Topic: Why no AI?

Would you kindly point me to the explanation?

We value actual artists and not zero effort words thrown into a guessing machine

duxeckspower said:
Would you kindly point me to the explanation?

Artists don't like their art being used to train AI. Also, people fail to disclose AI, making it unclear what's actually art and what's AI...

If you want AI, there's https://e6ai.net/. It's associated with e621 in that the site owner decided it should be a thing, and it runs on the same code, but it operates independently of this site's staff.

Because AI completely defeats the point of art. AI slop is AI slop, no matter how "good" it may look.

Kindly saying, it is slop made by a machine made by humans, and this site is an art archive, not a slop archive

Knowing how people typically employ it, why should we allow it?

crocogator said:
Artists don't like their art being used to train AI. Also, people fail to disclose AI, making it unclear what's actually art and what's AI...

If you want AI, there's https://e6ai.net/. It's associated with e621 in that the site owner decided it should be a thing, and it runs on the same code, but it operates independently of this site's staff.

I don’t exactly want AI, but I have to use it since I’m disabled and cannot draw, only type. Anyway, thanks for the interesting link.

donovan_dmc said:
We value actual artists and not zero effort words thrown into a guessing machine

I wouldn't call prompting to get consistent results - not randomized by "security policies" and training glitches - "zero effort".

lafcadio said:
Knowing how people typically employ it, why should we allow it?

I employ it to visualize ideas I have but can't materialize on paper or otherwise due to stuff. Is it wrong?

duxeckspower said:
I employ it to visualize ideas I have but can't materialize on paper or otherwise due to stuff. Is it wrong?

You can use it personally imo. It's just not allowed on e621.

donovan_dmc said:
We value actual artists and not zero effort words thrown into a guessing machine

Based opinion

duxeckspower said:
I employ it to visualize ideas I have but can't materialize on paper or otherwise due to stuff. Is it wrong?

No, you're free to do whatever legal thing you want with your free time, including "making" AI slop. Just don't start comparing it to real human drawn art.

duxeckspower said:
I wouldn't call prompting to get consistent results - not randomized by "security policies" and training glitches - "zero effort".

It's relative. Prompting is easier than drawing. Fine tuning a model is easier than learning to draw.

Raw model outputs look pretty bad and no one wants it here. It being banned isn't related to effort.

Every art site that allows AI has gotten significantly worse from people flooding them with AI slop. Pinterest, Deviantart, any stock image site out there - all inundated with garbage. Thank gods there's at least two furry sites who refuse to let that shit in.

duxeckspower said:
I don’t exactly want AI, but I have to use it since I’m disabled and cannot draw, only type. Anyway, thanks for the interesting link.

Have you ever looked up artists with disabilities? You'd be surprised how many there are who make magnificent works of art, and who wouldn't be caught dead using AI. No promise that their solutions will work for you, but it's at least worth looking into. There's probably someone out there who faces the same struggles as you, who makes their own art despite it.

mklxiv said:
Based opinion

Yeah, Donovan_DMC has earned a lot of my respect by being so viciously anti-AI. Like, he's probably awesome at Republic Commando and Battlefront II just by how dedicated he is.

I quite dislike most AI just from the way it looks, so obviously most genned content is honestly not good and it gets *old* fast seeing the various stuff thrown out all the time. Not to mention all of the moral reasons to not use AI generally. I do dislike the persecution without real public evidence for 'AI assisted' art that gets stuff removed from here but that's more personal opinion and I suppose something between the artist and here.. (I just always dislike seeing power used in those kinds of ways, I guess I'm a bit anti-authority.)

Since E6 has an AI site I imagine the reason they don't allow it is for quality concerns, but then the 'ai assist' high quality stuff would be allowed so who really knows. I imagine certain staff are fine with it, certain ones are not.

knottygrrl said:
Since E6 has an AI site I imagine the reason they don't allow it is for quality concerns, but then the 'ai assist' high quality stuff would be allowed so who really knows. I imagine certain staff are fine with it, certain ones are not.

To my knowledge the only reason e6ai exists is because Bad Dragon (who funds e621) wanted the main site to allow AI generated images and no one on staff wanted that so e6ai was made as a compromise. e6ai has a totally different staff team. I kind of wish e6ai used a different name to make it clear it isn't "endorsed" by e621.

duxeckspower said:
I wouldn't call prompting to get consistent results - not randomized by "security policies" and training glitches - "zero effort".

Compared to actually learning how to make art, it is absolutely zero effort.
99+% of sloppers don't put any effort into making outputs look decent, and the range of things that can be generated "well" is fairly limited and boring (see 1girl standing).
The few AI images I've seen that actually looked good had very extensive editing done to them or were traced by someone who could draw but was too lazy to.

pankallisti said:
Every art site that allows AI has gotten significantly worse from people flooding them with AI slop. Pinterest, Deviantart, any stock image site out there - all inundated with garbage. Thank gods there's at least two furry sites who refuse to let that shit in.

