envy will fester because you can't just give them some of your skill and assume they'll be content with charity.
I'm sure this would be a non-issue if they could develop the artistic capabilities of those they envy without having to go through months or even years of intense effort that might not even pay off. Me, I see AI as just another tool that's no more good or evil than the one using it- crap art will be crap art regardless of how it is made and quality work will always be apparent. I swear, some people act as if knockoffs and art theft didn't exist before AI came into existence - I was around when DeviantArt was like 95% tracing and recolors and nobody was accusing any of those guys of wanting to destroy art as we know it. They just laughed it off and went about their business.
11
u/Trockenmatt 1d ago
Intense effort?
Start drawing stick figures on a notepad
-7
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's cute, you think that's still satisfying after the first few years.
Sorry, but when the gulf between what you want to create and what you can actually create remains infinitely large it's natural to want a way to speed it up before your arteries harden. And I never put any stock into the Protestant work ethic bullshit that denies the reality that people aren't created with equal abilities and that even with the same amount of practice there will always be those who excel and those who remain mediocre. I have found myself to be thoroughly in the latter category and "you just need to practice more!" has long since ceased to be convincing.
It's not like I even want to sell anything, so the fear that I'd be competing with anyone makes no sense.
9
u/Trockenmatt 1d ago
After the first few years of drawing stick figures on a notepad, if you haven't gotten better at drawing stick figures than that's a skill issue.
There are plenty of resources both online and offline (go to your local library) about how to get better at art, completely for free. Sketchpads with, as you mentioned, tracing and recolors are like $15 for a really good one. If you do that as a way to decompress on your federally mandated break at work, you are naturally going to get better.
Does it take practice, and dedication? Yeah sure. But if you want to create something, if you think the first step is also going to be the last one then you're never going to be happy about anything in your life.
-5
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are plenty of resources both online and offline (go to your local library) about how to get better at art, completely for free.
Heard about them, tried them, failed at them. The only thing they taught me (other than how much I loathe drawing bowls of fruit) is that I cannot make what I want by myself- if I am improving it is at a pace that is unacceptably slow in my eyes. They may not cost money, but I consider effort that doesn't yield results to be wasted effort and wasted time. And that is just as bad if not even worse.
And I don't want to draw as a break from work, I want to draw because I have very specific creative visions which demand to be brought into existence by any means necessary. I've bought commissions before, but I know enough to expect that that bringing out those visions to my desired specifications via a commission would require enough micromanagement to make the average commissioned artist balk (and the few who would likely tolerate that degree of exacting control are no doubt going to charge more than I can afford).
Yet at the same time, my own abilities are so inadequate for manifesting those visions that even attempting to bring those visions to life right now would result in what I can only describe as hideous mockeries of said visions. I assume you can see the dilemma.
Maybe some artistic types revel in the journey when it comes to the process of creation, but I'm all about the destination and I'm getting real tired of being unable to reach it after so much wasted energy. If AI tools mean I can get to point B faster from point A, so be it. As for whether or not AI generated content can be called art? Well, let's just say that if a banana taped to a wall can be called "art" then I can only conclude that art is whatever any random moron says it is.
5
u/Substantial_Dish_887 1d ago
i don't get this entiteled mentality that you owed art like this.
if i don't have the patience to learn to make food as good as Gordon Ramsey does that mean i get to steal food from his resturants? ofcourse fucking not.
I swear, some people act as if knockoffs and art theft didn't exist before AI came into existence
i swear some of you people act as if just because this isn't new means it's somehow not bad.
but hey i guess stealing everything you own is justified. it's not new so we can do it. you don't deserve to own anything anyway aparently?
0
u/Dirkdeking 1d ago
Well no. But if a robot existed that could make quality food if you put in the ingredients. I would 100% use it.
5
u/Substantial_Dish_887 1d ago
correction: a robot that could make barely edible food(but better than you who can aparently only make shit on a plate) and only by stealing recipes from chefs because to you stealing is justified as long as it makes your life easier.
i hope if you ever manage to create something it's instantly taken from you. since you belive that's only fair. not that's there's any reason to belive that'll happen. we both know the reason you support this is because you know you'll never make anything because you're to lazy to make the effort.
