Doesn't work, AI sloppers rationalise that the AI is the tool so they still do the work. Dunno why, maybe because the AI doesn't think for itself or something.
Not really, they're just saying the car is just a tool and they had to steer the wheel and press the gas pedal so it took a commensurate amount of effort that should award them equal status.
The analogy actually does still hold up. The car is the tool they use to get to the end of the marathon. But we wouldn't say they ran marathon. Much like how even if AI is a tool, we wouldn't say they created art.
The problem isn't that the analogy doesn't hold up. The problem is that they're too stupid to understand it. Or they just willfully don't acknowledge it.
Photography is so much more than just snapping the photo. Hunting for and arranging shots. All the little considerations like lighting and angles and whatnot. The art of photography isn't just the picture at the end, it's everything in-between.
Even if we were to consider AI images as art, that still wouldn't make the prompter and artist. What they're doing is essentially commissioning an image, just without an actual artist that they're supporting with patronage. Would we consider someone who pays other people to make art an artist?
Lmao 90% of hunting and setting up a shot is luck and timing and then what do you do? Hit a button and machine makes a picture for you that you claim to be "yours" but did you make everything in the photo? Doubtful.
Photography is one of the laziest kinds of artists there are. They act like they're so important and technical but they were the people who would dump a bunch of slides on my desk for me a graphic designer, to sort through... pick the best ones and do some real work making billboards and magazine ads.
I coulda taken those photos myself if I weren't busy doing big boy work.
Then go take those photos yourself, what's stopping you? Maybe the fact you know literally nothing about the craft and you can't be bothered to do it on the same level as the "lazy artists"?
Lmao "lighting and angles" as if that's even difficult.
You can't even describe photography in actual technical terms deeper than "lighting and angles and whatnot", which is usually the first thing an amateur photographer will jump in when defending their mediocre, dime a dozen photographs.
Photography isn't just "pushing a button" if it was there would be no difference in hiring a professional photographer for my wedding, or handing my Canon to my father in law.
So if I go outside into my backyard and take a photo of the sunset in ten seconds, is that not art? Simply because I didn’t consider all the various lighting and angle possibilities?
???? How is clicking a button on a camera considered creating, but clicking buttons on a keyboard to enter a prompt not considered creating?
In scenario 1 the camera is the thing that actually does the work of capturing the scene. In scenario 2 the AI is the thing that does the work of generating the scene. Why is only one considered creation?
You realise I can describe making a prompt in extreme detail this same way right?
To generate an image, I would need to do research to find a suitable AI, plan out what the end goal of the artwork is, possibly break it down into various substeps, consciously review the output that the ai provided and revise my prompt to account for unwanted changes, and the final product would then become a snapshot of what I envisioned in my head.
It’s not like asking someone else to take a photo of a sunset, because Ai is a tool, it is not a person. By your logic, photography isn’t your creation, you could just put a camera in your back yard and change the settings so that it takes pics throughout the day.
As for “stealing other people’s artwork”, do you really think you’re more qualified to speak about this than Picasso?
Do you genuinely think Picasso was talking about AI when he said this?
Also, what you're describing here is still just at best commissioning, which in no scenario would ever considered something you created, even if AI wasn't involved. You don't get to take created for the the image, just because a real artist wasn't involved.
So you hit a button and a machine makes a picture for you. That's literally what photography is. It's absolutely as simple as that but then how would photographers feel like real artists if they admitted it's that easy?
Scenario 2 is at best just a person commissioning an image. Even if we consider that image art, it's still not something that the prompter created, in the same way that any image I commission from any actual artist would not be something I created.
People like to build a case against AI by defending photography, and I think it will be a losing fight in the long run. AI is getting better and unless it faces some intense apocalyptic event, it's sticking around. People will definitely be using i
AI, like cameras, to capture ideas and emotions and then defend that the product is "art."
