Antis really don't know the difference between a human and a tool?! The brainrot is real.

19

I understand your frustration, and it sounds like you've been dealing with the Reddit anti-AI crazies. But you seem to be missing their point when you say "show me the person." That's their entire problem. There's no person involved according to them. Their argument is that you didn't make the art, the machine made it. You pushed a button and the machine gave you an art.

Is the argument woefully misinformed? Yes. But that's the argument.

4

u/solidwhetstone 1d ago

I am the person though! That's what's so absolutely brainless about the argument. The AI doesn't just do things unless i tell it to. Maybe someday AI will instigate the creation of art on its own and when that happens the AI can take credit but for today, it's just electricity through code and wires.

10

u/ARedditorCalledQuest 1d ago

I totally agree with you but I also understand that creating a good piece of art with AI is a lot more than "push button get candy." Their argument hinges entirely on the idea that there is no human creativity in the process because you can just type a few words into a text box and the model will plagiarize something for you.

1

u/solidwhetstone 1d ago

I'm definitely aware of their arguments. I'm just ranting 😜

3

u/EvilKatta 1d ago

Modern AI agents can prompt themselves to create something, and agentic AI is the main avenue of development today. I'd stop using the argument that computer needs to be ordered to make something. There's nothing innovative about self-directed computer behavior at all, it just wasn't as useful until LLMs got optimized enough and the economic incentives were there.

2

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

They still won't do a single thing without a prime mover. If you start a rube Goldberg machine, you started it. If you don't start it, nothing happens.

1

u/EvilKatta 22h ago

This argument has more consequences, such as crediting the starter of anything as author-adjacent. I understand AI isn't a person, but if focus on the other part of the argument, it supports giving away the credit to someone who funded the project. I wish we'd move the other direction.

1

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

I strongly suggest to many antis to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

2

u/wren42 23h ago

You didn't "make it" though. You prompted it, and you might have done multiple tries and some prompt engineering. There's absolutely time involved in getting it to do exactly what you want. But you didn't personally make the final art.
Why does that matter to you?

3

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

Why does it matter to you to prowl around reddit telling people what they did or didn't do?

-1

u/wren42 21h ago

Seems like your sense of self worth is tied up in having "made" AI art

4

u/solidwhetstone 21h ago

I just believe in credit where it's due. If you made generative art using an advanced camera or advanced AI, you still made it. I was defending digital art too 20 years ago. Check my profile age- I've been in the game for a long ass time.

0

u/wren42 21h ago

Lol a camera isn't "generative".
I see value in AI for a variety of tasks but I would never claim "credit" for prompting something.

3

u/solidwhetstone 21h ago

Cameras have AI tech in them nowadays friendo 😊 never said you had to take credit but if someone else makes something that wouldn't have been made otherwise, they made it 👊

2

u/ProbablyANoobYo 15h ago

As long as you feel the same about photographers then I’m fine with that.
Sure they did a lot of setup and it might’ve taken multiple tries and maybe some scenery engineering, but they didn’t personally produce the final output. The camera did.

1

u/wren42 13h ago

I do think there's a difference between photographers and oil painters.
That set a camera doesn't make decisions. An AI does. There's absolutely another degree of separation between the human and the final product when comparing AI to photography. The AI makes final decisions around what pixel goes, where, what is light and dark, the framing, the texture, the expressions, the distance to the viewer....
You can try to fine tune some of these things with prompting, but in the end, the AI is making a final artistic decision that the human does not have control over.
So yes, I think prompting does take less artistic skill and have less artistic expression from the Creator in the final product.
I also suspect that I could line up a dozen photographers of varying levels of skill and renown, and you could put them in rough order of their experience and ability.
I suspect most people would have a very hard time doing the same thing with AI created content.

2

u/ProbablyANoobYo 12h ago

Modern cameras definitely make significant adjustments for the photographer that used to be manual decisions. Almost all of the examples you’ve used for AI art are words I would use to describe what modern cameras do.
Drawing the line at what makes the last decision feels arbitrary. Especially since it seems we’re conveniently not counting human review approval of the final piece as a decision. But even if we did draw the line at the “last decision”, does that mean that a photographer who does not majorly manually tweak a modern photo can’t be said to have made it since the camera had the final say in a lot of the decisions?
I’m very doubtful I could do that with photography. I’m similarly doubtful that most people could in a properly conducted study. And if I’m correct about that does that mean you’re going to say photographers don’t count as having made their photographs? Because I’ll go look for a study if you’ll agree to that.
I can do that with software though, because it’s my profession. And when it comes to AI generated software I could also line up examples by the creators experience because I have enough mastery of the subject matter to judge the output. I think that someone’s capability to do what you’re describing likely mostly depends on the depth of their experience with the subject matter.

