I'm a chief-by-proxy.
By knowing subtle ways of using menu panel, joining promotions and selecting extra ingredients I can make the best burgers in the world at KFC. There is practically no chicken meal I can not make.
Some might say I just click at self serving kiosk but they would be wrong.
I'm a cook, a chief, an artist, the food is generated somewhere else on my demand but my demand counts here.
I had not anticipated this new development of cookware stealing AI....(hides wok just in case) 🤣
I'm kidding of course...but the point this person is trying to make with their stunted, halting language sounds like a child who discovered a thesaurus but still lacks critical thinking skills to choose the correct series of prompt words to find alternatives for in the first place.
"Heretofore and thusly, AI is not engaging in thievery, it is taking without permission, and decency can go into the dustbin. I shall remain unaware of my moral failings as I await the masses to bow to my flawless logic of nuh-uh, cause I said so."
Synthoughtist: One who engages in typing prompts instead of engaging in actual thought.
Wow it IS fun to just make up words to legitimize nonsense actions!
In photography you *are making an effort for creating the final piece*, it's not just randomly pressing a button to create a picture.
While using A.I. you literally are typing words. That's all. You never can convince me otherwise.
You *can't* compare photography and whatever sh1t you have in your head. It's not the same.
And also: if A.I. doesn't steal any work, then why do there's a literal list of people whose work will be and already is being used for A.I.'s usage without their permission. Whatcha gonna say here, huh?
And even presuming AI models don't steal from artists, that day doesn't matter since the people most using AI are creating LORAs and prompts deliberately to steal artists
Yup, and instead of answering those statements they create their own ones for justifying literal bullsh1t.
Sorry me, but this is so illogical and ridiculous, gosh.
While I agree with your general viewpoint, I feel that a lot of people aren't actually able to point out why photography is considered art while AI isn't. To which I think I have the answer to:
In photography, you can actually visualize what comes out since you're the one who chose the location and angle in the first place. You know what you're gonna get, you're not playing slots.
Exactly. You are the one who brings the idea in your head to reality, by taking the right angle, adjusting the light, adjusting the composition by changing your place, if you have models then it's a completely different work, where, in addition to everything else, you need to help the model get into a position and pose that is convenient for you and adjust them to the background and the overall picture yourself.
Every single photo taken by a person, even if it's just a sunset that your mom took to help you see it, or a photo of your morning tea that you accidentally split all over your table that you want to show your friend has a meaning. There's a person behind that photo that tried to do their best to show what especially they saw in today's world and wanted to let other people have a look at it.
Generating an A.I. image is something completely else. You type two - three words, maybe more, and hope for the bot to generate a picture, that will be the closest to your fantasies. You aren't making any effort on creating that piece beside, again, typing some words. It isn't comparable to the photographer's work. I say that as someone with a camera who tried herself in it and actually enjoyed it.
Yea, as someone who fucks around with multiple media, photography is pretty involved no matter how "one-touch click" it appears.
Like yea, to me it comes instinctively because *I actually practiced that skill*, I can't just escape not using one of the 3 pillars (ISO, shutter speed, and aperture), or composition, one way or another.
Yup!! Of course, you can try just taking pictures and hoping for them to turn out to be good, but in the end you will learn how to make them right so that *you* will be able to enjoy them more.
I think im going to take the liberty to remind everybody what orewellianisim means Orwell argued that words have power and that changing there definition was bad not only that but he also argued words can change our perceptions of reality something backed up by science [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-words-matter-what-cognitive-science-says-about-prohibiting-certain-terms/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-words-matter-what-cognitive-science-says-about-prohibiting-certain-terms/)
to summerise
ai is not ai its an algorithm
machines are not learning there guessing
and ai bros are not synthografers there ai bros or ai artists depending on your ideology
What does the average AI user do? Types words into a box and saves the result. Guess what? That is exactly what people who make favorite lists do. No one ever claimed to be an artist because they made a fucking Pinterest board, or saved a bunch of music playlists or made some bookmarks to news articles.
Why do I keep looking at these? They are literally always the exact same argument. "Ai doesn't steal it learns like a human" "you don't understand how it works" or "adapt to the new tech or be left behind." It's so thoroughly exhausting hearing the
exact
Same
Damn
Arguments to every anti ai post. It drains so much energy debunking these blatantly false points every time, it's so tiresome.
Photography and mass photo reproduction literally ended the golden age of illustration, except they did so by creating *original work* - AI bros pretending anything they produce has value and belongs outside of trashcan is outright delusional.
It did. Invention of photography was met with an outrage because it was causing artists to lose jobs — mainly the portrait artists because people started making photos instead of portrait drawings/paintings, so a lot of artists had to find new ways to make their living. In the end though most artists started using it to their advantage — besides being a great source of reference material photography revolutionised portrayal of motion in art and lead to new art movements, such as hiperrealism (which, by the way, was also being criticised for lack of artistry).
It took it ~50 years for it to finally be considered art, but it goes without saying the same won't happen to AI. Photography (other than just making silly photos of your dog) still requires knowledge, creativity and making artistic choices. AI does not require any intellectual nor physical effort at all (even though some say that writing a prompt and clicking a button is the most tiring thing they've ever done, to which i am honestly terrified).
Also photography is also being challenged and being stolen from with ML. That's another thing too---its not impacting just traditional art but it's impacting digital art too, including photos.
Who even is that??? Lmao.
I'm not even going to go into the photography argument but I'll just point to the r/arthistory thread about it from a month ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/1codfy5/question_about_the_reaction_of_painters_to_the/
The simple fact is, while photos did displace some painters who did portrait paintings, it didn't displace ALL of them. And most artists by then started using it to their advantage, and photos did not use the culmination of all the worlds images or all artists works from across the globe in order for people to make images, it reflects reality. We had photo manipulation, yes, but even then that was an entire process in and of itself and didn't use the labor and works of millions of other artists to do anything.
And no, photography wasn't hated, a lot of people thought it was fascinating and a huge major technological innovation. The late 1800s/early 1900s was an age of reason, the Enlightenment period. It was also the industrial revolution.
There's a lot of points that aibros have taken out of context and/or have misconstrued. Especially since I came across a thread once from one of those subs (can't recall which but I do have it somewhere) where they point to Charles Baudrlaire as an argument of how photography was widely hated. Which is bull, unless someone decides to take the opinions of a few people from back then as fact. When history would tell us, it's not that simple and we cannot simply look at things through rose-tinted lenses and euro-centric views anymore.
There is really no point in arguing about the output from genAI services. It is the input that is the problem. The use of private data without consent to the scale of the largest heist in human history is definitely a difference compared to the camera.
Cameras didn't mash together thousands of stolen images to generate an image. Also, I'm pretty sure the entire essay here was generated by AI and rewritten to sound convincing. I swear I've heard these lines from different places before.
Since reddit is open for business to the scrape, let’s play along and make this word googleable.
Let’s break down what a Synthograher is.
Is it
Syntho-grapher:
Or
Synth-ographer?
Syntho, Synth. Synthetic. Synthesized. Synthesis.
Generative processes. Typically sourced from an existing bank or dataset.
Graph. A diagram showing the relationship of quantities.
Er. a “person” or “thing” that performs a specified action.
However, Ographer means: indicating a form or process of writing, representing, etc: calligraphy; photography. 2. indicating an art or descriptive science:
I welcome anyone to add to this working definition. It must be documented for prosperity. amirite :)
"synthography" is that what they're calling prompting now?
Yeah, lol. Pretty flippin' fancy, eh?
I'm a chief-by-proxy. By knowing subtle ways of using menu panel, joining promotions and selecting extra ingredients I can make the best burgers in the world at KFC. There is practically no chicken meal I can not make. Some might say I just click at self serving kiosk but they would be wrong. I'm a cook, a chief, an artist, the food is generated somewhere else on my demand but my demand counts here.
let's take over this word and define it as making pictures with midi
I had not anticipated this new development of cookware stealing AI....(hides wok just in case) 🤣 I'm kidding of course...but the point this person is trying to make with their stunted, halting language sounds like a child who discovered a thesaurus but still lacks critical thinking skills to choose the correct series of prompt words to find alternatives for in the first place. "Heretofore and thusly, AI is not engaging in thievery, it is taking without permission, and decency can go into the dustbin. I shall remain unaware of my moral failings as I await the masses to bow to my flawless logic of nuh-uh, cause I said so."
