shitty half-ass napkin doodle >> finest "ai" slop

do it again but stare at grass for a few hours
Edit: Also i drew "your" guy pregnant
Gave it a fat ass too
evenly lit, ink smudged weird, camera somehow perfectly on top without occluding any light
may snakes bite your balls and all your milk turn sour

Randomly made this when clearing a pen's nib on a post-it

what an esteemed little guy :)
this is some really good shitty half-assed doodle
This looks cool :}
Great pen! Adorable doodle!
Somewhat related: Has anyone else gotten the fountain pen version of this? I've tried three of them over the years hoping for a functional refillable pen, but they've all stopped flowing or never worked at all.
You'd think they would fix the design eventually, but alas?

Here's my shitty drawing of something AI can't draw

That's actually pretty good depiction of a chunk of roast beef with a revolving rotor attached to it and flying upwards.
Time to move the goal posts again:
- My career as an artist is in shambles
- I'll be pedantic and point out that only a robot would fill a glass of wine to the brim. Asides from that it looks legit, though I wonder how well it would handle generating a glass of wine that is being held out drank from...

"I judge art on the basis of how it was made, not on its merit in terms of the emotions and thoughts it elicits from me"

Is it not possible that how something is made also elicits emotions and thoughts?
- Sure but I don't think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn't what the person is implying.
  There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it's different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
"I find the ethics involved in the creation of something to be irrelevant."
- It's called capitalism. There are no ethics in how anything is ever created. If you're mad about people being exploited, then fight capitalism.
  But poeple just sound corny hating on every work of generated art. It's very possible to make nice pictures and videos with a computer.
- Never heard anyone arguing over the ethics of the mining of lapis lazuli, and i think slavery and human misery trump plagerism.
  So if ethics define art then DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc are not artists
How not to define art
(You can take this as agreeing or disagreeing with you, or both)
- It is true it is an exercise in futility to try to give it a strict definition, as well as being very subjective. Nice vid, it's always fun to find quality youtubers I don't know.
Idiot: "AI" will save us all!
Genius: "AI" is complete slop!!
\s
- This, but unironically.
- To be fair, "AI will save us" is a take that is incredibly stupid.
Tbh, this is a valid take, but it's just as valid to judge art based on the experience of viewing it.
lemme try that second one then. hmm. yes. ah. indeed.
this elicits a feeling of dismay, mild disgust, and thoughts of "wow ai 'art' looks devoid of meaning, soul, or talent, because it is, and i fucking hate it."
the fact that the process behind it is craven theft motivated by contempt for artists is ancillary (yet also valid if you have anything resembling a soul).
I judge art on the basis of three things:
The intent of the artist,
The context surrounding the art,
My own interpretation of the art
A stable diffusion model is not much more than a set of statistical functions executed over a large array of numbers. Therefore, the model cannot have intent.
The use of the model to generate images damages the environment, makes use of work made by artists who, by design, cannot be credited for said work, and no or very little artistic effort went into the generation. Therefore, the context is pretty loathesome.
The third point depends on the image, although I find that most images do not have much in the way of creativity or artistic direction, and come off as "bland", "samey", "wrong". The fact that there is no intent makes it hard for me to read intent. Therefore, my interpretation is usually not very favourable.
These are my thoughts. I believe your ideas about art and how we should judge it (which is what you are prescribing) to be quite stupid, but you live your life however you want, I guess.
- The intent of the artist
  There is someone using the model and it's their intent that matters. When looking at a photograph, you don't consider the intent of the camera.
  The context surrounding the art
  The environmental damage is mostly due to our failure of an energy grid. In any case, you can run these at home with no real environmental impact. It's also crazy to talk about the impact digital technology has and ignore the impact marble statues or even simple paint has. Same for ignoring things like collage when it comes to copyright issues. You simply aren't being fair.
  We can look at the context in terms of how easy it is which is actually fair. But that can varie a lot (as seen below) and shouldn't be the defining factor.
  My own interpretation of the art
  You largely ignored this since it is essentially "the thoughts and emotions it envokes". It is also arguably the most important.
  We seem to mostly have the same line of thought except I actually judge the piece instead of letting my bias do it. And I don't call people stupid.
  I also think context and intent is largely missing and can only be guessed for most art we see, especially on the internet.
  In any case, I invite you to view this, read their process and tell me how it has none of the things you mentioned.
  https://makeitrad.xyz/project/etherea/

Depends on the artist. Shitty at drawing but got skills on the comp? Ill take the art you used AI for.