Have you ever looked up artists with disabilities? You'd be surprised how many there are who make magnificent works of art, and who wouldn't be caught dead using AI. No promise that their solutions will work for you, but it's at least worth looking into. There's probably someone out there who faces the same struggles as you, who makes their own art despite it.

Yes, and I try. I also understand both those who feel that AI art is not really "their" art and those who think it is outrageous that people can simply generate what they want themselves for free instead of being forced to ask them for commissions. I do not like the latter, but I understand. And given the amount of foam my bezoar post in off-topic generated, I am surprised there are so few "AI slop" responses.

duxeckspower said:
Yes, and I try. I also understand both those who feel that AI art is not really "their" art and those who think it is outrageous that people can simply generate what they want themselves for free instead of being forced to ask them for commissions. I do not like the latter, but I understand. And given the amount of foam my bezoar post in off-topic generated, I am surprised there are so few "AI slop" responses.

If you're talking about those who say AI is stealing artist's jobs, that's about companies & art rather than people who do commissions for a living.

usetheblacklist said:
You can use it personally imo. It's just not allowed on e621.

As someone who idly uses it for personal use; My stance is also that AI should STAY personal use, and off e621.

Too many people use it to try and steal commissions. And yes, accepting commissions without disclosing that said person is not using AI is, in my mind, stealing.
Hell, I think charging for AI gens at all is dishonest; The 'artist' is not putting in any real work, and the AI is trained on someone else's style. It's basically 'Pay me to trace an artist's art'.

And AI is trained on real art from real artists, without credit or reimbursement. Which is a real dropped ball on the part of the programmers.
If they had opened with an opt-in for artists, and possibly a 'If a subscribed user gens & saves art in your style, you get a small payment', then it might have been accepted better.

But instead they went with 'Steal it all! ...What do you mean real artists hate us?'

this is an art website and ai can't make art

wwwwwwwww said:
this is an art website and ai can't make art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL0BgC8qtB0

_{ai art? heh, more like AI FART!!!}

ok on an actual serious note (boutta go on a rant) pretty much any art-related site (also just anywhere on the internet in general) that freely allows for ai-generated content is gonna have the quality drop off really fast, such as with rule 34 and the subsequent birth of "ethical gooning" as a response. additionally, most artists dislike ai due to likely having their art fed into a dataset just for a cold and unfeeling machine to pretend it has a soul, not to mention the environmental drawbacks.

while i will admit there are SOME uses of even generative ai as a tool to help people (im pretty sure pusha t even admitted to using ai in his music for the sole purpose of seeing how features could sound) its just that the majority of ai users will not create anything of their own and let ai handle all of the work. while i still personally do not fw ai whatsoever, i HAVE to admit it can be useful as a tool, but not full-on replacement for actual creation.

personally i suck at art, but just because i am complete and utter dogshit at it (at least right now) doesnt mean i'll immediately resort to using ai, especially because i have plenty of ideas for things to draw either out of love or spite and i want to make sure the products of those ideas are my own.

thegoonguardian said:
_{ai art? heh, more like AI FART!!!}

ok on an actual serious note (boutta go on a rant) pretty much any art-related site (also just anywhere on the internet in general) that freely allows for ai-generated content is gonna have the quality drop off really fast, such as with rule 34 and the subsequent birth of "ethical gooning" as a response. additionally, most artists dislike ai due to likely having their art fed into a dataset just for a cold and unfeeling machine to pretend it has a soul, not to mention the environmental drawbacks.

while i will admit there are SOME uses of even generative ai as a tool to help people (im pretty sure pusha t even admitted to using ai in his music for the sole purpose of seeing how features could sound) its just that the majority of ai users will not create anything of their own and let ai handle all of the work. while i still personally do not fw ai whatsoever, i HAVE to admit it can be useful as a tool, but not full-on replacement for actual creation.

personally i suck at art, but just because i am complete and utter dogshit at it (at least right now) doesnt mean i'll immediately resort to using ai, especially because i have plenty of ideas for things to draw either out of love or spite and i want to make sure the products of those ideas are my own.

Thank you for mentioning the environmental drawbacks.

The one thing I always push back against when people say they don't like AI is the environmental drawbacks.

Yes: AI started out very wasteful.
No: It does not use that much energy all the time. Only when large training is done, which is uncommon because companies have to pay for that energy.

Plus; Literally everything humankind has ever invented has been wasteful, with the possible exception of the wheel. And then we iterated on it to make it less wasteful.
The original coal engine: If we had dumped it because 'it's wasteful', then we would not have modern cars, or electric cars, or airplanes, or faster boats.
And even cars, airplanes, and boats get iterated on to be less wasteful and to pollute less.
The first cars were horribly fuel-inefficient, but we iterated on them and now we have electric cars.
But the 'it's wasteful' cry of the anti-AI crowed would see us without anything more advanced than horse-drawn buggies.