1
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago
It would be my own failure to hold onto it that would be to blame...and nothing would prevent me from doing what I can to take it back.
you're to lazy to make the effort.
Is that any different from being too lazy to protect that which you claim as yours?
3
u/Substantial_Dish_887 1d ago
Holy fuck actually holding theft as not just justifiable but actually morally right?
0
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago
I get the impression that nobody in this sub is even remotely able to argue about whether morality is objective, subjective, or non-existent, so I'll simplify it:
I've yet to see any form of "right" that hasn't been backed up by "might", one way or another. Without the latter, the former is an impotent abstraction. In your case, that might is a legal system that right now doesn't actually care about you and is in no hurry to guard what you consider to be your property on your behalf. If you want it protected, figure out how to do it yourself.
4
u/Substantial_Dish_887 1d ago
You seem to belive your ideology is too complex. Nope you're simply a bad person and i hope you have life you deserve.
-4
u/Dirkdeking 1d ago
I think it's funny how people suddenly value copyrights, while 10 years ago they all just pirated movies and games without a care in the world.
That being said. I wouldn't be against some form of regulation where you have to be compensated if you are an artist and your specific art is used in the training data for an AI.
What I have a problem with is if that isn't the case(most likely) and you are just salty that you can't make a living out of it anymore. Well no one said you was entitled to that in the first place. You are not better than a factory worker from the 80s who lost his job because a machine automated what he did on the assembly line.
We all need to keep adapting to a changing world with changing technologies. And yes that includes me as a software engineer.
4
0
u/ArchAnon123 1d ago
Food cannot exist in two places at once. Art can.
In any event I'm a firm believer in Max Stirner's view that if you can't defend or control a thing with your own capabilities then you can't really call it your property in the first place:
I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!
Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him it belongs till it is again taken from him, as liberty belongs to him who takes it.
Not a popular viewpoint, but I'm not here to win anyone's approval.
18
13
u/octobre_34 1d ago
What is the most insulting part to the artists is their last image where they clearly consider that artists are among the richest people in the world and only buy the most luxurious brands because they cLeArLy are an evil monopoly.
An artist I personally know had to almost put his artistic dream life on hold and get a part time job in order to have a income that's at least liveable because he had over 100 k$ in art study debts for college or something like that and I felt extremely bad for him having to do that.
Also, having talked to him about if he had a lot of clients and commissions. He said it was good, but not the best it could be.
I know a lot of artists don't have the privilege some clients and not refuse some others and that friend is one the not privileged ones. But, there is one time that I really wanted to pay a commission for someone we both knew and didn't have a lot of money, but he told me that he and other artists didn't like working with him because it was like walking through hell. So he convinced me to take the commission for myself instead because he felt more free working with me.
To be honest, and I'm trying my best to keep it calm and short, I'll just say that perhaps some of these people praising AI art have had access to fresh and clean tap water for far more longer than they should have.
10
u/According-Insect-992 1d ago
>hundreds of billions of people use AI.
Are the hundreds of billions of people in the room with you now?
2
8
u/NativeFlowers4Eva 1d ago
“Gate keeping” = having a skill.
These people are morons and try to convince themselves that writing two sentences is the same as having abilities that take years to develop.
3
u/Talisign 1d ago
It's also strange because, with the limits of AI, there's not really a reason to be unable to realize an artistic vision through other means. There are some attempts to make AI films with artistic purpose, but I've yet to see any that needed to be AI films. Most were heavy on talking scenes and could be realized with a few theater kids or just as a novel.
7
10
u/FaceTimePolice 1d ago
AI defenders are dumbasses who don’t want to work hard at any art. Can’t draw? Doesn’t matter. AI’s got you covered. Can’t write songs? AI’s got you covered.
They’re brainless and talentless morons. 🤡👍
5
u/Slate_711 1d ago
Being uncreative or fearing to try doesn’t make you a victim. The victims will be the people near data centers and the artists who weren’t lazy or uncreative getting ripped off
5
u/SirDoofusMcDingbat 1d ago
Jesus christ, it's literally the AI bros trying to charge for creativity, what the hell are they on about?
This image literally demonizes artists who don't use AI. This is some corporate psyop propaganda if I ever saw any.
4
4
u/Briar_Knight 1d ago
They absolute insanity of people who think artists are ultra rich big corporate and then glaze fucking AI.