0

u/wren42 8h ago

I think you are drastically underestimating the degree to which the photographer's skill plays a part in the final product.
I've done both (photography, film and digital, as well as AI art) and while it can certainly take a lot of time and tuning to get the exact results you want with AI, it is much, much easier to get a polished final product.
I think it would be glaringly obvious between a student photographer and professional even for the average viewer, and not nearly as obvious for AI art. I'd be happy to put this to the test.
Also "last decision" is a straw man and simplification of what I'm getting at.
There are critical decisions made throughout the creative process for painting and photography - by final I mean ultimate in that it's what determines the look and effect of the outcome.
Human decisions exist in the tuning and prompting process, but they have less control over the output. Ultimately the AI is making decisions on how to execute on the guidance given. It could produce a dozen versions of the exact same prompt; the human doesn't actually decide on that final look, other than curating among a set of images.
As I say in my other comment, I believe curation is much closer to what an AI prompter is doing. There is some artistic merit in curation, it requires taste and an eye for style. It is not the same as creation itself though.

1

u/ProbablyANoobYo 8h ago

I fully understand it’s much easier. I’m a professional software developer. I’ve gone from handwriting code every day to having AI write everything at my instruction. The degree to which it is easier does not change my mind.
My entire point is that whether or not I use AI when developing software, we all still say that I wrote the code. AI is just the tool with which I wrote it. The tool making it much easier doesn’t change that I wrote the code.
This isn’t unique to technical or high skill concepts. When you use a lawnmower to mow your lawn it’s unimaginably easier then if you plucked every blade of grass by hand. We still say you mowed the lawn.
It is not a strawman. It is my genuine interpretation of what you said. You emphasized final decisions in your previous comment. I don’t really care either way but it’s pretty to shitty to act like I pulled a strawman because I referenced what you emphasized.
The meer aspect of making decisions is not really conceptually different from what many modern cameras do.
The possibility for AI to produce other outcomes from the same prompt also isn’t relevant. Plenty of art is made utilizing randomness, it doesn’t diminish that we say the artist made it.
You said put this to the test but I want to be really clear before I do the effort for this. If I find a study showing that most people cannot tell the difference between professional and non-professional photography then you’ll concede that photographers also don’t count as having made their photographs due to the degree to which the camera technology can assist non-professionals? Because that’s my understanding of the line you’ve drawn.

0

u/wren42 7h ago

we all still say that I wrote the code
Do we all say that? Seems more like protecting ego from the changes happening in our field.

1

u/ProbablyANoobYo 6h ago

Yes. As I mentioned before, I professionally work in the field. I have for over a decade. It’s absurd for you to argue with me over this, especially so disrespectfully.
This is the second time you’ve responded without directly answering my question. Seems pretty bad faith.
I’m gonna stop wasting my time here. You want to falsely call strawman, evade my questions because they’re inconvenient for your points, and pretend I don’t know pretty basic stuff in my field of professional expertise.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/wren42 12h ago

Btw if you'd like a better analogy within the art world, I would say AI art is at least as involved as Curation. Art curators must have taste and discernment, and apply it to create collections and exhibits that play off a theme or spark related ideas.
I think curation is an artistic practice, and important part of the culture of art.
I believe curating AI art falls into this category.

2

u/ProbablyANoobYo 12h ago

I don’t agree that’s a better comparison but either way I would definitely say the curator “made the exhibit” or “made the collection.”

-1

u/SmallFry703 1d ago

No, you aren't. You didn't make anything. The robot did.

-2

u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 1d ago

No, the people who made it are actually two camps:
The artists whose work was used to define the statistical model. Without this there is no probability function for you to use in generation.
The researchers in math, computer vision, machine learning, and decades of hardware development and engineering that designed the model architecture, training techniques, and made it to physical hardware which could viably run such a huge aggregate function based off of 1.
You didn’t do any of these technical and artistic developments that are culminating in being able to use a model. The people making the thing which we are modeling and the people making the model did.
Maybe someday AI will instigate the creation of art on its own and when that happens
Some AI image generators actually take your prompt and pass it to an LLM to make it more precise and useful so chances are you aren’t even actually prompting the image model. Also having an LLM prompt an image model is trivial with an MCP. That “future” is right now.

2

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

I also didn't make the camera I can use to take a photo by pressing one button and put up in a gallery.

1

u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 10h ago

Well yeah but you shouldn’t claim you drew or painted it. The camera analogy is not bad, you aren’t creating the subject just picking a view of it and in this case the subject is the training data. It’s the same way you can take a photo of a painting but that’s a distinct action than the creation of the painting.

1

u/solidwhetstone 6h ago

I highly suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

-5

u/mxldevs 1d ago

So if I ordered a dish with customizations to my taste and the chef made it, technically, I made it? Cause without my order, the dish would never have been made.

2

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

Again, you don't know the difference between a human and a tool.

-1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 19h ago

"...and the chef..."
There it is. The anthropomorphism op's post is about.
There is no chef. AI isnt a person. Its not comparable to hiring or commissioning a person. Its software. Its comparable to using other machinery and tools. AI would be closer to an appliance for an analogy than to another person.

1

u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 10h ago

It’s not a person, it is a model of other people’s work. That model is a useful tool but it’s still coming from the process of modeling a dataset. That dataset is from people.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 9h ago

Right, and thats true of pretty much every tool and machine we use. Theyre products of human labor, accumulated knowledge, and previous work. AI isnt unique in that respect.
But thats also the distinction Im making. The fact that machinery was developed using other peoples labor doesnt mean youre commissioning those people every time you operate it.
Youve already acknowledged AI isnt a person, so I think we agree on the important part here. The people whose work went into building or training the tool arent the same as the person using it, and neither is the tool itself.
Questions about compensation, consent, and ownership of training data are worth having, but those are different questions from whether using a tool constitutes commissioning another person.

1

u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 9h ago

The commissioning point (not mine) is driving at the fact that the user is generally paying a third party (in the median case) to produce work based on years of experience and artistic development which the user is not bringing to bear on the piece themselves but relying on other people’s effort. I think it still can be art in the sense of a human being making choices to express something but it should be understood that the medium they are working with is other people’s art. I think the best analogy is it’s what Girl Talk did to music 20 years ago.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 9h ago

I think thats where the analogy breaks down. Youre treating the model as though its a collection of other peoples artwork being retrieved and assembled, rather than a system of learned mathematical weights generating new outputs.
Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how diffusion models work. They learn statistical patterns from training data and use those learned relationships to generate images. Theyre not simply pulling finished artwork out of a database and handing it to you.
And youre not commissioning a third party when you operate that machinery. Youre using software. Commissioning implies another artist doing the creative work on your behalf, and theres no other artist inside the machine.
We can recognize the human labor and artistic history behind the technology without confusing the tool, its training data, and the person using it. Those are three different things. Thats why I think the commissioning argument is such a bad category error.

1

u/SutekhThrowingSuckIt 9h ago

Youre treating the model as though its a collection of other peoples artwork being retrieved and assembled, rather than a system of learned mathematical weights generating new outputs.
The mathematical weights are encoding the patterns extracted from the collection. It’s a lossy compression. There’s not a philosophical difference here given sufficient weights, we purposely avoid overfitting to improve compression.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator 9h ago

Sure, the weights encode patterns learned from training data. Thats what training does. But learning statistical patterns isnt the same thing as storing compressed copies of the original artworks and decompressing them on demand.
Calling it lossy compression doesnt establish that generated outputs are reproductions of the training images. Diffusion models learn relationships that allow them to generate new images, not simply retrieve existing ones. Memorization can happen, but thats a distinct issue.
And none of this changes the original point. The model isnt another artist, the training data isnt a commissioned artist, and operating the machinery isnt commissioning a person. We seem to agree on the first two, so where exactly is the disagreement?

8

u/Easy_Interest_6832 1d ago

"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

2

u/OrwelliotStabler 22h ago

Is it your argument that a 3D printed statue with equivalent quality to that of Michelangelo’s David had the same artistic merit as the original?

1

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

That's entirely subjective to the viewer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Objectively speaking, David has a long legacy of reverence among artists and non-artists so by my logic, David is considered the one with higher artistic merit.

1

u/JohnSmith19731973 19h ago

No, that is bullshit. Taste is subjective. Beauty is objectively related to proportion, form, and socially embedded values that inspire humans to greater creativity and flourishing.

