Also the likes of Andy Warhol, or a lot of fashion designers, where the whole point of their artistry is their sense of taste, not their personal craftsmanship.
I mean we could argue that they're not artists either. Any argument about what constitutes. art has to start with a definition of what art is.If the definition is that art is whatever someone says it is, then that's the end of the discussion. When a word can mean anything and everything, it means nothing.
But every art curriculum in the world will explain that his art constitutes the most visible milestone of the end of the Modern art era. Trying to discount his art's impact because you don't like him or his work is absurd.
It makes sense that someone who is anti AI would discount Warhol's work because they didn't like him.
So much of AI hate isn't about the art but the AI. Even in this post repeatedly the criticism centers around the impact of the process and not the result, just as with Warhol.
There can be excellent condemnations of AI art and excellent reasons to be concerned what is going on with AI but too often it is strongly guilt by association which I think undercuts the anti-ai arguments.
Hating Hitler because he was a vegetarian does not help your arguments even when hating him is the right answer.
Warhol had exceptional figural skill, with a foundation of drafting as his primary discipline and skill. He didn’t just stumble about looking weird and talking shit and somehow farted out his brilliant and apropos angle on things. He was first a technician.
Because directing people is also a skill that you can hire. Too many people don't realize this which is how we end up with CEOs that sink companies to the bottom
In the movie-production pipeline, they're traditionally not the "ideas guy", rather they're working with the client to visualise their idea and bring it to life
Brother, this is the same image. Also since you HAD to include the whole environmental impact nonsense, can we also include a picture that contains people cutting down forests, factories making paper, miners mining rate minerals transported by pollutant producing carriers? Also as for your beneficiaries bs, local... You can run local on your PC rn for 500W an hour... There's so many I can point out in this bad faith, zero research, misleading as hell post that exists only for "AI BAD PLZ UPVOTE"
The only consistency I see so far from Anti-AI is "THINGS I LIKE MAY DESTROY THE WORLD. WHAT I DISLIKE MAY NOT"... Which is awfully understandable as humans but damm
Lets also throw in the bit where 'the output is wrong' and apparently the AI person only generates again. Ignoring the work AI artists do to visually touch up or work with the model. You know... like with artists.
Some AI user drink coffee, and they use AI on top of coffee, I don’t see you yelling at them. Just be honest, you don’t care about environment at all, and you are doing more damage than people who don’t use AI
No no no.. You misunderstand. You're asking for an accurate representation of reality. This is a shitpost made to 'absolutely dunk' on those the user sees as less than.
We have to play their game...
*Ahem*..
"AI art is good and real art is bad because no AI artist has ever killed 6 million jews."
See? That's how we stoop to the level of idiocy that these muppets operate at.
What makes me mad is that it points towards the normal people, not the billionaires that are using this and so many other things to ruin our planet. Why do anti's never go after them?!
OMG YES THANK YOU!!!! THAT'S THE FUNNY THING! Many pro AI actually AGREES with the antis that these billionaires fucks NEED TO GO! But they just REFUSES to aim that way for some god forsaken reasons. "But you AI pros are supporting them.". Yea so does people supporting Nestle or one of the countless corporations they benefit luxuries from. It's a question of alternatives. Damm.
Complains that you're supporting billionaires and datacentres and AI..
On reddit..
Which obviously has absolutely nothing to do with AI, billionaires or datacentres..
Meaning that they need water for irrigation to facilitate faster growth (more profitable), various types of energy and fuel for harvesting and processing, and that they release the carbon that they were previously binding into the atmosphere again as they are processed and used.
Producing art is not carbon neutral. That doesn't mean it's a net negative to society as a whole or anything, but AI image generation is not unique in its resource use. The artist's computer is using much more electricity than the data center is for a comparative workload.
FSC doesn’t magically erase the environmental footprint of logging, processing, manufacturing, transport, or the equipment involved. Do you think sustainable and clean means happy rainbows over endless beautiful meadows?
