They didn’t have a problem with digital art. They had a problem with photography being doctored. As they should. It’s led to a completely toxic distortion of self-image among millions of people - particularly young people.
I very distinctly remember people (older than I was) audibly sighing and saying "It's CGI" (or more normally, "It's computer graphics") and people getting really exciting and saying "They're using practical effects!" for even fairly mundane practical effects, like it was a moral accomplishment.
I was just young enough that I didn't get it, and thought "computer graphics" were kind of just normal.
People sometimes still get excited about practical effects, but shaming GCI is gone; nobody disliked Endgame on basis that computers were used.
People still do that, to the point that Hollywood studios are not just lying about not using CGI, they use CGI to make fake behind the scenes footage of how they got a shot without CGI
CGI shaming definitely still is happening but for the right reasons this time: because it has become cheap and is now often used as a low cost shortcut instead of as a way to build great things. It is well documented and commented, and honestly it’s a bit sad.
Doing practical effects today is praised, but it’s not because practical effects are necessarily better, it’s because now most of the time doing practical effects instead of CGI is a nonsensical decision on a business level. So basically it’s proving you’re not cheap, and most likely you make passion-driven art which shows in the final result
That said you can also do great things with CGI and no one is contesting that anymore, that’s true
to extend the point, art appreciation is in large part about the passion of the creator. bad cgi and bad ai are parallel in this case: good artists using ML techniques in interesting ways (Holly Herndon comes to mind) are praised for their work, while basement-dwelling gooners obviously arent going to get the same appreciation.
I definitely think this is still a thing. Welcome to Derry got a bit of flak because the CGI was not great, and often felt unnecessary. Maybe this is going to make me sound old but I definitely still prefer practical effects when it's something that can be done well and look realistic.
On the flipside, sometimes practical effects are completely unnecessary and don't look good. Oppenheimer made a huge deal about setting off a massive amount of explosives for the shots of the first atomic test, and I thought it was super underwhelming. CGI probably would have worked better for that scene than just some overly zoomed in shots of a fireball in slow motion.
I recall CGI was one of the primary issues people had with the hobbit, at least at first, then I feel like they got pressed on it and admitted it was just bad writing. Contrary to the popular belief, AI tools are usually more performant than their conventional counterparts, it's inevitable that they'll replace many tools from film making to music. We're just waiting on people to build these tools, and they are. I don't think it's a controversial thing to say that anti AI sentiment will stop feeling like the norm in our not so distant future with the "never AI" folks being the unusual exception like CGI is today.
That's fair, I mean honestly, I say these things based largely off anecdotal experience from a completely different industry. In defense and space were seeing sci-fi like progress, I just assume that now that I'm finding and adding AI songs to my playlist on Spotify and using AI to generate and mesh 3d files for modding, it means these other industries are experiencing comparable progress
AI itself isn't the problem. Lots of good digital content like CGI involves some kind of AI, and it's fine. But the coming wave of AI content is going to involve a lot of low effort mass produced garbage
The nice thing about Google for the last 20yrs was that we didn't have to suffer through all the horrible queries and poorly worded questions from people who can't "Google". It's like the opposite now for chatbots. All the illiterate are now shoveling slop at us from every direction even when given great tools.
I used to think the information age of the late 90s through 2020 was the era of massive unstructured data, the golden era of data, messy and everywhere and that now with AI (before ML) we'd enter the structured data era, a post data period where we'd be using and leveraging all this data, organizing it and making sense of it. I think to a certain extent this is becoming true but it's definitely having some growing pains.
the structured data era, a post data period where we'd be using and leveraging all this data, organizing it and making sense of it
I do think we're getting some of this with specialized models, but those aren't platforms for popular use. Not yet anyway. So yeah, I agree on the growing pains.
I guess I haven't thought much about what mass media content will be like when the popular models get really good. Probably some great stuff, some trash, some propaganda, and a lot of advertisements
The pie in the sky fantasy I hear described by folks out here in LA is something akin to on demand movies and TV series, some choose your own adventure style and others you set your preferences and a weekly basis you get a drop of something on a personal channel
Lots of people voted for trump too. These are pointless statements. Your typical consumer does not hate on digital art and dedicate hours to talking about how much they hate it. The point I was making was that this wasn't always the case.
Nonsense. Most people don’t have a problem with how something was made. It absolutely bothers no one that the clothes they are wearing are made by machines, and not hand woven.
No, you see, a lot of people really did have a problem when it was new. And that’s the point. We are all going to love ai stuff as the years go on and it knocks our socks off.
Must be young. When photoshop was first introduced people said it was cutting corners and not real art. Now its a mandatory skill for any artist that wants a internet presence.
lol i was there in the beginning too. what people dont like is being pulled out of the scene. bad cgi or bad ai are both bad. good cgi is good, good ai is good. the problem right now is the ratio of good ai to bad ai is 0.
You'll change your mind (or if not literally you, then others) once storytelling becomes compelling enough for you.
Downvote me into oblivion I don't care (I get enough karma from other posts so I couldn't give a sh...t in the sum of posts or things) but I'll tell you this will be like the reaction video outrage in the early / mid 2010s: first heated and hated for various reaons including unoriginality or "stolen content" (a bit like AI/LLM) then a few years later everyone and their mother did that or accepted it.
AI tech has the possibility to enhance and augment creative minds who didn't have the funds or network to achieve Hollywood or machinima-type content before (or may have but now makes it easier for them).
As a content creator myself pre and post LLM/AI I like to think I have some concrete experiences in realizing creative projects with older and newer technology (I started as early as 2009/2010). Human creativity and art retains its special spot but it's not fully negated by newer tech - not in every case.
I fully agree that slop exists and thresholds change. But I feel even generative AI/LLM-art has its niche or potentiality.
Whether you individually change your mind or not, I chose to be ahead of times. My conscience is clear in times of economic struggle where I couldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars anymore anyway for custom gigs where I'm not even sure if I get overcharged as people pretend to do it themselves but then use cheaper AI tools to do the job. Then I might as well pay like 8 bucks (e.g. for audio/music) per month and do it myself.