And let's not forget the furnaces that keep people's houses warm in the winter; Those waste fuel.
And the power plants that allow us to have working PCs, and air conditioning in the summer, and power our fridges; Those were wasteful at the start, too. (Though, weirdly, the 'think of the environment' crowed is against nuclear power, even though it's less wasteful than coal power).

In short: While pretty much every argument against AI is fair and valid; I feel 'it's wasteful, so it should not be used' is the only invalid one.
Because we're humans; We NEVER just make a thing and say 'There! It's PERFECT forever and no one will ever make it better or more efficient!'

-------------

Sorry for the soapbox. I have a few anti-AI friends and, while we agree on most things, and respect our opinions on things we don't agree on, they will happily repeat 'I hate it because it's wasteful' and then say 'We won't change our minds, so don't bother trying' when I want to counter with the above.

Good friends are: When you can hang out for hours, then want to smack the stupid out of each other, then go back to hanging out again afterwards. XD

fuzzy_kobold said:
Thank you for mentioning the environmental drawbacks.

The one thing I always push back against when people say they don't like AI is the environmental drawbacks.

Yes: AI started out very wasteful.
No: It does not use that much energy all the time. Only when large training is done, which is uncommon because companies have to pay for that energy.

Plus; Literally everything humankind has ever invented has been wasteful, with the possible exception of the wheel. And then we iterated on it to make it less wasteful.
The original coal engine: If we had dumped it because 'it's wasteful', then we would not have modern cars, or electric cars, or airplanes, or faster boats.
And even cars, airplanes, and boats get iterated on to be less wasteful and to pollute less.
The first cars were horribly fuel-inefficient, but we iterated on them and now we have electric cars.
But the 'it's wasteful' cry of the anti-AI crowed would see us without anything more advanced than horse-drawn buggies.

And let's not forget the furnaces that keep people's houses warm in the winter; Those waste fuel.
And the power plants that allow us to have working PCs, and air conditioning in the summer, and power our fridges; Those were wasteful at the start, too. (Though, weirdly, the 'think of the environment' crowed is against nuclear power, even though it's less wasteful than coal power).

In short: While pretty much every argument against AI is fair and valid; I feel 'it's wasteful, so it should not be used' is the only invalid one.
Because we're humans; We NEVER just make a thing and say 'There! It's PERFECT forever and no one will ever make it better or more efficient!'

-------------

Sorry for the soapbox. I have a few anti-AI friends and, while we agree on most things, and respect our opinions on things we don't agree on, they will happily repeat 'I hate it because it's wasteful' and then say 'We won't change our minds, so don't bother trying' when I want to counter with the above.

Good friends are: When you can hang out for hours, then want to smack the stupid out of each other, then go back to hanging out again afterwards. XD

exactly. i swear ive heard somewhere that ai uses less water than a google search. im not sure how true that is, but i do know ai has an environmental impact that is likely overshadowed my legit everything else that happens. its like having a pile of sand, removing a single grain from said pile, and then saying the piles gone. in this analogy the single grain would be ai and the plethora of environmental fuckups would be the pile. while ai IS wasteful to a degree right now, everything is as well, much like you have said yourself. however, i am pretty sure there IS a correlation between where datacenters are built and an increase of electrical bills in the surrounding area, but even then once the demand of ai inevitably dies down/power usage in said areas is managed better then that will likely not be an issue.

while my main concerns with ai are probably the illegal harvesting of data and the subsequent flood of The Slop thats likely to plague the entire internet, environmental impact isnt too much of a concern to me, especially knowing that will hopefully be remediated later.

fuzzy_kobold said:
Thank you for mentioning the environmental drawbacks.

The one thing I always push back against when people say they don't like AI is the environmental drawbacks.

Yes: AI started out very wasteful.
No: It does not use that much energy all the time. Only when large training is done, which is uncommon because companies have to pay for that energy.
[...]

Yes, people cite nuanced talking points they don't understand all the time, & there's nuance to this. Buuuuuut....

• There's still validity in the argument that using AI services is increasing its market projections & contributing to the current AI training arms race we're facing.
• While training is the most demanding by far, it's not like energy consumption drops to nothing afterwards; it still takes a lot of energy compared to simple data storage, retrieval, or light processing operations data centers typically need to facilitate. For example.
• Also remember it's also the outward expansion; these data centers want to be located extremely close to their residential consumers for improved latency & subsidized electricity infrastructure, & there's a colossal surge in demand (to get an idea, that's where all that RAM & storage you can't buy anymore is going, so it's not just a few new developments) so there's a hell of a lot of these being built, many of which are causing environmental damage as a result (contaminated groundwater, noise pollution, destruction of foliage, typical construction stuff).
• Also remember they don't just stop training at some point; it's still training off input all the time.

Also, the energy consumption isn't the only way it's environmentally harmful.