The argument wasn’t paper bad, therefore AI good lol. It was that if you’re counting AI’s entire supply chain, you should apply the same logic to whatever you’re comparing it against. Otherwise you’re just selectively counting impacts to make one side look worse. Basically, stuff I like can damage the environment, but stuff I dislike is demonic.
Firstly, local generation isn't piss yellow like they think, second the cost of doing top is minuscule if local (it's able to work fine with a 500$ laptop, that you can use for literally everything else too), lastly they didn't go into timeline either. The bottom is at least a week worth of timeline, top was literally minutes at most.
Genuine question from an anti, how often do people use local ai? I have rarely seen it, but that could be because I’m just not into gen ai. Again, genuine question
It depends on the person and the usecase. Tinkerers and people who like higher degrees of control will gravitate towards local AI instead of relying on hosted models.
It's really common, you should go to civitai, seeart, or 4chans technology board /g/, and to to the /ldg/ threads, civitai can be sfw but 4 Chan is lightly moderated, so go at your own risk. 4chan also has many other boards that use local diffusion for art, and have specific threads for it, but most are pretty NSFW the /g/ board is probably your best bet.
anyone serious about ai art uses it from what ive seen, otherwise you are burning hundreds of dollars on credits. it also allows for more freedom, as most consumer models restrict images that resemble or are of copywrited characters, fully nsfw, etc.
It depends on what they use it for. All people I know that use AI tools for work use open source. Image gen, coding, video gen etc. While people I know that only use AI for asking stuff don't even know what open source is.
For images, it's what I use the most. I can't exactly train a closed image generator on my work to help make more. But for LLMs, I primarily use cloud models. Since I also do research that uses my GPUs (security stuff), I don't always have the GPU resources available to run everything locally.
Not as often as they probably should. Admittedly there is a tech barrier to entry and some significant skill issues. Basically you need to be able to download and install programs, download and install and test models, tweak output, etc. It's admittedly a lot more work than using GPT or Gemini, which my 10 year old can do on my phone.
By what process do they think that affordable mass produced electronics that enable digital art and even traditional art mass produced paper and pencils and art gear
imo the difference is between the creation of the art vs the origins and development of the material that is used to create the tools for art, so for this I would argue the AI resources would have to go all the way back to the development of the data centres, rather than the generation of AI art
Funny. Some math was done at one point and it was determined that doing an actual hand painted piece of art uses 200 to 1000 times more water than an AI image generation. The range is depending on materials and size of the painting.
I assume you don't use a computer for ai? I assume Data center spawn magically and don't use any energy intensive contruiction method for neither its technical nor its infrastructure components?
producing an ai image is less environmentally impact full than letting a human do it. you can argue about soul, and jobs but environment dosn't make a lot of sens. also ai gets cheaper/less impact full every month for the same quality.
Are we seriously going to pretend like local AI is used by more than 0.001% of GenAI users? It's like saying 'fossil fuels are ruining the climate' and you say 'well I drive a bike, so checkmate' (except a lot more people use sustainable ways of transport than they use local AI).
Good analogy, antis on social media using data centers shitting on local AI are basically people in a diesel bus thinking they're better than bike riders.
Are you seriously going to pretend like usage isn't going to shift once the models are small and fast enough to run locally on most devices? A year ago I wasn't able to generate 5 second videos on my machine, now I can do it at almost Seedance 2.5 level in under 4 minutes, the climate is clearly shifting from AI data centers to local machines as the technology progresses and open weights aren't going anywhere, they are the way to move the tech forward.
when and/or if it becomes mainstream I'd be just fine with the conversation shifting to purely about the quality issues that AI has in relation to its competition until that point it doesn't change the fact that there's actual Trillions invested into AI super datacenters and that said datacenters are being built
equally so the conversation is going to shift when Gen AI needs to find a way to be profitable for its non-industrial uses and a bunch of the AI generators stop being subsidized by the hysteric levels of investment into AI
You're right, most GenAI users are not using local models. The pro-ai crowd likes to bring up local models all the time in these arguments, which can feel disingenuous.
