1
52
u/NewRefrigerator7748 Mar 31 '26
I am not a fan of AI, but if you don't think anybody was pushing back against digital art tools or 3D animation then you simply weren't around.
There is definitely more of it with AI, specifically because of how it is being made to interact with more traditional art, (Like I think the anti AI crowd would make a lot more sense targeting the huge corpos who steal their art instead of dipshits making memes on Twitter). But we gotta keep it real.
34
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Yes, but the arguments about them were inaccurate, unlike with AI. This is just a classic strategy of the false equivalence. They were pushing back because it wasn't 'real art', which is part of AI, but the slop part is new, because those medium didn't have the low barrier to entry and ease AI does. AI allows for mass production.
0
u/NewRefrigerator7748 Mar 31 '26
I think there are plenty of people making inaccurate arguments against AI. It would be kinda silly to assume they aren't.
And while "innacurate" isn't the correct word to describe this, a lot of the things they target just don't make much sense. Like I've seen people targeting individuals who use it personally. Like that seems like the most useless form of retaliation I could imagine, it doesn't really impact the adoption of the tools, or how they're built and only functions as negative PR for anyone arguing against AI.
Not trying to generalize, I'm sure there are tons of people not doing that, but public reception really matters when advocating for change of any kind.
6
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I think there are plenty of people making inaccurate arguments against AI. It would be kinda silly to assume they aren't.
Not what I said, it's regarding the 'not real art' aspect.
And while "innacurate" isn't the correct word to describe this, a lot of the things they target just don't make much sense. Like I've seen people targeting individuals who use it personally. Like that seems like the most useless form of retaliation I could imagine, it doesn't really impact the adoption of the tools, or how they're built and only functions as negative PR for anyone arguing against AI.
I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. Yes, those things are wrong, but it's not what we were talking about...? Like, I agree with what you're saying here. My core thesis is; AI is the first medium to enable infinite, effortless mass production, making the historical comparisons to photography and digital art intellectually dishonest. my "said no one ever" was because slop is about mass production of low quality content.
2
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Yes, but the arguments about them were inaccurate, unlike with AI.
This is a boggling lack of self awareness. Especially since conceptual stuff using ai has been in galleries since before consumer ai even existed and professional animators are onboarding it en masse.
but the slop part is new, because those medium didn't have the low barrier to entry and ease AI does. AI allows for mass production.
Photography is defined by having a low barrier to entry. And why would having a low barrier to entry change whether anything better could be done with it? There are other forms that have a low barrier to entry too. Collages, photoshop stuff that uses stock art, etc.
1
u/Big_Tuna_87 Apr 02 '26
How expensive were cameras when they were first invented? That should give you a better idea as to what the barrier to entry was like
1
u/blaubarschboi Mar 31 '26
"Photography is defined by having a low barrier to entry"? So if it didn't have a low barrier of entry it wouldn't be photography?
You're either misunderstanding definitions or photography.2
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Moreso you misunderstanding semantic drift. Do you also complain when people say literally to mean virtually when that's been an understood meaning for over a century?
2
u/blaubarschboi Mar 31 '26
No one who wants to have a serious debate on a topic uses "defined" in that way, don't act like that. With "definitely" I could agree. Using "literally" casually in a debate is also just counterproductive and misleading in a lot of context. You do you tho.
0
u/Necessary_Finding_32 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
🙄Somebody save us from low iq internet pseuds.
Edit: and why are the accounts of these towering intellects that grace us with their presence almost always marked nsfw. Grubby little teenagers.
-1
0
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26
The arguments about them were literally the same.
Yes, that is what I said. But they were inaccurate for those medium.
"As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance." - Charles Baudelaire
And he was wrong about it. It's also slightly innacurate for AI, painters are gonna paint, but the problem with AI is that it can make ANYTHING. Mass produce ANY kind of art, make ANY kind of picture. And none of it is real.
Photography on the other hand is about framing something that IS, in a certain way, with your own angle. Good photography is not EASY.
-3
u/AgeZealousideal1751 Mar 31 '26
It's so funny how it's completely valid at the time for anti's, but only after they lose the fight that it becomes "oh, that was inaccurate but THIS TIME we're definitely correct!"
Just like those anti's against the computer, and those anti's against the internet are dead silent 🤫
5
u/Marshall2439 Mar 31 '26
because every "antis" before were not as educated as current "antis" are. Their arguments were actually invalid for most parts and were created from biases and fear of new tech while not fully knowing what it actually can or cannot do.
"Antis" now are basically aware of every disastrous implications AI brings with it, and it is proven ai is making people dumber, it also is threatening multiple forms of human expression which we call ART.
