194
"Why AI Images Suck" (Art by Flu Hartberg) (pawb.social)
submitted 2 days ago by ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source (Bluesky)

top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hot mess of anti-"AI" slop...

  • First and foremost, "AI" doesn't exist.
  • Secondly people complaining about "IP" are missing the point. We shouldn't be fighting to maintain a capitalist system of oppression. We should be fighting for a world where artists don't need to sell themselves in order to survive.
  • Complaints about the environment are legit.
  • You don't have to embrace all new technology, but you don't have to hate it either. The value of technology is determined by its use. The problem is that R&D is entirely driven by profits and the violent enforcement of privilege.
  • Worries about "skynet" are just phony hype that promotes the "AI" bubble.
  • The idea that "AI" art is somehow inherently worse than "human" art is extremely suspect, not to mention it being a false dichotomy. People who make "objective" statements about the extremely subjective quality of art are epistemologically fucked. TBH I think lots of generated art is pretty cool.
  • Apart from this guy, nobody actually cares if people use "AI" art in the right context. People won't think you're unoriginal, unsympathetic, etc. They'll just think that you needed an image quick and aren't an artist.
[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

First and foremost, "AI" doesn't exist.

Generative models are known as AI colloquially, if you're trying to communicate something to a wider audience, it's better to use a known term for the sake of communication.

Secondly people complaining about "IP" are missing the point. We shouldn't be fighting to maintain a capitalist system of oppression. We should be fighting for a world where artists don't need to sell themselves in order to survive.

You need to start somewhere, and smaller scale advocacy like this can be used to push for further change.

Yes, I don't like capitalism but we're living under it for the foreseeable future. Ceding any protections for smaller artists because capitalists also benefit from it sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You don't have to embrace all new technology, but you don't have to hate it either. The value of technology is determined by its use. The problem is that R&D is entirely driven by profits and the violent enforcement of privilege.

Can I hate some new technology? As a treat? 🥺

Generative models generally suck at what they do. They suck for the users, they suck for people who have to then read and see the shitty outputs, they suck for the environment, etc.

Worries about "skynet" are just phony hype that promotes the "AI" bubble.

It's pretty clear that that part is an exaggeration for comedic value. The impact on jobs is real, and again bad for everyone except capitalists.

The idea that "AI" art is somehow inherently worse than "human" art is extremely suspect

Generative models by definition cannot make art, as art is by definition made by humans.

You don't go look at a sunset and think about how great art is, or what the sunset might mean. In the same way, there is nothing behind a generated image.

Apart from this guy, nobody actually cares if people use "AI" art in the right context.

I care, it's fucking ugly, and it makes me think you're at the very least lazy and don't care about the thing you're putting out.

[-] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Consumers don't decide the future. Labor does. And if labor doesn't organize then capitalist profits decide.

I hate this "change through consumption" crap. That is literally playing into the hands of capital.

Referring to the middle image in the comic.

[-] pewgar_seemsimandroid 3 points 1 day ago

i am in this community and an ai image community.

[-] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

I agree with this comic whole-heartedly but I find it delightfully ironic that one of the complaints is AI generated images look “ugly and nonhuman” while the comic is stylistically in the same vein as garbage pail kids

[-] halvar@lemm.ee 15 points 2 days ago

I find it weird that people seem to argue almost exclusively over the economics of generative AI. I'd say around half of these panels are just variations of the same "it promotes economic trends which I find unacceptable" thesis.

My personal opinion on the matter, which is that any art is made meaningful by the person behind it, is basically only touched upon in the last two frames. I mean be honest, why on earth would we need some ugly piece of crap failing at imitating something aesthetically pleasing, when we could have unique styles shaped by personal experience and art that's actually thought over to look coherent in some way even if it may lack that detail that AI is obsessed with for some reason.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Copyright can be a problem but they showed The Scream which isn't copyrighted.

The rest is wrong. I'm not paying an illustrator to make a meme. I used Gimp for my last shitpost. I didn't pay a professional oil painter.

The pollution claim is way off. You can run Stable Diffusion at home on your GPU for the same energy as playing a game.

No you do not have to embrace everything new. That's not a counterpoint.

Jobs. See Gimp comment above. Photography put millions of hard working portrait painters out of business. The world ended in 1865, you just didn't notice.

Using AI doesn't need to be done on corporate hosts. You can run AI on a home built server.

My hand made art looks ugly. My Photoshopping is garbage.