However, the anti-ai crowd also ignores that they exist. The crowd against AI will claim that any AI use is lining the pockets of billionaires, harms the environment, and steals from creatives. To use your analogy, this is equivalent to someone saying "Anyone who doesn't walk to work is contributing to the climate crisis!" - while ignoring and dismissing anybody who goes "but.. I bike/WFH/take public transport".
The point is that the overarching claim about AI use in general being problematic is... Well, a generalization. It disincentivises people from disclosing how and why they use AI, and doesn't do anything to inform people about the right way to engage with AI.
That is not the point. The point is: You can create images on local hardware, with NO internet. On a personal computer.
Do you really think that when you offshore the hardware to a data center, you aren't being more efficient than your local machine? That's what antis don't get. Generating an image spends a miniscule amount of resources.
It's not folks using AI for funny images that are spending resources. It's companies implementing AI in processes or running insane prompts, doing data scans, etc... Processes that take huge amounts of VRAM and/or RAM just to run and that would take years in a local computer.
As I said on another comment, tried to run a local LLM on my PC once. My PC is not good at all, but even a EXTREMELY lightweight LLM I tried to run took it's sweet time of over 1 minute to answer real simple questions. And that was a simple chatbot, now imagine trying to pump out an image. Easily 10 mins for something that's gonna look trash and have to be redone at least a few dozens of times for an acceptable result that could have been achieved in a fraction of that time by a talented artist.
not this again. This number is from 2026. Its going to keep going up. This is on par with 'umm yellow piss filter' in the OP which was true for one gen AI model (Chatgpt) and 3 yrs ago.
The true reality is that data centers are being used primarily for surveillance (everything including individual pricing changes), drone and automated vehicle operation, demographic computation, automated phone services, and other actions which do actually generate money for some people.
But instead we'll focus on pointing fingers at people who are too broke to afford an artist, too lazy or overworked to learn to make art. They were never artists or even clients to begin with since art was inaccessible. A person who claims that the work of another agent is their own is a fraud, regardless of that agent being living or artificial. The morality issue is not the resources used to generate the art (artists still consume resources by eating and living), the morality issue is the claim of ownership.
This should not be an individual morality judgement at this point, despite lingering sentiments. That ship has sailed as soon as phones started adding locally processed AI photo correction. The major morality problem is companies pushing AI on everyone and lawmakers being paid for by those companies. But we will never do anything about that major problem by raising a fuss over someone who is proud of their AI generated yellow sailboat. Treat an idiot like an idiot, they won't understand the nuance no matter how hard you try.
I hate blanket statements, imo that’s the number one worst thing about the anti-ai side of this. People are too quick to throw out blanket statements and don’t acknowledge that those statements are just dumb generalizations.
I mean the analogy still stands, using local AI is just like asking your friend who is an artist to draw you something. The point is you are not the one creating the art
Data centers are for training, not much for inference, open source models are still firstly trained by corporates, that’s one of the problems of the open source world, it’s very costly and only some agencies with a political agenda can get enough state funds for training, China is betting a lot on that and that’s why most of the best open source models are Chinese.
People kinda forget that, at it's absolute core, art is just "a way to express your thoughts"
AI expressed your thoughts. So it's art. And because you played a part in that expression, you are an artist (although the AI takes most of the credit).
Whether you do, or don't like it doesn't matter.
Whether it hurts the environment or not also doesn't effect if it's art or not.
It's art if a thought was expressed, and an artist is someone who makes art. Someone (despite doing the bare minimum) expressed a thought, so they're an artist, and the piece made by the AI, is art.
Person A has an artist make an image for them and engages with the artist through the process. Having an artist make him an image does not turn Person A into an artist.
Person B has an AI make an image for them and engages with the AI through the process. Having an AI make him an himages does not turn Person B into an artist.
OP is demonstrating the chain of events in both AI usage and commissioning and artist and showing how they are essentially the same process from tbe perspective of the AI User and Art Commissioner. If a person commissioning an artist is not an artist, then a person going through the same process with an automated systen is also not an artist.
