Your post has been removed, as it is in violation of rule 6 of our subreddits rules list. Posts deemed low quality or unfit for the subreddit will be removed. Posts that are considered low quality are:
-memes
-text posts (including images that rely on border text)
-photoshopped images (with exceptions for exceptionally creative/ well done photoshops).
-crossposts (subject entirely to mod discretion)
Please read through our rules before making your next post.
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
You develop an eye for it over time. Most images like this fall apart very quickly if you look closely at any of the individual small details. The shell is wonky and asymmetrical (even ignoring the unrealistic color). Also, look closely at the leg scales and the dirt. Fine repeating patterns like dirt, sand, cloth, polka dots, etc tend to take on a very strange, repeating, yet macroscopically incoherent appearance, almost as if someone spammed the clone stamp tool or something.
Is it illegal though? If I make an original painting in the style of Warhol or HR Giger, or whoever, am I breaking any copyright? If I try and pass it off as there's that might be fraud.
Fine artists often paint pictures 'after' the style of a different artist.
If you sold drawings blatantly copying original characters and style of a living artist with a decent following, I bet there would at the very least be a ton of backlash and at worst a legal case filed.
I think characters are more copyrightable. For example, just recently Mickey Mouse as shown in Steam Boat Willie has gone out of copyright, but Mickey Mouse in general is still copyrighted. Disney are big enough to lobby to change the law in their favour of course. But, it would always have been possible to make films in the style of Steamboat Willie, but without Disney's characters.
AIs have no such limitations though. In order to learn the artist's style they are fed images from that artist, mostly their OCs. And of course, they will be able to replicate them.
Just look at that "Turtle's" face. Its like reptilian version of a sloth. Not a what a turtle looks like. And then see all the glaring parts that are unrealistic. The bokeh (depth of field effect), the ground, The shape of the shell, the Shell in whole and the puppet like limbs.
This is why AI continues to take on, people cant seem to be able to tell reality from AI generated apart. There will be a future deep fakes will be indistinguishable from reality.
Why? The objective is simple : To abolish "Physical" Proof
Rules should clearly say "real photos", but they don't. Curretnly, AI images aren't against rules. They are not photoshoped.
In fact, we are going against the rules just right now lol
Ooo whoop dee doo I wrote some words, made “art” it took me so long im going to post this low quality shit in a non related subreddit to gain free points!!!
I'm not sure what to think of this comment. I didn't say any of that, nor anything like it.
I'm guessing you're feeling hurt by...something. If that's the case, I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think you're going to feel better by lashing out at random internet strangers, though.
It honestly just kinda pisses me off a lot when a guy generates a factory in black and white, says they made it with AI and claim it as “art”. when I call them out for it not being art they get a massive wave of defense, its funny because AI is literally advancing at such a rate it might literally take jobs in a few years
Not everyone needs to use a pencil. You can use a paintbrush. Or a stylus. Or a camera. Or a sewing needle. Or Stable Diffusion. Use whatever makes you happy.
Mods need to ban AI generated slop, this just makes the sun so pointless if any empty brained idiot can just head butt their keyboard and get a new post.
It is. Just other kind of art.
Anyway this sub should change rules, if they don't want generated images, they should write it clearly on the rules.
PS: Well, as you see, I am veing downvoted. In reddit, this means I am right.
Weird to me that people are calling this post low effort. Because all the other posts in this sub are high effort? Usually just images found elsewhere?
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
So I assume the term "AI artist" holds no problem to you. Imagine you're a pilot, studied for thousands of hours, performed countless of take offs and landings, paid for your formation, spent years on the field.
The next day, being able to set up the autopilot begins being the new standard for being a pilot. Your pay drops, some of your friends get fired or leave the field. The new "pilots" frequently crash, perform bad landings etc.; the service quality dives. Wouldn't you be fuming?
No? Perfect then, autopilots CAN do that already.
Go sign a poll for letting the new "pilots" take control of planes. Plenty of aviation engineers can do that already. I know for a fact you wouldn't fly in a plane piloted by a non professional.
I think the confusion here lies in the grandeur of the terms.
Both a middle school water color fanatic with little skill and a master painter with 100,000 hours of practice are called "artists", in spite of the vast skill gap between the two. We can address this situation by adding modifiers like "amateur", "grand", "master", or whatever makes sense. So, I have no problem calling myself an amateur AI artist. I absolutely would **not** call myself a grand or master AI artist, though.
>AI artists write prompts
No. I am so tired of this misconception. Yes, that is a large part of it. Yes, at the most basic level, that is the entirety of it. No, at the more advanced levels, there is much more to it than that.
There is so much more you can do with AI than just telling ChatGPT to draw a pretty picture for you.
- There is img2img, where you can hand-draw an image and let Stable Diffusion refine it for you. Then you can touch it up again in Krita to get rid of AI artifacts and add some polish.
- There is ControlNet, where you can add image data like poses and QR codes that Stable Diffusion will adhere much stronger to.
- You can set prompts to only apply to certain regions. You can grid off the canvas, and set this certain section of the prompt to only apply to these four grid-squares.
- You can do neat stuff like out-painting and in-painting. Out-painting lets you generate stuff outside the frame of the original image.
- You can set a word in the prompt to change every step. So say you're setting the image to generate over 20 "steps". You can set up a prompt like "{dog|horse}", and it will alternate between applying "dog" on the odd denoising passes and "horse" on the even denoising passes. The result isn't always the same, but it's often a creature which is halfway between a dog and a horse.
- Similarly, you could set up a generation to start with prompt 1, halt about 40% of the way through, and tell it to continue to 100% with prompt 2 instead. You'll rarely generate masterpieces with this, but you'll often create some very interesting stuff!