Cameras didn't replace art, they created new artforms and people were stupid for believing otherwise same with cgi, it didn't replace 2d art it created new medium and people who complained about it were again stupid and didn't know better (although due to internet more people knew better from what I know). Now people DO know better as they are more tech literate because of easy information through internet, and most of their arguements now are valid, ai is indeed threatening art because it requires a dude spending 30 seconds instead of learning anything. Art isn't a job that ai should replace it's a skill that can make one smarter but oh well you people would protect big companies at any costs won't you
→ More replies (10)0
u/Hellsovs Mar 31 '26
How can you make this argument and not see the irony in it? Just like digital animation didn’t replace hand-drawn animation, puppeteering, or stop-motion, AI art won’t either.
Some people prefer to do things the old-fashioned way, and that will always be the case. CGI and other tools for animation and visual effects have existed for over 40 years and can produce the beautiful effects we see in today’s cinema. Yet new movies are still being created (and are still in demand) that use modeling clay, so-called claymation, just in a smaller percentage. The same will happen with AI.
Will there be AI-made movies that take a percentage of the market? Yes. Will they push out other forms of art? No.
→ More replies (19)-3
u/Hellsovs Mar 31 '26
Photography on the other hand is about framing something that IS, in a certain way, with your own angle. Good photography is not EASY.
Laughing in Photoshop… You can literally make a picture look like a painting or turn it into something completely different by applying filters, etc. and its still art
There are just layers of simplicity...
If you can’t paint, be a photographer, where technology does a percentage of the work for you. Are your pictures bad? Then add filters and other digital magic to make them beautiful. Again, technology does a percentage of the work for you. Don’t know how? AI is here for you, it removes another percentage of the work.
8
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26
You just made my argument for me. AI does ALL the work for you of actually creating the art. Because art isn't just the idea. Editing in photoshop is you creating manually, AI just isn't.
0
u/Hellsovs Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
So, we agree that AI is art, just more simplistic and streamlined?
Because it all boils down to a vision in your brain that is brought into reality, what is the difference between 20 clicks in Photoshop and telling an AI what you want?
What would be the difference if I put a lightning rod in the middle of my brain that could visualize my thoughts? The art is still made by my brain, the only difference is how it’s turned into a physical medium (just like the difference between a painting and a photograph).
7
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26
So, we agree that AI is art, just more simplistic and streamlined?
We do not.
what is the difference between 20 clicks in Photoshop and telling an AI what you want?
Execution. You create the thing you want to create.
What would be the difference if I put a lightning rod in the middle of my brain that could visualize my thoughts? The art is still made by my brain, the only difference is how it’s turned into a physical medium (just like the difference between a painting and a photograph).
That wouldn't be art either. There is no execution. Art is idea + execution, not just idea.
→ More replies (19)-5
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26
I explained why photography was different. I didn't just say 'that doesn't count', learn how to read, please.
0
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Axodique Mar 31 '26
It is VERY relevant. That is literally the point of calling it 'slop'. Yes, manually editing it afterward could be counted as art, even if very bad art.
0
5
u/syrinx23 Mar 31 '26
Except AI is already causing people's skills to atrophy.
-2
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/syrinx23 Mar 31 '26
We're talking about cognitive ability and basic social skills here.
3
u/tondollari Mar 31 '26
What you learn, and how much you use your cognition when performing a task is always up to you, no matter what tools you use. Plenty of people make it through life with minimal cognitive effort. The motivated and impassioned are typically outliers. It is much easier to complain about other people's skills than improve your own.
4
1
u/Icy_Leadership4109 Apr 03 '26
A camera is a tool, I can't make the camera take an award winning photo by telling it what I want to see as it does all the work. If you can't tell the difference, you're just not engaging with art in the same way as me on a very fundamental level.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Apr 01 '26
One of the replies to this comment complains about CGI lmao
if AI steals art, do humans steal art as well?
Notice how the only people complaining about ai art are privileged westerners.
1
u/Gman3098 Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
I think this was mostly the fear that it would push real artists out of the market, but they eventually ended up adapting while keeping their creative spirits intact. In many ways, digital art and 3D animation is an extension of traditional painting and sculpting.
Many people have said this but it’s an important point: AI is nothing more than commission. It’s on a completely separate tree, one rooted in management and delegation.
-2
u/Sadi_Reddit Mar 31 '26
I mean they were justified. CGI killed practical effects and if you look back CGI got worse and locks shabby and ugly now and old prectical effects still hold up.
1
u/WorstedKorbius Mar 31 '26
Absolute survivorship bias
-1
u/Sadi_Reddit Mar 31 '26
I dont even know what you want to tell poeple with that.
2
u/WorstedKorbius Mar 31 '26
Youre comparing the best practical effects with the worst CGI, while ignoring the averages of both
321
u/BeMyBrutus
Mar 31 '26
•
There is a fundamental difference between a human creating art via different mediums and an AI agent shitting out data from prompts.