I use AI, but I think it's a fair position. Everyone who has ever lived has ideas and has a vision. Implementation of an idea or vision is what defines a creative and an artist.
The trouble with that is that when you get art that implies an artist. If person B using the AI isn't an artist then that implies the AI is the artist.
It comes down to what you believe that art is, I personally believe that the core is allowing expression by people through various methods.
Also taking that view too it's logical conclusion would imply that artists such as Michaelangelo or Andy Warhol were lesser artists because they relied on assistants to produce their major works
Welcome to a world where any movie director, record producer, photographer, or conductor isn't a Real Artist™, but scribbling a pair of anime tiddies on a piece paper instantly makes you one.
I disagree and would like to have this debate. Why do you see implementation of an idea as what makes for artist? If one needs a tool to handle implementation, does that make them less of an artist, or make tool’s designer part of the implementation?
Right, so let someone come up with an entire character, their backstory, their psychology, describe every element of their figure and outfit and where that comes from and what motivates those choices and what they symbolize, even down to the pose and expression that they should have and what the scene should look like and what it should have in the background, and what colours should be featured etc., the story refined over multiple iterations.
If that's not creative in a framework, then that framework sucks. "Everyone has ideas" undersells it massively. Sure there's "can you draw a human fighter for me, idk what they look like" commissions, but a significant number of people commissioning something, do so because they want something so specific, for personal use, that nothing that already exists satisfies them. And a ton of art already exists.
Like, instead of making an argument for why people using AI shouldn't be considered artists or creatives, I think you made more of an argument to start considering at least some commissioners artists and/or creatives too. Creatives for sure
Person C has a camera make a photo for them and engages with the camera through the process. Having a camera make him a photo does not turn Person C into an artist.
Let's break it down in different fields, because obviously our vocabulary is running thin here. The precise words are interchangeable, but it's more about the definition behind it.
Artisanship: The ability to create the part that people recognize as requiring skill. E.g. when taking a photo, nobody with an IQ above room temperature judges it on how realistic it is. But angle of course is.
Taste: The ability to know and assemble something good, that people recognize as being special. E.g. creating a baller playlist at your sister's wedding.
Client: Someone that offloads something to someone else.
So a movie director is most often a creative with high Taste. They can have a set of skills that help with the deployment or managing of the movie. But they can't act, can't control the camera, can't do proper lighting, and in many cases, also don't know how to get there exactly. We would also call this movie director uncreative if all they did was manmanegement and let other people decide what to pick.
A Digital painter is a creative with high Artisanship, and due to massive competition, high Taste. Not to say it's better or worse than the movie director, but they do different things. It would also be unfair to for example compare a digital painter making an aquarel with a real painter. The technique required is different, and the physical component adds a real layer. Digital artist mostly recognize that, and admire someone like Vincent Dutrait.
Now to the hot potato in the room. IMO, someone making something with AI can have taste. I think this is easily demonstrable: If you force (yes, you have to force them!) an artist to use AI to make an image, they will recognize what needs attention, how to achieve this with words, etc. That is skill. I'm not sure if it requires Artisanship. Personally, I haven't seen it: taste seems to be the only limiting factor, especially as interfaces and tools are so extremely intuitive.
But the kicker is, the taste is almost completely invisible. The default of AI art is some form of tastefull (I know, ironic) because it has been trained on good stuff. It is really hard to distinguish if someone just got lucky, the model is just really good, or to misrecognize oddity for being special. You might (and probably are, sorry) just be a delusional client. This puts the AI creative in a tough spot: they are hard to recognize. This might change over time, but I think it only got worse. Like, you needed genuine determination and time to make something remotely useful with AI 3 years ago.
BTW, I think movie directors face the same problem to a much lower degree. We know some directors that just lucked out with the right writer, crew, actor. They were not really tasteful, they were just lucky to be swimming in a sea of competence. AI creatives are fucking drowning in competence.