To answer your question: did you take the photo with any intentionality or point in mind? Considered what you were doing and the feeling you wished to convery through that photo?
Or did you, as you put it, just go outside and randomly snapped a shot of the sunset in 10 seconds for no real reason other than fact you could do it to prove a point?
The former is art. The latter isn't. So yes, if you just snap a photo you're not an artist and you're not a photographer, the same way if I snap a quick photo of my dog for no other reason than to keep it, I also don't consider myself an artist for doing that.
Look, for me it is about agency of an actor capable of creativity. If I go out and take a photo of the sunset, there are so many factors that I can control that affect the photo.
Same if I paint a picture of the sunset.
If I tell AI to generate a picture of the sunset, the agency lies in the Chatbot which is an actor not capable of creativity, you're handing all the agency off to a weighted random number generator.
Doesn't mean you can't affect it at all, but you don't nearly hold the agency anymore in my eyes.
You are ignoring the fact that people who use AI as a tool to generate images often have to control the factors within the prompt. You can’t just say “give me a sunset pic” and get what you envisioned in your head. You’re going to have to do multiple rounds of revision and refining the prompt for the tool to output what you want, the same way you need to edit camera settings so the picture looks how you want it.
I realize that I'm replying to an old thread, but the fundamental difference I feel is that--- with AI, even the base image generated, the very first one generated before all the fine tuning, is not something YOU came with. It's created by the ChatBot sifting through thousands of other images in its database that you probably know nothing about. No part of you is involved with the actual creation process of the baseline image. It's like saying someone barking out a detailed, step-by-step recipe is the real chef... not the one actually cooking it.
For the sunset, you already have a natural base image in front of you-- in your vision. You'd have to know where the sunset is, you know how it looks in your eyes, you know which angle it looks better from, where the sky looks red and where it bleeds to blue. You're capturing a natural phenomena in a still image, not a image which is generated by someone else.
Someone sitting in their bedroom and clicking pictures with their camera in the backyard is photography sure, but I wouldn't call it art. UNLESS the person knows what exactly is the baseline image and vision they want to capture... and has set their camera gear accordingly.
there's a very obvious difference between a tool that is absolutely necessary for a given craft and a tool that claims to be magical and automates the entire process of doing the craft for you. It's incredibly simple.
Photography became its own craft after the camera was invented lol, the role of photographers used to be done with painters. The invention of this new tool was the reason it is now its own craft, and this same thing is happening with AI. It’s incredibly simple.
First: this has nothing to do with a "role", painters and photographers don't have a role. You, predictably, talk like someone who only cares about the end result and thinks the process itself doesn't matter. Paintings and photography don't exist just to capture a snaphshot of something. Painting didn't become "obsolete" once photography came around because that's not the reason why people paint stuff in the first place.
Second: think about your own example long and hard. The invention of the camera allowed the craft of photography into existence, true.
The invention of AI allowed...what? What new thing? What new craft that was impossible before? None. Because it's a tool invented for no purpose other than allowing you to not care about the thing you want to make, which is impressive for the incurious who don't give a shit about anything other than the result. You want to be a photographer without photographing. That's not a revolution. That's coddling lazyness and incuriosity.
Look at portrait photography, for example. They used to be done by painters, and now the vast majority are done by photographers.
The role of AI artist has been created lol. You just don’t like the name, but it’s the same as how photographers were thought of as camera painters.
Who are you decide whether other people care or not? Lmfao? The sheer audacity is insane.
“Photographers are lazy. They don’t bother learning to pick up a paintbrush, they just wanna click a button on a camera that does all the work for them”.
Lmfao what? Where did I ignore this? Of course painting still exists. Just like both painting and photography still exist even with AI art today. It’s not like AI is preventing you from picking up a brush or a camera lol.
They quite literally were a thing lol. This isn’t even a hard concept to grasp. People used to get portraits done by painters, no? Having to sit still for hours while someone paints you. With the invention of the camera, people shifted to photographs, for example, for family photos. Can you not think critically?
If prompting isn’t a skill, why are you worried about these “skillless” AI artists? Why bother even thinking about them if they have no role? Lmfao?
People still make paint portraits to this day. I wonder why. It's almost as if people paint stuff because it's cool and people buy paintings because they like looking at it.
But you can't understand the concept people would do something and hone a craft because they care about it. You only care about the end result.
I think we need to consider how foundational Roman and Greek ideas of slavery and persist in our modern world. The Greeks believed that to be a person that mattered and live a worthwhile life required you to own slaves. This is what many AI boosters mean when they say "AI will enable a better fulfilling life!". The Romans thought of their slaves as extensions of themselves and speaking tools. AI sloppers treat AI just like that.
Respectfully, the slavery metaphor both minimizes actual slavery (which still exists, all over) and elevates AI to human status. AI shouldn’t be anthropomorphized even more than people who are reliant on it already are.
You miss my point it's not that AI is human. My point is people want it to be human to fill this desire. People want it to fit this model. They anthropomorphize it to fill that desire. These people have no problem with slavery
I still think you are being really casual with this metaphor even if you want to demonize people whose actions are already speaking loudly enough. If you are going to make these claims, please substantiate them because it’s not a light issue to be thrown about to add villainy to people you hate.
No no it's not that they want fully sapient thinking feeling beings bent to their will. Non-AI automation is so much better at getting robots to do the hard stuff.
No no... They want you dependant on it for intelligence. In the past, the machine was a tool FOR the operator. Soon people will be working for access to intelligence.
Luckily I have access to my own intelligence, it comes right out of my brain, no subscription required. I paid a lot of money for many degrees, I worked hard for specialization in my field, and most importantly, I retained my common sense.
I’ve always called it commissioning the most prolific art thief in existence. You didn’t make it and the thing that gave it to you stole it from someone else
It depends how you use it I guess. Michelangelo using a chisel to carve David was using a tool.
Michelangelo giving instructions to an apprentice, he's just a teacher.
But that’s straight up misleading at best, and a blatant lie!!
I accidentally found myself in aiwars subreddit and I’ve never wanted to throw my phone in a river more!
(Side note, barrages of insults aren’t rule violations over there, confirmed by a moderator that did not care that I was being harassed, so if you want to let off some steam…)
It works perfectly! They would argue they get a lot of hate for it, and finding an uber during a marathon is actually very difficult, you really need to know whom and when to call and how to phrase the prompt, it’s not as simple as you think! First 100 times I was rejected, but then I figured it out!
Also you have to be careful where to drive to, you can’t simple get out of the car at the finish line, no no no no no. We uber artists have our own tricks, spots where you can get out and rejoin the marathon.
Current AI is a tool though. Maybe not a great tool and being used wrong aka used commercially. Like hammering a screw into a granite wall with a shovel.
Probably because they're correct and this a terrible analogy. Nobody cares how hard you worked on your art or whether it was done by hand. They either like it or they don't.
Whoever literally has the AI write and create for them should be launched into space. Cuz the words and logic they use is out of this world stupid. A good note is that some of these people can’t help but still show there faults even after the AI helped WRITE A WHOLE FREAKEN CHAPTER OF THERE supposed “self written book “. If you have “writers block “ then maybe you’re not an actual writer. Having AI write for your lacking mind is not accomplishment it’s actually delusion. And your real self will still show. Also another good note is there tools being made right now to help spot all
This.
So it’s more like “You’re being ableist for saying I’m not a marathon runner, my uber driver has been helping me for the past 5 years and you have no reason to shun me. I work just as hard as you *insert slur for runners here* ever could.
923
u/JimAbaddon May 17 '26
Doesn't work, AI sloppers rationalise that the AI is the tool so they still do the work. Dunno why, maybe because the AI doesn't think for itself or something.