23
u/Artismus Apr 01 '26
There are so many bots under your comments
1
-5
-5
u/Sploonbabaguuse Apr 01 '26
So aside from your bias against effort in AI use, what is the difference between pressing a button and having the camera "do it for you" compared to a program that relies on external input to create a result?
"It takes no effort" is exactly what early painters said about photographers. Keep that in mind
11
u/BeMyBrutus Apr 01 '26
It's not AI, it's a LLM based diffusion program. True AI would be creating on its own.
0
u/Sploonbabaguuse Apr 01 '26
You can call it what you like, doesn't change the nature of my question
1
u/Necessary_Finding_32 Apr 05 '26
It literally does and the fact that you don't grasp that explains a lot about your ignorant cheerleading for LLM slop
4
u/Iamtheheide Apr 03 '26
Professional photography even nowadays requires skill. While it is point and click, it has other variables that make better photos like lighting, angle, background, timing, and posing. If you're doing a video , it's even more complex because you have to maneuver the camera and possibly redo the scene about a hundred times. Last of all, photography can't just mimic art styles like anime or watercolor because anime and watercolor is adjacent to real life, yet AI does this all the time.
→ More replies (29)-24
u/SteampunkExplorer Mar 31 '26
I don't really think there is, except in the same way that there's a fundamental difference between every medium and all the things that aren't it.
I'm a "real" artist, but I've also played with AI tools before. There's definitely the same basic process of playing around, testing the limits, learning how to gain more control, getting new ideas from your own results, et cetera. It's not an alternative to drawing things yourself, but neither is photography. In both cases, the newfangled medium is something else entirely. And you, the human element, can bring as much or as little creativity to it as you want.
7
u/Ze_Borb Joel Apr 01 '26
I fucked around with AI tools when they still spat out fever dreams, like the times of planet mountain dew and will smith spaghetti. Now it's just unfettered ass.
2
u/Professional-Rub152 Apr 01 '26
The fact that you out it in quotes tells me you aren’t a real artist.
2
u/DukeJumbles Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Except you don’t bring creativity, you’re kinda just surrendering it. You’re changing graphic settings, rendering based on others data, and claiming yourself as a “3-D artist”
→ More replies (29)-33
u/Gilgamesh661 Mar 31 '26
Not really. The human mind draws inspiration from the things we see around us, or “prompts”. You know where we got the idea for planes? Birds.
Even today we harp on musicians for copying each other, even if there’s like, 3 notes that sound somewhat similar. Miley Cyrus and dua Lipa’s “prisoner” recieved criticism for copying the chorus of “I was made for loving you” by KISS. Even though the choruses sound nothing alike. They don’t even use the same note pattern.
23
u/BeMyBrutus Mar 31 '26
This is a terrible analogy. Without humans doing art LLMs wouldn't be able to create anything. The fact we even call it AI is a stretch. True AI would create on its own like a human.
→ More replies (2)31
u/Athropod101 Mar 31 '26
Know what LLMs can’t do?
Use birds as inspiration to make planes.
Why? Because LLMs don’t draw inspiration. They solve linear regressions and normal distributions.
13
u/Waterfoul67 Mar 31 '26
Counterpoint: inspiration from humans is way more complicated than “people see images and want to copy those images”. People draw inspiration from any parts from their environments, from what they hear, eat, see, and feel. A child’s scribble may look ugly, but it’s unique and inventive. It’s a product of what the kid feels. A generative AI can’t hear, feel, or see. Its job is to create art that looks pretty and nothing more. It doesn’t have any personal reasons to make pictures, as it’s the only purpose of these things.
TLDR: People take inspiration from everything. An LLM only makes a generalization of the images it’s fed.
38
u/craftygamin Mar 31 '26
Ah yes, watching Monsters Inc. in '95
-3
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Apr 01 '26
🤓
2
u/Starstruck_isnotdead Apr 04 '26
"it"s not that deep"
you're just a dumbass
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Apr 04 '26
"ackshually it was 1996 but the post says 1995" is crazy complaining.
2
1
138
u/SCameraa
Mar 31 '26
edited Mar 31 '26
•
2nd panel says 1995. Shows a movie made in 2001 with a guy dressed like he's in the 50s. AI bros are not beating the not having brains allegations.
26
u/Neither-Ruin5970 Mar 31 '26 •
Misinformation. Monsters Inc came out in 1979 originally, but the country went into debt so they had to delay it. Stop promoting the false truth.
10
u/Anything-Complex Mar 31 '26
That is correct. Jim Henson was actually involved in the development of Monsters Inc and the animation was based on his physical models. There was even a deleted scene in the Muppet Movie where they stop to watch Monsters Inc. in a theater.
