Your takes on AI art

[nathman]

(1. It is not art. There is no intent to express anything, it's just words on a prompt. At best, it's a tool to make visual and/or aural (because music is also art) content. At worst, it's meaningless slop.

(2. It can only compile a bunch of images to copy from and create the "best" image out of that. In other words, it's bland. All it can do is make the "most appealing" templates for the user to paste their given prompts onto. Every single AI image I have ever seen either winds up looking the same, or it just looks like a bad copy of something else. There is nothing that makes you curious as to who or what created it, because there's nothing special about any of it.

As for AI music

The less said about it, the better. Except the MASTERPIECE that is the SUPER SEGA (not a kickstarter scam) theme.

 

[Segadude113]

I love art of AI, I am one myself.

If you are referring to generative ai images, which is not art, I think it's something that could have at one point been fine in a vacuum, but we are well past the point of understanding that the implication of it are too damaging to allow it's use. it's an inherently evil tech with no practical use which has caused untold suffering, damage, and destruction to the human mind, society, and the environment.

What if we used dark matter to power AI?

 

[LightningmanEXE]

What if we used dark matter to power AI?

then it would have all the same problems, except be powered by dark matter. so... maybe less environmental impact? but that's like asking what if one was shot with a pistol instead of a shotgun.

Post automatically merged: May 30, 2025

Okay, let me put it like this... if we had an AI that was trained on things that artists volunteered for it to be trained on, in a world where you couldn't extort that from artists, and then what it generated was used for non-commercial uses so as to not replace human artists, in a way that didn't generate massive wastes of energy, and the fact it was AI made was always disclosed, and all the artists who contributed were accounted for and credited where it was used... then maybe it might be okay.

we don't live in that kind of a fairy tale. we live in a nightmarish hellscape where anything that can fuck you over for money will. any chance of living in a world where AI image generation can be used ethically is already gone, it's already proven itself something that only has the capacity to harm.

 

[Antilocal123]

Screw AI Art, when are we getting AI bitches?! I'm tryna get that Androidussy

 

[LightningmanEXE]

Screw AI Art, when are we getting AI bitches?! I'm tryna get that Androidussy

That's the other issue with generative AI... it's a fools errand to invest in, and we aren't seeing money being put into ACTUAL good uses of artificial intelligence, such as this.

 

[Segadude113]

you can make stuff like this

 

[DEH]

you can make stuff like thisView attachment 75427

That's funny.

 

[Faust03]

it's only good for shitposting, otherwise it feels like cheating

 

[99nereids]

you can make stuff like thisView attachment 75427

and it only costs a bathtub's worth of water to make <3

 

[Ogmios]

It's absolutely atrocious that AI is going in the direction it is going. As far as maybe logistics go, sure maybe so long as it isn't doing it all for you (which it is sadly), but not art, not music, the creative sphere is being attacked.

 

[Facesforce]

So, I will weigh in as a author who self published a book:

I'm broke. I have to pay for my daughter's lessons, have to afford ever increasing bills while working two jobs, and I still can't afford a proper artwork for the cover of my book.

So I drew a sketch, gave it to the AI, edited it aggressively and published it.

To me, a illustration on a book cover isn't necessarily art, it's just a label to get the reader to read the actual art inside of the book.

I know there are people who are staunchly anti ai art in general, and I'm with you to a point. I don't like people passing it off as the real thing. I also am not a big fan of those who are profiteering on it as well.

This is why I always feel there needs to be a upfront disclosure if AI was used in general.

But I'm also not a fan of the witch hunts I've seen of other indie authors who did the same thing, all because some person out there feels that are obligated to their hard earned money.

But I'm sorry, my home self published book that will make less then $30 in it's entire lifetime (2 years in and it's made a grand total of $12 from random buyers ), does not justify a $200-450 price tag for it's cover illustration. And most likely, they would try to scam me with a ai cover like I've seen already happen to my other indie authors.

Call me a pragmatist, but I will use whatever tool to help me deliver the best looking book to my readers within my ability.

Now if my book starts to sell like crazy, sure I'll pay for a artist to update the cover. But let's be real here, that's not happening. (The novel selling well I mean)

 

[DrunkGecko]

i think its only good for memes

 

[Graves Ruinwalker]

Im on the mid-position .

As a tool , its actually great . But what we're seeing is the extremes of AI .

Instead of being used for inspiration-purpose or making the work a bit more easy , we get extremly bland and generic trash that comes out from really lazy people without a vision or ambition behind it .

In music-form its great to make shitpost music to laugh about and even listened to .

But as seriously-made music ?
Its pure mediocrity and lacks personality through style and structure .

But i think the majority just abuses it for lazy content-creation and will never try to learn or honing their skills to have something outstanding because that would mean to get deeper than surface-level and having an passionate obsession which would make them wiser and efficient .

Its always on the extremes and never in the balance.