Here's the really funny thing. Crafting the prompt to make the original image probably took more time than that crappy mspaint job.
I'm being serious, think about it. What are the chances that image came out of the first prompt fed to the AI? How much time did it take to craft the prompt to get that weird uncanny valley trex with a thumbs up?
Compare that to googling "trex", grabbing an image. Finding the thumbs up emoji. He didn't even bother removing the white background layer! It probably took two minutes tops to make and I enjoy it more.
Most people probably don’t care.
I bet there were painters in the 1800s who talked about how people hated photographs and how they were uncanny and creepy compared to paintings.
People are confused because since the 1960s literally the CIA intervened to disrupt the transmission of meaning in art, because it was a field dominated by "subversives" who were opposed to capitalism and imperialism. They promoted meaningless post-modern art that was purely aesthetic. So decades later, starved of good examples, people have no idea what art is anymore.
A weird facsimile of art that has no soul is entirely uninteresting.
Certainly, clearly not
For now.
In the future, I despair that the next generations will adjust. Horrifying, but possibly true.
It turns into a long tirade about how AI has made the median person's life worse and how they associate generated images with that. It could also be a short tirade.
But the point is more that it is that way, its not important (for the purposes of choosing whether to use AI art in a thing you distribute) _why_ people feel this way though, just that they do.
That's not to say that this same person isn't the perfect target and consumer, as far as OpenAI is concerned.
Obviously a false statement or the image would not be generated in the first place. You will need to significantly move goalposts for this statement to be truthful
Yes, you can do image-> text on existing styles, but something always gets lost in translation.
Midjourney probably has the best baseline, and --sref is a really easy way to differentiate
Compare the AI dinosaur in the article to the commissioned dinosaur. The commission has a vibe created by the eye expression and the glasses. I'd maybe call it chill. The thumb-up is present but it isn't leading the vibe, we might infer that it is something the dino is doing because he is chill. The gesture is only a tiny part of the image, almost an afterthought.
In the original AI image the dinosaur has its thumb up and seems to be really happy. Big smile, relaxed face. Thumb looms large in the foreground. That would be totally normal for this sort of prompt, I don't expect the AIs to have a lot of thoughtful variety on body language.
So what is interesting is getting the AI to generate the commission image - one where the thumb-up looks like a natural consequence of a broader scene - is actually quite hard. The prompter needs to think about all those details of what the character of the dinosaur is and such that make the gesture natural. It might be too hard to one-shot prompt. Image generators don't do that the last time I checked, they just provide what is asked for. Human artists (especially the good ones) will identify that as boring and start adding flourishes to keep people's interest.
People end up hoist on their own petard. "A T-Rex giving a thumbs up" isn't an interesting idea and a good human artist will - instead of following an instruction - give people what they asked for and slip some actually interesting elements in, which usually comes back to more body language and facial expression that is hard to describe.
This is a phase that will pass.
There will be (and already are) legitimate artists who leverage AI as a creative tool like any other medium/tool (Photoshop, cameras, paint brushes, etc). I respect them even if others immediately dismiss anything AI related.
Clip art was created for specific purposes by humans, and continues to find use in those niches.
People generally hate low effort AI slop.
Irrational people hate art made with AI as a tool.
"By invading the territories of art, photography has become art's most mortal enemy." - Said someone who nobody knows because it's a long and dead opinion.
No, it's OK to care about the source/process. It is not irrational. You may disagree, but it is utterly human - as rational as things get.
Like wtf? What world is this that you live in?
I also like to use AI as a sort of filter on pictures that I took. Make a photo look like a drawing, for example. It is also incredible for UI mockups and saves me a lot of work.
But it's absolutely lovely and heartwarming when my brother uses it to make environment art to go with a D&D campaign for his children.
It's hyper-polarized.
There is no using AI image generators _well_ if you care how people perceive you and your work.
- Cars (expensive toys for the rich that endangered normal ppl and spooked horses)
- Recorded music (similar complaints about it not supporting artists)
- Bicycles (commonly called the devil's work)
- Novels (morally dangerous)
- Headphones / Sony Walkman (anti-social)
I remember when chatting online was nerdy, anti-social, and uncool. Now celebrities casually talk about sliding into each other's DMs.
The initial "it's unfashionable" backlash to new, useful, and threatening technology has been so repetitive and predictable throughout history that it's almost passe now. Most people aren't students of history of course, so history will repeat itself.
But that also means the second act will repeat, not just the first act. And the useful technology will almost certainly become fashionable and accepted once it's more commonplace.
"It's different from X" is no more meaningful than "it's the same as X".
Or maybe the defenses are AI generated, who knows.
The post doesn't even say "it's different from X". It just says "it's unfashionable," with no comparison or mention of history at all, as if this is the first time a new technology has ever been unfashionable immediately after its release.
> Just make your argument on its own terms.
The argument is incredibly simple and obvious: the "unfashionable" period for useful but jarringly new consumer-facing technology is common, predictable, and short-lived.
So yes, all things that I accepted first I hate now. The others I was born in, can't tell much about them. Maybe the people are right but accept the shit later.
But that doesn't matter, because the game theory they outlined is directionally right. The cohort of people who hate AI art is relatively small. But the cohort of people who love it is even smaller. People can generally spot it, and most people are indifferent to it.
Having said that: I think it's also true that people are generally indifferent to any of the "casual" art in online writing and publications. It's overused and a crutch.
A hero image at the top of a post: good, can be great, do it, make sure it's not AI. But like, a random dinosaur giving a thumbs up in the middle of the post? Don't do that at all.
The language evolved "slop" for AI art. There's no corresponding new term for good AI art. Pretending it's a minority that hates it is transparent cope.
That's a weird intentional example to make: spam-adjacent marketing content needs a stock art hero image, but a random dinosaur randomly inserted into a random post shouldn't be done at all?
Correcting your correction: a lot of people have terrible taste. It's not polite to say it, because it's condescending and presumptuous, but it's true nonetheless.
People with good taste will agree with TFA. Your Uncle who sends you cheesy postcards that make you groan; your grandma who watches reality TV; your coworker who always used to forward the whole company chain letters about poor Jessica who's 4 years old and dying of cancer; they will all clap enthusiastically at the GenAI T-rex. That's because they have bad taste and don't know better.
In other words, TFA is right. "Socially illiterate" is a very apt definition.
(Not accusing that they are)
Recently Blender removed Anthropic from the sponsors while taking Nvidia and Google's money. This is the epitome of the nature of the anti-AI trend: If you just don't make it obvious nobody cares.
All you get are these pieces of glossy junk, yet they expect you to believe it’s some form of creative work. "People with minor cases of major brain damage", indeed
But maybe I’m just one of those people with “minor cases of major brain damage”.
> But maybe I’m just one of those people with “minor cases of major brain damage”.
Hey, you said it not me
(hallucinated) ai hard at work
kiba•1h ago
Approps of nothing, I think art is worth your while to make an investment of effort. I found Drink and Draw and made acquaintance of another maker from a local makerspace(not mine) and an artist. I wasn't technically adept but I want space to learn how to draw and they treated beginner(or at lease those three) with good vibes even though I was a clear beginner.