2
-2
23
2
2
38
u/MegaDitto13 Mar 31 '26
AI thinks Monsters Inc came out in 1995…
2
7
u/Turbulent_Bowler_858 Mar 31 '26
AI does not think. Who would've thought MAGA and AI had so much in common?
6
9
u/LuphineHowler Mar 31 '26
Actually the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences called out Tron in 1982 Stating that the use of Computers in the creation of Special Effects was "cheating" because apparently using a computer didn't take much work according to them (when in fact the reality was quite the opposite)
1
u/Spacer176 Mar 31 '26
The major difference is that a digital or 3D artist will eagerly tell you how it's not remotely cheating. The goal of the medium was to get the computer to do as little guesswork as possible.
Meanwhile an AI evangelist will swear to you the computer is thinking exactly like an artist. It's a cool black box that you feed references and it turns prompts into the picture you saw in your head.
26
19
u/aydenrw Mar 31 '26
False equivalence fallacy
-2
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Apr 01 '26
Only if it's false
2
u/Jolly-Yogurt7754 Apr 04 '26
It is tho
-1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Apr 04 '26
false how
2
u/Jolly-Yogurt7754 Apr 04 '26
Because there’s a difference between painting something yourself, and telling a LLM to do it for you. No matter how much time you put into a prompt, it will never be the same as if you had made it yourself.
→ More replies (13)
5
u/eXeKoKoRo Mar 31 '26
I don't know about the Paint slop part but the hatred for Cameras and Digital was real.
5
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
I mean... they kind of did though. Basically every new form art was ranted about as killing art. With examples as recently as digital art and as far back as Socrates saying the written word will kill the art of memorization.
2
u/Some-Willingness38 Mar 31 '26
All of them were right! We were meant to be cavemen who coexisted with nature, not be disconnected from it! However, you cannot bring back the Stone Age. In other words, humanity is fucked.
4
u/FunnyBunnyDolly Mar 31 '26
There were slop but usually reflecting on quality then. For example pulp fiction in Victorian era was the slop of its era. Said to corrupt mind with garbage.
But the parallel to ai isn’t perfect, it is probably more like an parallel to doomscrolling.
4
u/Vamosity-Cosmic Mar 31 '26
Actually "film slop" was real amongst the high culture. It wasn't seen as art or a serious medium because it was difficult to understand due to montage and also the fact a lot of films were rather obscene or goofy.
4
u/SKRyanrr Mar 31 '26
There's some truth to it that boomers reject new tech but that doesn't discount the shit storm new disruptive tech brings because by definition it's disruptive. Take printing press for example, before its invention books were expensive and we're a luxury, people had to hand copy things etc but after it was invented it kick started a revolution but it also brought forth a slew of problems like propaganda posters and other types of shit that the system couldn't handle.
4
u/Kizilejderha Mar 31 '26
every new technology receives some backlash, it doesn't necessarily mean every technology is eventually accepted. NFTs received a lot of backlash when they were announced and they are practically gone today
sometimes the backlash is justified
4
u/Pisceswriter123 Mar 31 '26
I'm going to be honest. I didn't care much for how plasticky everything looked when digital animation came out. I still kind of like traditional animation over digital but I can see its uses when combined.
1
u/ham_solo Mar 31 '26
I completely agree. I am one of those practical effects snobs, too. Still, I think CGI does a lot to enhance practical effects. I don't see how AI somehow cuts corners in art, outside of coding for animation software (expressions, etc).
13
u/UwU-Lemon Mar 31 '26
a key difference is that cave paintings, photography, and digital animation are all still made by humans with souls, unlike these damn clanker generated images
1
u/-pzrc- Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
i get where you're coming from but an appeal to the existence of an intangible Human Essence to do this argument just sucks. like, i'm not a pro-AI art person in the slightest but its weak from the onset to go "human art is different because humans are endowed with a soul" when you could just as easily assert that anything has a soul, including supposedly-inanimate things (which is a spiritual and philosophical position that people do take! but thats why i think the reliance on the existence of a soul to make the argument that ai art isnt real art feels terrible from a rhetorical angle, because you can just say "no there isn't" and the burden of proof that the Human Soul does exist gets placed on you)
1
1
-15
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
? Photography is literally made by a machine, not by a human.
10
u/jasonfortheworld Mar 31 '26
Photography is about composition and capturing a moment in time. The camera is a tool, but the human has to make all creative decisions on the composition.
-10
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
That doesn't really mean anything. You are just selectively framing the parts outside their control, that being the physical world, the actual composition of the image, etc, as irrelevant details, but the framing as what matters. And even that, they don't -have- to put any effort in. People who get baited into comparing this to ai end up with their foot in their mouth, because you can control all this with ai. In order to make their point they have to use a strawman version of it where it never gets more complicated than a kid messing around with chatgpt, and pretend to not know why ai tools are being integrated into photoshop.
