@edrag9363
The thing i hate about ai art the most is the people who use it. You guys remember the "ai bro" who made ai generated one piece content, and got ratio'd into oblivion by an actual one piece animator? The thing that stood out the most with that ai artist is that he acted like he created it. As if he was the one who put in weeks of effort into creating that.
@imkrakra
YOUR VTUBER MODEL IS SO COOL! The use of making 2d pixel art, and still moving 3d ish model is pretty cool :D
@Fawna_Soft
Things like Arcane is an example of this. There is so much meaning, symbolizing, everything has a spefic reason for being there, even as something simple as jinx's nails reads so much into how she as a current charater and who she. It's thing like that AI COULD NEVER REPlICATE. Studio Ghibli took years so animate a four second scene of the background. because the smallest details mattered. Ai can copy it but can't replicate it. Ai can't put meaning to things, can't make proper literacy, or symbolizing. It can make fun lore. It can do that because it can think for itself. It's only taking from previous creators and mushing it into a blob. Ai is nothing more then coding, probability, copying, TAKING. It can even learn it can only be trained. It can't be inspired, it can't replicate, it can't actually create without previous creations. Ai can be useful but what it's being used for is honsetly a waste of what it could be doing. It could be helping people but rather is setting back creative jobs that already have a hard time.
@2shy2guy52
Whenever you try to tell an ai ”artist” this, I swear it’s always the same ”I don’t know how to draw” and if you tell them to learn how to draw, ”I don’t have time to learn” when you tell them it doesn’t matter, any real art is better art than anything an ai can generate you get a ”I just want to look at the picture I made”. When you say, okay, then don’t call yourself an artist, it’s, ”why are you gatekeeping art?”
@Larry
A YouTube playing games using AI? That already exists unfortunately, Kwebblecop.
@Starv1ng_4Rtist
As an old saying goes "it's about the journey not the destination"
@jameshanken1446
Woah the "scripted" analogy is really good
@shiro_naj0307
To me, looking at AI art is like encountering one of those brainrot reels, it may be appealing at first but as soon as you realised theres no thought process behind it, its slop
@defaulted9485
This is why I watch speedrun and not people training robots to beat the game. If I am not interested in getting better then I dont watch StockFish chess matches.
@mcstevegmg
People put their souls into art, every outline and sploch of color was placed to reflect the person who made it. Ai is completely soulless. Every outline and sploch of color is there because it makes sense to be there.
@astraamarante6233
When an artist makes something, every single detail is a deliberate choice. With AI, it’s a generator. It just puts things together to fit a prerequisite. You can’t harness creativity, you can only mimic it. And there are still signs to tell when something is a generated image due to AI’s lack of ability to understand what shapes are where and why. The generator is just listening to its code.
@4GodSoLovedCR
100% agree… on top of that AI “art” is theft
@cyberbanshee
AI art isn’t art, it is just a “content”.
@mayjiiibyart
For me a huge reason why I hate AI “art” is because it’s only able to do what it does because it steels art from actual artist. People put years into reaching their skill level and hours to make a piece just for someone to type some words, steel it, and claim they made it.
@mousepotatoliteratureclub
It's the exact inverse of "well, that's a nice photograph/object but - HOLD UP IS THAT A MOTHERFUCKING PAINTING? WHAT SORCERY IS THIS? :D"
@RossoPilled
AI "art" sickens me to the core.
@frankhorrigan1508
the worst AI "creators" are the ones that put up paywalls and try to monetize their crap, like, you didn't even do anything and expect people to pay ?
@hattedshadow2872
Ai “art” is like going out to a restaurant, telling the waiter what type of burger you want, and then claiming yourself to be a chef.
@elizathegamer413
In this semester in college I'm in a poetic analysis class. There are so many fascinating discussions to be had in a poem based on the traditions an author pulls from, the way their life experiences color their work, and much of close reading comes down to understanding intentional minute decisions an author made -- why did they use this meter, why repeat this line, why this word? Answering these questions is key to a deeper understanding of poetry. However, the answer for AI is obvious -- it saw this pattern somewhere in its training data and decided to copy it. A human might use "rose" instead of "poppy" because of the poetic tradition associated with the rose, a larger poetic project that reveals itself throughout the work or even in other works of theirs, etc. But a robot, they just use the word rose because it's more popular. It's like that joke about English teachers asking why the curtains were blue -- authors do have a reason for what they write, a reason to specify the curtain color, even if people at first don't think it's the case. But AI doesn't. Because it has no reason to make art. It just does it because someone asks it to. It's probably extremely similar for visual art, though since I am not an artist or an art critic, I can't give good examples. But, if I had to guess, questions like, why is this character given this hair color or in this pose or in this location? Why use this line weight, why use this facial expression, etc? All of those things probably have answers, the author has reasons, even if subconscious ones related to their personal experience -- but AI doesn't and never will.
@dt6240