Plenty of AI slop out there sure, but there is also plenty of drawn/painted/sculpted/whatever slop out there as well.

Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.

Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
This has never been what the issue is. The issue isn't the tool, but how it's made and how it's used.
AI gen programs are almost to a fault created using art without permission with the express purpose of then using said programs to put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job. Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on. They are basically the definition of wage theft in their current form.
You might as well be arguing that Temu brand fast fashion is just as good as any other kind of clothing.
And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They're jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
- using art without permission
  Every artist does this all the time. The actual problem is "IP" - a system of capitalist control whereby the rich control everything and workers are still exploited.
  put the workers whose skills were stolen out of a job.
  Nobody can steal another person's skills. If people are losing their jobs, the problem is being forced to serve capital in order to survive. That's a much bigger and more important problem than "AI slop".
  Without artists, gen AI would have nothing to train on.
  Without artists, artists would have nothing to train on. But in reality artists will always exist.
  wage theft
  This is the biggest form of theft under capitalism but somehow people only complain about it in terms of "AI". Again this is a direct result of the exploitation of worker by capital. There is nothing inherently exploitative about making art on a computer (apart from the manufacturing of the computer which is extremely exploitative).
  And the other end that gets hate is the people who consider themselves to be better than artists because the prompt they put into an LLM created an image that they consider to be better than what artists make. They’re jealous of people creating something and want the reward without putting in the effort so they can hold it over others.
  If this is even real? It seems like two completely difference category. And more importantly who cares? Petty AF.
- "yes but have you considered i wanna and you're being a killjoy? i'm gonna ai twice as hard now"
  half the chuds in this thread
To me, it's more that I get a glimpse of the human behind the art, even or especially if they're shitty at drawing. That's why I also like memes which are thrown together haphazardly. If it's pixel-perfect imagery, I don't see much from that at all.
These heroes act like they’re patrons of actual artists, or do anything with actual art other than ignore it, or do anything with creative works that would require art but don’t have it. They don’t seek out prototypes of games (board or video) they just sit back and consume and then have the nerve to whine about what’s produced for them.
Not referring to the Adobe model that compensates artists in the training set, but besides them there has been great debate on the ethics of ingesting & regurgitating. (“but small humans do it” etc)
Which is to say of course it could be the best art in the world and it wouldn’t be beautiful in those eyes.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
The algorithms are beautiful, revolutionary, a true achievement of humanity.
The way the corporations have used those algorithms is unethical, inartistic, a true embarrassment of humanity.
- The way the corporations have used...
  This is true of everything under capitalism. And it doesn't mean the art is slop.
  For example our phones are made by slave labor but nobody is posting memes about how all phones are slop. Maybe they should do. It would be a better cause than crying about generated art.
It's less a tool and more a short cut. and short cuts are a disservice to the artest and the art appreciater.
- Ok yeah. That's what they said about the hammer. It's a disservice to the fine artisans using rocks.
This is Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
- I thought Sturgeons law was that 98% of everything on the internet is crap?

As you wish

You know, at this point part of the fun of using AI art is pissing off the holier-than-thou luddites.