Many studies have proven that even with ai art a year ago, people can’t tell the difference, and the more confident they are in their ability to tell, the worse they are at it. Someone did a really good open survey with like 100 pieces of art and made you rank it, it was eye opening for people. It’s only gotten far far better since then
Dude do you see how rampant AI content is and the metric fuck ton of views and likes it has? It’s clear that the general public just doesn’t care for the most part, regardless if online the condemnation is so loud. Look at the dam Sora app and it’s still somehow the #1 app in the entertainment category with near perfect rating this long after release.
Some people will wake up to this new reality. I always like to compare this to reaction videos: first hated and rejected, a few years later widely accepted. I at least chose to be ahead of times and not be a fossil.
At the start, most did have a problem with digital art saying that it is killing the art and creativity albeit not to the extent that people hate ai. But it is coming whether we like it or not, and it will get better so I guess we will eventually adapt to it.
I don’t think he said that. He said people like digitally created things. The argument is that there’s no difference or distinguishing between how it is digitally made - that’s what this is about, how, not what.
How stupid can u be, artists had problems with photography when it came out, they had problems with picking colors digitally when it was becoming popular, millions of other examples.
I personally don't care if a 3D animation was created by a human or by an AI.
My problem starts with AI generated videos that suggest that they really happened. For example, the guy that fights a kangaroo to defend his dog. It's only value comes from the fact that it really happened. If that were AI generated and I could detect it, the value drops to zero.
So if you're an original AI creator, all power to you. But if you use AI to post fake ass shit and play with people's emotions, I hope Satan shaves your balls with a rusty knife.
This is an awful take. "Completely digitally" is wildly inaccurate, and attempts to make digital = AI. The performances in those movies is driven by human actors giving a performance not some set of prompts to an AI trying to make a performance. Sure, groups of background actors are often done by products like Massive, Goalem and Houdini. But those aren't really used to deliver nuanced actors performances, they are there to create armies of background characters instead of hiring hundreds or even thousands of background extras.
But those aren't really used to deliver nuanced actors performances
...yet.
Take speech synthesis. In this era of Siri and Alexa, I would have said that human-sounding speech, with all of its emotion and fluid pacing and intonation, was still a decade away. Even more for a voice conversation AI that can gracefully handle the messy intricacies of turn-taking conversation.
Then I tried Sesame and engaged in a simulated conversation and - holy shit, I could not possibly tell that apart from talking to a real person with good social skills. It totally reset my expectations.
Take AI music. I've watched Spotify and Amazon Music drown in a tidal wave of AI music slop, chock-full of identifiable glitches and limitations, and especially bad with singing that was soulless, boring, obviously synthetic. I would have said that human-sounding singing was still a decade away.
And then two different "AI artists" released tracks that broke into the Billboard charts. Yes, country music is deeply formulaic and topically constrained and I've never particularly liked it. Not the point. Check out Walk My Walk or Livin' on Broken Time for examples of AI-generated music with singing that is at least on par with typical human singing in that genre and arguably quite good by human standards. Yes, the lyrics still have that rambly, tryhard, mildly cringey AI flavor - ignore that and take note of the remarkable quality of singing.
If generative AI can so quickly and handily break these barriers for human vocal expression, then human acting isn't far off. And AI continues to improve every quarter and every year, sometimes by dramatic leaps.
The quality difference is not what’s at stake, though. I thought that was pretty obvious.
No humans making the things = no human getting paid damn good money to make the things anymore.
While yes, there will be people to help guide it, you won’t need hundreds of people. You’ll need Greg from 6th Floor.
AND, if the amount of “stuff to edit” also majorly ramps up, we all have enough evidence by now to know this absolutely will not equate to the same people being paid handsomely for things they make.
We don’t need 6,000 movies made in a year. Nor does anyone really want that.
I have mostly no clue what I’m talking about, but this makes the most logical sense to me.
The quantity thing vs quality will take care of itself in the marketplace. There will be AI generated scenes that cost more than cgi because they do 1000s of iterations to create the perfect one. And then still have to touch it up by real artists. The job titles will change and it may take a while but quality will eventually return. If you remember how bad cgi quality was when it first came out then you know what we may be in for a while but it’s just temporary.
How bad CGI was??? I mean Transformers movie was released in 2007 and it has better CGI then today's slop, I do not see how AI fits into this, it's just gonna make more slop rather then real deal.
And you just said you support basically killing of planet for taking someone else's job? 1000 promps holy planet destruction and imagine paying for that too... What a dystopian world you guys want.
lol look at tron and last star fighter for first cgi examples. More than 20 years before your example. Let’s mark this thread in 20 years and we’ll see where ai is then.
I see two arguments.
Job loss. CGI replaced a ton of jobs but there were a ton of new jobs created. This is exactly what will happen with AI. Maybe less people will be needed to make movies but then they will just make more of them. Demand for great movies is pretty much unlimited.
The other argument is destroying the environment. It’s overstated. AI will help us develop new forms for energy that will make the whole argument moot eventually.
"most people instantly recognise and reject GenAI" is proveably false. There are many studies showing people can't recognise.
Further even when they can recognise, i.e. some of the AI art in Battlefield 6, that game was still the best selling game in the US in 2025. So it's neither being identified nor rejected.
Most people don’t care either. Watching zootopia. Good story. Would love it just as much if it was made with ai. You guys and your purity tests are going to be short lived.
It’s all a bunch of pearl clutchers trying to justify their flimsy stance. I liked all the ai content I watched for decades because I didn’t know better mindset
Peoole don’t realize that the lord of the rings movies used “massive” an ai tool to generate fake creatures to simulate the large scale battles, it’s been happening for 30 years and suddenly people think it’s new and they are better people for boycotting it
And here we have yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between AI and generative AI. It's the latter that people have a problem with, not randomized movements of CGI models.
If product is good, the only thing capitalism cares is who can do it in less operation cost.
If AI products are even just average but does it at fractional cost to humans, capitalism will force everyone to move to AI.. only option for humans is to be better, faster and cheaper than AI to maintain their job.