• the water-cooling used in AI data centers takes clean water from communities (which especially hurts in more arid climates)
• the fans used for radiation cause extreme noise pollution, enough to drive away wildlife & even harm nearby residents; I can't find the video rn, so grain of salt, but people living miles from them still suffer a constant droning that contributes to sleep loss at the least, & at those volumes, it doesn't stay at the least.

aacafah said:
Yes, people cite nuanced talking points they don't understand all the time, & there's nuance to this. Buuuuuut....

• There's still validity in the argument that using AI services is increasing its market projections & contributing to the current AI training arms race we're facing.
• While training is the most demanding by far, it's not like energy consumption drops to nothing afterwards; it still takes a lot of energy compared to simple data storage, retrieval, or light processing operations data centers typically need to facilitate. For example.
• Also remember it's also the outward expansion; these data centers want to be located extremely close to their residential consumers for improved latency & subsidized electricity infrastructure, & there's a colossal surge in demand (to get an idea, that's where all that RAM & storage you can't buy anymore is going, so it's not just a few new developments) so there's a hell of a lot of these being built, many of which are causing environmental damage as a result (contaminated groundwater, noise pollution, destruction of foliage, typical construction stuff).
• Also remember they don't just stop training at some point; it's still training off input all the time.

Also, the energy consumption isn't the only way it's environmentally harmful.

• the water-cooling used in AI data centers takes clean water from communities (which especially hurts in more arid climates)
• the fans used for radiation cause extreme noise pollution, enough to drive away wildlife & even harm nearby residents; I can't find the video rn, so grain of salt, but people living miles from them still suffer a constant droning that contributes to sleep loss at the least, & at those volumes, it doesn't stay at the least.

That is, admittedly, a lot worse than I had heard of in the past.
Some of it is less waste inbuilt to AI and more the companies not giving a damn about other people to chase the all mighty dollar.

The inbuilt stuff can be iterated on and reduced.
The human greed and lack of care for others? Not so much.

But all those are, admittedly, good reasons to hate on AI. I can't deny that.

fuzzy_kobold said:
(Though, weirdly, the 'think of the environment' crowed is against nuclear power, even though it's less wasteful than coal power).

source?

fuzzy_kobold said:
In short: While pretty much every argument against AI is fair and valid; I feel 'it's wasteful, so it should not be used' is the only invalid one.
Because we're humans; We NEVER just make a thing and say 'There! It's PERFECT forever and no one will ever make it better or more efficient!'

the problem isn't that it isn't perfect now, it's that literally no one is working towards making it more perfect, because there's no incentive to make things more efficient, because no one cares. their goals aren't to advance anything other than their own wealth and power in the short term and kick the ever-accumulating mass of cans down the road. they just build more of what we already have because it's easy and more profitable than building something new, use more because it's easier than trying to be efficient, and destroy more because nothing matters to them.

I'll also note that, for nuclear power, the benefit isn't energy efficiency, it's energy density. In fact, though I'm far from 100% confident on this, I recall hearing on a Real Engineering video (great channel btw) that most of our techniques for nuclear energy extraction are very lossy; it's just that there's so much energy overall that losing, say, 25% of it isn't really a problem. That's actually true of natural gas as well (though to a far lesser extent); aside from corporate fuckery, the technical reason why it took so long for electric cars to make a comeback isn't because gas vehicles are more energy efficient^*, it was because gas itself just has excellent energy density.

Btw, yeah, I'm very sad we never transitioned to nuclear power; even as a stepping stone to renewables, diversifying energy sources is important for both driving down cost & insulating economies from foreign influences & instability; huh, it's almost like the environment isn't the only reason to stop relying on natural gas, ffs.

^* To be clear, they definitely aren't, considering the drastically heightened frictional losses inside the engine block, on top of regenerative braking; heating is the only thing they're more efficient with.

aacafah said:
I'll also note that, for nuclear power, the benefit isn't energy efficiency, it's energy density. In fact, though I'm far from 100% confident on this, I recall hearing on a Real Engineering video (great channel btw) that most of our techniques for nuclear energy extraction are very lossy[...]

energy loss/efficiency is kind of secondary at this point, if I'm being honest, it's the lower pollution that's the more important. in the case of nuclear, if I remember hearing back around 2015 that (with the technology we had at the time, at least), accounting for manufacturing, construction, and operations, nuclear power plants had a lower lifetime carbon footprint per unit of power generated than even solar farms.

dba_afish said:
energy loss/efficiency is kind of secondary at this point, if I'm being honest, it's the lower pollution that's the more important. in the case of nuclear, if I remember hearing back around 2015 that (with the technology we had at the time, at least), accounting for manufacturing, construction, and operations, nuclear power plants had a lower lifetime carbon footprint per unit of power generated than even solar farms.

Sorry, this is what I mean by 'less wasteful'. As in, it puts out less waste. Not that it is more efficient with what it uses.

