One of the things that gives me a small modicum of hope for the future, at least for the near future, is how so many people are rejecting AI slop, but also just the idea of AI slop.
I read an article last night about how people preferred fiction written by AI, until they were informed that it was AI, and then their opinion of the "work" dropped. A lot of people don't like AI, but I think more importantly than that, a lot of people don't want to like AI.
"Oh, what a beautiful diamond! ...you're telling me this diamond was mined by slave labor? Okay, pass."
I don't know what the whole future holds, I fear that at some point AI will be normalized, that people won't care anymore, but at least for now people still care, and that does give me some hope.
Don't give up hope, just remember how hard NFTs were being pushed just a few years ago and it is fucking dead now. Consumer opinion absolutely can have an impact.
I don't see this going the way of NFTs because AI does have actual functional use cases for the average person.
I do think the pushback against AI "art" is here to stay, though. People don't want robots to take creative work or their livelihoods away from them, and we all know companies adopting this are just going to make low-effort slop with it to sell us.
My dream scenario that isn't farfetched is the VC funding runs out, the bill comes due, and it becomes prohibitively expensive to run. Still worth it for some causes and areas of science, but not enough so that your cousin is asking grok what he should get for lunch or small business owners make terrible adverts with it.
This is something I fear a lot with the big boom in AI coding is the normalization of AI.
It's okay and "just a tool" to some people when it's used to assist making mods, ports and games but will it become "just a tool" in a few years or months if you use AI to assist making your art too because Claude normalizes this idea that AI is just a tool and it's okay if a human goes back and cleans up after it's billions of fuck-ups?
I completely understand the hate of the current state of AI but I would love it it was just brought back to what the idea was, as a teaching tool. Too many people are just using it to replace themselves.
So I have toyed with the idea of using AI to help with language learning. Then I saw Grok's attempt at translating a news story from Welsh to English. Not only did it mistranslate the headline, it straight up added the idea the idea that it was a "racially motivated attack" (entirely added those words, they did not appear in any way in the original Welsh) by Irish people on English people. It was actually a drug related attack on Irish people with the surname English.
As long as AI are owned by billionaires all lining up to tongue bath Trump there is absolutely no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't exist to push an agenda. I will continue to stay away from them.
Full on college professor automated his job. When he died, the school just didn't hire anyone else because... well why pay anyone when it can be done for free?
If you're talking about the Concordia University professor, François-Marc Gagnon, he didn't automate his job. He recorded lectures for an online class. The university then used those lectures for remote classes during Covid.
Like, the ethical issues of using a dead man's recorded lectures are still there, especially since those lectures were not made for a remote class but for a fully online class. But the university definitely replaced him after he died in 2019 and he also didn't automate his job.
I have a feeling like that won't last very long due to the cost of the AIs, it's like Uber or airb&b, they started off as a budget cheap service and then once people were into enough they raised the costs. Sooner or later this will happen with most AI models.
There's going to be a very rough next decade though.
Worse yet, some school administrators are asking for it, from educational tech companies.
If you have kids in school, ask their administrators about their feelings about the place of AI in classrooms, in lesson planning, in support of or instead of additional staffing.
I know what you mean, I find with like stuff that is easily provable from the information it's gives you is good but as soon as it gets through abstract context it loses the plot that a human will be able to fill in. Human to human contact and teaching will always be needed for some subjects.
This very much so, I'm fine with people using it to create a bunch of placeholders but if those placeholders end up in the final project I'm not happy. It's great to build an idea I do agree but some people lean way too heavy into it. I've only really used it to teach me how to do coding for Wiki pages and as a better Google search.
I think the big issue is the lack of transparency and the justification for the lack of transparency.
It's catch 22. You reveal it uses AI and you lose a chunk of your audience, versus you hide the fact you use AI and when it is inevitably is found out lose a chunk of your audience and then some.
To play devils advocate, what if its someone that's genuinely tried using pens and pencils over several years, but just simply does not have the knack or talent for it? And to go just a little further, what if they dont have art commission throw away money? Should they accept that every idea in their head is stuck there with no way to see how it'd look if brought to life?
Looking around on this sub tells me thats exactly what many are saying. Im in the same boat, I cant draw to save my life, but I dont try and pass ai genned images as my art either (little pfp pics for discord is all). Lots apparently feel using ai on any level is grounds for hurling insults though and dragging them through the mud. The ones trying to pass ai genned stuff as "their art", yea, I agree, boo that man.
With most art (whether that's drawing, writing, filmmaking etc), the important part isn't the idea. It's the execution. The initial idea is the easy part, but executing it in a way that is engaging, interesting, beautiful etc is the hard part. To make something good, the idea itself is a very small part. Most of the problems get solved while actually working on it. What works, what doesn't, thinking about different ways to do things and figuring out what works best.
Ideas on their own aren't enough to make something good. AI gets you to the result quickly, sure, but it skips the part that makes something actually good.
That's a very self-centered way of thinking about things, if you can't do it then you should find someone that can and work with them. Working together is how we've build everything we have. Working with others is also how ideas can become better because it can be very difficult to see past your own biases.