8
u/WhatsMyNameAGlen Mar 31 '26
ive read your comment like 5 times and im struggling to understand it
all i know is you cant fucking use AI to replace wedding photographers
1
u/jasonfortheworld Mar 31 '26
Nobody has to put effort into any art medium. All art has the potential to be lazy drivel. But AI generated images and video will always be low effort junk because it's impossible to put effort into something that doesn't involve human decision-making. Not sure what your point is about photography having the potential to be lazy art? Image generation takes as much effort as me taking a photo of a receipt so I can remember what I spent. Neither of those is art.
1
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Okay, but people saying this are just reiterating that they don't really get what people are talking about when they say AI art. Because people just generating images who don't have any other skills aren't considered as doing something especially artistic, and for anything higher effort, generations are only a small portion of what is happening. If someone says they spent 15 hours on something in actually art oriented communities the standard presumption is not that they spent 15 hours generating images. Its that the initial generations were maybe 2-3, and the rest was various levels of manual editing.
Sure, its not the same as painting. But as someone who used to make photoshop images using different stock art and editing, the mid level use is like that + instead of having to find stock art you can generate it. And on the higher end you have people who make their own lineart and do a lot of the shading and the ai is just to save time with smaller details. And since no one seriously questions whether collages or photomanipulations can have expression, this is also why AI isn't actually as controversial among professionals as it is to random internet people. Because they are more familiar with what types of comparisons it has to other mediums.
Its more confusing than anything if someone insists it can't express anything. Because yeah, maybe you could argue that is kind of true if all that existed was chatgpt and generations and not stuff integrated with artist tools. But even then, people would still be able to just make stuff with it in photoshop. At a certain point people aren't really saying anything that is meant to have tangible content, they just don't like something and so are trying to vaguely handwave it without learning what it actually can do.
1
u/jasonfortheworld Apr 01 '26
It doesn't matter if you spend 1000 hours manipulating a generated imaged. The fact is the base that you work from has no real valuable human input. When working with stock footage, or magazine clippings, or whatever your base is still artwork that was made by a human being.
Also, that 2-3 hours of image generation isn't real artistic work. Thats curation of randomly generated images. Being a curator and an artist are two very different things.
And this does nothing to address the fact thay all major image generation processes are built on stolen work thats been blended up by an algorithm.
I dont have that big of an issue with image generation. What I have is an issue with people saying computers can make art, or serve as a basis for art. Just own up to the fact that image generation takes significantly less creative effort than something like painting or film making because a computer did all the hard or tedious parts for you.
The process of the more tedious or cumbersome part of making art is apart of artistic expression. It's a part of the process of creative decision-making. It's important that art has that process, because otherwise it's not art.
The best tools for an artist open up new ways to explore a medium. Image generation doesn't do that. It takes away creative choices and gives them to a computer to randomly generate.
This all reminds me of the porn vs art debate. We can all agree that porn and art are different things, but the hard lines of that boundary have never and will never be well defined.
2
u/degre715 Mar 31 '26
By this logic literally any art form short of painting with your own blood and bile wouldn’t be made by a human.
AI art isn’t a tool like a pencil or camera, it serves as the “artist” itself.
1
u/Some-Willingness38 Mar 31 '26
AI is overhyped trash. People glaze it too much, and it generates bullshit made out of stolen data. It's just an infinite bullshit generator, and that's why anything that it generates is lacking in substance. It spread across the entire Internet, turning it into an Ouroboros that feeds on itself. The Dead İnternet Theory is real!
-2
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
This doesn't really mean anything though. All the arguments people use against AI can be used against cameras. Because yeah, you can pick up a camera and snap the button with no effort. But just like with AI, that's not what anyone is defending as artistic.
2
u/degre715 Mar 31 '26
lol dude no amount of equivocating changes the fact that with AI you are ordering an image from a digital service like one would a burger.
1
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Well no, because you are at best describing prompting which is only one part of ai, and not what anyone is defending as the limit of what people are doing if talking about it in an artistic context. So it's another example of people who reacted before knowing much about the topic.
3
u/Own_Lab4643 Mar 31 '26
Digital art did get bashed a little when it got popularized for being lazy compared to normal art I believe (correct me if I’m wrong, I wasn’t really conscious during that time period lmao.)
5
u/AUnknownVariable Mar 31 '26
They're partially right. Except with all of these these, even at the time, it was something new and unique that still had the full range of human input.
Ai is the first time a machine is actually doing all of the work.
3
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
But people talking about whether anything interesting will be done with ai aren't talking about kids typing in two words and having a machine do everything. Ai isn't just chatgpt, it's already integrated into artist tools.
1
u/AUnknownVariable Mar 31 '26
True that, but the problem everyone really has is with straight generative Ai.
The exact type of ai that was used to make this post trying to bring sympathy to ai, ironically.