Though I do think it's more efficient than burning coal.
I mean, both coal plants and nuclear plants do the same thing with the energy; Boil water into steam. Steam is then used for power. ...We're still steampunk, huh.
Nuclear is just cleaner about it. Though there is the issue of spent rods and what to do with them.

Granted: My info comes from idle browsing and that one scientist on youtube who looks like Thor. So I can be wrong.

dba_afish said:
the problem isn't that it isn't perfect now, it's that literally no one is working towards making it more perfect, because there's no incentive to make things more efficient, because no one cares. their goals aren't to advance anything other than their own wealth and power in the short term and kick the ever-accumulating mass of cans down the road. they just build more of what we already have because it's easy and more profitable than building something new, use more because it's easier than trying to be efficient, and destroy more because nothing matters to them.

And yes, I agree that MOST of the people at the top don't care about efficiency; There are people who DO, in any field. Even if their motivation is 'Can I do it better?', it's still making it better.

That said; Unless the people at the top actively pay for it; It will be slow to improve. I can admit that.

fuzzy_kobold said:
Sorry, this is what I mean by 'less wasteful'. As in, it puts out less waste. Not that it is more efficient with what it uses.

Though I do think it's more efficient than burning coal.
I mean, both coal plants and nuclear plants do the same thing with the energy; Boil water into steam. Steam is then used for power. ...We're still steampunk, huh.
Nuclear is just cleaner about it. Though there is the issue of spent rods and what to do with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfvBx4D0Cms

I'm sure there's exceptions, but I use less energy when I draw with AI then without it. My GPU only runs for a couple of seconds when I use my AI tools, and it reduces my work time by many hours. Even just leaving my system idel for a few minutes takes more power. I've tracked my personal every usage and it drops by kwhrs. Everything i do is local so I'm not using water either. Plus being a lot less painful means I can actually draw again(I didn't have full use of my hands). Which is amazing. Before, it could take me weeks to get a gross wobbly sketch.

The site is allowed to impose what ever restrictions it wants on art. And I respect that. But, art is art, and other people, even other artists can't tell you your work isn't art. AI actually let's me draw again, something I haven't been able to freely since I was a kid. I absolutely hate when artists are assholes to other artists. Long run all their doing is damaging the art community. I refuse to let assholes take my ability to express myself self away. Fuck them.

e6ai is a decent site, just really under under utilized. Long run, more artist will use AI, and I do think things will change here. Just going to take a while.

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
I've tracked my personal every usage and it drops by kwhrs. Everything i do is local so I'm not using water either.

I personally do this with a pencil, paper, and some fineliners to reduce my electricity usage by 100%

post #1321509

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
I'm sure there's exceptions, but I use less energy when I draw with AI then without it. My GPU only runs for a couple of seconds when I use my AI tools, and it reduces my work time by many hours. Even just leaving my system idel for a few minutes takes more power. I've tracked my personal every usage and it drops by kwhrs. Everything i do is local so I'm not using water either. Plus being a lot less painful means I can actually draw again(I didn't have full use of my hands). Which is amazing. Before, it could take me weeks to get a gross wobbly sketch.

The site is allowed to impose what ever restrictions it wants on art. And I respect that. But, art is art, and other people, even other artists can't tell you your work isn't art. AI actually let's me draw again, something I haven't been able to freely since I was a kid. I absolutely hate when artists are assholes to other artists. Long run all their doing is damaging the art community. I refuse to let assholes take my ability to express myself self away. Fuck them.

e6ai is a decent site, just really under under utilized. Long run, more artist will use AI, and I do think things will change here. Just going to take a while.

You and I using AI on our PCs (I don't, because I don't know enough to want to bother trying. I use ChatGPT) don't do the same thing the data centers do to train their AI client...program....thingies? Thingies.

Training their AI thingies does take absurd amounts of power and water. I think the resources needed are going down. But it's still at unacceptable levels at the moment.

It was pushed out too fast and too early by people who care more about cash than other humans or the environment.
I mean, as I've admitted; I use it for personal use. But it would be silly of me to not accept what goes into what I'm using. And I've learned a lot more about it from this very thread.

mklxiv said:
I personally do this with a pencil, paper, and some fineliners to reduce my electricity usage by 100%

Hah, the original interface. A million years old, and it still works.

braixenarchivist said:
Hah, the original interface. A million years old, and it still works.

Not if you can't hold it.

But regardless, I would never call you less of an artist for using your medium of choice.

fuzzy_kobold said:
You and I using AI on our PCs (I don't, because I don't know enough to want to bother trying. I use ChatGPT) don't do the same thing the data centers do to train their AI client...program....thingies? Thingies.

Training their AI thingies does take absurd amounts of power and water. I think the resources needed are going down. But it's still at unacceptable levels at the moment.

It was pushed out too fast and too early by people who care more about cash than other humans or the environment.
I mean, as I've admitted; I use it for personal use. But it would be silly of me to not accept what goes into what I'm using. And I've learned a lot more about it from this very thread.