How is what I said self centered? Somebody that's tried to draw for years but made no progress, and has no disposable money to get help with their ideas, is self centered?
Well, they could practice. And follow a free art class online. And practice. And join a community of artists and show their work and ask for advice. And practice. And try to find a mentor, study other people's art, try out other mediums, and practice.
Like, have you ever done a beginner's pottery class? Basically everyone approaches the wheel clumsily and poorly. I've never seen a person with the "knack" or "talent" for it. And yet everyone I've seen learns to throw as they put in the time and absorb the teacher's instruction. Their pulls get cleaner, their confidence when it comes to shaping the clay grows, they use less water, and they start to make things that were impossible for them day 1.
This idea that "talent" is what's preventing someone from partaking in creation is nonsense. If the complaint were that there's not enough time in their life, I would be much more sympathetic. Not sympathetic to the point to condone replacing the act of creation with AI, but it's understandable. Learning takes time, creation takes time, and time is a severely limited resource. One of the issues with AI is that it can only exist from the time and effort others have invested into their art so that it can satisfy someone's desire for instant gratification.
I really feel like what I said isn't being read all the way through for most that are answering. They can practice sure, look at my second sentence though.
Its not someone that's just picked it up and mad they're not instantly a master at the craft, they've made no progress over the course of several years of trying.
I'm starting to wonder if automation and efficiency is all it's cracked up to be. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I kind of despise self-checkouts these days, or going into McDonald's and having to interact with a fucking touch screen to place my order.
You know that scene in Wall-E with the people laying in their chairs, being fed by robots, spending all day watching TV and nobody talking to each other? In a sense, that's a pretty efficient life, but it's also a pretty boring and meaningless life, too.
"Oh, what a beautiful diamond! ...you're telling me this diamond was mined by slave labor? Okay, pass."
Isn't it the opposite and artifical diamonds were looked down on? I understand you want to be hopeful but you can't just make up examples. I agree though artifical diamonds are way more pure too.
The problem is, it doesn't matter how good AI "art" is. Nor writing, nor speech.
We, as humans, want to connect with other humans. That is the purpose of art.
AI art cannot connect with you, because it's only purpose is engagement. Once you know something is AI, all the questions and wonder you have about the piece are gone. The answer is, it did this to maximize engagement.
A human makes decisions. A human makes a line darker in a piece for emphasis, a human put these words together specifically to evoke a feeling in you. AI put those words together to make you engage with the content.
I get what you’re saying but AI isn’t programmed for engagement. It doesn’t generate images with any purpose, because it can’t do anything without a purpose provided by another thing. If you tell it to make a horse, its goal is to make a horse based on its training data. Not to make an engaging horse, or any type of horse, just a “horse.” Don’t attribute malice or intent to something that cannot have intent, unless it’s given to it by a prompt or whatever form of input it takes.
because it can’t do anything without a purpose provided by another thing.
Brother, what do you think the AI's source code is?
It is a purpose provided by another thing. Every AI is going to have some purpose coded into it's framework by it's creator, which guides it's answers.
That answer is always going to be driven by whatever you engage with the most. Because the AI will only have one metric it cares about:
Art loses all meaning if it’s not made by a human - it’s not about the end product it’s about the context that someone created this thing and without that context it’s nothing
The most beautiful song in the world will become soulless if you find out it wasn’t written by a human but generated by a machine
Last night I was chatting to a couple of folks in medicine who asked what I do (graphic design) so naturally the conversation tentatively tilted towards ai.
I was trying very hard to not just full sledge it because I didn’t want to start a full blown argument at a friends bucks party. But then eventually one guy said “…..I fucking HATE ai” and I was like THANK GOD lmao. The other lady agreed, and then we just went full on complaining and slamming ai lol.
It was such a relief to hear folks with no dog in the race (they’re GPs so ai isn’t affecting their jobs anytime soon) hate it just as much as me, unlike other folks at the same bucks party who tried to defend it or devils-advocate for it or convince me that even if I lose my career it’s still totally a net positive ackshually.
What happens if the AI use is just kept hidden though
Gods willing, I'd love to pass some regulations and laws to make sure that doesn't happen, or at least that it's punishable to deceive consumers about the origins of their product.
We've got "Made in China" labels, we might as well have "Made in AI" labels, too.
I read an article last night about how people preferred fiction written by AI, until they were informed that it was AI, and then their opinion of the "work" dropped. A lot of people don't like AI, but I think more importantly than that, a lot of people don't
want
to like AI.
This is just cult mentality that will go away as people realize they're being mislead about the quality AI can produce.
This is just cult mentality that will go away as people realize they're being mislead about the quality AI can produce.
Yeah, it's not really the "quality" of the final product that repels me about AI, it's the fact that it's informed by theft and constructed by a machine algorithm.
You guys will never complain about a movie being uploaded to YT illegally but you'll complain if that same movie is used to train AI. The gaming subreddits are pushing piracy like crazy because theyre mad at Sony but none of you are going to go into those subs and start calling people theives.
When you only apply the theft argument to AI companies its pretty clear you dont actually care about the theft and its just the cult mentality I was talking about.