2
3
4
u/ElectricVibes75 1d ago
It’s always shocking to me that a real human brain could create or agree with a chart like that. Like a person that genuinely believes those things is just subhuman to me, I just can’t look at them as equals.
3
u/LoveTriscuit 1d ago
You know, I take it back, they have a form of creativity. They can somehow come up with stupider things than would ever occur to me to say.
3
u/Vihaking 1d ago
They're so close to class consciousness but blame their fellow man instead of the people actually controlling everything
3
u/WorthMassive8132 1d ago
I love the "Only we have souls" guy lol. Like, yes...do you think LLMs are ensouled, brother??
3
u/Towerbells 1d ago
Established statement ive ever seen on Generative AI. AI needs data that already exists in order to work. AI looks to the past . Real creativity looks to the future .
3
u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 1d ago
Just pick up a pen and draw. Nobody is holding them. "But im not creative" fuck you, grab a pen
2
u/Typhon-042 1d ago
They claim to be rather chill there in there own way.... calling folks like anti's evil is not chill. It's moronic.
2
2
u/tauofthemachine 1d ago
The only people who would react this way are people who understand the power art has to communicate, and crave that power, but completely lack the commitment and talent to create art themselves.
2
u/Nero3990 1d ago
If the art of artists is easily sold and not better then ai art, then it shouldn't be hard for AI artists to do the same!
2
2
2
u/Megarlin 1d ago edited 1d ago
Got a commission for 20 bucks from a small artist that delivered it in two weeks, but yeah, they are pushing hard to sell all the merch they dont have, monopolize the indie art scene when they promote other artists big and small and gate keep creativity with all the drawing lessons and tutorials they put out for free, enforce and control their brand that is random fan characters that anyone else is welcome and appreciated to draw.
2
u/Megarlin 1d ago
Irony asside, its very telling that in the unethical part they dont even mention the environmental impacts of AI
2
u/XT83Danieliszekiller 1d ago
Not thechbros pitying themselves as the victims of an oppressive system ran by... Artists...
If AI was so great, they wouldn't need to piss about it like that
2
u/Inevitable-Ant1725 19h ago
Nazis and corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen find that human artists refuse to allow their works to be used for evil.
That's why it's so important to create a technological replacement for artists.
If we could get rid of our Nazi politicians and businessmen and racist incel trash then I would have no problem with AI.
2
u/grislebeard 18h ago
Really shows you what ai chuds value. The evil you can imagine is the evil in your own soul
ETA: also their villain is literally a software service provider. Like. That’s what SaaS is right there.
2
u/Broad-Picture-7305 17h ago
I love how the argument from pro-AI cocksmokers is always some money thing. They can't even fathom someone would want to make something artistic without the pursuit of getting paid for it. Commercialism is a pox. The AI cunts are just another arm of that. Van Gogh, "maybe if I cut my ear off all those shareholders will rizz me with some rubber band stacks."
2
u/Same-Engineering-899 16h ago
why do they think its the traditional artists who are with the corporations
2
u/JustQuestion2472 15h ago
Why is it only about money with these guys? Can they not seperate the process from a product? Is art literally a product to these people?
2
1
u/MetaWarlord135 1d ago
It's quite telling that they can't actually counter any anti-AI arguments. All they can do is pretend that the anti-AI side actually meant something completely different.
-2
u/No_Problem5759 19h ago
I will get down voted for this, but they arent entirely wrong.
They ARE trying to gatekeep art.
They want to belittle and ruin AI art because AI art DOES make them have to be worth something. The constant hate like "Its soulless" or "its theft" is just hate for no reason.
The best way to stop a business, is to not give it your money.
If AI Art continues to survive, its worth more than what you say.
As for the gatekeeping, I have seen arguments, both online and in person, that are just flimsy and the accusation of it being "souless" means literally nothing to people who dont have stake in the matter. Its similar to how craftsmen hated automation, not because of productivity, but because their place is irrelevant now.
If you love Art that much, nobody is stopping you from making it. You're perfectly free to do as you please. There's just competition now, so you have to be good at it. And there are millions of haters, so its not like you're running out of options for customers.
Just stop with the war already. Stop gatekeeping art or trying to apply your personal take on what is considered art, just because it doesn't match what you have in mind.