Sure, training takes energy (about 15.6 GW/hr for stable diffusion). But everything takes power. Even a single pencil will take a couple MJs (~7MJ or ~2kw/hrs) of energy to make and deliver. The graphite is usually make in natural gas powered kilns heated to high temperatures.

With AI the training is a one time cost armorized over all it's user. To give 15.6GW/hr an more manageable base line, a single 4oz hamburger will take about 15MJ or 4Kw/hrs to make (and nearly 1,000 gallons of water). 15.6 GW/hr is about 3.9 million burgers. Image diffusers have hundreds of millions of people using them. So, it's literally less than a hamburgers worth of energy per person. Hamburgers aren't even the most power hungry example I can use.

And again, it's one time. Once generated, you don't need to completely retain it. Loras and five tunning take comparatively no power. I can even make loras on my home system in under an hour.

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
"Before, it could take me weeks to get a gross wobbly sketch."

And this is the saddest part of all this, in my opinion. The whole bot thing took peeps' passion away,
Giving up on interesting images with compelling stories of overcoming adversity just to type.
Peeps pushing for bot stuff just want their product to 'Look Good' and not to find their art good.
Style, Compositions, Decisions on line placement, All just Flavors of ice cream instead of something
you find in yourself, Dood.

This is what people mean when they say a stick figure someone drew is better than a bot's image.
The stick figure shows interesting choices and details about the artist and how they will develop
in the future. A bot's image is nothing but text. Sure, you can pick different fonts, but fonts don't
Evolve; they change as easily as a lightbulb. There's nothing really to be said about it since it's
nothing really, Dood.

Personally, as a peep who's branched off into multiple different things as an artist.

Stills
post #6020068

Comics
post #5746226

Animations
post #5853585

I don't see myself EVER using bot stuff, if I can help it.
Why put text on a blank screen 'Just" because it looks like
times new roman, when I can fill that screen with whatever
I want from the ground up, Dood.

Edit:
Also I think the main problem peeps have with peeps who gen bot images
is the level of artist they're claiming right too. Like someone calling
themselves a 5 star chef for microwaving a pizza. You didn't make the
sauce, You didn't make the cheese; you didn't make the dough. You didn't
make toppings. The peep just heated it up. I can do that too but I wouldn't
call myself a chef ya know, Dood?

notkastar said:
And this is the saddest part of all this, in my opinion. The whole bot thing took peeps' passion away,
Giving up on interesting images with compelling stories of overcoming adversity just to type.
Peeps pushing for bot stuff just want their product to 'Look Good' and not to find their art good.
Style, Compositions, Decisions on line placement, All just Flavors of ice cream instead of something
you find in yourself, Dood.

This is what people mean when they say a stick figure someone drew is better than a bot's image.
The stick figure shows interesting choices and details about the artist and how they will develop
in the future. A bot's image is nothing but text. Sure, you can pick different fonts, but fonts don't
Evolve; they change as easily as a lightbulb. There's nothing really to be said about it since it's
nothing really, Dood.

Personally, as a peep who's branched off into multiple different things as an artist.

Stills
post #6020068

Comics
post #5746226

Animations
post #5853585

I don't see myself EVER using bot stuff, if I can help it.
Why put text on a blank screen 'Just" because it looks like
times new roman, when I can fill that screen with whatever
I want from the ground up, Dood.

Edit:
Also I think the main problem peeps have with peeps who gen bot images
is the level of artist they're claiming right too. Like someone calling
themselves a 5 star chef for microwaving a pizza. You didn't make the
sauce, You didn't make the cheese; you didn't make the dough. You didn't
make toppings. The peep just heated it up. I can do that too but I wouldn't
call myself a chef ya know, Dood?

Your opinion, at least about me, is wrong. I had no passion for the drawing, the pain took that from me. My adversity and the adversity of those like me is not your day time soap opera. I don't care that you take inspiration from my suffering and frankly my failure to ever fully express myself.

My art is mine. Just like a photo is a photographers. In fact much of this same argument was made when photography first started.

My workflow are themselves a work of art. Multiple interaction elements, cascading over tens to sometimes hundreds of different prompts and instructions, programic direction and noise. I spend days making my AI brush do what I want, then yell in frustration when it doesn't and I have to figure out why or work around it. It's frustrating, it's mentally taxing, but the one thing it's not, is debilitatingly painful. It's actually fun.

It's all mine, as much a painting made with a brush is yours. And it always will be. It goes way beyond prompting. I've got hundred of nodes that each do someone different, some of which I literally made from scratch. I've got my own loras which I custome trained and tweaked. I've put far more work into my art than some others have.

Insulting me and my work doesn't change that. I won't say I don't care because clearly I do. I struggled with my art, and finally found something that lets me be who I am. It pisses me off when people try to take away agency and self expression so they can feel better about themselves.

