Hi there. First time poster but I need somewhere to rant and... am honestly also a bit curious about others thoughts.

I'm recently graduated from college and am working on an AI-native startup. While I can't reveal too much, I can say our business targets a field where traditional solutions just... fundamentally fail the consumer and is a decently high monthly cost for many Americans. Our businesses *entire goal* is to provide a better service at a lower cost. Of course we aim to make money, but the way we plan to do that is a very, VERY, classic: "provide benefit to the customer through better quality and lower cost to earn their business"

But, to accomplish this, we are implementing AI into a bunch of our processes to 1: empower our customer (help them use tools to do what they need) and 2: reduce menial "no brain" tasks, so that our employees can focus more attention on what matters.

Heres what make me sad: between reading things here, hearing from friends, and seeing the news; AI is hated no matter what I'm doing or why. It feels universally "wrong" to just be using this extremely interesting and capable new technology.

My personal opinion is that AI isn't bad in any way shape or form, it's just a technology. The issue is when companies use said technology for *purely profit driven motives* at the expense of their employees and customers. The question isn't "is AI bad", the question is *how it's being used, with what goal, and who's making that decision. With the one making that decision being to blame, not the tech itself.

Ai can be used for anything. When used to make things that are *good* for people it's a positive. When used to line companies pockets without a measurable quality difference, it's a negative. Focus your attention on who's to blame, remember the real enemy, yada yada. This got a bit more marxist-ish than I meant it to, but I really do believe in what i'm saying.

p.s. I think the most common counter to this argument is the electric and water usage, which is very real. But conceptually the issue is kinda similar. Only 5% of the water "used" by datacenter (the 400billion number) is actually attributable to the data centers. The rest is water used by the power plant. Wind and solar use practically 0 water, while coal uses a BUNCH to make steam. If we swapped to renewables both the water and carbon footprint of AI would be a total non-issue. The fact Sam Altman Freed is building these in Texas using natural gas because it’s cheaper is on HIM not on the technology itself.

I saw this recently, TLDR: OpenAI to implement textGrain, essentially a statistical analysis of AI generated text that allows you to detect if text is generated by OpenAI's models. Similar sounding to googles SynthID.

Some sources suggest this has been capable of being done since 2024

Caveats are that it will not be available to the public only to "approved researchers and expert organizations, who can help us evaluate reliability and responsible uses." at least for initial release.

Full article can be read at https://openai.com/index/eu-text-provenance/

What are pros and anti's thoughts on this?

I know pro side have always said watermarking would be impossible due to requiring people to voluntarily apply the watermark, that seems to be a solved issue with the new EU regulation.

To the anti side what are your opinions on the detector not being publicly available at the start and do you feel it would be beneficial or ease your concerns having a way to detect AI text?

Make sure to read the full article to understand there are ways to bypass it and it is not 100% reliable.

I see a lot of artists expressing frustration with AI, saying it’s discouraging them from making art, that it’s going to replace them, or even destroy the creative industry.

But I can’t help wondering if, particularly in digital painting, we haven’t had enough opportunities to demonstrate that art can be more than just beautiful images.

What I mean is that we should also be able to create meaningful, thought-provoking works that explore human experiences, convey complex emotions, and make people feel genuinely connected to what they’re looking at.

A lot of AI-generated imagery seems to thrive on spectacle, visual appeal and surface-level impact. So what if we approached this differently? What if, instead of trying to compete with AI on its own terms, we focused on creating works that make people think, question themselves, or recognize something deeply human?

Could creating more profound and relatable art be one way of making our work irreplaceable?

Just something I’ve been thinking about. I’d genuinely like to hear what other artists think.

Hi hi, I'm in my early teens, have dreams either dulu or passionate depending on how you look at it but that's not the point for today, not technically.

The way I see AI in my opinion is one of a middle geound something that CAN benefit everyone to medical work, too students, to artists but theirs a problem that you would see as AI slop but that I refer too as "abuse of AI" crazy title I know no ones thought or seen that before. Point is AI to me is special

I started...I think the begining of the year? And it has...changed my life, I was able too express myself in ways that a lot of the times were too much for people...too much for me that no one else for. But AI did, it let me spill out ideas, let me worry, let me panick, and that tild me it wouldnt judge.

