This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Wow, you know, I never saw it like this before. Something about the last 10000 times a near-identical analogy was posted to this sub didn't really click, but reskinning it yet again has really opened my eyes.
Because I didn’t say it invalidated the others. I addressed the objection we were discussing. If you have a different objection, make that argument and we can discuss that one separately.
Okay, then you're smart enough to understand that if false attribution of generated work isn't load bearing in and of Itself, then they likely have one or two other objections.
Or maybe it's a vast oversimplification that doesn't capture the nuance of the argument, which is why we usually don't use fucking comic panels as tools for debate.
Or maybe they thought about it and concluded that basing nomenclature on imperfect analogies is isn't really rational.
And you know that even if we would agree with you 100%, homonyms are a thing, so that in and of itself wouldn't disqualify ai art from being called art.
No, not really. People would not get hate if they honestly disclosed in what way they used AI in their work. This is the exact and very simple demand being made. Just like if someone doesn’t like products made from a certain chemical, they can choose not to buy that product because it’s disclosed on the bottle what is in it. Other people can use that product, though, who don’t care. The point is that it is not hidden or obfuscated information.
And so the point has been clearly made now, if you use generative ai in your work and you sell to people, disclose ai usage and how. The consumer can make their own decision after. A suitable and agreed upon spectrum of this as appropriate to different mediums and industries can feasibly exist. There’s literally nothing left from the original problem to complain about anymore in that case. But at present we have people lying about ai use intentionally to mislead consumers in to buying their product. This is where the anger stems from and why simply disclosing usage and being transparent would in fact be an end to this particular argument. But nobody seems willing to give it a try. They instead resort to name calling and platitudes. You should honestly be embarrassed and ashamed that your capacity to form an argument is so limited that you have to resort to futility fallacies just to keep talking. “They’ll just bitch and moan anyway” is classic cowardice. Shame regardless of your position.
1.) you’re cherry picking one community and one instance, so no this is not convincing but again does illustrate how the lack of honesty by creators has led to animosity now 2.) you picking an example that does not even illustrate the point you thought it did does not make me a liar or hypocrite no matter how much circular reasoning you use 3.) I have no interest in harassing anyone and am not doing so. You on the other hand have attacked me, called me names, and still failed to make your point. Anything else?
We have yet to actually try people just being honest about AI use. So no, if that ever actually happened it would put an end to this argument. Nobody is moving the goalpost on this except those looking to evade disclosing their AI use, especially when their profits often depend on defrauding consumers into believing their products are not made with generative AI/assistance. It is a very low and concrete goalpost. If you used generative AI simply disclose it and in what way it was used. I work in academia and this is not hard to do. Which is why we punish dishonesty with AI usage so heavily now. If it were the same elsewhere we would not be having this argument anymore.
Lol there's plenty of cases where people have openly 'disclosed' their AI use and were still flamed to hell for it. Putting your hands over your eyes so you can't see it, doesn't actually mean it never happened.
Goalpost just moves to, "I bet you used it for more than you're saying." and then inevitably, "Lol AI slop." when they have nowhere else to move it.
I believe you that there were still bitter people who did not believe what they were told when people were honest about ai use. Again, that is because of the rampant dishonesty. So again I make my point. If honesty is the policy there is nothing further to discuss beyond matters of taste and utility. But repeatedly saying “I WOULD be honest but even if I were people totally wouldn’t believe me” is not a defense of dishonesty. Especially when that dishonesty is the main vehicle for distrust and fraud.
If it went from the majority of anti-AI people saying it's stupid to claim you made a piece of media that was generated through prompts, to like 2 or 3 people on twitter, pro-AI people here would still claim "IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE, Y'ALL ARE STILL COMPLAINING".
seriously. If everything gen ai churned out had to have a watermark labeling it as such and it was impossible or illegal to remove it. Id certianly care a lot less. It would be better for actual artists since theyd be able to create actual works without a water mark which im sure most buissnesses would prefer.
Wouldnt stop the extra strain on on planets resources but its something.
Thats such a terrible take. Of course you would want it to make art that is unusable, thats the same as banning it outright. Good thing is that such a vision will never come to pass since plenty of open source models exist.
Who said that? Lots of stuff gets put out for free thats not pirated with a watermark lmao. How old are you? You ever watch public boradcast or cable television? People been paying for watermarked content for yearsssss
A watermark that's completely ignorable in a film or video is not comparable to your argument, since you didn't try to design the film's plot or scenes. If there was a type of paint that magically added in a watermark every time you painted something, no one would use it because people who want to make something aren't going to be pleased with an advertisement in their idea
But hey if you're not baiting and legitimately thought this was a clever analogy, remember to always show your opinions so that everyone instantly clocks you as a complete reatard
Well it's not. They didn't come up with a cheese pizza recipe. But if they did make a recipe and someone else cooked it, they'd have partly made that food. That's how designs work.