AI gave me soul back, at least when it comes to art. I've said my peace I'm done.

notkastar said:
And this is the saddest part of all this, in my opinion. The whole bot thing took peeps' passion away,
Giving up on interesting images with compelling stories of overcoming adversity just to type.
Peeps pushing for bot stuff just want their product to 'Look Good' and not to find their art good.
Style, Compositions, Decisions on line placement, All just Flavors of ice cream instead of something
you find in yourself, Dood.

This is what people mean when they say a stick figure someone drew is better than a bot's image.
The stick figure shows interesting choices and details about the artist and how they will develop
in the future. A bot's image is nothing but text. Sure, you can pick different fonts, but fonts don't
Evolve; they change as easily as a lightbulb. There's nothing really to be said about it since it's
nothing really, Dood.

Personally, as a peep who's branched off into multiple different things as an artist.

Stills
post #6020068

Comics
post #5746226

Animations
post #5853585

I don't see myself EVER using bot stuff, if I can help it.
Why put text on a blank screen 'Just" because it looks like
times new roman, when I can fill that screen with whatever
I want from the ground up, Dood.

Edit:
Also I think the main problem peeps have with peeps who gen bot images
is the level of artist they're claiming right too. Like someone calling
themselves a 5 star chef for microwaving a pizza. You didn't make the
sauce, You didn't make the cheese; you didn't make the dough. You didn't
make toppings. The peep just heated it up. I can do that too but I wouldn't
call myself a chef ya know, Dood?

This ^

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
Your opinion, at least about me, is wrong. I had no passion for the drawing, the pain took that from me. My adversity and the adversity of those like me is not your day time soap opera. I don't care that you take inspiration from my suffering and frankly my failure to ever fully express myself.

My art is mine. Just like a photo is a photographers. In fact much of this same argument was made when photography first started.

My workflow are themselves a work of art. Multiple interaction elements, cascading over tens to sometimes hundreds of different prompts and instructions, programic direction and noise. I spend days making my AI brush do what I want, then yell in frustration when it doesn't and I have to figure out why or work around it. It's frustrating, it's mentally taxing, but the one thing it's not, is debilitatingly painful. It's actually fun.

It's all mine, as much a painting made with a brush is yours. And it always will be. It goes way beyond prompting. I've got hundred of nodes that each do someone different, some of which I literally made from scratch. I've got my own loras which I custome trained and tweaked. I've put far more work into my art than some others have.

Insulting me and my work doesn't change that. I won't say I don't care because clearly I do. I struggled with my art, and finally found something that lets me be who I am. It pisses me off when people try to take away agency and self expression so they can feel better about themselves.

AI gave me soul back, at least when it comes to art. I've said my peace I'm done.

Little bit rude but take this as a joke:

Since you love your words so much, why don't you read the definition of "art" xD

Now jokes apart. Hi, I'm an artist since I was 4yo and I suffer from neurological damage, I got only some amount of control to my hands, and even writing like this is physically painful, but if you have less pain than me writing you surely can have less pain than me actually drawing can't you? This is a legitimate question, because from what I'm understanding you simply don't like making art and don't want to be an artist, but then resort to other's efforts ai to generate images for you

notkastar said:
-snip-

Generally, my thoughts on it are the same kind of thing. But I'll add on to it...

It has nothing to do with jobs at Hollywood studios that treat people like garbage or shitty publisher-centric and artist-hostile copyright issues. Art is, above all, about personal expression to me- in a sense a reflection of the artist themselves and what they believed to be interesting and worth pursuing. The drive and time put in to learn how to do it all by hand and attempt to make art to-taste is so much more appealing than something generated to me- technical execution is a shallow measure for good art. Generative AI is an ontological affront to art and artists, created to allow corporate executives who have never worked a day in their life to cheap out without a care and retroactively punish people for pursuing the arts by ruining their livelihoods and further devaluing their work and endeavors. This intent soils any legitimacy of the technology itself, given it's purpose-built with that intent. That's not to mention it defeating the purpose of automation too by attempting to remove fulfilling tasks from peoples' lives.

Even if you can only draw wobbly lines, that has more personality and interest to me than something that's just technically impressive. There are plenty of artists on this site who I will not name out of respect who make very technically impressive but at the same time boring and generic work. I enjoy the works of artists with less technical skill but more creativity and uniqueness more, and I feel many people who prefer human-made art feel the same. Case in point, Dr. Seuss was mocked in art school for his lack of technical execution, only to embrace the flaws in his work to have millions of people accept and value it.

I will say I get drawing being a chore. I have grown to dislike the process, but feel compelled to do it- my quest to become the objective best Poképorn artist after Nintendo shot down the OGs like InsomniacOverlrd and Kuroodo'D hasn't gone well for me so far, and has made me very bitter and jaded with a lot to be desired. Nothing kills the joy in the process more than perfectionism. A grueling pursuit of shallow technical skill hasn't got me either the skill or the joy back in my work, and has had me put in therapy for what it did to my mind. All that to realize what makes art good isn't necessarily raw technical skill, and I still haven't recovered.