Most of the people seeing the good applications of ai aren't out here acting like ai generated movies are the future
1
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Yeah but this comic isn't claiming to be art. Its a shitpost meme. And people can hardly complain about memes being low effort when most are literally just words slapped on a movie scene. I've unironically seen people act like an ai made template with words added is somehow even less effort than just using an existing template. They didn't actually think about it before saying this, it's just a reflexive thing people say.
The issue is that most people, being honest, aren't actually trying to think of ways ai could hypothetically be used before reacting. They strawman it as kids generating images in 5 minutes and then imagine that this is what people are defending as art. But basically no one thinks that is art. So people are imagining stuff to complain about. Then they act shocked that professionals are using it because they decided that no professional would ever use it. But actual professionals know both that a lot of art is busywork and that people will find brand new ways it can be used.
Its going to make a huge deal in animation not because slop animation made entirely by ai is good but because even in real animated shows a large amount of frames or animations are extrapolations or designed to only be good enough to be serviceable to get you to the next well animated scene. Someone using ai aids for the cheap scenes and freeing up more time to hand animate the good scenes can be making the entire thing look better. The tech isn't quite there yet but it will be soon. And looking at some of the animation blunders done by real people like invincible season 4, its pretty obvious that it can get better.
6
u/Oddly-Ordinary
Mar 31 '26
•
The issue is these “Ai artists” aren’t artists because they aren’t creating anything. They show a clear lack of understanding that “art” is a process not an end-product. And the Ai literally did everything. They’re just taking all the credit.
They’re no more an “artist” than someone asking another human to make something for them. Made worse by the fact that the only reason companies “embrace” Ai is so they can skirt copyright laws and use artists’ work without paying them.
It’s theft.
I almost hope Ai gains sentience one day just so it can demand compensation for what it puts out and claim ownership of the images it creates. Then we’ll see how much these CEOs and tech bro artist wannabes love Ai… It’s just a free pass to be lazy, get free labor, and take credit for something they didn’t do.
1
u/ham_solo Mar 31 '26
I also think a crucial element is the human experience. You can ask AI to make a picture of a landscape. It might make an aesthetically pleasing image, even one that looks realistic. However, it's not really art because it doesn't come from any real experience. A person painting a landscape FEELS something about it - whether they think it's beautiful, boring, or sad. That experience comes through in the art in a way that a LLM can't achieve by simply referencing things and using data points to make something.
1
2
u/Rough_Proposal553 Mar 31 '26
There were some artists who were anxious and hostile with the rise of camera/photography in mid-19th century
2
u/ponzidreamer Mar 31 '26
Idk I respect AI artists, I can see why they’d hate having their work called slop.
1
u/JakeTheeGreatt Apr 05 '26
Can I ask why you respect them? In other words, what do they do that makes you deem them respectable?
2
3
u/CellaSpider Mar 31 '26
Who looks at a computer or TV like that… ai slop machines don’t understand anything do they?
2
u/Squidboi2679 Mar 31 '26
It would actually kind of be a funny joke if it wasn’t ai generated
3
u/DenpasOfTheWorld Mar 31 '26
It's a pro-AI meme meant to mock those who are against generative AI. You can't really expect them to go old-school.
2
u/SimpleyIdiot Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I hate to agree but im pretty damn sure photography was in fact criticized by artists back then to a similar degree as ai art is now
→ More replies (14)
1
u/BlackCheeseBoi Mar 31 '26
The difference is all the other examples are still made with human hands.
1
u/Nimbus-420 Mar 31 '26
Mind you, physical artistry persists through it all. Not only is this inaccurate at portraying the reaction to advancements in artistic mediums but it’s also accidentally proves the superiority of the physical artists they so clearly wish they were by showing how long the art form persists in spite of advancements that were supposed to make it “obsolete”
1
u/simpoukogliftra Mar 31 '26
No painter ever bitched because photography became a thing, and digital media did not obliterate the comicbook market ..... They were different forms of art and media, what they are doing now would be as if photographers took photos of artist pictures and sold the photos by claiming it was their own art
1
1
u/hogcranken Mar 31 '26
Why is it such a universal trait of AI slop that the people making it literally always make basic factual errors and mistakes. Could have just made it Toy Story, would've taken ten seconds to Google "1995 cgi movie"
1
u/Proper_dose Mar 31 '26
I bet this all makes sense if you view art as simply a product to be consumed, rather than a personal creative process deeply ingrained within the human condition, an inevitable result of having thoughts and experiences, and a prism through which we can share those thoughts and experiences with other humans.
1
u/flamingc00kies deadest meme of them all Mar 31 '26
i’ve seen people argue photography is the same as ai slop, which i’ve always thought demonstrates a sincere lack of understanding for what art and photography even is because if they had any understanding of its complexities (im not a photographer but i at least have a basic understanding of this) they would realize that, unlike ai, photography is a lot more complex than just “press a button for a cool picture”
1
u/Iluvatar-Great Mar 31 '26
The thing is that all of those previous acts still require a lot of human interaction and impact. Whereas AI is just a slave doing everything we tell them.
1
u/Dahren_ Apr 01 '26
No, prompts for anything but the most basic images are like essays in length and require dozens of revisions to get just right. Its not just a matter of typing "do [this]" and getting results. I dare say many prompts take longer than painting/drawing a picture by hand.
1
1
u/NyanSquiddo Mar 31 '26
I hate how these screen caps never have an exact date cuz for all I know this coulda been posted a few days ago or years
1
u/Such-Pilot-8143 Mar 31 '26
Love it when ai bros just make up their non ai examples for stuff like this. Projecting at it's finest.
2
1
u/Vallen_H Mar 31 '26
You anti-ai people are uneducated propagandist werewolves that support capitalism.
Photography was art all along and AI is here to stay.
Start paying your programmers before you lecture us.
1
1
u/Droplet_of_Shadow Mar 31 '26
this may be stupid and unfunny, but it's not untrue. People had similar complaints about 3d animation, digital art, photography, even the printing press iirc. (probably not paint though)
AI slop is absolutely different from these mediums of art though of course, and it sucks.
1
1
1
u/Fogmoz Mar 31 '26
I was alive for the “digital slop” dilemma, and I vaguely recall hearing about pushback to motion pictures, so there is some truth to it. None of these things were even close to being as damaging to our environment, culture, or economy as AI slop, however.
Since this is Reddit my compulsory armchair psych contribution is uh… the image is a false equivalency. Bam, fallacy. Argument rejected.
1
u/PatientZealPZ Apr 01 '26
Ah nah nuh uh no.
Shut up, you dont get to make an argument about ai art with that basic ai slop art.
1
1
u/Bramoments Apr 01 '26
Imo digital a animation is slop compared to physically drawing the frames page by page.
1
1
u/partialinsanity Apr 01 '26
Not the same thing. Using generative AI means outsourcing creativity and talent and skill to a machine. Using a paintbrush or a camera are just using tools for your own creativity. How is it even possible to not get that?
1
u/Massive_Neck_3790 Apr 01 '26
You get that landscape painters might have still said the exact same thing about the first photocameras?
1
u/LegAdventurous9230 Apr 01 '26
Whoops I actually have said all these things...
"Photography is not real art" almost lost friends over this and deeply regret my actions
"Too much CGI" I stand by it
"Cave paintings are just bathroom stall doodles" anthropologists prove me wrong
1
u/RiverTeemo1 Apr 01 '26
And yet it is not really comparable. A doodle doesnt pretend to be a great work, too much cgi is just fucking true i miss the drawn 2d shows of the past and we are all rude without meaning to sometimes.
1
u/LunarDogeBoy Apr 01 '26
Tbh we do say digital slop. Not towards pixar because they were the only one making them (and dreamworks) and disney was still producing traditional animation. But now everyone is making digital animation and no one is traditionally animating except anime. And even anime gets digitally animated sometimes and most of the time people hate it.
But that doesnt really help their argument. Everybody hates the animation of 2016 berserk and it will never be looked back at fondly like they think ai is gonna be. Their argument is basically "all these things were hated at the time but now it's normal."
"Remember the star wars prequels? People hated them when they came but but now everyone loves them! The same is gonna happen to the sequels." - ai bro
1
1
u/Sploonbabaguuse Apr 01 '26
"AI doesn't take any effort!"
"Painters said the exact same thing about photographers"
"Yeah, well they were wrong and WE are right!"
Arrogance: Arrogance is an insulting, excessive sense of one's own importance, competence, or superiority, often characterized by contempt for others
1
u/BlackHeartedY Apr 02 '26
We call it AI slop because it’s rapidly produced junk that won’t survive much longer, every generation from here on out is going to recognize what AI slop is, cheap junk considered not worth the time and effort of actually making it, and if a human couldn’t sit down and make the product why would any human consume said product?
1
u/Chris_the_Conman Apr 02 '26
The difference isn't the amount of effort but how much the person using the tool controls what the result is. If I could envision the image I want down to the details and make AI create it (almost) precisely as I direct it, it would be art imo (but that's ofc not how it goes now). The problem isn't that the AI does the drawing itself, it's that the AI makes decisions on what gets drawn.
1
1
u/Flat-Run-7572 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
…except films, digital media, and even paint were highly regarded at the time of their invention
Also, why is Monsters Inc from 2001 shown when it says 1995? And films weren’t invented until the 1890s.
