this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
822 points (92.4% liked)
Comic Strips
15773 readers
1813 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Check out the youtuber "Neural Viz". Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters. As @tjsauce pointed out, it ultimately comes down to how much you care about what you publish. You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you're aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific. That’s where the artist becomes a designer: someone who not only creates, but curates with intention. Most people aren’t thinking that way.
He hasn't, though. He's done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion's share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
I think part of the problem with the "AI is Art, aktuly" discourse is that people who aren't professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist's end goal. This isn't about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking "I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle" instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
‘An Overwhelmingly Negative And Demoralizing Force’: What It’s Like Working For A Company That’s Forcing AI On Its Developers
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its "art" should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
It's a shorthand to describe basic quality. Because AI slop can be manufactured so quickly, and because it can reasonably approach human art at first glance, the fundamental problem it presents is one of sifting. How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn't an issue of AI content being "art" or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
This stuff doesn't exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work. Even then, its haphazard and poorly implemented. But there's just so god damn much of it. The media equivalent of smog clouding up your windshield and clogging your lungs.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
I don't think even the people who unironically call themselves "AI artists", as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don't think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That's how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.
OK but now do that without stealing other people's art.
Like sampling?
In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people's art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it "feels" more original.
I'd argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
Which does not mean that we can't disapprove of literal copies of other people's work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it's more or less a complexity scale.
"People get inspired from art therefore lifting someone's entire portfolio as training data is OK actually"
Is it hard to type with your head that far up your own ass? Or did you just copy paste what chatgpt told you when you asked it to defend ai generated images?
No need to attack me like that when I'm just sharing my viewpoint.
I'm not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.
I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.
This is Lemmy, all AI is evil and useless.
I thought we left the echo chamber bullshit behind on the other website
-.-
Can’t people discuss stuff without it being derailed by other people who don’t want to discuss?
Pretty sure they're making a joke
This is Lemmy, nothing is a joke.
Huh?
Correct! 🥰
Unironically celebrating your disdain for nuance! 🥰
Me when I think the resource intensive slop machine is nuanced
Lol, bluff called 🥰
I'm confused. I know this is getting a bit sidetracked, but since you're just sealioning anyway at this point idgaf. I looked at your post history and it's got me wondering what a shitlib like you is doing on an anarchist instance??? Do you just like the aesthetics of solarpunk but lack any actual desire to create such a world, or any understanding of what doing so would entail?
So we're clear, your position that all AI is inherently evil and useless is absurd.
It's made all the moreso by the fact that you're clearly just parroting talking points you don't actually understand.
How many resources does it use?