An AI company uses a book to train their AI. The AI has been trained to not reproduce the works because that would violate copyright laws. They sell access to the AI that isnt able to reproduce the work. To you this is immoral.
A random person uploads a book to a pirate site where its distributed to thousands of people for free. This is perfectly fine to you.
In the 2 examples above, the author loses more from their book being pirated thousands of times than they do the AI company training it into their AI.
You seem more concerned with how much money is being made rather than the harm of the "theft". Which is funny because this sub loves to celebrate how much money AI companies are losing.
And right now it's looking like not just one illustrator is going to lose work to AI, but every illustrator. Not just one writer is going to lose work to AI, but every writer.
It's not just the fact that AI stole from writers and artists, and it's not just that these companies are turning a profit from what they stole, it's also the harm that's being done to whole industries that they stole from.
When you only make arguments accusing people of not reeeaaally believing what they're saying it's pretty clear that you don't actually care about the subject and you just want to sound smarter than everyone else
You see how easy that is? Literally anyone can do that. Have you tried contributing to the discussion?
This study is actually not all it’s cracked up to be. I looked into this pretty deeply, and it was random people reading 1,000 word samples. The human comparison pieces were deliberately off-putting and dense literary magazine type stuff, and the AI pieces skewed positive and hopeful because it’s AI. The AI pieces were cliche-riddled dogshit, the human samples were just that unpleasant, so the study is not really a shining example “the quality AI can produce.”
You have to be genuinely braindead to think a furry would be okay with you making an AI generated version of their character, to promote an event no less.
I had an artist I hired 2 years ago ger back to me with 7 poses I never asked for all generated by AI. Shit ruined my week honestly. I would have rather just been scammed the normal way where they take your money and disappear. Made me way tighter with my money and less willing to commission now. Never know when your gonna have the ref too complicated to actually put in the effort and be the first one they feed to the sloppifier.
There's places like Vgen, which is anti ai and has reviews, and Fiverr which isn't anti ai but has reviews still. I usually go for artists on those services because they have actual reviews which I can gauge to see if they're trustworthy.
Someone outside that community probably wouldn't know just how detail oriented many people are about their fursonas. (Details that AI is bad at including.) There are also a lot of people seemingly incapable of understanding the idea of people hating AI because of artistic integrity.
I could see some middle aged convention owner honestly not realizing this was remotely controversial enough for someone to back out of the event, and I say that as someone who hates AI. Not everyone follows subs like these or knows a lot about furry culture.
Hopefully, with SonicFox being the most famous openly known/open furry I'm aware of (outside of the furry community), some of that awareness of furries' anti-AI trends will increase.
This is why Sonic is the GOAT! He always seems to stick to his principles and is not afraid to speak out. And then proceeds to dominate the competition
If you can't be bothered to pay actual people or make it yourself and instead use AI, I see no reason to give a shit about you, your opinion, or "your" work.
I'll b3 honest, I wouldn't have noticed the first time... but now that I look at it there are a couple of things a human would draw that the AI didn't the nose and ears for one.
Yeah exactly. It's interesting I wouldn't have clocked it as AI off the bat without being told, but once they said it the fact that the red is outside the ear instead of inside, and the fact that they left off the nose stripe is a giveaway.
I know I kind of repeated you, but I wanted to specify.
Very surprising, iron mouse better take some notes because fortnite uses ai which that vtuber is heavily against but second that bitch saw money she pulled up to the game
People who wanna see SonicFox know who they are ahead of time. The AI bullshit isn't even helpful. It's like making an AI picture of Matt Mercer to advertise his panel at a con. Just use a real photo or only put the name. AI is always unnecessary, but here is just confusingly pointless.
Bro I wouldn't even been able to tell. I can't tell anymore. Like it's definitely a certain style, but it's a style a lot of people draw.I can't tell anymore.
fighting games have a large and long-standing community across the world and those within it participate in global tournaments with millions of dollars on the line. sonicfox is a arguably the best person to ever compete, having won major tournaments in 2XKO, Marvel Tokon, Mortal Kombat, Dragon Ball FighterZ, Skullgirls, Inujustice, Dead or Alive, Under Night In-Birth, and Marvel vs Capcom. they've had multiple wins at EVO, the largest fighting game tournament in the world, and there's a few video games out there that have put in nods to sonicfox
Do you know who professional Yu-Gi-Oh player Jesse Kotton is? Do you know why Ilia Malinin is the greatest figure skater to ever live? No? Didn't fucking think so. Legends like these are only such in their respective communities and niches, so of course your wouldn't know who he is if you don't follow fighting games. Just like... Think about other people
608
u/MaximumEffort433 2h ago edited 1h ago
One of the things that gives me a small modicum of hope for the future, at least for the near future, is how so many people are rejecting AI slop, but also just the idea of AI slop.
I read an article last night about how people preferred fiction written by AI, until they were informed that it was AI, and then their opinion of the "work" dropped. A lot of people don't like AI, but I think more importantly than that, a lot of people don't want to like AI.
I don't know what the whole future holds, I fear that at some point AI will be normalized, that people won't care anymore, but at least for now people still care, and that does give me some hope.