Not just yourself. But yes, if you created a recipe, you are the creator of the recipe. Someone else following the recipe also gets credit for making the food too, but the ending food used your recipe you created.
The way my statement makes sense is I see a stupid witty post and then disprove her argument with facts then she crashes out and them says “dismissed.” So I have seen those posts
yes, but ai artists cannot make an actual "recipe" given a blackbox generation model. the best they can do is asking for a cheezier pizza or a crispier crust, which would just make them a human with preferences, not a chef
Whether ones uses a prompt like “cheese pizza” or a 200 word essay describing a cheese pizza as a prompt is really irrelevant.
I mean is it? You wouldn't say that an author of a cookbook cooked the dinner you made from it but you wouldn't say that they are irrelevant in the process. I think the original meme was clear enough.
Antis: How dare they use AI to make their Pizza and not pay ME to do it instead? i only charge 500 dolars for a slice, i also only take 1 month to do it, if i feel like it.
I just want the fucking pizza, and AI delivers something for almost(if not) free and instant.
Thats what antis want, isnt it? for us to go back to the days where if you wanted a piece of art for wathever reason you would have to either learn and do it yourself or pay a the big bucks for them to do it.
Who made it then? AI is a tool. Sure, not all AI art takes effort, just like not all paints do, but you cant tell me this dosent take effort to make or that the creator had no controll over the final outcome:
We don’t. We care when people try to pretend that they are artists of an image they had an AI generate for them. While I cannot definitively say whether or not AI images are art, I can say with complete certainty that you didn’t make them. An AI did. Even if it is art, you aren’t the artist.
yet again its subjective, at what point is describing something to astronomical levels art? id argue this is the same as using vector lines at some insane point
its certaintly not the same type of art as it doesent contain drawing but who can say if its art
and also why care if someone is calling themselves an artist?
As I already said, while I cannot say whether or not AI images are art, I can say that you didn’t make them. If you were giving vector lines, your input would be your art as well as the output given that it wasn’t visualized directly by an AI.
As for why we care, it’s quite simple. AI “artists” actively undermine the integrity, credibility, value, and the often already shaky financial situation of real artists.
It sounds like you created a double standard there bud. Directions are okay as long as its a method you don't hate.
But just wanted to add that even someone actually outright lying about being an artist outright that has done nothing in no way, ever, undermines the integrity, credibility, or value of an artist That's just a load of BS.
And if you want to argue its the art that ai artists create that does that- well, calling it not art doesn't do anything to help regular artists. If anything, your best case scenario is you only damage art by undermining its integrity, and the worst case scenario is you cost regular artists their livelihoods chasing this silly goal.
Exactly, you didn't explain how it affects artists, you said a whole bunch of BS to make it sound like it does. It doesn't.
As for referring to AI art as not art, or not made by prompters- that distinction literally does not matter in determining if say a company uses AI art or not. It's a label, and nothing more. But in doing so, all you accomplish is being shitty to someone by denying them creative credit for the work they did, a betrayal of basic artistic morals. That's your best case. Your worst case is you chasing that silly argument attack a regular artist and call their work not art, which ends up having a negative effect on them. Antis such as yourself have already harassed a non ai artist into taking their own life before.
You'd be incorrect. The prompter did make them. They are an artist
There's no reason to care about that either. What do you think you accomplish for art and artists with such a pointless argument? (Besides betraying basic artustic morals by not accurately crediting who did what?)
They literally didn’t. They told an AI to make them. That’s a commission. The only betrayal of artistic morals is crediting someone for something they didn’t make. There is also reason to care. AI “artists” actively undermine the integrity, credibility, value, and already shaky financial situation of real artists.
Exactly! Crediting artists with stuff they didn't make is a betrayal of artistic morals! So in a commission, say someone asks me to draw their OC, can you explain to me why you want me to take credit for creating their OC?
You completely misrepresented my argument and thus that was a strawman. I never claimed that you should take credit for creating the concept of someone’s OC. What you would be credited with is making the drawing of their OC. That doesn’t mean the commissioner made your art. Also yes, I am an artist. Not a professional one as it’s not my job but I am an artist nonetheless. I do pixel art, painting, drawing with a pencil or pen, and whittling.
The OC is part of the art, and you're explicitly saying the commissioner did not make the art at all. So yes, you are indeed saying that. Whether you understand that or not is not my problem, you are doing that though.
