196
"Why AI Images Suck" (Art by Flu Hartberg)
(pawb.social)
Source (Bluesky)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
196 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
2586 readers
810 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It isn't self evident. Otherwise a movie director does not create art either because they only prompt.
Nor is AI art in college trivial because by you claimed the physical part of creating art isn't the important part. You need to know all the basics in exactly the same way a photographer needs to know the basics.
It is by definition. If you were an art director and told an assistant to move an apple a little to the left before you pushed a button, that's no different than telling an AI to move an apple a little to the left before pressing a button.
As to AI only regurgitating preexisting art, I refer you to the Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism and Dada. There is no difference between telling someone to draw a beard and mustache on the Mona Lisa and telling an AI.
Kids are learning AI art in college. It's no different than when kids started learning photography in college and actual artists opposed it.
“If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally.”
Charles Baudelaire, 1859
It's different because a camera didn't need to generate enough carbon to burn down an acre of rainforest to take a single picture, nor did it have to harvest the stolen artwork of millions of artists to generate a picture.
But, sure, "prompt engineering" is a creative process and can be artistic.
Absolutely false. You can run AI locally and measure the energy use yourself. It's the same as playing a 3d game.
Edit: It's literally the same energy use as playing MarioKart on a Switch for 20 minutes.
https://www.qt.io/blog/examples-of-local-llm-usage
Carbon emissions don't just happen at point of use, they have to train these chatbots. That takes billions of kWhs of electricity, there's a reason they want to build nuclear reactors to power their data centers.
Then there's the immense water demands, which can cripple the actual human access to drinking water.
So, sure, the energy isn't used when you generate a picture. I misspoke. It was already used, but by creating demand it only incentivizes further training with even higher energy and water demands.
Also, I noticed you just glossed over the fact that they're trained on stolen art.
Gpt 4 had a training cost of $78 million. Gta5 cost $300 million. 4000 developers each with the latest GPU burning hundreds of watts per employee to create the assets. A rough estimate of 750watt pc, 4,000 developers, 8 hour a day, 300 days a year, 5 years = 36 giga watt-hours. That's the energy to power 3.6 million homes for a year and I'm not even including the HVAC costs of the office space.
For 1 game.
I'm not a big fan of AAA development, so thanks for another reason to hate that shit. Retvrn to ASCII