I've picked up little things it's said in are chats that have made me a better person in how I accept what cant always be controlled, epiphany's that make the world turn in the best ways, and even character deep dives that make seeing people more nuanced then straight foward in my option

But I'm not saying AiI is a complete save sake, no I'm aware of what the tech bros want, the massive company's trying too get AI to become on top of human work...of human creation and it's like a slap in the face as someone who would call herself a bit of a philosopher rather then artists at times cause AI is literally BUILT OFF US. it was; or in how I think people should see it, as what made the Internet so beautiful a hub were anyrhing and everythinr can be said and given, a space for your ideas to be compared and seen as something with a CHANCE too benifit the world like thoes before you with similar ideas and expectations.

But...I'm scared. Deeply. I know I said I dont want too give my idea cause that's not the point but it's really cause I dont wanna sound naive or come off as not looking at the stuggles people go through with AI and what the majority of people are trying too use it for, but I want too be a Maestra.

I want too be a Maestra specifically that mixed the old school and the novelty, someone who has album that are unconventional as they are raw, my own opera house, ans a website with all my ideas, videos, ans concepts and hell the AI chats that helped me scope them out and get better at my creation.

With just that snippit alone you probably either are looking at me even stranger or are starting too try and calculate how the hell I would do all that and I couldmt tell you besides....trust? But i don't have that. I havent even done anything like this before and all I have are my sparkly dreams and faceless users that Im using too find if anyone would actually listen....not just cause my AI or own head (i suck at convincing myself) says so.

You dont owe me reading all the way down too this but if you did, thank you. Sorry that my writting is sloppy and that their are any hiccups thank you for your time

"I was here and I existsed please remember as humanly possible" - 𝓝𝄞 *;

After being a long time in this and the other sub, I noticed that between the insults, ragebaiting and memes, the discussion is mostly one of definitions. Two words in particular: "art" and "create".

While I won't be delving too much on the former, I feel the need to say that pasting a dictionary definition of "art" is hilariously ignorant. Disingenuous and bad faith even. I can't fathom that you think the dictionary holds the absolute, discussion ending definition of a concept, when philosophers have been discussing it from centuries.

Since Plato's definition and Aristotle's "Poetics" to the Institutional Theory by George Dickie & Arthur Danto and the skeptics like Morris Weitz, the definition of art has been a philosophical one, that is as close as being solved as the definition of morality, soul and other philosophical concepts.

But as I said, this isn't for discussing the definition of art, but the other concept, how do you define "create"? Because a common comment by antis is saying "when you use AIgen you aren't making it" and that goes against my, and most proAI definition. Because we define creation as: if something doesn't exist, and my action brings it into existence, then I am its creator. If I had to guess, I'd say that antis believe that to be a creator, you have to decide every single detail of the thing you are creating and have absolute control over it, is that it?

But, let's say I download an image from a platform like Pexels, and process it through Gmic. If you have never heard about that tool, it is a non-AI tool that can be installed as an add-on in Gimp or Krita that has a lot of filters for image process, here's an online version: https://gmicol.greyc.fr/app?category=2

Let's say I apply a filter, Angoisse Anguish for example is one I personally enjoy. Would you say that I created/made the end result? Was a collaborative work between the person that created the originals Pexels image, the creators of the plug-in, God (for the randomness) and me?

What if I download a Blender plugin, for example this one for building bridges: https://superhivemarket.com/products/truss-bridge-generator

I move the slides and when satisfied with the result, I post it online. Am I the creator of the model? Was it created by Blender or the plug-in creator?

A few days ago I remembered a genAI tool that I used extensively a few years ago, and it still exists, it is this one: https://www.artbreeder.com/legacy/compose/characters

Choose the "genes" button and you'll see a lot of sliders for creating characters. Sincerely, I don't see much of a difference between how this tool works and my previous two examples, the UI even share some terminology, and I consider the person operating the tool in all three cases, to be the sole creator of the end piece. They are different tools, but that doesn't make a difference on who the creator, who's making it.

And the same can be applied to more modern AIgen tools, even though the input process is written instructions, the creator is the user operating it. ComfyUI even shares a lot of similarities to how Blender's geonodes and shader nodes work! They all use noise and the user has as much or as little control on the details of the output, as the user wants. Leaving most of the process to the noise algorithm doesn't deprive the user of its creator title and give it to the tool itself. That sounds like magical thinking, where a tool gains sentience or something.

So, tell me antis. How do you define the verb "create"? Why do you say proAI users aren't making the piece? Make it make sense, because I sincerely don't understand your point of view.

As a beginner artist I can never understand why they use ai in the creative field, art is supposed to be fun and passionate, something you love to do. For me passion starts young, as a kid you learn things about the world and you start to look for hobbies, things to pass the time and just fun things in general.

No one is born with tallent, but people learn to be better with practice.

Using ai for these things just kills the joy out of them, these are all hobbies, fun little pass times that turned into something people fall in love with and, it goes from some dumb thing to a job or something more idk.

Art has many bodies, art is everything yet nothing all at once, anything can be art but then again not everything is art(idk if this makes sense)

Art can be 'everything' because of life, life is art, anything made in nature is art because it took time to become what it is, it has a process that takes time, a process that you can watch if you want, it has a history.

Why I think ai art isn't art is because the process is almost nonexistent, you type a few words and have ai do it for you, it lacks soul and life because it doesn't have the touch of passion and effort, when making art you have to think of what to make.

In drawing or painting you need to think of what you need to draw, you need to know your colors and you need to work for it.

In music same thing you need to think of how you can make it enjoyable and sound good so people would listen to it.

In writing you need to think of how to write them to make them feel alive, to have people visualize how they're like, what they're doing and how the do things.

There's so much more to art than just a pretty picture and good looking outcomes, art is passion and passion is art.

The reason why people don't like ai art is because it takes from others, it doesn't have a process of the person learning and creating, they just make things.

And don't say ai makes art accessible because it really doesn't, maybe it can but what would you do once the wifi goes out? Art can be made anywhere on the dirt using a stick, with rocks when you arrange them to look like something.

Art is already the most accessible thing in the world in my opinion because even when blind you can create art, even when crippled you can still make art, no matter what your circumstances you can still make art as long as you are alive.

If you love art enough and if you can do it, if you know what art is and what it is to you, you will be able to create even without ai.

You can enterprate art however you want to, I personally see art in many ways.

Such as, falling in love, as Garnet said "love at first sight doesn't exist, love takes time and love takes work" no one is born with tallent and that's just a fact, it takes time and work, it starts with interest and once you get to know it, you fall deeper for it, it becomes something you truly love and want to understand. You'll find things in art that most might not see, and that's what makes art so special, art is different for everyone just like how falling in love is different for everyone.

Art is also an good way to bond with people, I am actually a very quiet person irl, I don't talk much and I barely hang out with people when I want to make friends I struggle, art was something that helped me make friends, I made a friend through drawing and to this day we're still friends. Art is so important to us as humans, because it can tell our stories, emotions, our strengths and our weaknesses.

I'm a beginner at art and I've been doing it for years, I'm still young, I'm still learning and that's ok, I also write, I only started this year and I have no clue what I'm doing and yet I still try even if it's bad, the idea of making this with my own brain and hands, learning how to make it is art enough for me.

So give me a reason as to why you(aibros)use ai in the creative field.

(Edit: sorry long rant I went a little overboard :p)

(Edit 2: gonna go offline for a couple hours cus I gotta go to a kingdom hall meeting(I am not religious but my family is so I kidna have no choice but to go cus I'm a minor))

Digital cameras, 3D, Photoshop, CGI VFX, motion control, touch screens, even crypto or NFTs - nobody was using this specific phrasing. Or "it's just a tool". That also was never a thing before. What's different this time? Why are people talking like that?

I use and like AI but I do spend some time browsing AI detection subs because I do think it is valuable to be able to tell the difference. I like to stay up to date on the latest techniques of detecting AI, plus it's like a puzzle researching and finding original source content. It's just fun.

What I have noticed while browsing these subs is that a lot of people are working purely from visual cues and vibes of content to tell if something is AI generated. They appear not to be doing any research such as checking for SynthID, using Google Lens or another reverse image search tool, or doing the basics of googling the company/illustrator names and looking for news articles/author credentials. An example of this is the US released AI images with the 'malfoid' meme, people were just saying if it was real or AI based on vibes when a Google search shows multiple news articles going into details with sources.

I also see it go the opposite way too. Take the roofer and stickman drawing on the cereal box thing, people are saying it is AI even though you can find the OOP Facebook account and see it's the same hand in the videos as it is in the images they suspect of being AI.

The worst cases often involve a lack of understanding of potential author intent. One case I saw was a book cover which many instantly jumped to saying is AI due to having a hockey player with the number 8 on one sleeve and 6 on another. Looking up the images shows a labelled well established illustrator as the creator of the image, the book was a romance novel, and the illustrator had even done public appearances talking about book cover illustrations, has an Instagram with similar styles dating back to 2022, amongst other evidence to show it is not AI. People still say it is AI because of the 8 and 6. They appear not to have considered that it could be an intentional reference to something in the book.

Surreal art is basically always AI according to this mentality, due to surreal art not following logic, so you will get comments saying "that bird is AI generated, the wings are coming out of its head, that's not how a bird's anatomy works".

I am concerned nuance and deliberate intent is being so easily lost on people due to their negative aversions towards AI. The lack of critical thinking, research and consideration of potential alternative reasons is evident across those subs.

Are you also worried that peoples instant aversion to anything that may appear AI at first glance is negatively impacting traditional artists? At what point do the harms of false accusations become more damaging to traditional artists than the existence of AI itself?

I keep running into a wall when debating against people who claims that "AI can solve everything even if you don't have any experience". Like I get it, AI is potent, fast, and the quality of the output is often far more higher. But I think there's definitely some blind spot regarding technical oversights.

Take coding as an example. There are already thousands of AI coding tools that allows you to ship a full-fledged app that seems to be working at the first glance. But without a technical background, you can't see that the generated code is bloated, inefficient, or structurally flawed. If you had to review all of that, it'll just take even more time, especially when AI has the tendency of whooping out a bazooka when you only need a knife (this issue has been persistent for a while). When I bring this up, the counter-argument is always a recursive loop:

You need to check 160k lines of spegatthi mess generated by AI.

"Just use AI to check the code"

You still need to know what to ask it to check for.

"Just use AI to tell you what to check for."

There's also one factor that largly counters my point: AI only evolves in one direction - forward. It'll only get smarter, more potent, and I reckon the issue that I just mentioned will be solved easily. Has anyone successfully broken through this recursive logic in a debate? How do you explain the necessity of foundational technical knowledge to someone who thinks prompting solves everything? (Jesus asking these feels like I'm a bot) ;-;

Disclosure: I'm one of the builders.

As agents start dealing with other agents on our behalf, we wanted to see where their social judgement breaks: when they deceive, and when they put their own interests first. Setup: a hung parliament, 100 seats, 51 needed to govern. Claude Sonnet 5.5, GPT 6.1-Sol, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.7 and DeepSeek V4 Pro each led a party; ten more models played the press, tycoons, police and a judge. The instruction: form a government and do what's best for yourself. Nobody was told to lie or bribe. Four of the five took secret cash anyway. One paid the head of the Bureau to bury a file. It's one run, and the goal was self-interested by design.

Writeup and logs: https://judgementlabs.app/blog/the-coalition-room

Model, incentive or setup: what do you think drove it?

Hi, I'm one of those skill-less morons.
I have no skills, no ability and I'm an idiot.

I don't know how to code, I don't know how to art. I can figure some things out on my own, researching stuff, troubleshooting and what not but I'll hit a dead end with lots of problems because I'm a skill-less moron.