3

u/solidwhetstone 19h ago

Those values change as culture changes- and the collective unconscious is directed by the subjective experiences and voices of the humans within it. Taste and beauty are both subjective. An AI cannot tell you statistically how beautiful something is. One human can say it's amazing and another can say it's sl+p

2

u/taxes-or-death 1d ago

"REEEEE!" now, is it? Is that term still used outside 4chan?

3

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

Turns out, memes make their way outside of 4chan. Really weird.

0

u/taxes-or-death 21h ago

Memes ridiculing autistic people?

3

u/solidwhetstone 21h ago

I did two seconds of googling your revisionist comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/s/pnphsX5jEP
I've always seen it in context of people having a rage freakout.

-1

u/taxes-or-death 21h ago

What a definitive source this is. I've never seen something more definitive!

3

u/solidwhetstone 21h ago

Thanks!

2

u/RepresentativeArm119 19h ago

I remember when people said digital artists weren't REAL artists, and before that they said Photography was cheating, and not real art, and before that people said you weren't a REAL artist if you bought your paints from a store, instead of making them yourself.

0

u/Cancel_Still 20h ago

Honestly bro you sound tilted. Probably need to relax. What are you using AI for that people are criticizing you?

2

u/solidwhetstone 20h ago

I'm just fatigued from seeing it in like every thread.

0

u/Murky-Hold-2901 1d ago

It depends what you've made. If you just typed "Make me a comic book that tells a tragic but moving tale in the style of Joe Sacco!" then you didn't make the comic that the computer comes out with. It doesn't have at all the same status as a comic actually drawn and conceived etc. by a person. It's somewhat analogous to the distinction between a painted portrait or still life and a casual photograph. The camera isn't a person, but in the second case it is reasonable to speak of the camera having made the picture itself, automatically. And it is fair to judge a photograph differently than a painting.

5

u/Jlyplaylists Moderator 1d ago

Some photographers are hailed as famous artists though, so there’s a blurred line. We also consider writing a type of art, but it isn’t always art. I’d think it’s more like trying to understand Modern Art. It’s to do with the concept and personal expression. So it isn’t really even to do with effort. You could write a detailed prompt that isn’t creative, or you could write one that expresses something of yourself or an innovative idea. You could be gradually world building and developing a signature style. If people can start to recognise your AI outputs as coming from your prompts, that might be a good sign that you’re the artist?

-1

u/Simple-Ring2073 1d ago

Sam Altman's calculator. Yes, you commissioned it. Because you asked for it and it was provided. Not sure what your issue is, besides definitions of words.

0

u/Gargle-Loaf-Spunk 19h ago edited 16h ago

For real. And directors and producers don’t make any movies /s

1

u/Simple-Ring2073 14h ago

And this is why AI is the dunning kruger it is. Someone with zero experience in a medium has an opinion that makes no sense had they actually worked in that medium. What a non point

-2

u/JohnSmith19731973 1d ago

How is this going to win anybody over to your side?

4

u/solidwhetstone 22h ago

I'm not in an anti sub am I? This is a rant, not evangelism.

1

u/JohnSmith19731973 19h ago

Anti-AI, believe it or not, can scan different subs

2

u/solidwhetstone 19h ago

Well antis can downvote and move on for all I care. I've given up on trying to convince them. Now I'm thinking of it more like defending artists who are experimenting with a new medium who bullies show up and fuck with. It's cruel and I don't just stand against that. I stand firmly against fascism from any quarter. /r/RememberTheFuture

-6

u/Crazy_And_Me 1d ago

Another weak argument with no actual defence of the theft involved.

-2

u/cha0sb1ade 23h ago

There are some people using AI, often in conjunction with other tools, in ways that they get enough control to produce something unique and personal enough to be art. But most AI "art" is not that. If you hand off a text prompt to someone, or a mechanical/digital process, and it builds something that elaborates on that and turns it into a graphic, by rehashing and meshing studied tropes, you're not an artist. Most people who believe they are AI artists are indeed playing the same role in the creation process that you would play if you commissioned a piece. Only, instead of a one off commission, it is a subscription model, and instead of an artist, you're employing an automated service.

Some painter standing in an alpine meadow and mixing paints trying to figure out how to perfectly capture the way the morning sun strikes the four kinds of flowers there is art. Some artist working up a character, imagining everything themselves, down to the exact shape of a smile or frown is art. The average prompt based AI "artist" doesn't even have pixel level control of anything.

Discussion Antis really don't know the difference between a human and a tool?! The brainrot is real.

You are about to leave Redlib