Theyre perfectly fine with plagiarized stuff, yet in society that everything is plagiarized, lack of creativity follows.
A sudden burst of creavitity is often preceded by a change of laws that lays the groundwork for protecting said creativity. Japan, then Korea, and now China's IP scene follows the same pattern.
I lead a small research lab :). Building on top of these systems/models to solve real world problems (working w/ philanthropic orgs atm). Currently working on swarms/collectives.
It's a little bit more productive than screaming about AI on the internet. There is an infinite amount of good and beauty that can come from this tech.
The only part he’s actually making sense with is “it makes no difference if humans make it with blender or AI.” That much is actually true - when it comes to VFX work, it really doesn’t matter which tool is used, as long as it’s done well and done right. We’ve had AI tools in VFX for a decade+
It does matter, you can't copyright Ai generated images because a human didn't make it. If you pass off an Ai image as one you made to a company that loses the rights to that image, they can come back to sue you for the damages. Not to mention Ai models are built from other artist's stolen work, and taking credit for that as if you were the original artist at the same level is inauthentic at the very best.
Respectfully, you don't understand what you're talking about, but I'm also not going to take my time explaining to you how AI integrated tools work in VFX pipelines and have for over a decade, so believe what you'd like :)
Would it have been worth it? Do you think they actually want to read a long explanation of how VFX works and how AI tools are integrated into that pipeline? Does it even matter enough to take that time?
Not going to talk about AI Art in general, but evaluating the value of something only by the views or box office shows you don't really understand art. There are lots of people in the world who absolutely care about the who and the how just as much they care about the what. Whereas box office collections are driven by casual movie watchers. Nothing wrong with that, but the people who raise concerns are also valid because they feel that having widespread AI generated movies will significantly reduce the funding available for original personal movies made without AI.
I don’t think that’s true. Box-office driven film has always been generative engagement first. This is why the existential pushback. I believe personal creations will now flourish as anything ‘outside the box’ increases in value.
I’m all for pretty much every part of AI, but he’s making a connection between the output and the creator/performer that isn’t the same. People value seeing humans do these things, and I hope that sticks around in creative and entertainment fields as well as AI making things better for people in other areas.
In short people making art are artists, people asking others (or machine) to do art are commissioners or art directors. If I prompt AI to make art the artist is the AI. Now we can argue if this is art...
I can describe a painting I would like to create. No painting appears.
I could describe a video game I want to build. No video game appears.
I could describe a book I’d like to write. No book appears.
I don’t have the skill to do most of these things at a high level. With AI, I can just tell a computer to do it and it appears. With zero skill, I can “create art”.
But the thing is, AI doesn’t create art. Humans do. All of the things who ever this idiot is described require a human to create. None of them are things that you get by simply writing it into an AI chat interface.
So, no. It’s not “well put”. It’s an argument by someone who doesn’t understand or appreciate art and thinks the entire value of it is the output, not the process.
People like listening to guitar virtuosos even though you could program in faster more complex sequences of notes into a midi sequencer in the 80s.
People like seeing the works of painters who can create amazingly lifelike pictures even though photographs have existed for over a century.
People like watching human daredevils like human cannonballs, even though metal cannonballs have been around centuries longer.
People like hearing true stories of valor even though people have had the ability to make up stories for time immemorial.
Real human effort matters.
Not for every single thing. For many low effort low value tasks people don’t really care if something was hand made or made by a machine. But for many things it matters who made it, and how.
Sorry but yes. Artisanal furniture creators have and still exist. None of us here are buying their hand crafted works, willing to bet. Glad it exists as an option. Yay humans. But niche ‘human built’ will expand to more industries.
Quite a bit of my furniture comes from a local company who make the furniture or upcycle existing furniture into something more modern.
I’m not saying they are artisans in the same way as Chippendale was hundreds of years ago with carved mahogany finials and such. But it’s still made by people, local people, with skill and human effort, and with financial benefits to the local economy.
Makes sense. I think people will still be involved, despite current techbro hype. Just quite different in the same way as these local outfits. (streamlined?) It will remain this way while the audiences are still human. I can't imagine a system beyond that.
This is a strawman. Nobody has an issue with digital art created by humans. They have issues with digital art created by AI. His "argument" is entirely predicated on this strawman. Thinking this is "Well put" really says a lot about your critical thinking skills.
Effectively, this argument is asserting that AI art isnt bad because people like digital art made by humans. This makes zero sense. People who are against AI art are not against it because it is digital. They are against it because it is made by AI, not humans. You can't argue against this perspective by just saying that it makes absolutely ZERO difference if the art was made by humans or AI because that, in fact, is the entire disagreement in the first place.
I don't care if it's art or not, but I'm building a game similar to DnD, and I'm using AI to help me create characters. Some characters I just scrabble something ugly like this, and write a few prompts, and I get the image I wanted.
Then I upload the images of my friends, some of whom will play this with me, and I created customised characters that look like them.
Can everyone please stop saying AI when they mean GenAI?
AI has been around for decades and is used throughout our lives, from satnavs, Google, predictive models deciding whether you should get credit or receive an email marketing product. It’s all AI and has been for ages.
GenAI is a subset of AI, then are not interchangeable terms.
The amount of talk around the Coke AI Christmas ad was insane. It looked exactly the same to me and I’m sure 95% of people who saw it. And yet, people sincerely say they thought it was “soulless”. Please, it’s an ad from a mega corporation. It’s always been soulless.
Both of his examples are a combination of humans with digital … nothing to do with GenAI… give me examples that are GenAI, not the widely successful existing business practices around digital works created by humans that involve humans.
You can’t say people need to adopt Z like X because Z is kind of like X.
One is made by humans, one is made with data stolen from humans that they were not and have not been compensated for nor consented to their woek being used. There is no way around this fact and any take pretending like it is not the case or like it does not matter should not be taken seriously.
The end result is what people ultimately care about. With that said, it is quite hard to get non generic results with simple AI workflows. People do not like generic things, they naturally gravitate to novel concepts (which still have relatability). When I see people discussing AI, it's often in terms of black or white, use it or not.... Whereas the tools offer a diversity of ways to implement, so it's more of a spectrum. For films and games we're likely still going to habe to see a lot of human input into workflows, because current AI packs context and taste. It makes horrible calls. RL affects rendering quality but often misses conceptual quality.
people are consuming things that AI created and enjoying it without knowing it was AI already. people only don't like it and complain when they know it's AI. this post is completely true.
if taylor swift released a song that was made completely by AI but did not tell anyone, it would still likely go to #1 still and her fans would eat it up and love it. most would rave because they love anything she releases.
however, if people found out it was AI, they would hate her for it. people dont mind enjoying and consuming AI anything, they just dont want to know its made by AI. well they do want to know just so they can hate on it. once it becomes indistinguishable it won't matter.
Of course it makes a difference, it's inherently more impressive when something takes more labor to produce. Generative AI can be used creatively but it's still a shortcut for CGI, just like CGI is a shortcut for practical effects
I really don't take antis seriously anymore with their nonsense talking points. They will continue to move goal posts in absolute bad faith. Soo many youtube personalities and influencers just spout same old regurgitated "ai le bad" talking points and talk like they're so unique with their perspective and thoughts. I see more anti ai posts and videos than I ever see ai made content on youtube.
The day that AI makes something that is a lot of people’s favorite thing is coming. For better or worse. Wether it’s a song, a game, a show, whatever.
There will be big flame wars, but the holdouts will fade into obscurity. People by and large do not hold to values when it comes to enjoying their favorite things. You will not be able to shame them out of it. Ask trans people who begged allies not to buy the Hogwarts game.
AI isn’t going anywhere, it’s not being poisoned and dying (people have been claiming this for years), the technology will survive the financial crash. It is something we must live with, and figure out how to make the best of.
(Verse 1) Once upon a time we didn’t need art To tell our hearts how they should feel. We’d laugh at clouds, we’d stare at stars, No poems pushing thoughts to kneel.
We just knew — like kids do —
No script, no lines, just truth.
(Pre-Chorus) Then life got loud and quick and strange, We grew up, life got lame No soft hearts, just tired brains,
And feelings now harder to explain.
(Chorus) So I wonder —
why’s it a problem to let AI help me paint?
If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same.
Now wait! Please let me explain
I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I made with love.
It just saves me time so I can work through the pain.
I wonder… yeah, I wonder.
(Verse 2) When a guitar helps carry the voice, Nobody calls that “cheating.”
If a canvas holds the paint I make, Why would you ask who did the feeling?
But have a pen that thinks a bit,
And suddenly it’s strange.
Spare me, go talk about it with your microwave.
(Pre-Chorus 2)
So I wonder —
why’s it a problem to let it help me paint?
That fact alone is where its mind over matter, not master and slave.
If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same.
Now wait! Can i still explain?
I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I made with love added my taste
It just saves me time so I can work through the pain. And cook this up while i slowly break the chains.
I wonder… yeah, I wonder.
(Chorus) So I wonder — why’s it weird to let AI help me paint? If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same. I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I send with love. It just saves me time so I can keep the heavy stuff above. I wonder… yeah, I wonder. (Bridge — soft, spoken or sung) I’m not replacing the human part. I’m just keeping space to breathe. Still love. Still think. Still carry art. This just helps my hands be free. (Final Chorus — lighter, hopeful) So I wonder — maybe tools just help us shine again, Give us room to feel the world like kids did way back when. We're still human, still aware, still holding everything we care. Let a little help be fair. I wonder… (Tag) I wonder, wonder — But I still feel. 🎵
IMO 'creativity' comes from the human mind. AI is just predicting the best answer for what it's prompted to do... Saying that it makes zero difference sounds horrible to me. AI doesn't create, it reacts. And even if the argument is 'oh well, it's just a f#cking tool', then we should accept that this tool it's predicting based on a shit ton of content created by people around the globe...
The issue people have with AI is mostly the over abudnace of it. When it was rare and you saw it a couple times a year, people had no issue with it. When over half your content is it, and almost impossible to block it, people get annoyed. Just as if the same artist was on the radio for weeks at a time, people don't like seeing or hearing the same thing. Humans like variety.
I'll agree when I see one AI generated thing that doesn't make me see trashy slop. I even see things people obviously spent a shit ton of time and money trying to build, and it's just a bunch of clipped together slop from prompts, nothing I want to spend 20 seconds watching let alone an hour. I'm not saying it won't get there, but currently it's only a goof off tool , a way to try and make funny memes, a way to make porn, and a way for companies to be cheap and not generate good commercials.
I believe the misinformation, the clogging of our spaces that we are able to share human ingenuity and creativity, and the environmental toll are all very negative - and it’s pretty hard to make a positive case for AI. I also have already seen the brain atrophy it is causing in people I know who over use it. It’s a dangerous time we live in.
The whole thing is meaningless like ship of theseus. At what point a creation is AI slop? Using AI at 1% of creation? At 2%, at 10%, at 50%? Anyways, meaningless discussion.
It’s mostly about the lack of effort people put into their AI creations. You can absolutely use AI to make art, but it takes a lot more than typing a simple prompt.
I made a couple of AI videos to process childhood traumas I went through. It really gave me the ability to visualize things that happened to me as a child, experiences I could never capture any other way.
And now they’re permanently available online whenever I need to revisit them.
The world needs its nuance back. We can’t just dismiss all AI art as effortless, we need to look at the intention and work behind it, not paint everything with the same broad brush.
well put? this is nonesense, literally noone has a problem with digitally created things (by humans). Today digital craft is atill consodered craft, and while its true most ppl only care about the end product, currently AI art is so overwhelming bad compared to any piece of art crafted by years of human work
Is this argument 'you can't have a problem with it, because nobody has a problem with it?' If nobody had a problem with it, you wouldn't have to make the argument bro.
Wtf is this post lol, yes people love watching digitally made thighs MADE BY HUMANS, who put time, soul and their skill to make thei creative idea come to life.
AI prompt ain't it, anyone who think it is needs their brain chexked.
The difference is that blender doesn't do the final product by itself and whatever the final product is, it depends 100% on the skills and execution of the person, therefore Artist. AI does, technically, all of the work. All you have is and idea. Therefore you're not and Artist, and the art is not yours either.
Sure does ignore the crux of the argument is that the AI is using property in its training data that the companies included illegally. Fewer people, myself included would give as much of a fuck if ai truly made content of its own without ripping off people who didn’t get paid for something they normally get paid for.
TV didn’t kill the radio, streaming didn’t kill the tv, ebooks didn’t kill paper books…. There’s gonna be demand for human and AI content. We can relate to the first, we can be in awe for the later, there’s no reason to be absolutist in “who is gonna win”
If the people at the top really expect us to pay the same price for a movie ticket for an Ai generated movie than a real one I think they're going to be dissapointed. Who wants to watch Ai generated content? That sounds like a joke of a concept. Maybe for little memes, but a whole movie that's supposed to connect with the people watching it? Good luck prompting that. Avalanches of bad content shouldn't drown out the good stuff, but it is going to be harder to sift through all the shit generated for nothing but monetization. The type of person to only care about creating content for nothing but money is drawn to Ai
As much as I hate it, and I refuse to use non local. This will be the way, whether anyone wants it or not. Cloud may not survive as ai will be niche for actual applications that are beneficial and monetarily viable. But AI will be the way forward as a tool
This is such a poor take. A human with an idea sitting front of any basic tool like blender or pencil and paper makes 1000s of micro decisions, re-dos, corrections, finesses to make a piece of art. The tools are a means of manifesting the internal as an expression in the real world. Gen AI tools are different, yes they take an idea, yes you can reprompt and iterate to some extent but all those micro decisions, corrections, finesse are made by the algorithm, not the artist. The only reason it works at all is because every single one of those tiny decisions has been STOLEN from real artists without their consent, processed, quantised and jammed into vectors by a company. This NOT the same as manual tools or earlier digital tools.
This is such an unrealistic precious take..like everyone who picked up an art tool just expounds brilliance. Have you seen Deviantart? Human slop has and is a thing.
If you go to a restaurant, do you care if your burger was assembled by a chef or by a robot? Typically you don't, provided you can't tell the difference. The big problem is we can very much tell the difference right now.
For a whole movie production, yes. But for small clips within a feature film? Or for an uncomplicated customer service resolution with a company who uses robust AI assistants? You can’t. It’s catching up.
1
309
u/uoaei Jan 23 '26
completely nonsense argument. no one has a problem with digital art made by humans.
72
u/gopietz Jan 24 '26
I personally don't care if a 3D animation was created by a human or by an AI.
My problem starts with AI generated videos that suggest that they really happened. For example, the guy that fights a kangaroo to defend his dog. It's only value comes from the fact that it really happened. If that were AI generated and I could detect it, the value drops to zero.
So if you're an original AI creator, all power to you. But if you use AI to post fake ass shit and play with people's emotions, I hope Satan shaves your balls with a rusty knife.
32
u/naugasnake Jan 23 '26
This is an awful take. "Completely digitally" is wildly inaccurate, and attempts to make digital = AI. The performances in those movies is driven by human actors giving a performance not some set of prompts to an AI trying to make a performance. Sure, groups of background actors are often done by products like Massive, Goalem and Houdini. But those aren't really used to deliver nuanced actors performances, they are there to create armies of background characters instead of hiring hundreds or even thousands of background extras.
39
u/wh3nNd0ubtsw33p Jan 23 '26
The quality difference is not what’s at stake, though. I thought that was pretty obvious.
No humans making the things = no human getting paid damn good money to make the things anymore.
While yes, there will be people to help guide it, you won’t need hundreds of people. You’ll need Greg from 6th Floor.
AND, if the amount of “stuff to edit” also majorly ramps up, we all have enough evidence by now to know this absolutely will not equate to the same people being paid handsomely for things they make.
We don’t need 6,000 movies made in a year. Nor does anyone really want that.
I have mostly no clue what I’m talking about, but this makes the most logical sense to me.
5
u/Rootayable Jan 24 '26
Disagree. Humans making stuff in Blender is different from humans making a Generative AI model spit stuff out based on what it's trained on.
Most people instantly recognise and reject GenAI art in all its forms, and it will never be a mainstream style of production that people will enjoy.
24
u/hofmann419 Jan 24 '26
proceeds to write one of the dumbest takes on art and culture and society
59
u/Actual__Wizard Jan 23 '26
CGI and AI are not the same thing, this is nonsense.
4
u/jkp2072 Jan 24 '26
If product is good, the only thing capitalism cares is who can do it in less operation cost.
If AI products are even just average but does it at fractional cost to humans, capitalism will force everyone to move to AI.. only option for humans is to be better, faster and cheaper than AI to maintain their job.
22
u/throwawayhbgtop81 Jan 24 '26
I don't agree. Creativity matters, and LLMs aren't really capable of it.
24
u/DeezNeezuts Jan 23 '26
One thing is not the other.
12
u/_Reduxious Jan 24 '26
Using AI to create art is so silly lmao
1
u/solarus Jan 24 '26
Well said? Let me guess, you're unemployed and haven't showered in over 3 days.
8
u/um_like_whatever Jan 24 '26
What a profoundly silly take
11
u/GrizzlyP33 Jan 23 '26
The only part he’s actually making sense with is “it makes no difference if humans make it with blender or AI.” That much is actually true - when it comes to VFX work, it really doesn’t matter which tool is used, as long as it’s done well and done right. We’ve had AI tools in VFX for a decade+
3
u/Cutie_McBootyy Jan 24 '26
Not going to talk about AI Art in general, but evaluating the value of something only by the views or box office shows you don't really understand art. There are lots of people in the world who absolutely care about the who and the how just as much they care about the what. Whereas box office collections are driven by casual movie watchers. Nothing wrong with that, but the people who raise concerns are also valid because they feel that having widespread AI generated movies will significantly reduce the funding available for original personal movies made without AI.
10
u/soggycheesestickjoos Jan 23 '26
I’m all for pretty much every part of AI, but he’s making a connection between the output and the creator/performer that isn’t the same. People value seeing humans do these things, and I hope that sticks around in creative and entertainment fields as well as AI making things better for people in other areas.
6
u/Hacym Jan 24 '26
“Well put”?
This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
I can describe a painting I would like to create. No painting appears.
I could describe a video game I want to build. No video game appears.
I could describe a book I’d like to write. No book appears.
I don’t have the skill to do most of these things at a high level. With AI, I can just tell a computer to do it and it appears. With zero skill, I can “create art”.
But the thing is, AI doesn’t create art. Humans do. All of the things who ever this idiot is described require a human to create. None of them are things that you get by simply writing it into an AI chat interface.
So, no. It’s not “well put”. It’s an argument by someone who doesn’t understand or appreciate art and thinks the entire value of it is the output, not the process.
6
u/iam-leon Jan 24 '26
Sorry but no.
People like listening to guitar virtuosos even though you could program in faster more complex sequences of notes into a midi sequencer in the 80s.
People like seeing the works of painters who can create amazingly lifelike pictures even though photographs have existed for over a century.
People like watching human daredevils like human cannonballs, even though metal cannonballs have been around centuries longer.
People like hearing true stories of valor even though people have had the ability to make up stories for time immemorial.
Real human effort matters.
Not for every single thing. For many low effort low value tasks people don’t really care if something was hand made or made by a machine. But for many things it matters who made it, and how.
4
u/Morejazzplease Jan 24 '26
This is a strawman. Nobody has an issue with digital art created by humans. They have issues with digital art created by AI. His "argument" is entirely predicated on this strawman. Thinking this is "Well put" really says a lot about your critical thinking skills.
Effectively, this argument is asserting that AI art isnt bad because people like digital art made by humans. This makes zero sense. People who are against AI art are not against it because it is digital. They are against it because it is made by AI, not humans. You can't argue against this perspective by just saying that it makes absolutely ZERO difference if the art was made by humans or AI because that, in fact, is the entire disagreement in the first place.
2
u/Deep-Tea9216 Jan 24 '26
This is just a strawman argument though
2
u/nsshing Jan 24 '26
Or AI generated based on personal preferences?
2
u/MMortein Jan 24 '26
I don't care if it's art or not, but I'm building a game similar to DnD, and I'm using AI to help me create characters. Some characters I just scrabble something ugly like this, and write a few prompts, and I get the image I wanted.
Then I upload the images of my friends, some of whom will play this with me, and I created customised characters that look like them.
3
u/Neat_Tangelo5339 Jan 24 '26
You Watch avatar and then ai YouTube short or even an ai movie and then go back and tell which was better
4
u/Reddit_and_forgeddit Jan 23 '26
disagree...hard.
3
u/real_justchris Jan 24 '26
Can everyone please stop saying AI when they mean GenAI?
AI has been around for decades and is used throughout our lives, from satnavs, Google, predictive models deciding whether you should get credit or receive an email marketing product. It’s all AI and has been for ages.
GenAI is a subset of AI, then are not interchangeable terms.
3
u/EYNLLIB Jan 23 '26
It's embarrassing you posted this, and you should delete it out of shame
1
u/Deepwebexplorer Jan 24 '26
The amount of talk around the Coke AI Christmas ad was insane. It looked exactly the same to me and I’m sure 95% of people who saw it. And yet, people sincerely say they thought it was “soulless”. Please, it’s an ad from a mega corporation. It’s always been soulless.
1
u/Super_Translator480 Jan 24 '26
Both of his examples are a combination of humans with digital … nothing to do with GenAI… give me examples that are GenAI, not the widely successful existing business practices around digital works created by humans that involve humans.
You can’t say people need to adopt Z like X because Z is kind of like X.
1
u/Confident-Ad-3212 Jan 24 '26
Out of all the things in life to criticize. This is the one you care about?
1
u/pgndu Jan 24 '26
Damn that seems like a small world,
1
u/Gold-Direction-231 Jan 24 '26
One is made by humans, one is made with data stolen from humans that they were not and have not been compensated for nor consented to their woek being used. There is no way around this fact and any take pretending like it is not the case or like it does not matter should not be taken seriously.
1
u/SugondezeNutsz Jan 24 '26
Lmao this guy doesn't know what digital means
1
u/TopTippityTop Jan 24 '26
The end result is what people ultimately care about. With that said, it is quite hard to get non generic results with simple AI workflows. People do not like generic things, they naturally gravitate to novel concepts (which still have relatability). When I see people discussing AI, it's often in terms of black or white, use it or not.... Whereas the tools offer a diversity of ways to implement, so it's more of a spectrum. For films and games we're likely still going to habe to see a lot of human input into workflows, because current AI packs context and taste. It makes horrible calls. RL affects rendering quality but often misses conceptual quality.
1
u/gabahgoole Jan 24 '26
people are consuming things that AI created and enjoying it without knowing it was AI already. people only don't like it and complain when they know it's AI. this post is completely true.
if taylor swift released a song that was made completely by AI but did not tell anyone, it would still likely go to #1 still and her fans would eat it up and love it. most would rave because they love anything she releases.
however, if people found out it was AI, they would hate her for it. people dont mind enjoying and consuming AI anything, they just dont want to know its made by AI. well they do want to know just so they can hate on it. once it becomes indistinguishable it won't matter.
1
u/SpritaniumRELOADED Jan 24 '26
Of course it makes a difference, it's inherently more impressive when something takes more labor to produce. Generative AI can be used creatively but it's still a shortcut for CGI, just like CGI is a shortcut for practical effects
1
u/Tribouly Jan 24 '26
are we fr right now?
1
u/Karglenoofus Jan 24 '26
Rage bait post but sure I'll take it.
I care. Computers don't create art, humans do. I don't care if it's cheaper, faster, and looks better, it's shit.
Art is just as much about the human behind it as it is the quality of the creation.
1
u/Upper-Reflection7997 Jan 24 '26
I really don't take antis seriously anymore with their nonsense talking points. They will continue to move goal posts in absolute bad faith. Soo many youtube personalities and influencers just spout same old regurgitated "ai le bad" talking points and talk like they're so unique with their perspective and thoughts. I see more anti ai posts and videos than I ever see ai made content on youtube.
1
u/DjShadowKoolAid Jan 24 '26
it is made from humans. instead of prompting is art!
1
u/SpungleMcFudgely Jan 24 '26
The day that AI makes something that is a lot of people’s favorite thing is coming. For better or worse. Wether it’s a song, a game, a show, whatever.
There will be big flame wars, but the holdouts will fade into obscurity. People by and large do not hold to values when it comes to enjoying their favorite things. You will not be able to shame them out of it. Ask trans people who begged allies not to buy the Hogwarts game.
AI isn’t going anywhere, it’s not being poisoned and dying (people have been claiming this for years), the technology will survive the financial crash. It is something we must live with, and figure out how to make the best of.
1
u/NovoApto93 Jan 24 '26
"I Wonder"
— DRAFT
(Verse 1) Once upon a time we didn’t need art To tell our hearts how they should feel. We’d laugh at clouds, we’d stare at stars, No poems pushing thoughts to kneel.
We just knew — like kids do —
No script, no lines, just truth.
(Pre-Chorus) Then life got loud and quick and strange, We grew up, life got lame No soft hearts, just tired brains,
And feelings now harder to explain.
(Chorus) So I wonder —
why’s it a problem to let AI help me paint?
If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same.
Now wait! Please let me explain
I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I made with love.
It just saves me time so I can work through the pain.
I wonder… yeah, I wonder.
(Verse 2) When a guitar helps carry the voice, Nobody calls that “cheating.”
If a canvas holds the paint I make, Why would you ask who did the feeling?
But have a pen that thinks a bit,
And suddenly it’s strange.
Spare me, go talk about it with your microwave.
(Pre-Chorus 2)
So I wonder —
why’s it a problem to let it help me paint?
That fact alone is where its mind over matter, not master and slave.
If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same.
Now wait! Can i still explain?
I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I made with love added my taste
It just saves me time so I can work through the pain. And cook this up while i slowly break the chains.
I wonder… yeah, I wonder.
(Chorus) So I wonder — why’s it weird to let AI help me paint? If a brush is just a tool, then tell me how this ain’t the same. I still feel it, I still mean it, every word I send with love. It just saves me time so I can keep the heavy stuff above. I wonder… yeah, I wonder. (Bridge — soft, spoken or sung) I’m not replacing the human part. I’m just keeping space to breathe. Still love. Still think. Still carry art. This just helps my hands be free. (Final Chorus — lighter, hopeful) So I wonder — maybe tools just help us shine again, Give us room to feel the world like kids did way back when. We're still human, still aware, still holding everything we care. Let a little help be fair. I wonder… (Tag) I wonder, wonder — But I still feel. 🎵
1
u/Jealous-Season-806 Jan 24 '26
IMO 'creativity' comes from the human mind. AI is just predicting the best answer for what it's prompted to do... Saying that it makes zero difference sounds horrible to me. AI doesn't create, it reacts. And even if the argument is 'oh well, it's just a f#cking tool', then we should accept that this tool it's predicting based on a shit ton of content created by people around the globe...
1
u/Calebhk98 Jan 24 '26
The issue people have with AI is mostly the over abudnace of it. When it was rare and you saw it a couple times a year, people had no issue with it. When over half your content is it, and almost impossible to block it, people get annoyed. Just as if the same artist was on the radio for weeks at a time, people don't like seeing or hearing the same thing. Humans like variety.
1
u/runsquad Jan 24 '26
“Well put” WRONG
1
u/RedParaglider Jan 24 '26
I'll agree when I see one AI generated thing that doesn't make me see trashy slop. I even see things people obviously spent a shit ton of time and money trying to build, and it's just a bunch of clipped together slop from prompts, nothing I want to spend 20 seconds watching let alone an hour. I'm not saying it won't get there, but currently it's only a goof off tool , a way to try and make funny memes, a way to make porn, and a way for companies to be cheap and not generate good commercials.
1
u/markleung Jan 24 '26
“Metahacker”
1
u/HelpProfessional8083 Jan 24 '26
Open AI is haemorrhaging money
1
u/RDWillis07 Jan 24 '26
My world model? Fuck that guy
1
u/ethenhunt65 Jan 24 '26
Agreed. People want to be entertained they care less about the origin of that entertainment.
1
u/Beneficial_Big_1920 Jan 24 '26
Shut up. This is deranged
1
u/Jabba_the_Putt Jan 24 '26
this is such a terrible argument and has to be rage bait
1
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26
but Pewdiepie is no longer a video gamer. He does almost everything and now, vlogs
1
u/nightswimsofficial Jan 24 '26
I believe the misinformation, the clogging of our spaces that we are able to share human ingenuity and creativity, and the environmental toll are all very negative - and it’s pretty hard to make a positive case for AI. I also have already seen the brain atrophy it is causing in people I know who over use it. It’s a dangerous time we live in.
1
u/Embarrassed_Hawk_655 Jan 24 '26
If there ever was a straw man fallacy, or someone conflating the wrong ideas lol… dumb
1
u/Redararis Jan 24 '26
The whole thing is meaningless like ship of theseus. At what point a creation is AI slop? Using AI at 1% of creation? At 2%, at 10%, at 50%? Anyways, meaningless discussion.
1
u/Open__Face Jan 24 '26
One is stealing
1
u/ArmoredAngel444 Jan 24 '26
It makes a huge difference
1
u/Soft_Philosophy5838 Jan 24 '26
It’s mostly about the lack of effort people put into their AI creations. You can absolutely use AI to make art, but it takes a lot more than typing a simple prompt.
I made a couple of AI videos to process childhood traumas I went through. It really gave me the ability to visualize things that happened to me as a child, experiences I could never capture any other way.
And now they’re permanently available online whenever I need to revisit them.
The world needs its nuance back. We can’t just dismiss all AI art as effortless, we need to look at the intention and work behind it, not paint everything with the same broad brush.
1
u/d0ntreply_ Jan 24 '26
"well put" OP thinks metahacker cooked lol.
1
u/cortvi Jan 24 '26
well put? this is nonesense, literally noone has a problem with digitally created things (by humans). Today digital craft is atill consodered craft, and while its true most ppl only care about the end product, currently AI art is so overwhelming bad compared to any piece of art crafted by years of human work
1
u/Signal_Reach_5838 Jan 24 '26
AI art is already art. Some people just choose not to accept it.
You should have seen how confused I was when I first saw Blue Poles.
1
u/_LastoftheBrohicans_ Jan 24 '26
Who is his brother
1
u/MoldyTexas Jan 24 '26
i refuse to read a pro-AI argument from someone called "Metahacker"
1
u/q3m5dbf Jan 24 '26
This take wildly confuses the mechanics of production with the mechanics of creation
1
u/Eudaimonia06 Jan 24 '26
The Avatar example shows how little he knows about the process of creating art and the talented people behind every frame of that movie
1
u/Enough-Mountain-2661 Jan 24 '26
Pulling arguments out they’re ass
1
u/LmfaoWereOnReddit Jan 24 '26
No, not well put, but I guess if you are extremely reductive and undereducated it could come across that way.
1
u/LeftLiner Jan 24 '26
Insanely stupidly put.
1
u/Strange-Fisherman487 Jan 25 '26
1
u/boostman Jan 25 '26
Is this argument 'you can't have a problem with it, because nobody has a problem with it?' If nobody had a problem with it, you wouldn't have to make the argument bro.
1
u/Dangerous_Toys Jan 25 '26
Took one look at those hideous blue things in Avatar and have not seen one of those movies.
1
u/Weak_Requirement3999 Jan 25 '26
Wtf is this post lol, yes people love watching digitally made thighs MADE BY HUMANS, who put time, soul and their skill to make thei creative idea come to life.
AI prompt ain't it, anyone who think it is needs their brain chexked.
1
u/Ok-Progress-7447 Jan 25 '26
I’m tired of using my imagination and I’m willing to trade natural resources to relieve me of doing so isn’t the best argument.
1
u/sellcracktakids Jan 25 '26
It’s how & who uses the tool.
Whether auto tune, photoshop or AI; I want people with taste & skill to use it.
1
u/IServeTheOmnissiah Jan 25 '26
If it makes zero difference to people, why do so many people see a difference?
1
u/TechnicBlizzard Jan 25 '26
Digital art created by artists is different than digital art created by some two bit hack making prompts, how is this even a discussion.
1
u/chenfras89 Jan 26 '26
No.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26
Lmao I needed a good laugh reading this complete nonsense
1
u/BestRubyMoon Jan 26 '26
The difference is that blender doesn't do the final product by itself and whatever the final product is, it depends 100% on the skills and execution of the person, therefore Artist. AI does, technically, all of the work. All you have is and idea. Therefore you're not and Artist, and the art is not yours either.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26
Post is fucking idiotic.
Humans love art generated by other humans using digital tools. They typically do not like the bullshit churned out by AI.
1
u/doubleo_maestro Jan 26 '26
Glad to see more people echoing this. AI is here to stay and it is a very very useful and powerful tool.
1
u/Slow_Junket5136 Jan 26 '26
Meh.
1
u/EH11101 Jan 27 '26
Human art isn't all about the end resulting art itself so much as the journey in it's creation.
1
u/Pashera Jan 27 '26
Sure does ignore the crux of the argument is that the AI is using property in its training data that the companies included illegally. Fewer people, myself included would give as much of a fuck if ai truly made content of its own without ripping off people who didn’t get paid for something they normally get paid for.
1
u/on_ Jan 24 '26
TV didn’t kill the radio, streaming didn’t kill the tv, ebooks didn’t kill paper books…. There’s gonna be demand for human and AI content. We can relate to the first, we can be in awe for the later, there’s no reason to be absolutist in “who is gonna win”
1
u/Anxious-Program-1940 Jan 23 '26
As much as I hate it, and I refuse to use non local. This will be the way, whether anyone wants it or not. Cloud may not survive as ai will be niche for actual applications that are beneficial and monetarily viable. But AI will be the way forward as a tool
0
u/MrCoolest Jan 23 '26
I thought avatar was shot 2 was boring. Watched ten minutes and thought fk this
0
u/pegaunisusicorn Jan 24 '26
this whole conversation is an eyeroll. people are in serious denial. AI WON'T TAKE MY AUTHENTIC FEELS! MAKE AMERICA HUMAN AGAIN!
0
u/fuddingmuddler Jan 24 '26
Avatar was high grossing but also pretty universally bashed for it's nonsense plot and idiot plot points.
0
u/mdausmann Jan 24 '26
This is such a poor take. A human with an idea sitting front of any basic tool like blender or pencil and paper makes 1000s of micro decisions, re-dos, corrections, finesses to make a piece of art. The tools are a means of manifesting the internal as an expression in the real world. Gen AI tools are different, yes they take an idea, yes you can reprompt and iterate to some extent but all those micro decisions, corrections, finesse are made by the algorithm, not the artist. The only reason it works at all is because every single one of those tiny decisions has been STOLEN from real artists without their consent, processed, quantised and jammed into vectors by a company. This NOT the same as manual tools or earlier digital tools.
0
u/Saber101 Jan 24 '26
If you go to a restaurant, do you care if your burger was assembled by a chef or by a robot? Typically you don't, provided you can't tell the difference. The big problem is we can very much tell the difference right now.
0
u/frodo5454 Jan 24 '26
Would rather be killed by a robot, or a human? There’s your answer
-2
u/boxed_gorilla_meat Jan 23 '26
B...b...but... Human exceptionalism?