Luddites would be attacking the capitalism that's exploiting us all, that coerces artists in serving capital, etc.
These people just think all generated art is bad because it doesn't have a "soul" or whatever. They're literally preferring napkins and poop on the walls.
- I think you'll find that those of us hating on "AI" """art""" mostly are pretty outspoken anticapitalists.
  And I get how people talking about how it's all "soulless" slop (it is) can make that objection seem completely metaphysical and disconnected from material reality, but fundamentally that point is about how art is an expression of the subjective self, something that machines are not.
  When a human creates art, every line drawn, every brush stroke and every pixel placed is a choice that says something about the artist, but all that gets abstracted and automated away when the only artistic intent is input as a set of brief verbal instructions.
  Fuck it, the reason all this AI bullshit is getting pushed so hard mainly by fascist tech capitalists is precisely because that kind of abstraction of intent functions chiefly to alienate workers from the means of production. GenAI is, in that regard, fundamentally pro-capitalist.
Just like part of the fun of voting Trump is pissing off the holier-than-thou liberals
- Oh yeah, using an image generator is totally the same as voting for the literal fascist that's putting people in concentration camps. That's very comparable.
ah yes because the world needs more people acting out of spite towards anyone who believes in anything enough to take a stand and speak up, that'll make things better for sure!

There is no "AI".
There's nothing inherently wrong or bad with generated art. The assumption that generated art is "slop" is literally the inverted assumption that "AI" will save us. But in reality there's lots of cool pictures and many cool videos that were generated.
If you're mad about copyright/exploitation, the actual problem has always been capitalism.

Everyone is welcome to do just that in !sillydrawingrequests@sopuli.xyz :)

Sharing AI art has the same vibe as telling people about your dreams.

Even worse.
- It’s like someone describing a tv show you don’t care about in painful detail, only without the enthusiasm.
Some dreams are wild tho

Probably an unpopular take, but I think it's got its uses. My artistic skills is not too great, and I don't want to spend the time to get better or pay someone to draw a banner or icon for a Lemmy community or D&D character, for example, because it's not that important to me. I'm cool if an AI can get kinda close to what I want and it's nothing I consider to be load-bearing. To be clear, I mostly use it as something to fill up the blank spaces.

Also, I've seen AI art really nail some things. It's probably one in every 500 images I've seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while. It can also be a fucking hilarious toy if you're bored. I gave Dall-e a picture of my wife and her sisters and asked it to give me an upscaled version of the picture and it basically drew them as the canker sisters. Good times.

Also, I’ve seen AI art really nail some things. It’s probably one in every 500 images I’ve seen, but it actually does knock it out of the park once in a while
yeah, probably because the person that generated that image actually took time to write a detailed prompt, used appropriate settings on good hardware, generated many images, and maybe even fed it some composition images to base the generated image off, instead of just typing in "shark motorbike"

ITT soulless chuds with awful taste defend mass corporate theft because they feel like they benefit.

AI "art" is a fad that real people are already sick to death of, they're coming for your LLM dependent script kiddie ass job next and it'll actually be for real, and I hope I get to laugh in your face about it.

I would rather...fuck it I don't care, Chat GPT finish this comment:

Black holes don’t “suck” things in like some cosmic vacuum cleaner—they warp spacetime so hard that falling in is like rolling down an infinite hill you can never climb back up.

The event horizon is the point of no return—cross it, and not even light can escape, meaning you’re officially part of the “never gonna see your mom again” club.

Time slows down near a black hole—so if you watched someone fall in, they’d appear to freeze in place forever while they, from their own perspective, are getting spaghetti-fied into an infinite death noodle.

The closest known black hole to Earth is about 1,000 light-years away, which is reassuring until you remember the universe is constantly in motion, and cosmic surprises are a thing.

Some black holes are so massive they can contain billions of suns—like Ton 618, which is 66 billion times the mass of our Sun and makes everything we know feel pathetic by comparison.

If you replaced the Sun with a black hole of the same mass, Earth would just keep orbiting like nothing happened—except for the minor issue of all life instantly freezing to death.

Aside from when it's trending (like right now), no you fucking don't.

I streamed, for a while. Nobody gave half a shit. Nobody cares about the "art" that I spent days drawing. Nobody cares about the stories that I voice-acted in my closet because I don't have a studio to do such things in. I'm poor, and I'm not good at making things. If you claim to care about my "art", I grantee that you're a liar.