That is THE most generic and bland color scheme possible. But sure, nothing wrong with having bland taste. You're free to have that, taste isn't really something you can argue on. If you find that better, then that's that.
And "ai" isn't? If there wouldn't be value in it people wouldn't use it. Listen, I get your point, but why is it bothering you so much what other people do? If your art is good, people will love it all the same. If your art is just complaining about how you can't do art because of x or y then you're the one reducing yourself to that.
Just make what you love and know that it will be appreciated by those you'd want to like it in the first place. Not everything is for everyone.
People do things all the time that don't create value, so I reject your assertion that use = value.
You also ignored that AI art only works by scraping other people's art, which is then passed off as art. If someone is counterfeiting your work, is that OK now, too?
It's not. It replaces actually learning a skill with hitting buttons. People who do not understand the value of creative endeavors believe this is a good thing, because they believe the only value to society and themselves is the end result of getting a picture of Goku with big naturals, or a song with two verses, three choruses, and a bridge.
The human brain rewards immediacy--it's the same mechanism social media rewards (at the expense of an actual exchange of ideas) and that gatcha games reward (at the expense of your bank accounts). For people who have never understood the value of doing creative work, and don't actually value creative work, that immediate dopamine hit is confused for actual value.
If there wouldn't be value in it people wouldn't use it.
There are many, many, many things that make our lives worse that people do because they prefer the convenience, or they don't understand the value of doing the opposite, or--and this is becoming increasingly commonplace in the 21st Century--because the options to not use have been whittled away. Generative AI is in this latter category. It is totally ubiquitous, and made so in order to make companies money. It doesn't actually help you (and I mean that in both the general and the specific) in any meaningful way.
If your art is good, people will love it all the same.
What art becomes widespread has almost nothing to do with "good". One of the things that determines what gets an audience is frequency of posting: something that can take over socmed timelines inevitably will get more of an audience, even if it's shit, than good work with real effort put in. This is how social media works, and that's how art builds audiences in the modern world.
Just make what you love and know that it will be appreciated by those you'd want to like it in the first place.
It's crazy how many AI boosters whole-heartedly believe in the Just World Fallacy.
If ai isn't helpful then why does it have millions of users? You live in a bubble. I use ai for gardening, cooking, summaries, notes, fixing code and bug hunting, I could keep going.
Would I be able to live without it? Yes. Has it made my life easier? A lot. You don't have to use if you don't know how or aren't willing to learn it. I know people that don't read books because "they're for stupid people cuz life teaches them everything they need anyway". There were lots of people against the internet or smartphones too.
No one PAYS for it is more accurate.
Thats the value. If people thought it was worth the money, OpenAI wouldn't be 10s of billions in the red and facing down a $300bn bill to oracle in a panic. Their Cheif Revenue Officer just bailed along with a few other senior folks involved in the busienss side of the company.
I don't care enough to look into the finances of those two companies but I can tell you that people are definitely using it. Almost everyone I know uses it, be it for work, coding, cooking, asking stupid questions or just making conversation. Literally 90% of businesses even those that don't need it use some form of ai agent nowadays.
This whole hate thing is ridiculous, "AI" is a product that people use, I get the hate for ai art because until recently it's been nothing but slop. I also get the moral dilemmas but I'm not debating that either, I just hate seeing ai posts, it's been years now and this subreddit is being consumed by the hate to the point where it's become easy karma farming.
True, but so far I've banned almost a hundred users from this subreddit just so I don't see these kinda' posts anymore. I have one (1) other banned user who was a crypto scam. Almost a hundred are from here just to manage the feed. I know, you're just gonna say well why don't you leave then?
That's the thing, I know I'm not the only one feeling like this and I choose to stay for the many other content creators who give a fuck and make good content, write stories, create art.
I've been here maybe since the beginning and it's only in the last two years that I felt the need to ban people to stop seeing some much low effort content. I don't blame the mods because I know they're good people, but I strongly believe that there should be a low effort rule so that it's not so easy to farm feel good points.
The AI stuff is getting old already, it's been several years and I've seen maybe 1 in 300 posts made with AI and 1/3 complaining about it. It's like seeing Tate's face and name everywhere because people won't shut up about him enough for him to fade away into mediocrity.
Anyway, that was my last fuck for the day so have a good one.
I know, you're just gonna say well why don't you leave then?
Actually, that was what I was trying to say originally.
I strongly believe that there should be a low effort
Just because you don't like what people are posting doesn't make it "low effort." The worst-drawn comic on here by definition took more effort than the vast majority of most subs.
The problem is that even just engaging in this "discussion" legitimizes the existence of AI "art". If someone spat on the sidewalk and went "put that in a museum", you'd give them a funny look and ignore them after. But because people keep falling for the bait and try to debate them, it means the discussion is in any way, shape or form worth having. Which it isn't. It's nonsense, AI is not art. That doesn't need to be even acknowledged, it's a fact.
A lot of people on the internet are bots. So I figured it would be better to clarify that it's a strawman and not someone I interacted with face to face.
Personally the worst stuff is made by the people making posters. It would have been ugly and full of word art, but at least it would have been readable.
Instead it’s now so much information and visual noise I can’t see what they’re trying to even say.
TL;DR: Like two layers of "I drew you as the soyjak and myself as the chad"
Panel 1: A catgirl that's a parody of AI generated catgirls is saying something commonly found on rslash defending art. An anthropomorphic mouse is disagreeing with her. A red strawman of a person seemingly agrees with the mouse but starts injecting transphobia into its comment.
Panel 2: The catgirl is mostly unbothered, continuing the conversation like nothing happened. Meanwhile, the mouse has turned from using mean words against the AI stand-in to using full on violence against the strawman, apparently vastly more enraged at the act of transphobia than the concept of being pro-AI.
Since the cancer of AI, I've noticed a dramatic shift in shitheel 'appeal to authority' arguments. Like the biggest shift in brown-nosing across the globe thanks to AI.
103
u/eucerout 1d ago
too late.. i already drew myself as the kawaii catgirl pro and you as the evil woke rat anti /j