this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
736 points (94.9% liked)

Fuck AI

2556 readers
870 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Art is inherent in us. Just like the need to put boobs on mythical lizard creatures.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

Drawing boobs is second only to the instinct to draw cocks.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

If that Heavy Metal episode of South Park has taught me anything, it's that everything looks better with boobs.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”

Exactly. AI images are not going to eliminate art. They just make it more difficult for artists to compete under capitalism.

The solution is to abandon capitalism. Not stop tech development.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 6 days ago (27 children)

I've always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it's trying to say.

I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art... presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you'll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.

I don't think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don't think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it'll be for different reasons and in different scales than I'm... eh... moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I'm impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 6 days ago (23 children)

Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool

Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 days ago

I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren't trying to replace humans with programs, weren't causing huge environmental impact, and weren't trained on stolen content. It's the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 days ago

I think the argument is that an AI "artist" is incapable of creating art. Their "tool" does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago (3 children)

This pretty well encapsulates my feelings, except for the issue of training the models. AI is cool tech, but the fact remains that people are making money off of scraped content. Not to mention the environmental aspect.

Honestly I find it difficult to reconcile.

In a perfect world, we would have open source models trained on public domain and properly licensed content.

I don’t think AI is going to replace artists any time soon. On the personal side, people create for the joy of it, whatever that means to them. On the professional side, people have a hard enough time communicating what they want to an actual person, much less a computer.

As someone that likely has moderate aphantasia, I really struggle with describing what I want. Being able to tell an image gen to make so many variations of X, and then commission a friend to take inspiration from Y and Z to make something original is really freeing for both sides, imo.

I’ve never gotten exactly what I’m looking for, but it almost always gives me something to point to, without doing a bunch of test drafts. I suppose that’s technically taking work away from the artist, but so does having an ‘undo’ button in procreate.

Idk, it’s a more complex issue than many make it out to be. I’m still further on the fuck ai side than not, just due to its current implementations.

End rant.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 6 days ago (3 children)

This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 days ago

Archaeologists:

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Around the 2000's a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago

Relevant Oglaf (NSFW but not nearly as NSFW as this comic often gets): Dimorphism

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Wait until people remember you can just hit the AI bros with rocks

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

i say this as nicely as I can, you dont need expensive and exploitative algorithms to make art. i dont really care if you say you cant make anything, put a pen to paper and draw. your terrible scribble has infinitely more value than anything a tech company's software can generate using stolen data. and after you crumple that up and throw it away, get another sheet of paper and do it again, and again, until your wrist snaps apart, and I guarantee you will not only have learned something about yourself but you will be more of an artist than any tech bro using chatgpt

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

People use AI for making “art” not because of their lack of ability to create art per se, but they use it rather as a way to cut costs in their commercial projects and skip contracting real artists. This is why it's malicious. I wouldn't care if somoeone uses it for pure, private leisure.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Furries: "I would like to purchase this rock."

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 days ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago

Haven't seen this on here yet

I've seen it 3 times already.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 days ago

The future is approaching. When society will collapse a new Furry-Stone age will begin...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (8 children)

But why give a lizard boobs? They don't have boobs!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's where the fire is stored

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

It's not a lizard.

It's a dragon.

Dragons could have boobs, I've never seen one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Have you ever seen a giant, flying, fire breathing dragon IRL that didn't have boobs?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Non-mammals lacking mammary glands?! Say it ain't so.

And the first thing that came to mind after typing that? Lobster-titties

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Because it's hot

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Supreme Court: that's not art that's pornography. I cant exactly define pornography, but "you know it when you see it."

:P

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Also, if you stick a stamp on it and mail it… straight to jail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago

It has but it is always good to see.

Also Source.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Comments here are a shit show.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Here as in... They internet?

load more comments
view more: next ›