Spoiler

 

Worthless slop built on stealing from actual artists.

Any kind of talent requires discipline, by design, ai does not. Using words like art and artist for ai content is like calling cars especially athletic horses. You can be an amazing driver in a state of the art car, and those things have merit, but you are still not a jockey and that's not a horse. 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by Ubermensch

it's not art but that silver fox needs to slide into my dms pronto 

AI videos will be like YouTube content creators in the future, it's not going to take the place of another form of entertainment, but will be its own style or genre.

 

 

I don't have anything against it, though I rarely make use of it myself. I only used an AI avatar one time on a certain forum, and the staff came down on me like a ton of bricks because of a new rule they had passed (while I had been away for like 6 months) about no AI content being allowed on their site

Here for it. I don't want to pay someone to get a drawing of me and my bf in studio ghibli artstyle 

A better term for it would be AI images, not AI art.

Art is about communication and expression. Its purpose is to say something about the human experience. AI "art," no matter how pretty, says nothing, because it has no soul.

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by Pop Life

10 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

Here for it. I don't want to pay someone to get a drawing of me and my bf in studio ghibli artstyle 

But have you actually seen AI "art" that is better than what a real human artist would do?

I have not seen a single one that doesn't look uncanny valley'd or unsettling

It's not an art. it's soulless that devoids emotions and creativity. 

it ain't art, and it's unsettling to me and disgusting. art has intention and like others have mentioned, soul. businesses won't see that though, and tons of talented artists will lose their jobs. new tech used to be exciting, now everything's dystopian.

Yea you have to be able to bleed in order to create art and I'll double down on that til I die. If you put a paint brush in a dogs mouth and saw whatever it made, that would genuinely be closer to art than anything AI can create imo

 

the images are cool though! It's kinda vapid though, it's just a cute thing you look at for a moment then it's gone. It feels like AI has a lot of other more effective uses 

26 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

Here for it. I don't want to pay someone to get a drawing of me and my bf in studio ghibli artstyle 

Nnn I'm on the artists' side but some of them are really overcharging their customers tbh 

25 minutes ago, Pop Life said:

A better term for it would be AI images, not AI art.

Art is about communication and expression. Its purpose is to say something about the human experience. AI "art," no matter how pretty, says nothing, because it has no soul.

People said the same about digital art back in the DeviantArt days. 
 

it is just a new generation of artistic expression.

 

in order to make anything good, you still need to have a strong artistic vision, ability to communicate it to AI and evoke a feeling.

 

I think that the primary issue with AI art is that it steals from other artists but that ship has already sailed - Pandora is out of the box. 
 

The world had a chance to regulate it 3-4 years ago and made no effort, so here we are.

23 minutes ago, Da Vinci said:

But have you actually seen AI "art" that is better than what a real human artist would do?

Yes, I've seen AI art that's better than what SOME human artists can create. Not all artists have the same level of talent.

 

Quote

I have not seen a single one that doesn't look uncanny valley'd or unsettling

Maybe that was true two years ago, now many modela can generate very well-done AI images.

 

 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by Space Cowboy

It's not art at all, it's stollen data and it ******* sucks

29 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

Here for it. I don't want to pay someone to get a drawing of me and my bf in studio ghibli artstyle 

People said the same thing when all the artisans, sculptor, glass blowers etc. started getting replaced by factories during the industrial revolution. Who cares about them when we have machines that can create parts for new construction ten times faster and for a third of the price?

Fast forward to today where every new building looks exactly the same and everyone is wondering why whole city blocks look like they were ordered off Temu

It's definitely not art but it has its purposes. I've made a lot of AI of male celebs writing some really complex 1000 word prompts. You can basically let your imagination and fantasies run loose and create anything. I basically use another site to create more explicit content and it's obviously not art but a lot of the prompts I came up with are pretty damn good and always creative. 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by SharGaga

I don't mind it for like absurd memes (Gag City was hilarious), but it isn't art

It's worthless and it will always be worthless 

 

It won't replace real artists

 

It might only be used by chat gpt or other ai models to represent something 

 

No one will pay a cent for something that was done by AI

It's awful 

you people have no problem with AI generated images until it gets used against your faves . see: those gross naked and bloody Taylor Swift photos from last year

2 hours ago, Orsay said:

Yea you have to be able to bleed in order to create art and I'll double down on that til I die. If you put a paint brush in a dogs mouth and saw whatever it made, that would genuinely be closer to art than anything AI can create imo

It's more likely than not that we live in a simulation though. At some point we might have diffusion models that think they're bleeding. 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by Ubermensch

One day it will be the new normal

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by AvadaKedavra

I don't mind scenery or environments, especially for aesthetic purposes, but I don't like AI art as it relates to "people." That's where I draw the line; I don't entertain AI in that regard. It feels and seems so cheap.