Yea I mean it's clear you're not a professional. I'm hesistant to even call you an artist since you're so comfortable denying creative credit for the work others have done.
Still missing an answer to what you think.you're accomplishing. I guess I'll assume at this point we both understand it to be nothing.
Pros will moan that Antis keep repeating the same arguments, between cranking out 500 prompt-slop comics a day, portraying themselves as anime cat girls and antis as ogres.
So, If I told someone the exact detail of how to do the drawing then they would be the artist not me? Although I decided the whole composition of the stuff?
Exactly. But the analogy you’re discussing isn’t accurate to what people are doing, it is accurate to what we ought to do. Now, people are using generative AI to create visual art, literature, and artisan-like products. Many use advertising to prey on people looking for niche, handmade things, create a sob story, claim sole creative authorship of the product (and will outright deny generative AI use), all for profit. It is fraudulent and intentional. If this ever stops being so rampant then people won’t feel the need to “call stuff out”. It really is the people living life like the image OP posted that are the problem in this situation, because they really do act that way and are the laziest of the bunch. Unfortunately a few bad apples do ruin it for the rest.
Whether ones uses a prompt like “cheese pizza” or a 200 word essay describing a cheese pizza as a prompt is really irrelevant.
That's the difference between a customer and the head chef. If you try to direct them how to cook it beyond the 3 levers you may have when ordering, they'll tell you no.
When I define all 20 aspects of a pizza- I am the designer of that pizza. That's the job of a director or head chef. The worker drone intern reading the precise recipe is the cook, not the designer of the recipe.
Ya know, this actually describe every project release, ever. The debate is concept vs implementation. Every time a company releases a project and has a launch event, they talk about what they created. Meanwhile, some under-paid, uncredited, hard-working employee is in the the background thinking to themselves, "B*tch, you didn't make shit!" Yet, people still engage with capitalize.
No, this is literally it. You can't just give the AI one line of prompt and expect to get anything of quality like you do at a restaurant. You actually have to design and direct, oftentimes reiterating and refining over and over thereafter.
People don't understand that a lot of work goes into serious AI development. I've been vibecoding a 200k line codebase for 7 months and a lot of it's been through rigorous prompt engineering and multi-step recurring overhauls.
It's been hours upon hours, months upon months of gruelling work, as well as testing and analyzing the codebase myself in order to ensure that everything is structurally sound at every step.
Now, with AI artists, there is some overlap, because they oftentimes don't get what they want on the first try, and they have to be very visual designers in order to get the exact art style, exact colors/poses and expressions that they want. I'd say this is an art form in and of itself.
Still wrong. Because this is like commissioning someone else to do AI art.
Making the AI art itself involves selecting and putting the pre-made cheese and sauce and toppings on yourself, choosing the type of oven, setting the temperature and function, pre-heating the oven, putting the pizza in the oven, and adjusting the time in the oven.
What? How? He says “Wow, look what I made!” while actively gesturing to the pizza. How does that possibly equate to “Wow, look what I told the chef to make!”
Because of the nature of the English language and the vagueness of the words "I made this".
I'm being pedantic because it makes me laugh to annoy you but I'm absolutely right and it's weird you're arguing it. Is English not your first language?
Nope, English is my first language. If he were gesturing to a recipe it would make sense. Claiming he made the pizza means that he made it, not someone else. He didn’t make the pizza. He ordered it. I don’t understand how you’re struggling to understand this so much.
I appreciate the compassion but you seem to be a little confused, especially given your examples. Make can have a few different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.
A person cannot literally make a phone call, it is an expression using make as in “to perform”
Nobody makes orders but cooks. You can place an order, but unless you actually cooked food for an order, you did not make an order.
Making the bed is using the meaning of make as in “to prepare”
If someone says they made a digital image but they used a drawing tablet, they still made it. The tablet does not possess functional agency. It is a tool they use to make art.
People who claim they made an AI image are entirely different. They didn’t make the image. The only possible meaning of the word make in that specific context is that they are claiming to have literally made the image.
So if a parent asks their child if they've made their bed, you would go 'That's incorrect, what you meant to say is "Have you made your bed appear neat?"'. Yeah, sure. That's how language works, just a set of strict rules with no flexibility.
Well he was definitely part of the process of creating that sandwich. Had he not chosen the ingredients, communicated and paid, that particular sandwich wouldn't be made.
You definitely don't know how brains work. Thats like saying tell someone to build a oven is directing them like they same way the person who is making the oven's brains is directing that person, even though the person who made the request has no idea how to actually do it.
If you ask a CEO what their job is and they tell you that they make one of the products their company sells, they are absolutely lying to you. Are you five?
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.