Using AI is lazy. As is Photoshop. As is photography. You want human touch, hire an actual artist. Don't digitize art because that uses electricity, is lazy, and puts artists out of work. Definitely don't use lithography or other photo mechanical copying methods like printing presses. Hand draw each and every comic you distribute.

[-] erin 2 points 1 day ago

The argument AI fanboys make that it's the same creative effort as directing or photography is absolutely insane and falls flat with even a tiny bit of critical thinking. Anyone can plug in a prompt. People study and work hard their entire lives to become good photographers and directors. Being able to take a decent picture is not the same AT ALL as a professional photographer, especially one of the successful ones, like all art. It takes incredible patience, timing, creativity, and technical knowledge. It's an accessible art form, like most forms of art, but doing it at the highest level takes a lot of skill. You need to select and know a great deal about your subject in order to capture it well, and timing is often incredibly important. There are people that spend their entire professional lives pursuing one shot, and when they finally get it, the photo is priceless and nearly impossible to replicate. The idea that an art form people get degrees and spend years pursuing is the same as typing a prompt is crazy. Just because anyone can pick up a camera (or a pen, or a paintbrush, etc) does not make the art form that simple.

Directing is an art form too, and there's a very good reason the art of great directors is immediately attributable to them on viewing, even with no context. Anyone making that argument has no idea what it means to direct. Just because some directors might be lazy or uncreative doesn't mean the artform doesn't exist. AI could never replace it.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Like I said I tried AI art once to see what it was about. I did not get anything good but I've seen AI art that looks good so I know it is possible with experience in prompting.

Getting the right prompts can be done by anyone in the same way anyone can take a photo. I expect people will spend time learning how to prompt in the same way people learn the knobs and lenses on their camera. Anyone can take a photo. It takes skill to take a good one. Anyone can generate an AI image but it takes skill (less skill but skill nonetheless) to create a good one.

The skill and knowledge to create an oil painting is several orders of magnitude greater than taking a photo. The only reason photography is defended is because everyone grew up with photography slop. Today phone cameras make it even more automated with their automated bokeh and red eye removal.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 10 points 2 days ago

Using AI is lazy. [...] As is photography.

As somebody learning photography, take my goddamn hobby out of your mouth. I am so sick of you AI freaks pretending that chatgpt and photography are the same thing.

My hand made art looks ugly.

Practice, then. It's good for you. All that brain activity from actually doing something with your life might stop the dementia from getting you in your 50s.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

take my goddamn hobby out of your mouth.

Have you painted landscapes and portraits? Take your goddamn machine generated hobby out of your mouth.

I've (attempted) painting (badly). I've done photography (successfully). I'm sick of photographers pretending it's the same thing as oil on canvas.

The gap of effort and time between photography and painting is greater than AI and photography. I select a lens and turn some knobs on my camera that I know from experience work based on the subject (lighting conditions, motion, distance, effects) and press a button. No amount of skill with oil on canvas can produce art as quickly as using a camera.

I tried AI art once to see what it was about and it took a lot of time with prompts to get anything useful out.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Have you painted landscapes and portraits?

Yes.

I tried AI art once to see what it was about and it took a lot of time with prompts to get anything useful out.

So does passing a kidney stone.

I don't care about effort, I want to know what you have to say. I want to see what you've learned. I want you to show me something about your life.

If this were math, I want you to show me your work.

In the things you've made, you are the only thing I give a shit about. You've made things with AI? Show me where you are in them, then. Are you even real? Do you exist? Should I care you were ever even here?

If you think photography doesn't achieve these things, boy, let me tell you about AI then.

To onlookers: if you're wondering why I'm not addressing the lazy and uninteresting hypocrisy arguments, it's because they don't mean anything.

Painters used to be mad at photographers? Okay. They get along now, why is that? Does anyone even care? Did they simply forget they were pissed at each other? Was Mercury in retrograde?

The only purpose of these arguments is to make you doubt yourself. They don't advocate for anything. They don't suggest a goal, or a resolution, or a compromise, they're just rhetorical chess moves---"neener neener" and tongue wagging.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I don't care about effort, I want to know what you have to say. I want to see what you've learned. I want you to show me something about your life.

Does that mean movie directors aren't artists? Because all they do is prompt people into doing what's in their mind until it's either close enough or the actor does something unexpected and they keep it because it was better than their idea.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 1 points 1 day ago

the actor does something unexpected and they keep it

Credit for this would go to the actor, Morpho.