In the end, you'll never be as precise and granular as a machine. That isn't the point of art. Express yourself, even if your technical execution isn't the best. It's a deeper fulfillment than ordering McDonald's from slop machines.

Just to add some extra here because I've found some of the topics here interesting. In regards to AI and its power consumption, that is genuinely a significant problem but it's a problem that's unsustainable for AI companies so more efficient means must be worked on (and they are) else everything will inevitably collapse.

For example right now roughly 90% of the energy used by LLMs goes into simply bussing data back and forth between memory and processor. AI has pretty much run full speed into the von Neumann bottleneck. There's a fair bit of research going into this problem, with one such example I find amusing because it's exploring what is effectively 60s era tech (memristor-based crossbar array). It would basically allow all calculations to be performed in-memory and eliminate most of the need for bussing data around. Of course this isn't the only approach being looked into, but it's one of them.

So is AI extremely resource hungry? Yes. Is it less-so when operating vs training? Yes, but it's still a lot. Does it need to change? Well if it doesn't AI will die out because we can't expand horizontally around the von Neumann bottleneck forever. Something will change one way or another. When will it happen? Who the hell knows. Is this post hand-waving a lot of things? Yes.

All environmental and ethical concerns aside... I have a hard time seeing "I commission individual works of art through an interface I've gotten good at communicating with" as an artistic endeavor, why would making the thing you're "commissioning" from being an AI make it more artistic? Like, If I hire some guy to draw me a picture to my exact specifications, I didn't make art even if I can enjoy the end product afterwards.

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
Your opinion, at least about me, is wrong. I had no passion for the drawing, the pain took that from me. My adversity and the adversity of those like me is not your day time soap opera. I don't care that you take inspiration from my suffering and frankly my failure to ever fully express myself.

My art is mine. Just like a photo is a photographers. In fact much of this same argument was made when photography first started.

My workflow are themselves a work of art. Multiple interaction elements, cascading over tens to sometimes hundreds of different prompts and instructions, programic direction and noise. I spend days making my AI brush do what I want, then yell in frustration when it doesn't and I have to figure out why or work around it. It's frustrating, it's mentally taxing, but the one thing it's not, is debilitatingly painful. It's actually fun.

It's all mine, as much a painting made with a brush is yours. And it always will be. It goes way beyond prompting. I've got hundred of nodes that each do someone different, some of which I literally made from scratch. I've got my own loras which I custome trained and tweaked. I've put far more work into my art than some others have.

Insulting me and my work doesn't change that. I won't say I don't care because clearly I do. I struggled with my art, and finally found something that lets me be who I am. It pisses me off when people try to take away agency and self expression so they can feel better about themselves.

AI gave me soul back, at least when it comes to art. I've said my peace I'm done.

hard to not be very blunt but here it goes
there is extreme amount of people that has no passion for art. there is a HUGE amount of artists that are disabled and art is their only opportunity for finance. look at people draw using their mouths and lack mobility in elsewhere for example. and that's they could only access and possibly survive through. i could be considered disabled as far as having adhd as well as other disorders and the art is currently what i have. otherwise with no passion for art, i persue different passions that correspond well with my well-being

photography is still a skill and must be done by a human being, and is easily separable from art. an ai machine couldn't generate a decent image without pre-existing photographs, like for art

in technical sense, no it's not 'your work'. an online machine that glops out ai-generated image for you is not yours, especially in a legal sense, made illegible for ai images to be copyrighted. chef making food for you is not your work of labor but theirs.

and i don't really see the process of strategic direction of typing keywords so that you can tell ai image generator to do is the definition of making art. again, it's not your body that produced the art but the algorithm of ai generator does with unsolicited scraps of other peoples' works that made for you automatically. and the cause from consumption of electricity and environmental is another elephant in the room

mklxiv said:
Art is, above all, about personal expression to me- in a sense a reflection of the artist themselves and what they believed to be interesting and worth pursuing. The drive and time put in to learn how to do it all by hand and attempt to make art to-taste is so much more appealing than something generated to me- technical execution is a shallow measure for good art.

I guess it really boils down to what you "want" out of art. If you want to see/experience personal expression, self improvement, and so on, you go for real art. If you really just want porn, you'd be more likely to just settle for slop.

mklxiv said:
Even if you can only draw wobbly lines, that has more personality and interest to me than something that's just technically impressive. There are plenty of artists on this site who I will not name out of respect who make very technically impressive but at the same time boring and generic work. I enjoy the works of artists with less technical skill but more creativity and uniqueness more, and I feel many people who prefer human-made art feel the same.

I agree. Some of my absolute favorite art pieces are slightly cleaned up sketches made by (relative) nobodies where the original lines and forms used for construction are still faintly visible.