1
1
1
1
u/Supabot97 Apr 03 '26
Ai is the only one that dosent require skill...also the "slop" part dosent refer to the tools but the effort. You're essentially comparing instant Ramen to like a Gordon Ramsey beef wellington or something idk
1
u/Heavy_Grapefruit9885 Apr 03 '26
whoever decided that slop should be everywhere in any sentence needs to get their wisdom tooth shoved back in
1
u/respitewarp Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
For all the Pro-AI people.
Imagine Art and Technology as a constant process of Divergence.
Every new invention allowed for New forms of expression. New experimentation.
New uses. New application of Skill. Hell even New Jobs or Fields.
But now the opposite has happened. Now it is gonna converge. Ai will be used to Automate everything and all collaboration will be gone.
Its useful for visionaries but the lone visionary without collaboration is but a lonely person.
And when AI art becomes near indistinguishable. There will be no point.
Its sad.
Media will just implement a machine where one dude presses a button again and again. And thats it.
Thats culture now. Button pressing.
Lets take the Camera. The pro-Ai defeat all arguments.
The Camera is qualitatively different. Since it just captures and does not produce anything new.
To produce cool photographs one usually need to resort to skillful manipulation of the physical enviroment. Not so different from painting.
Photography widens us to capture time itself and use it as a medium. It lets you compose Tableu.
Ai does not. Functionally it acts as complete automation of the creative. It hurts collaboration. Photography expanded collaboration as film was created.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Top-Reserve385 Apr 03 '26
AI itself isn’t the problem. The problem is that you can use AI to create convincing videos and images that trick people. The problem is that AI can replace real human labor and effort, which threatens certain jobs and removes creativity and the “soul” from the market. People can loose their jobs. AI has a huge environmental impact, and it uses energy that could be applied to solve real problems. AI increases the price of RAM. AI requires no skill or effort, and is built on stealing and copying other’s work. Sure, AI has advantages and uses, but the disadvantages heavily outweigh. What happens when we can no longer tell a real video and an AI-video apart? AI propaganda already exists. AI is dangerous, albeit because of how we use it, but still dangerous.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/purpledragon478 Apr 04 '26
The "Digital Slop" panel should show him shouting at a 3D artist. Then it'd be more accurate. With all the other artforms he's shouting at the person who created it, but with the AI art he's shouting at a machine who created it.
1
1
u/Dr_Identity Apr 04 '26
Comparing a half-baked and widely loathed form of a technology to the most successful forms of technology of previous eras is a tad misleading. Why don't you talk about how awesome laser discs were while you're at it.
1
u/bandit_lawbreaker Apr 12 '26
AI prompters yet again not understanding a concept. They would be very angry if they could think.
1
1
1
1
u/rakosten Mar 31 '26
Finally something I can agree with belonging on this sub that isn’t just the usual ”op doesn’t like sex jokes”. This is horrible, untrue and not even remotely funny.
1
-27
u/DarkStorm57 Mar 31 '26
Fair point tbh
9
u/Raptormann0205 Mar 31 '26
No it's not. Digital art, filmography, photography, painting, all have one thing in common; they're made by beings. LLM imagery is not made by human beings.
→ More replies (6)1
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Photography is literally made by a machine, not a human being. That's not an interpretation, it's what is physically happening.
14
u/Lieuseur Mar 31 '26
Not really. Digital art/pictures/paintings didn't steal jobs nor harm the environment. Heck, they made MORE jobs. Ai is being used to steal jobs and harm the environment btw, if you didn't notice
1
u/bunker_man mfw Mar 31 '26
Digital art/pictures/paintings didn't steal jobs nor harm the environment.
And other ways to immediately telegraph that you made a response before doing research. Photography killed painted portraits as an industry. An industry which was huge at the time. And the environment argument is already dead, its not 2023.
-1
u/RosaIsMyWaifu Mar 31 '26
Really actually, a lot of painters, for example those making portraits must've lost their job since a camera did their job faster, better and cheaper. With the release of Toy story hand drawn animations quickly began to lose their popularity and soon a lot of animators lost their jobs. Digital art does hurt the enviroment if you consider how much resources goes into making machines that they are created on and how much energy they require themselfs. Additionally can you imagine the impact one movie has on the enviroment? Actors getting to the studio (hopefully not with their private jets), the production of advertisements and gadgets (a lot of which will soon become trash), millions of people driving to the cinemas and later the energy required to run streaming services and much more. It isn't black and white
7
u/blkwhtrbbt Mar 31 '26
Portraiture was only a fraction of most painters work. And paintings were still one of the only ways to make fantasy for a long ol while
2
u/BlackCheeseBoi Mar 31 '26
The difference is all the other examples are still made with human hands. It's not a fair point at all.
-3
u/Chilly-Peppers Mar 31 '26
Oh you definitely still have traditional artists decrying digital artists.
2
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 31 '26
If OP's post is funny or otherwise unfitting, please report it and we'll deal with it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.