I am intentionally leaving you room to impress me, and you are still just calling out alleged hypocrisy.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

It should go to the actor yet often it's the director who gets the Oscar without the actors also getting an Oscar despite improvisation on the set. Then there's the entire crew of set design, artists, cinematographers, costuming, and who also do work based on loose prompts from the director. Sometimes they will be acknowledged along with the director but often the director gets an award without everyone else on the set also getting acknowledged.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The supposed beef between painters and photographers is weird, painters were often interested in photography so that they could continue paint the scene when the scene did no longer exist, it also opened up new areas for painters to explore, like impressionnism because an exact copy is kind of boring! Tedious work was offloaded onto the machine.

People use AI to create art, but not in the way that they just do a prompt and "hop" here is art! No, it's just easier to ask the machine to generate scenery and stuff than walking around trying to find a suitable one (for example) to help out, to try to find that elusive thing you want to capture, and then you paint. For example.

Photography has also evolved into its own art form, maybe AI will too one ~~say~~ day, who knows?

People doesn't seem, as you suggest, to understand what art is or what it's all about. To be fair, it's a complex subject, but having a machine generating something is always going to be just a tool, like the painters brush is one.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 1 points 1 day ago

maybe AI will too one say, who knows?

One can hope.

The key difference here between this and photography, though, is that photography only displaced painters. You can tell by looking whether something is a photograph or not. Usually.

AI is very good and will only get better. When the machine can replicate any style, any subject, 3,000 times a minute: what is left for people to even do? How will you ever know a person was there?

If these tools were built to be honest, such that you always knew when something was generated and when something wasn't, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I'd argue that hyperrealism isn't art in itself, I mean you just cosplay as a printer. It's just technique.

An artist must know the tools of its trade, only then can he or she make art. If you only have one technique, then you can't express yourself, because expressing yourself is to chose between all that you know and can do and select the techniques that expresses the thing you want to express.

Art is about expressing yourself, expressing something, AI will never take that away. The masters artworks won't becone non-art just because a machine could paint similar paintings.

I also doesn't subscribe to the idea that art must be appreciated by someone, I think you can make art all by yourself (it is of course nice to be appreciated, but it's not an obligation, again IMO), so let that AI machine produce photographs and paintings all day long, it won't stop my struggles producing, maybe one day, a honorable painting.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Practice, then. It's good for you.

Exactly. Don't cheat and use a machine like a camera.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

They (tge one you responded to) also think painting and photographing is the same thing it seems.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, this is because the only thing they believe in is the end product.

If you ask them whether they prefer a text from their real mom over a digital simulation of what their mom might say, they'll acknowledge what you're getting at, the human spirit, but they'll call it a love bond. So, their mom has human spirit, but not their neighbors.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

"Using AI is lazy. As is Photoshop. As is photography. You want human touch, hire an actual artist."

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Everything about this is wrong and just reactionary garbage.

There is plenty to hate about AI and how it is being implemented, but "stealing" is not what is going on.

Particularly hollow are comments about low quality as shitty artists getting paid for less over competent artists has been going on forever.

This is definitely hate the players and not the game scenario. There is no reason for a company to let go of an artist because of AI. This is a shitty decision made by garbage players.

The reason they do this has almost nothing to do with the technology itself. As I commented before companies have always raced to the bottom when it comes to paying artists. This is clearly a cultural problem.

[-] crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 days ago

A lot of images ingested while training AI have been taken without permission. Most obvious is the recent flux of studio ghibli style art, which openAI has admitted to using without permission.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Art is iterative so the concept that you need permission to use a style is ridiculous. Certainly Studio Ghibli did not invent that art style.

As I was saying "stealing" is bullshit because you are not depriving the originator of anything. What you are talking about is copyright infringement.

Personally I detest the whole concept of imaginary property. So your not going to convince me AI is bad because of it.

[-] crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago

I think you'll find it is called stealing to copy something without permission, and copyright infringement can deprive the originator, like if someone copied the lyrics of a song someone else released 2 days back without credit. Modern copyright law is widely abused but that doesn't change the fact that taking art without permission is stealing, no matter what your personal definition is.

The stealing in the studio ghibli case is ingesting all of the studio ghibli art without paying them for it, and while outputting, clearly labeling it as studio ghibli style.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

I think you are wrong.

Stealing requires depriving someone of their property.

If my daughter draws a character from Totoro she has done nothing wrong. She has not stolen anything. If my daughter draws a new character in the style of Totoro she has also not stolen anything.

What you are talking about is copyright infringement.

Let me ask you this. If OP was replaced by an artist from India who works for 1/10 the price would this all be suddenly okay?

