• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
Technology

AI-Generated Blue-Haired Portrait Fuels Art Debate

Users reply to an AI-generated portrait of a blue-haired figure with views on creative process and training data.

CS
SS
MI
12 Sources, 26d ago, first seen 26d ago

TLDR

An image posted by @TheMG3D shows a blue-haired figure and carries the caption that AI is not better than bad art. @ClaireSilver describes the surrounding discussion as split between people who see art as process and those who see it as result. @McKathlinDev lists objections including training on creators' works without consent and the loss of small creative steps. @BlackDumpling compares AI art to film directing through curation. @Skullgrin140 calls AI a cancer on creativity. Other replies note risks of over-reliance on AI for coding and the presence of judgmental viewers.

Combined views

78.3K

12 Sources, first seen 26d ago

5.6K likes254 comments161 saves463 reposts

Combined views

78.3K

12 Sources, first seen 26d ago

5.6K likes254 comments161 saves463 reposts
AI-Generated Blue-Haired Portrait Fuels Art Debate

Sentiment

Positive32.1%67.9%Negative

Summary

Many accounts rejected AI art as soulless and uncreative with no real artist behind it or consent in its training data, while others defended it as a valid tool that can deliver cleaner results than unskilled human efforts.

Based on 201 sentiment-bearing replies from 131 accounts across 5 conversations.

Sentiment

Positive32.1%67.9%Negative

Summary

Many accounts rejected AI art as soulless and uncreative with no real artist behind it or consent in its training data, while others defended it as a valid tool that can deliver cleaner results than unskilled human efforts.

Based on 201 sentiment-bearing replies from 131 accounts across 5 conversations.

12 Sources

@ClaireSilveryou can boil down anti/pro AI art discourse to “art is process” people and “art is result” people which makes it objectively funny when the “process” people threaten to set your parents house on fire
@Skullgrin14099.9% of "AI artists" just refuse to admit they have nothing interesting to contribute to creativity and just love to weaponize their inability to express themselves without their fancy toys coddling them like children. AI is nothing more than a cancer.
@TheMG3DAi is not better than bad art!
@DannyBurino@shadmbrooks AI shit slop would make it even worse
@AndreeaPenguinthere's no such thing as bad art, unless the theme it covers is controversial, but there ARE judgemental people.
@AdamCrigler@shadmbrooks Yes but the argument against Ai artwork isn't necessary about if its good or not.
@lauralaban@TaylorLorenz It's pure cope, or bait. I've been coding for ~30 years, I'm working on a popular app/game that we started in the before-times. It is seeing insane levels of progress these days.
@McKathlinDev@loxeigh I'd rather not define who is and isn't an artist. My issues with AI gen are these: 1. Most AI gen tools train on living creators' works without their consent. 2. Creativity isn't only in ideas, it's in the process. AI homogenizes away small creative steps; less interesting IMO.
@BlackDumplingPeople fundamentally misunderstand what "AI Art" actually is. Many assume AI art is like illustrating or even animating. It's not. Truth is it's much closer to what a film director does than an illustrator. Like the film Director the AI Artist's creative choices shine through the curation and direction of another's performance. It's just that in this case the "actor" is a tool created by the AI developers. An illustrator has the skill and presumably talent necessary to create what they want, yet is working with a medium that is mostly predictable. Predicable how? Well, on an atomized level this means that applying the tip of a blue colored pencil to paper and then moving it in a line will produce a line. Short of your pencil breaking or your hand trembling you know the result you're going to get. The AI Artist can do something similar, create art that results in that blue line, but they have have to coax it out of the tool in a very different way because it's a very different tool. Again, these are atomized examples but you get the point. The AI artist engages in multiple refinements, tweaks, additions, subtractions and more. Oftentimes embracing the natural chaos of the tool in an almost collaborative manner. Think Bob Ross-ian style "Happy Accidents". People can, and do cal it slop. They can say it's poor, it's tacky, it's soulless this or that... but the AI artist makes creative choices and that is the fundamental nature of art. To belabor the point skill isn't art. A child with a box of crayons creating a castle on a piece of paper is engaged in a creative and therefore artistic act. The resulting thing is art. It doesn't have to be good for it to be art, it merely must be an act of intentional creative expression. If the AI artist isn't an artist then neither is the film director, or the film editor for that matter.
@PatrickSBruck@TaylorLorenz Probably produces a bunch of spaghetti coding which then requires actual coders to get involved, which we will have fewer of if we are *overly reliant* upon AI for coding. That's the key. We can & should automate where appropriate, but can't lose human know-how in the process.
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI

    12 Sources

    @ClaireSilveryou can boil down anti/pro AI art discourse to “art is process” people and “art is result” people which makes it objectively funny when the “process” people threaten to set your parents house on fire
    @Skullgrin14099.9% of "AI artists" just refuse to admit they have nothing interesting to contribute to creativity and just love to weaponize their inability to express themselves without their fancy toys coddling them like children. AI is nothing more than a cancer.
    @TheMG3DAi is not better than bad art!
    @DannyBurino@shadmbrooks AI shit slop would make it even worse
    @AndreeaPenguinthere's no such thing as bad art, unless the theme it covers is controversial, but there ARE judgemental people.
    @AdamCrigler@shadmbrooks Yes but the argument against Ai artwork isn't necessary about if its good or not.
    @lauralaban@TaylorLorenz It's pure cope, or bait. I've been coding for ~30 years, I'm working on a popular app/game that we started in the before-times. It is seeing insane levels of progress these days.
    @McKathlinDev@loxeigh I'd rather not define who is and isn't an artist. My issues with AI gen are these: 1. Most AI gen tools train on living creators' works without their consent. 2. Creativity isn't only in ideas, it's in the process. AI homogenizes away small creative steps; less interesting IMO.
    @BlackDumplingPeople fundamentally misunderstand what "AI Art" actually is. Many assume AI art is like illustrating or even animating. It's not. Truth is it's much closer to what a film director does than an illustrator. Like the film Director the AI Artist's creative choices shine through the curation and direction of another's performance. It's just that in this case the "actor" is a tool created by the AI developers. An illustrator has the skill and presumably talent necessary to create what they want, yet is working with a medium that is mostly predictable. Predicable how? Well, on an atomized level this means that applying the tip of a blue colored pencil to paper and then moving it in a line will produce a line. Short of your pencil breaking or your hand trembling you know the result you're going to get. The AI Artist can do something similar, create art that results in that blue line, but they have have to coax it out of the tool in a very different way because it's a very different tool. Again, these are atomized examples but you get the point. The AI artist engages in multiple refinements, tweaks, additions, subtractions and more. Oftentimes embracing the natural chaos of the tool in an almost collaborative manner. Think Bob Ross-ian style "Happy Accidents". People can, and do cal it slop. They can say it's poor, it's tacky, it's soulless this or that... but the AI artist makes creative choices and that is the fundamental nature of art. To belabor the point skill isn't art. A child with a box of crayons creating a castle on a piece of paper is engaged in a creative and therefore artistic act. The resulting thing is art. It doesn't have to be good for it to be art, it merely must be an act of intentional creative expression. If the AI artist isn't an artist then neither is the film director, or the film editor for that matter.
    @PatrickSBruck@TaylorLorenz Probably produces a bunch of spaghetti coding which then requires actual coders to get involved, which we will have fewer of if we are *overly reliant* upon AI for coding. That's the key. We can & should automate where appropriate, but can't lose human know-how in the process.
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet