FA+
Shop
No To AI-Generated Images (my 2 cents)
3 years ago
I guess I'll join in on this whole thing (if maybe a bit late...)
If you are looking for a comprehensive and detailed article on why AI-Generated images are bad, I'll add a link to a post on ArtStation that discusses this in a thought-out and civil manner:
If you'd rather read through some vitriolic ramblings of an art-veteran, then keep reading.
Back when the topic of AI-Generated images was first discussed, I had already said my piece. However, I think it is worth reiterating some points and adding a few new ones:
1) Generating images via AI leaves no room for personal growth.
Real Art is a way for people to express and improve themselves. It is a way for individuals to show off and improve their motor skills, their hand-eye coordination, their imagination, their attention span! Each time you try drawing something (be it digitally or via traditional methods) you practice! The more you practice, the more you improve your skills! You become better than you used to be!
Meanwhile, using Image Generators doesn't give you ANYTHING! You just plop in pre-existing assets and wait for the machine to process and shit out the machine's rudimentary understanding of how to make sense out of an assembly of lines, shapes, and colors. Sure, over time the AI may improve, but what about the person who feeds it? Nothing. That person does not improve. They just press a few buttons and think they are the next Rembrandt or Van Gogh... with less than a fraction of a fraction of the time and effort these two put into their works.
2) AI-Generated images are soulless and worthless
This point relates to the previous one rather directly; when someone tries to draw something on their own, be it via pencil and paper or via Photoshop (or even MS Paint), they not only devote time and effort towards creating something, but they also put a bit of themselves into it. Each line, each splash of color, every little imperfection... those are all small bits of the artist's own self; their struggles, their emotions, their personal tastes, their talent, all of that goes into an art piece. In order to create something that has value, you need to devote time and effort to it. And the people who then see the end result can see all those elements present in the work. Those who see the artist's creation can think of how much time it took them to make it/to bring it into existence. The time, effort, and soul put into each piece is what gives art its value. Its heart.
And what do AI-Generators bring to the table? Nothing. They can only imitate things that already exist. There is no effort behind AI-Generated images. There is no soul. Just a bad imitation. It's like putting a spoonful of sugar into a glass of tap water and claiming it's actually fine wine.
3) AI-Generated images are a form of theft and corruption... and real danger
And here is the big one. When you put an actual artist's image into an AI-Image Generator, you basically intend to copy whatever makes said artist's art good: their particular style of coloring, their linework, their use of light and shadow... All of that, without the artist's knowledge or consent. And what's the end result? For the time being, with the current level of AI-Generators, the result is a corrupted copy of whatever was put into the generator. All of the original artists' hard work, time, and passion...all of that trivialized and twisted into some sort of soulless abomination...all one press of a button away.
And it can only get worse.
As this technology improves, who's to say that it won't allow lowlife hacks to use actual artists' works to create a medium for hateful agenda? Or use it to satisfy some depraved fetish? An artist who draws cute kittens and puppies in a soft and appealing style may one day discover that their art was used to create some sort of neo-nazi propaganda piece with scat, hard vore, and pedophilia on top of it... all of that in the artists' style...all made through an AI-Image Generator.
You may think the last point is a gross over-exaggeration. To that, I say this: technology is advancing at a startlingly fast rate. Things like that may become possible faster than one would be comfortable admitting or accepting. And also... never underestimate the levels of hate and depravity that humanity is capable of. Because whatever is the worst thing you can imagine (the worst thing someone could ever do to another person, the lengths to which someone would be willing to go in order to make another person miserable) there is always something far, far darker and more depraved lurking somewhere in the dark.
I promised vitriol at the beginning of this post. Well... here it comes:
To those who think they can call themselves artists, just because you use Image Generators: you're not artists. You have neither the talent, patience, nor passion to create anything by yourselves. All you do is take what is not yours and feed it to a soulless machine that spits out garbage by the thousands
. Even tracers have more merit to them than you. Because tracers at least spend time trying to copy someone else's work; they put in at least the minimum effort in order to try and copy from others...and the ones who actually have some personal integrity, have a chance to create their own stuff, based on the practice they have gotten from copying others. Tracers have a chance to grow... users of AI-Image generators DON'T.
The only thing that AI-Image Generator users do is take stuff that doesn't belong to them and tell a machine to do all the hard work for them. They are lazy. They have no drive to improve themselves. Their egos are more inflated than they have any right to be. And why? Because they think that telling a machine to do stuff for you is equal to what many artists spend literal years to obtain. And that...that is simply pathetic.
Say NO to AI-Generated Images.
If you are looking for a comprehensive and detailed article on why AI-Generated images are bad, I'll add a link to a post on ArtStation that discusses this in a thought-out and civil manner:
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/03Pbz4 If you'd rather read through some vitriolic ramblings of an art-veteran, then keep reading.
Back when the topic of AI-Generated images was first discussed, I had already said my piece. However, I think it is worth reiterating some points and adding a few new ones:
1) Generating images via AI leaves no room for personal growth.
Real Art is a way for people to express and improve themselves. It is a way for individuals to show off and improve their motor skills, their hand-eye coordination, their imagination, their attention span! Each time you try drawing something (be it digitally or via traditional methods) you practice! The more you practice, the more you improve your skills! You become better than you used to be!
Meanwhile, using Image Generators doesn't give you ANYTHING! You just plop in pre-existing assets and wait for the machine to process and shit out the machine's rudimentary understanding of how to make sense out of an assembly of lines, shapes, and colors. Sure, over time the AI may improve, but what about the person who feeds it? Nothing. That person does not improve. They just press a few buttons and think they are the next Rembrandt or Van Gogh... with less than a fraction of a fraction of the time and effort these two put into their works.
2) AI-Generated images are soulless and worthless
This point relates to the previous one rather directly; when someone tries to draw something on their own, be it via pencil and paper or via Photoshop (or even MS Paint), they not only devote time and effort towards creating something, but they also put a bit of themselves into it. Each line, each splash of color, every little imperfection... those are all small bits of the artist's own self; their struggles, their emotions, their personal tastes, their talent, all of that goes into an art piece. In order to create something that has value, you need to devote time and effort to it. And the people who then see the end result can see all those elements present in the work. Those who see the artist's creation can think of how much time it took them to make it/to bring it into existence. The time, effort, and soul put into each piece is what gives art its value. Its heart.
And what do AI-Generators bring to the table? Nothing. They can only imitate things that already exist. There is no effort behind AI-Generated images. There is no soul. Just a bad imitation. It's like putting a spoonful of sugar into a glass of tap water and claiming it's actually fine wine.
3) AI-Generated images are a form of theft and corruption... and real danger
And here is the big one. When you put an actual artist's image into an AI-Image Generator, you basically intend to copy whatever makes said artist's art good: their particular style of coloring, their linework, their use of light and shadow... All of that, without the artist's knowledge or consent. And what's the end result? For the time being, with the current level of AI-Generators, the result is a corrupted copy of whatever was put into the generator. All of the original artists' hard work, time, and passion...all of that trivialized and twisted into some sort of soulless abomination...all one press of a button away.
And it can only get worse.
As this technology improves, who's to say that it won't allow lowlife hacks to use actual artists' works to create a medium for hateful agenda? Or use it to satisfy some depraved fetish? An artist who draws cute kittens and puppies in a soft and appealing style may one day discover that their art was used to create some sort of neo-nazi propaganda piece with scat, hard vore, and pedophilia on top of it... all of that in the artists' style...all made through an AI-Image Generator.
You may think the last point is a gross over-exaggeration. To that, I say this: technology is advancing at a startlingly fast rate. Things like that may become possible faster than one would be comfortable admitting or accepting. And also... never underestimate the levels of hate and depravity that humanity is capable of. Because whatever is the worst thing you can imagine (the worst thing someone could ever do to another person, the lengths to which someone would be willing to go in order to make another person miserable) there is always something far, far darker and more depraved lurking somewhere in the dark.
I promised vitriol at the beginning of this post. Well... here it comes:
To those who think they can call themselves artists, just because you use Image Generators: you're not artists. You have neither the talent, patience, nor passion to create anything by yourselves. All you do is take what is not yours and feed it to a soulless machine that spits out garbage by the thousands
. Even tracers have more merit to them than you. Because tracers at least spend time trying to copy someone else's work; they put in at least the minimum effort in order to try and copy from others...and the ones who actually have some personal integrity, have a chance to create their own stuff, based on the practice they have gotten from copying others. Tracers have a chance to grow... users of AI-Image generators DON'T.
The only thing that AI-Image Generator users do is take stuff that doesn't belong to them and tell a machine to do all the hard work for them. They are lazy. They have no drive to improve themselves. Their egos are more inflated than they have any right to be. And why? Because they think that telling a machine to do stuff for you is equal to what many artists spend literal years to obtain. And that...that is simply pathetic.
Say NO to AI-Generated Images.
Not so big on the kinkshaming though. It’s understandable for an artist not to want their art to be involved in the creation of dicier fetishes — that’s their right — but that doesn’t make those who enjoy them “depraved.” It’s certainly not anywhere near neo-Nazi propaganda. I find it especially confusing in this case since one of your examples is vore? Most claims that a kink is depraved, that I’ve seen, stem from the idea that the fetish will eventually manifest IRL (which itself is a bad argument but still), but the overwhelming majority of vore art depicts acts that can’t be enacted IRL. So it just kinda reads as, “Gross fetish art is bad because it’s gross” which is a wholly subjective view.
Like, an artist could also not want their art used in the creation of AI art of fish because they think fish are gross and they have a fish phobia. Doesn’t mean fish are bad. Their wishes are still deserving of respect though.
And comparing fish to people getting eaten alive for someone's sexual gratification (on the milder side of what I listed)...
My point with the fish example was that co-opting art in any way that personally upsets the artist is bad. It doesn’t really matter if it’s vore, scat, or fish (I’ll make an exception for pedophilia since a real-world child can’t consent to being used in porn). Wanting art of these things isn’t bad; the method used to obtain it is bad. If that was your point and the use of kink was just an extreme example, I guess I’ll concede to that, but at least to me it really doesn’t read that way.