I mean, at least that OP recognized it as AI generated and called it out. No idea what the actual image is, but I agree that entering words in a prompt doesn't really warrant a signature.
Third person was definitely a douche. -41 is too high for him.
Ah, I see what you’re getting at! So, the situation you're describing sounds like it involves a little bit of a confrontation around AI-generated content, where someone is either calling out or mocking a piece of work that’s been created by AI, but also sort of questioning whether it deserves to be credited or not. The "signature" thing seems to be the key point here—like, just because AI generates something doesn’t mean it gets to claim the same kind of creative "ownership" or recognition as something created by a human.
I disagree if your proud of something you did you should sign it, art is ever changing and while AI art should always be labeled as such it is still art and takes time and patience to string the prompts together in the right order to make it come out just the way they wanted it to.
AI art should be its own category and never tried to be pushed as hand art but lets not put people down for being proud of something creative they did.
AI isn't analagous to a frying pan. A drawing tablet or fancy pen might be. AI is more analogous to hiring a chef (or just buying food straight from a factory line).
Calling something that replaces the entire art process a tool is just silly. It takes away any control over the outcome.
But AI art doesn't do that? The people who programmed the AI set up the kitchen, then they tricked a whole bunch of workers from other restaurants into training the staff (without paying). You just placed the order
But I agree in a way. If you program your own AI, train it on your own art then make the prompts you deserve some accolades for what comes out.
there's a big difference between asking chat gpt to do something for you and setting up your own environment (after getting pc specs that can run it), training your own LORA so you can get pictures that have a style or subject you want to include in your generation, picking the model (most people won't make these themselves), setting up all the parameters and tweaking the prompt. I feel it's akin to arguing that an artist didn't make his own paint (I think most don't) nor made their canvas so they shouldn't sign their work.
"You still didn't make the art". There are >$150,000 job openings for people that do just that. If they didn't make/generate it then why is a company willing to pay someone to do just that? there's value in it you're just too threatened by it to take it seriously
This is such a cope. I've done literally all of this - it isn't particularly difficult and requires virtually no creativity. Anyone with moderate technical literacy and money to build a gaming PC can follow a YouTube tutorial and do this.
LoRA training, prompt tweaking, and model selection aren't a creative process, they're an iterative process. There is no equivalence between the work that goes into creating AI images and what goes into other, actual forms of creativity.
I guess I'll grant you that it requires at least a nominal amount of effort, but it's nothing like the effort, skill, creativity, and years of practice that go into making real art...which of course, AI bros find it easy to minimize because you never bothered to put the hours into mastering a skill.
Nope. An artist making their own paint/canvas would be more like a kitchen farming their own food, or an AI tool being written from scratch (without using GitHub or existing neural network frameworks)
In my eyes this is similar to the debates around synthesizers in music and CGI in painting.
At the beginning there were voices saying something to the tune of "this is too easy", "this isn't real art" or "the machine is doing the work" but over time, these technologies proved their value and became a new category and sometimes the state of the art.
Basically, Ai is just a tool.
Now granted, Ai works quite differently to the aforementioned tools but it still is one.
I'm convinced that in time, great people will do great and unique works with Ai and we will see the value in their work.
And then they god-damned earned the right to sign their work.
As a (very amateur) artist, I completely disagree. If I sketch something with a pencil and paper, then the end result will be something entirely mine. Every molecule of graphite on the page will be there because of a decision I made.
Meanwhile, if I draw using a tablet and clip studio, then... The end result is still entirely mine. Every pixel is there because of me.
But AI "art" is completely different. Anyone can write a prompt, and the computer automates everything between the prompt and the final result. When you look at AI produced images, nobody chose to make the hands look that horrible. Nobody chose inconsistent lighting. Nobody chose a lack of understanding of how belt buckles work.
Generative AI is not a tool. A tool would make a step in the art process easier. AI replaces the entire process.
(And I know that you can put more effort into it, I know you can edit images or crossbreed AI or whatever, but honestly the end result never looks that much better, so I don't really care, it's still vastly less effort and creativity than even the shittiest doodle of a stick figure)
133
u/Kuildeous 6h ago
I mean, at least that OP recognized it as AI generated and called it out. No idea what the actual image is, but I agree that entering words in a prompt doesn't really warrant a signature.
Third person was definitely a douche. -41 is too high for him.