No, it would not be. The problem this person is complaining about is not about AI. It is a much bigger problem that both of you fail to recognize.

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago

I think you are wrong.

Those things might not be a problem for you. But they are for hundreds, thousands or millions of other people.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

What are you even talking about. Please state what you think is the problem.

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

Mate, refer to the original post.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Mate, I already explained it is not stealing. When I said I think you are wrong about the definition of stealing I was being generous.

The definition of stealing is literally depriving someone else of property. This does not happen in copyright cases which are a civil matter rather than criminal matter.

The OP is also wrong for the reasons I already pointed out. Those being that the reason they are losing their job is not because of AI but because they work for a shitty capitalist corporation.

As I alluded if his job would have been replaced by a foreigner who was paid far less he would also not be okay with it and his comic would likely look very racist.

This is because the problem is not AI in this situation. Do you have an opinion on this?

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

That the original post covers more than stealing and losing job.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

That would be a no then. Cheers!

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

I’m just not interested in your bad faith argument. It sounds like you think AI is good. It isn’t, for every reason in the original post and more.

That’s the end of it pretty much. This is a bad technology that is party of the way humanity keeps trying to destroy ourselves. Nothing that you love about AI changes that.

No more. Bye.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 3 points 2 days ago

"stealing" is bullshit because you are not depriving the originator of anything.

This is such a sovereign citizen tier argument. "Officer, I wasn't driving, I was travelling."

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

"In law, "stealing" generally refers to the act of taking someone else's property without their consent and with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. "

Clearly you are full of it. That is why copyright is a civil and not criminal matter.

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/when-stealing-isnt-stealing-theft-law-21st-century

At any rate, I get it. You are probably some corporate bootlicker who thinks copyright protects the artist.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

Imagine thinking you aren't a corporate bootlicker when you defend AI.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Please read my original post. There are plenty of good reasons to hate AI. You want to talk about them?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

AI harvesting the work of others without permission and without compensation for profit is a good reason to hate AI.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 2 points 2 days ago

Let's end I.P. law and burn down the datacenters. Since you hate I.P. so much, I assume this is the easiest offer in the world to you.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Oh please, if that was the truth then AI proves it wouldn't happen. After all they have pretty much violated the copyright of every artist on earth without so much as a slap on the wrist.

I get it, you don't like AI. I don't like how we are using these Large Language Models speculations to create a boom/bust economic cycle. This isn't even the worst of it as it is also being used by authoritarian governments to target people. To top it off it is just a general buzz word businesses are using to rip off consumers.

There are a lot more negative things as well. What OP is upset about though is a problem with business in general. If you are going to hate on AI at least hate it for real reasons.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 1 points 1 day ago

If you are going to hate on AI at least hate it for real reasons.

Peter Thiel, and his incestuous coven of vampires, have funded this machine's creation to replace newspaper comic artists. Do you disagree? That's what it did.

Or, do you think I don't also have criticisms of capitalism.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, I do disagree. As I pointed out this is the result of working for a shitty corporation.

Are all newspapers firing all artists? No, not at all.

There are great reasons not to like AI. Violations to copyright and bad business practices using at as an excuse to lay off staff are not the reasons. It is a red hearing.

I don't know what you think of capitalism. You could let me know if you like.

[-] petrol_sniff_king 1 points 1 day ago

and bad business practices using at as an excuse to lay off staff

Yes, of course, what we need are good billionaires.

Anyone can choose not to fire a gun---I don't want the gun in the room. If you want the gun for other reasons, then build it to fire blanks.

Are all newspapers firing all artists? No, not at all.

Is this at all because: 1) it is wildly unpopular, 2) it is, for now, kind of shit at its job.

[-] SCmSTR 1 points 1 day ago

Okay so, ai has many issues, but there's a lot of redundancy here.

this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
194 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck AI

2555 readers
838 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
VerbFlow@lemmy.world
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
TootSweet@lemmy.world
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
cynar@lemmy.world
themaninblack@lemmy.world
drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world
WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world
Communist@lemmy.ml
eatCasserole@lemmy.world
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
NutWrench@lemmy.world
Soup@lemmy.cafe
iAvicenna@lemmy.world
Tinks@lemmy.world
wizblizz@lemmy.world
corus_kt@lemmy.world
Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
TrickDacy@lemmy.world
TheFriar@lemm.ee
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
HawlSera@lemm.ee
andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works
33550336@lemmy.world
Nougat@fedia.io
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
ogmios@sh.itjust.works
glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz