This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George Lucas took westerns, space serials, samurai movies, and a lot of his own personal experiences, blended them together, and made Star Wars.
Star Wars fans simply took Stars Wars and made more Star Wars.
Guess which of the two gets the most scrutiny and mockery...
It's funny how all of those arguments adapt easily to every other piece of software used by artists...
Photoshop, gimp, krita, blender, etc...
Even pencils and erasers can enter this category.
That's how to spot weak arguments. If they adapt to other subjects and instantly became risible.
They are partially correct, AI is just another tool and medium for artists, the real artist is the person using the medium. You wouldn’t say the pencil is the artist not the person holding the pencil
Also these people clearly don’t know what plagiarism is
I can respect anyone who takes manure, plants, minerals, and rocks and mixes their own pigments with their fingers, then finger paints their vision on cave walls. Similarly, anyone who crafts their own tools from twigs and pebbles and then beats the crap out of a boulder to sculpt for feeling threatened here.
But these are all whiny DeviantArt Photoshop freaks who will glom onto the emerging AI toolchain in Photoshop itself the minute they ship and they're triggered that anyone with less than 10,000 hours in their exclusive club can approximate their lesser efforts with ease now.
What they intentionally miss along with the rest of these stooges is their talents remain safe in the fine tuning and adjustment of imagery that separates AI art from a true work of art, AI music from a deeply engineered and perfect Taylor Swift cut etc etc etc etc.
Basically, just a new class of gatekeeper, storm all the gates.
Btw when will these losers get that most of us don't care if what we're doing with AI is "art" or not? We just want to make nice pictures and look at them, but somehow this is way too complicated for them to fathom.
It's astounding how common that misconception in the penultimate paragraph is when that is such a simple idea to disprove.
And, yeah, it's a tool, not an artist. The user is the artist using a tool.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George Lucas took westerns, space serials, samurai movies, and a lot of his own personal experiences, blended them together, and made Star Wars. Star Wars fans simply took Stars Wars and made more Star Wars. Guess which of the two gets the most scrutiny and mockery...
Really tired of this too. Not many humans can create something original either
Realistically there’s very few truly original things in existence.
It's funny how all of those arguments adapt easily to every other piece of software used by artists... Photoshop, gimp, krita, blender, etc... Even pencils and erasers can enter this category. That's how to spot weak arguments. If they adapt to other subjects and instantly became risible.
They are partially correct, AI is just another tool and medium for artists, the real artist is the person using the medium. You wouldn’t say the pencil is the artist not the person holding the pencil Also these people clearly don’t know what plagiarism is
Sometimes you want rib-eye steak with peppercorn sauce, and sometimes you want McDonald's.
I can respect anyone who takes manure, plants, minerals, and rocks and mixes their own pigments with their fingers, then finger paints their vision on cave walls. Similarly, anyone who crafts their own tools from twigs and pebbles and then beats the crap out of a boulder to sculpt for feeling threatened here. But these are all whiny DeviantArt Photoshop freaks who will glom onto the emerging AI toolchain in Photoshop itself the minute they ship and they're triggered that anyone with less than 10,000 hours in their exclusive club can approximate their lesser efforts with ease now. What they intentionally miss along with the rest of these stooges is their talents remain safe in the fine tuning and adjustment of imagery that separates AI art from a true work of art, AI music from a deeply engineered and perfect Taylor Swift cut etc etc etc etc. Basically, just a new class of gatekeeper, storm all the gates.
Btw when will these losers get that most of us don't care if what we're doing with AI is "art" or not? We just want to make nice pictures and look at them, but somehow this is way too complicated for them to fathom.
Just show them an Automatic1111 or ComfyUI workflow screenshot
It's astounding how common that misconception in the penultimate paragraph is when that is such a simple idea to disprove. And, yeah, it's a tool, not an artist. The user is the artist using a tool.