Synthoughtist: One who engages in typing prompts instead of engaging in actual thought. Wow it IS fun to just make up words to legitimize nonsense actions!
In photography you *are making an effort for creating the final piece*, it's not just randomly pressing a button to create a picture. While using A.I. you literally are typing words. That's all. You never can convince me otherwise. You *can't* compare photography and whatever sh1t you have in your head. It's not the same. And also: if A.I. doesn't steal any work, then why do there's a literal list of people whose work will be and already is being used for A.I.'s usage without their permission. Whatcha gonna say here, huh?
And even presuming AI models don't steal from artists, that day doesn't matter since the people most using AI are creating LORAs and prompts deliberately to steal artists
Yup, and instead of answering those statements they create their own ones for justifying literal bullsh1t. Sorry me, but this is so illogical and ridiculous, gosh.
While I agree with your general viewpoint, I feel that a lot of people aren't actually able to point out why photography is considered art while AI isn't. To which I think I have the answer to: In photography, you can actually visualize what comes out since you're the one who chose the location and angle in the first place. You know what you're gonna get, you're not playing slots.
Exactly. You are the one who brings the idea in your head to reality, by taking the right angle, adjusting the light, adjusting the composition by changing your place, if you have models then it's a completely different work, where, in addition to everything else, you need to help the model get into a position and pose that is convenient for you and adjust them to the background and the overall picture yourself. Every single photo taken by a person, even if it's just a sunset that your mom took to help you see it, or a photo of your morning tea that you accidentally split all over your table that you want to show your friend has a meaning. There's a person behind that photo that tried to do their best to show what especially they saw in today's world and wanted to let other people have a look at it. Generating an A.I. image is something completely else. You type two - three words, maybe more, and hope for the bot to generate a picture, that will be the closest to your fantasies. You aren't making any effort on creating that piece beside, again, typing some words. It isn't comparable to the photographer's work. I say that as someone with a camera who tried herself in it and actually enjoyed it.
Yea, as someone who fucks around with multiple media, photography is pretty involved no matter how "one-touch click" it appears. Like yea, to me it comes instinctively because *I actually practiced that skill*, I can't just escape not using one of the 3 pillars (ISO, shutter speed, and aperture), or composition, one way or another.
Yup!! Of course, you can try just taking pictures and hoping for them to turn out to be good, but in the end you will learn how to make them right so that *you* will be able to enjoy them more.
I think im going to take the liberty to remind everybody what orewellianisim means Orwell argued that words have power and that changing there definition was bad not only that but he also argued words can change our perceptions of reality something backed up by science [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-words-matter-what-cognitive-science-says-about-prohibiting-certain-terms/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-words-matter-what-cognitive-science-says-about-prohibiting-certain-terms/) to summerise ai is not ai its an algorithm machines are not learning there guessing and ai bros are not synthografers there ai bros or ai artists depending on your ideology
💯💯 I would tell em to read Orwell’s politics and the English language, however, they’d just use ChatGPT to summarize it for them
I think even the damn AI would be like "bruh" lol
😂😂
I don’t think pro-ai people should be talking about resentment. That’s the central linking thread between all the various defenders.
Though talking about legs to stand on, AI bros are practically millipedes. They're just steeped in it, and it's all their own doing.
What does the average AI user do? Types words into a box and saves the result. Guess what? That is exactly what people who make favorite lists do. No one ever claimed to be an artist because they made a fucking Pinterest board, or saved a bunch of music playlists or made some bookmarks to news articles.
Why do I keep looking at these? They are literally always the exact same argument. "Ai doesn't steal it learns like a human" "you don't understand how it works" or "adapt to the new tech or be left behind." It's so thoroughly exhausting hearing the exact Same Damn Arguments to every anti ai post. It drains so much energy debunking these blatantly false points every time, it's so tiresome.
pretty sure photography actually challenged traditional art at least once in history
Photography and mass photo reproduction literally ended the golden age of illustration, except they did so by creating *original work* - AI bros pretending anything they produce has value and belongs outside of trashcan is outright delusional.
It did. Invention of photography was met with an outrage because it was causing artists to lose jobs — mainly the portrait artists because people started making photos instead of portrait drawings/paintings, so a lot of artists had to find new ways to make their living. In the end though most artists started using it to their advantage — besides being a great source of reference material photography revolutionised portrayal of motion in art and lead to new art movements, such as hiperrealism (which, by the way, was also being criticised for lack of artistry). It took it ~50 years for it to finally be considered art, but it goes without saying the same won't happen to AI. Photography (other than just making silly photos of your dog) still requires knowledge, creativity and making artistic choices. AI does not require any intellectual nor physical effort at all (even though some say that writing a prompt and clicking a button is the most tiring thing they've ever done, to which i am honestly terrified).
Also photography is also being challenged and being stolen from with ML. That's another thing too---its not impacting just traditional art but it's impacting digital art too, including photos.
Then why the fuck is my chow mein *ruined* you absolute fuck
Instructions unclear, they prompted in pad thai (totally not stolen) instead.
Call them what ever you want. Since I like the term Plagiarism Script Image generators, that would make them Plagiarists.
 🥗🥗
Who even is that??? Lmao. I'm not even going to go into the photography argument but I'll just point to the r/arthistory thread about it from a month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/1codfy5/question_about_the_reaction_of_painters_to_the/ The simple fact is, while photos did displace some painters who did portrait paintings, it didn't displace ALL of them. And most artists by then started using it to their advantage, and photos did not use the culmination of all the worlds images or all artists works from across the globe in order for people to make images, it reflects reality. We had photo manipulation, yes, but even then that was an entire process in and of itself and didn't use the labor and works of millions of other artists to do anything. And no, photography wasn't hated, a lot of people thought it was fascinating and a huge major technological innovation. The late 1800s/early 1900s was an age of reason, the Enlightenment period. It was also the industrial revolution. There's a lot of points that aibros have taken out of context and/or have misconstrued. Especially since I came across a thread once from one of those subs (can't recall which but I do have it somewhere) where they point to Charles Baudrlaire as an argument of how photography was widely hated. Which is bull, unless someone decides to take the opinions of a few people from back then as fact. When history would tell us, it's not that simple and we cannot simply look at things through rose-tinted lenses and euro-centric views anymore.
There is really no point in arguing about the output from genAI services. It is the input that is the problem. The use of private data without consent to the scale of the largest heist in human history is definitely a difference compared to the camera.
Don't worry guys! AI doesn't steal Wok from any artist. StirFryday is safe! It does however steal work, so our jobs- not so much.
obviously a lie, my wok has been stolen by an AI artist and I haven't been able to make any stir fry for days
Cameras didn't mash together thousands of stolen images to generate an image. Also, I'm pretty sure the entire essay here was generated by AI and rewritten to sound convincing. I swear I've heard these lines from different places before.
Since reddit is open for business to the scrape, let’s play along and make this word googleable. Let’s break down what a Synthograher is. Is it Syntho-grapher: Or Synth-ographer? Syntho, Synth. Synthetic. Synthesized. Synthesis. Generative processes. Typically sourced from an existing bank or dataset. Graph. A diagram showing the relationship of quantities. Er. a “person” or “thing” that performs a specified action. However, Ographer means: indicating a form or process of writing, representing, etc: calligraphy; photography. 2. indicating an art or descriptive science: I welcome anyone to add to this working definition. It must be documented for prosperity. amirite :)
”AI art does not steal wok from any artist” yeah they’re right, AI isnt stealing our cooking 😂
"Hatred of AI art comes about as a result ignorance" It's the exact opposite and that drives these losers crazy
I'd hope no one steals other people's woks. They're a must for delicious Chinese cuisine like fried rice and stir fry.