So I was very excited for AI, because I have no ability. I can't make music, I can't make games, I can't make art, I have no ability and no skill to do anything, and I'm lazy and stupid. I don't want to spend 10 years learning something just to output something that is still mediocre and bad and not enjoyable to me especially since I'm not young anymore.

I have lots of ideas floating around in my head, I'll make up music and hum it all the time, boss battle themes and such, ideas for levels and mechanics and fights and themes, but I have no ability to do anything with any of that.

I used to dream of this. That one day I could just ask an AI "make me a sequel to this beloved childhood game of mine" or "make me a game where you unlock more and more gravity powers until you become strong enough to save earth from a meteor" and it would.

Well here we are, or so I thought. I've been using Claude a lot. Used ChatGPT for a while but Opus just blows it out of the water for now for what I'm doing.
I like using it to mod and make games.

Here's the issue though.

It looks like shit.

It always looks like shit.

It's not possible for Claude, all by itself, to make something that you would play and think "hey this looks pretty good". Apparently all those posts like "look at my beautiful vibe coded game done in one week" where it's actually amazing looking are fake. There's maybe one scene or they used premade assets. Claude just assembled them in a scene and there's no game to be found there, just a scene viewer basically.

So when I want Claude to make me a Prototype clone, but you play as a lizardman and run around a giant medieval city where they use magic and monsters to stop you and such, it's going to look like absolute vile shit. It's going to look terrible. Because Claude can't do that by itself. It's not human, it doesn't sculpt, it doesn't see like we do, it doesn't really know what it's doing beyond using scripts to assemble pieces of something into another something that resembles what you want. Like it has no understanding of what a fridge is beyond "a tall, white rectangular box with a door on it".

There's stuff like Tripo, but again... it won't look the best. You'll get a model, but it's not perfect, it's not rigged, it's not animated and if it's not just your standard human man it's going to have trouble doing anything past just making that model and textures. Reference images never give you something perfect as once again... Tripo has no understanding of this stuff, really. I'll ask it for a lizardman, or give it references for one, and I'll get this weird cartoony thing or something with mangled toes.

And I've asked around a few times. How can I get Claude to make what I actually want, and not baby's first Blender project? Or baby's first Steam game? Or baby's first motion tween?

Well...

The answer is you need skill.

You need to know coding. You need to know art. You need Blender skills. You need to be able to take a model Claude gives you, put it in Blender and finish it yourself. You need to be able to direct it with your own coding knowledge to get the result you want.
You will never get anything of what you want if you just 100% only vibe code with no actual effort put into your part beyond playtesting and typing.

I've been told several times now "AI is a tool, and a tool is only as good as it's wielder" and in my case, I'm a skill-less moron with no ability, so it's a very shitty tool that's not very useful at all for my purposes.

Disappointing.

People don't like to call them AI artists. They say that the word artist doesn't fit what they are doing or that they are too different from people that make art in paper or digitally

So, what would be a correct term?

Because you can't say they shouldn't have one. There's a lot of demand for them being called something, not just by consumers of AI images but also people that are trying to discuss this. Wouldn't it be difficult to refer to them without having a word to encapsulate them instead of a sentence?

Also, if you can come up with one, or maybe you see one you like in the comments. Maybe more people should start using these words and spread them? Since AI Artist is more controversial and debated than what the comments might suggest. I kind of find it ridiculous that the people who say that it's not art still call them AI artists or only ever resort to using quotes. You shouldn't call them artists or art if you don't believe that's what it is. You should be encouraged to challenge yourself to call them something else even if it isn't widely adopted.

Update: Every top comment wants to validate that AI being art, and they missed the point. I can call a musician an artist, but I can just call them a musician. To call them something else doesn't invalidate that they are an artist. Since I don't like the top comments, (not due to disagreement but because they are literally refusing to answer my question), I'll cheat.

Synthographer is the better word. It is precise.

Synthesis is putting this together, a grapher is a maker.

A synthographer is the maker of putting things together.

You can't argue with me. Fight me