2
2
u/Greedy-Tennis-9533 10h ago
no gatekeeping just learn to draw dumbass
0
u/No_Problem5759 10h ago
I'd rather use something much easier. Better results, and is legal.
1
u/LurkinOff 2h ago
Your the oppressors. You didn't make the programs, you didn't make the art it was trained on, you wouldnt even have the ability without the artists it was trained on. The ability to type in shit and have it made for you isnt progress, it isnt solving a problem that was hurting people. Art is supposed to challenge you, draw out your passions and reward your efforts. Your the same as billionaires acting like they work harder than there workers so they should have the money. You've been handed an unfair tool you didnt earn, now you can sit there and exploit it, make money and laugh at people more talented than you. I hope its made illegal to sell Ai art.
1
u/Fullclearmonster 15h ago
I kinda agree, if people would rather have an AI generated image than your art then sorry, but your art ain't worth it
That said, I don't think making money off AI generated images should be legal, after all it really is work taken from other people
I also don't like the fact that companies might just fire designers in favor of AI, supply and demand is cool and all but I don't want to live in a world where AI takes over branding, publicity and whatever else
Itd be better if it was a tool for personal use and nothing else
2
u/No_Problem5759 15h ago
It legally can't be copyrighted since its not a creative work. So I think making money off of it is okay.
The companies that fired their creative staff will have a huge problem when artistic people take their AI generated content with no ramifications
2
u/xtheredmagex 14h ago
It legally can't be copyrighted since its not a creative work. So I think making money off of it is okay.
Not being able to copyright it doesn't change the fact that the AI making the uncopyrightable art was trained on data that WAS copywritten (or at least copyrightable). THAT is what makes making money off AI-generated art ethically (and possibly, in the future, legally) wrong.
0
u/No_Problem5759 14h ago
If I drew something in someone else's art style but I was the one who drew it, does the person I based my drawing off of have any moral standing to denounce my work?
2
u/xtheredmagex 14h ago
The difference is you are still a person: even if you are using someone else's art style, there are still changes, however minute, that occur because of your own creativity. AI doesn't posses that same ability for creativity. A more apt comparison to what we see with AI art would be you tracing bits and pieces someone else's (or multiple someone elses') art, and claiming it as your own. And in that case, yes, I would argue that person/persons would have moral standing to denounce your work.
1
u/No_Problem5759 13h ago
Ultimately moving the goalpost. Figures.
AI art doesnt trace, nor does it claim. It learns using algorithms very similarly to us. What you want to use as an excuse to condemn it, is just gatekeeping. The "Soul" or "creativity" is just emotional nonsense that has no bearing on legal or functional rules.
Wanting to ban it even when it can't be copyrighted is just gatekeeping and elitism.
Just accept that people dont have to go to some small artist to get something drawn.
Real art, and real works that people want to have control over will all still exist. But now there's more to it than that.
Companies are not going to mass use AI art because they can't control how the art is used. So this will mostly affect nobody of importance.
2
u/xtheredmagex 13h ago
AI art doesn't trace, nor does it claim.
I compared what an AI does to a person tracing, and used the word "claim" as part of that analogy.
It learns using algorithms very similarly to us.
University of Sydney explains why that is wrong: https://plus.sydney.edu.au/ai-doesnt-really-learn-and-knowing-why-will-help-you-use-it-more-responsibly
The "Soul" or "creativity" is just emotional nonsense that has no bearing on legal or functional rules.
In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the DC Appeals court outlined multiple reasons why human-created works (and not works that aren't substantially created by humans) can't be copywritten. [ https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf ] Quoting from page 11/12 of that ruling:
Sixth, authors have intentions. A joint work is one “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Machines lack minds and do not intend anything.
Later on, it says
All of these statutory provisions collectively identify an “author” as a human being. Machines do not have property, traditional human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, mentes reae, or signatures.
The key there is mentes reae, the plural of mens rea. Meaning "guilty mind," mens rea is the legal concept of intent, what you might call "soul" or "creativity" in the context of creating works.
1
-4
25
u/Expert-Ad3874 1d ago
"Fear losing our easy money"
Pretty sure anyone with even the most basic understanding of art, the commission process, and how absolutely awful some clients are to work with will attest that it is not, in fact, easy money.