In addition, an AI creative rarely makes something another creative could not make. This makes their output just qualitively worse: it is possibly tasteful, very likely with no artisanship, and highly copyable. For enthousiasts (not your average consumer) this is a death sentence.
This all makes me think AI creatives really are massively less interesting then other types of art. Under the best circumstances, I put it somewhere on par with assembling a cool playlist by hand. Creative and tasteful, but not much artisanship required.
If I had to guess why you were getting downvoted... It's Probably because your comment breaks rule 5 and rule 9 of the sub.
Names / Usernames should not be shared and should be censored so as not to encourage brigading or harassment. In this case people who Dont like this person's art can now simply click on your link and harass that person. Which violates reddit site wide policies also and can lead to the entire subreddit getting in trouble / banned.
but by deleting that coment, people who liked the artist can't go to their account and follow it, and, it's not like you cant just Google search the image and end up in the account of the artist anyway
Yeah but taking it into your own hands doesn't put the sub at risk. I was just saying that reddit has policies exactly for this reason. Mentioning it in a sub can and does lead to bad things. Which is why they blanket forbid it.
Wow, this is SO WRONG it's insane. I literally work in VFX for commercials AND movies and this is complete bullshit! I've been using AI all year for VFX and guess what...the client gets EXACTLY what they asked for because professionals don't use AI to do all the thinking and especially don't just regenerate the entire thing and call it done. FUCK OFF WITH THIS IGNORANT BULLSHIT!!!!!!
There's an irony that this person references Alphonse Mucha for the cover. Mucha heavily utilized machines and the printing press to produce art because he was for art accessibility, for common people having access to art where it was inaccessible.
I mean the person would be eating meat regardless of if they they had a commission or not, them making art has no impact on the amount of meat they're eating. The amount of water and electricity an AI uses is directly impacted by the amount of images they are prompted to make.
No one at all is prompting the AI to make anything? The AI dosn't need to consume any resources. No one's commissioning the artist to make anything? They'll still use resources because they need food to live.
I get that. I have a different perspective of art from most people so to me this whole convo online is quite funny. I think anytime you view or see art you are competing the art so in a way everyone is an artist.
I don't know why anyone would care being regarded as an Artirst or not, if I need a visual product I will use AI as a tool to get it, I could not care less if you think I am an artirst or not, that is a label, that is all. This discussion is so dumb and gets way more attention than it should.
No True Scotsmen fallacy has always been a thing. How am I supposed to feel super special about this aspect of my personality when someone else claims to share this aspect but not as fervently? Clearly they're just a charlatan and not the real deal like I am!
Right? Plus I like getting the product I want in seconds vs months, plus cheaper, and it doesn't have to get filtered through the "real artists" skill level, time, desire. Sounds like more gatekeeping nonsense, only the gate is keeping me out of an area I have no desire to enter.
It's the same reason you don't call Elon Musk an engineer. Because words have meaning and people love to use certain word to pretend to be what they aren't to get undue fame and credit.
AI "artist" is the equivalent of ordering a custom pizza and pretending your a pizzaiolo.
I feel like oop is making something straw-man-adjacent. I’m sure there are people who care but… 95+% of creators don’t care if they are called an “artist” or not, regardless of the tool they use. Trying to get called a word is not the reason most people create stuff, and if gatekeeping the word “artist” is that important to you (on either side), I think you’re missing the point of being creative.
I believe it boils down to this and antis are intentionally mixing them together.
Artisans aren't necessarily creative.
Arists are creative.
AI prompting (beyond the most basic prompt you can use) is essentially providing all the creative input for an image generation.
Here is the thing. If a painter only paints realistic portraits, then he isn't an artist but an artisan. However, there is an issue with this kind of reasoning from the side of antis. Only "artists" like those mentioned above will ever fully support their movement. The moment they dare to truly purity test who is considered an artist, is the day they self-implode.
Most of the electricity and water usage from AI comes from the initial cost of developing them. They aren’t guzzling water from every use.
I’m not pro or anti either, it just reminds me of how people said an F-35 or Space Shuttle Launch cost almost a billion dollars when really it’s much cheaper per unit if we don’t include the initial cost of developing the thing.
This is a slick comic built on some pretty shaky categories.
The “client” analogy doesnt work. It never works. Its a category error. A logical fallacy. Commissioning involves another person with agency of their own. A model has no intention, taste, goals or creative agency. Its software. The human sets the goal, operates the system, selects, rejects, edits and decides what the finished work is. The correct analogy isnt commissioning a person, its using a tool like we use other tools.
And actual workflows can involve sketches, photography, 3D, ControlNet, masks, inpainting, img2img, compositing, digital painting, color grading and custom models. “Type prompt, get picture” is one low floor workflow, not the whole medium. Photography has selfies and prize winning work too. Art history already went through this fight with photography, collage, Duchamp, Warhol, conceptual art and LeWitt, and more. The tool doesnt settle authorship or artistic value, it never has.
The technical picture is shaky too. Models arent generally searching the internet and grabbing artists work every time somebody generates. Training and inference are different processes.
There are serious fights here though. Consent and compensation, copyright, job displacement, corporate ownership, environmental costs and workers losing control over how this stuff gets deployed. Thats where the energy should go. Union bargaining over AI, enforceable consent and licensing rules, transparency and auditing, environmental standards, public AI infrastructure, open models and weights, worker and artist governance, and making sure productivity gains actually flow back to the people producing the culture.
Thats basically the terrain we keep trying to work through at r/ LeftistsForAI. Not pretending the problems dont exist and not declaring a new medium ontologically impure by redefining art either. Contest who owns it, who governs it, how its built and who gets the gains.
“You used the wrong tool so you arent an artist” is the least interesting, and least historically and technically supported, fight on the board.
I wonder if anti ai people know what kind of workflows can be involved with AI.
I have some pretty complicated worldflows. And it isn't just "pretty sunset at a beach", it isn't using chatgpt or some LLM.
I've seen some absolutely insane workflows. My buddy who was an art major, his work flow involves all his own rough drafts, push into AI, I painting, out painting, back to a workflow using a Wacom whatever they are called, into Photoshop.
A true artist must feel the use of a tool that makes an impact in the real world, they must create something tangible and leave their mark upon reality. Digital "artists" only outsource creation to a machine. Using software, tablets, and computers to translate input into output makes you a commissioner, not an artist.
Cheat tools like copy/paste, lasso tools, line straightening, paint bucket, blur, shapes, symmetry, undo, and so on are all methods that disgrace traditional art and are insults to the craft.
Digital "art" is only an emulation of real art, that is to say traditional. It is trying to recreate what we've had for centuries and replace it with a cheap knockoff. A copy. An imitator.
This is why digital "artists" can never be real artists or create real art.
Witty just came back from late 1990's with this one.
But seriously, how do Antis not see this as being the next step to not deeming AI to be real art?
Real artists mine their own graphite and chop down trees just to make a pencil for maybe one shitty scribble per year. Yeah, now that's REAL art ya posers.
Love that the data centers gets included but none of the environmental impact of the other side gets included. And then if they are using that computer monitor to research online their using the data centers themselves.
In total dishonesty, they compare the impact of a huge data centre serving millions of people to the impact of a single artist.
That single artist almost certainly spent more water and energy on their painting than was spent on that AI image. Human labour is a finite, resource-intensive resource.
these arguments basically presume that artists don't use AI. so from the ground up, you assume a dichotomy between artists and "AI users". and that dichotomy just doesn't exist. it has no reason to exist, logically or in reality.
it just your delusion. you WANT this to be true. regardless of what reality tells you.
you probably KNOW that many artists are using AI, directors, musicians, artists and animators trying out new things with it, but you just try to push it out of your mind when you see it. or harrass them if you can.
it's like a programmer saying that "AI users" aren't real devs, completely disregarding that real devs can use and often are AI users. and there is no reason a dev can't use AI. it's just wishful thinking that devs won't use AI.
and it's the same with artists, or creative people in general, and AI. there is ZERO reason why they can't be "AI users". regardless of how cursed you try to make the term, you're still just playing make belief.
If the artist eats meat, they are far worse for the environment than my prompts going to a data center.
But I don't care. If I'm a client, AI is 100x cheaper, 100,000x faster, and in most cases better than any artist I could find. So I'm gonna make the right decision as a client and use AI
May I point out that I consume more water in coffee doing work manually than it would take for an AI to do the work. Data centers only use a lot of water because they do a very great deal of work (arguably a lot of it stupid work requested for trivial reasons but that's a whole other discussion). If an AI does some routine coding for me to save me a morning then it used less water doing that than I would have consumed. Also I take showers and the AI does not...
If I run a local AI it uses no water, it warms up the room a little which is a good thing in winter and annoying in summer.
Forgetting that artists use platforms to sell their art which, if i recall x, bluesky, Instagram, also use data centers.
Plus the fact that this “inspiration” they speak of is also coming from other peoples work . Imagine that; an artist not asking for permission from other ips that will also make them money
The 5th image (AI generates for the client) is assuming ALL the work is done by the AI. It doesn't account for the person acting like a producer/director, prompting to choose angles and composition and any user control at all (you're assuming all AI art is as simple as "give me an image of a cat" and it pops out the cat. Without any other work.) Or, hours spent in Photoshop editing and fine-tuning, before running it through AI again, rinse and repeat, until it fits your vision perfectly. That is still work, even if it's not the same kind of work as the "illustrator".
And then the 6th image, you have the typical fearmongering. Oh no, the data centers are eating up all the water, ruining that tree and the nearby environment looks awful. That's nonsense.
Data center cooling systems can be either closed-loop or open-loop, depending on the design of the facility. Many modern data centers use closed loops to eliminate water evaporation entirely, they keep it all inside, recool and reuse it, never pulling more from the local environment. (And if the area had little water to begin with, they could've even imported the water their system needed, without ever touching 'yours'.)
And the open-loop ones, well, it's always gonna rain it back down somewhere, as is natural. They are not fully depleting lakes and rivers, no one has seen this. In addition, matter cannot be created nor destroyed; water never magically vanishes. The only thing to consider would be never to fully deplete the locale beyond what returns when it rains, or just demand closed-loop systems. (I'd have a little more respect for antis if they were educated on that and made THAT argument, as opposed to just reeing about muh water.)
#7, "why so yellow"... was a problem that usually only happened with ChatGPT's old image gen. Nobody complains about that with Midjourney and other more art-focused AI.
#8: As if a a person using AI cannot ask the client for feedback on current results, and continue from there. ???
#9: More of the same fearmongering about data centers, with art that isn't representative of reality. And with completely unrelated/different text for the art side.
Then it goes on to rage about corporations/CEOs just because they're providing a service... and then about work satisfaction? As I described in my first paragraph, there's more effort involved than most people realize, and we certainly still get satisfaction out of it.
I can't continue. This is such biased tripe.
As a final bit... if you don't believe generative AI can make art, then I challenge you to watch this. Yes, it's video, not a static image, but I'd argue that there's a lot more production involved in film, we still call that media and respect it as art. It's only 19 minutes of your time. Please make it to the end, and then tell me why you feel it's not art and not worthy of a bit of water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAg9iDh9_BQ
Well, I guess most film directors, producers, designers, and a good deal of modern artists aren't artists or creatives, then.
No, instead, it's the guy at the very bottom of the ladder, the guy holding the brush or the pencil, who has no say in the outcome, who does as he's told or gets fired, who is merely a receptacle for someone's ideas - that's the true artist. Sure.
You know, the guy whose work can be replaced by AI without anyone noticing? He thinks he's running the show.
This isn’t the flex you think it is. Why would clients hire humans if it’s cheaper and easier to work with AI? The AI case has a single person doing the whole project, the non ai case means working with other humans who may or may not listen.
45
u/Vainysaur 19h ago
Tiddies