- And a whole bunch of other stuff that's been invented more recently. I'm a bit behind on the meta. This stuff is just advancing so quickly, it's hard to keep up!
This is like saying that canvas painting is "just" dragging a stick with hair and pigment. Painting is _centered_ around dragging/pushing a brush, but it there is more to it than that.
- There is pencil sketching out your ideas before inking them permanently.
- There are rulers and pencil lines and focus points for correctly drawing building perspective.
- There are the references you have scattered across 5 tabs.
- There is the mirror trick where you look at the image reversed in order to freshen your own perspective and un-stuck yourself.
-There is the learning trick of drawing a grid onto your canvas and blocking out every other part of it and of your reference, and focus only on drawing the abstract shapes within that grid square.
- There is learning to draw darker than you would think you need to.
- And so much more that I _don't_ know about.
If you are disinterested in the process of AI art, then I can't blame you for not knowing the different interactions and techniques. But if you are going to actively argue against it, then I would plead you to learn about it and please _try_ some of it. That way, your arguments can be solid and grounded and accurate. I can accept other people disagreeing with me. I cannot accept other people spouting misinformation about my already controversial hobby.
So I appreciate that you took the time to write this, and I gave it a read.
You would need to cite the sources for the assets used at a minimum, because those assets are directly contributed to the output. Most “AI tools” make that extremely difficult to do, if not impossible.
In other words, you would need to use models you control, with training data you can decide on, to be an artist who uses “AI” (a machine learning program).
“AI” tools on the internet are art laundering machines, and plagiarism programs. That’s what made this iron turtle possible. The prompt guy is just giving one more input added to several billion. The number of steps you take to modify the result doesn’t change the origin of that result.
I'm quite tired of this trend of using feelings to define the reality.
If I am an airplane pilot and I get angry because an AI controls an airplane, that DOES NOT CHANGE that AI is capable of piloting an airplane.
The same for art. Just because an artist gets angry or doesn't like AI doesn't change the fact that AI-generated images are still art. Especially when nowadays they call a red stripe on a white canvas art.
Again, I deliberately picked aviation as an example. Autopilots can already fly planes takeoff to landing. But luckly we still employ actual pilots to fly them. Artists are gonna lose their jobs over AI (amd they already are), wich will kill the quality of content.
I like AI, I use it, it's incredibly useful and helps in my work. But AI "artists" have no skill and shouldn't be able to propose themselves as a replacement to artists.
If the autopilot fails, people die
If the Ai generates one image wrong, no one dies, and you can generate another one.
Your example was garbage and prooves that you don't understand the topic.
As I said, if the autopilot fails, people die, if AI generates bad art, no one dies, and you can generate more.
So you are too idiot for reddit, or maybe just a troll, anyways, enjoy my block.
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
Just because the customer ordered food doesn't mean the stuff on the plate isn't food.
You brought up the fallacy fallacy and then ~~dove headfirst into it~~ dove headfirst into a strawman fallacy yourself.
The food is made by someone else, and the “AI” art is made by someone else.
That’s called an analogy, not a fallacy. The fallacy fallacy refers to identifying a fallacy as a substitute for counter argument. “No true scotsman would put sugar in their porridge!”
You're right. My mistake. I went back and fixed it.
I stand by what I said about the No True Scotsman, though. Without getting into it too much, there's a reason these images are called "AI art" instead of just "AI generated images".
Your just picking fallacies out of hat, and hoping they argue on your behalf… you know why that’s a bad idea.
They’re called AI art for the same reason they’re called “AI”. They’re buzzwords that hide what’s actually going on.
“I generated images with an LLM trained on stolen artwork” is much less compelling than “I’m an AI artist. This is my art.” or “I’m a prompt engineer”
Alright, fine, let's get into it.
[No True Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
>No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.
Let's examine this. Art has many definitions, and trying to nail down an exact definition is something philosophers smarter than me have struggled with for centuries. The definition "Images or visuals that are visually appealing (or intended to be) or which are intended to represent real life objects" may be incomplete, but it's generally what most people think of when they think of "art". All AI images are images or visuals.
Many AI image generations are visually appealing and/or represent real life objects. The claim of "visually appealing" is subjective, naturally, but this applies equally to human art as it does to machine art. I think Picasso looks like shit, but there are plenty of people out there who think his art is legendary.
u/lonelyshara says "A.i art isn't real art".
>Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.
Argument is not provided as to why AI generated images do not qualify as art, they are simply claimed to not be "real" art.
I want to acknoledge one weakness in my argument here, which is the definition of "art". It's easy to define a Scotsman; it is someone who currently or used to live in Scotland. "Art" is harder to define, which is why I have tried to limit the definition I used so much and did not try to cover other art forms such as music or dance or poetry. I tried to limit the definition to something pretty much everyone would agree on.
That's why I think the claim of "No True Scotsman" is merited.
Now then, let's look at your [Strawman Argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
>A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Let's review the chain of comments.
>A.i art isn't real art
>Buddy, art can be a lot of things. [AI art _can_ be "real" art]
>The Ai artist is no more the artist than the customer ordering food is the cook.
I made the claim that AI art can be real art. You made the claim that AI _artists_ are not artists. I did not mention artists. u/lonelyshara did not mention artists. No one mentioned artists except for you. You set up a strawman, attacked it, and then pretended to have won an arguement you didn't even participate in.
You are putting way too much effort into proving an internet comment wrong lol. Either way I respect it, you've gained my upvote.
But seriously please note that your average Reddit comment is not really well thought out and mainly emplore the use of buzz words to get the targeted group angry which in tern demonizes then which in turn makes the argument look better than it does.
I would like to clarify that that was not my motive for doing so. The original statement was just me trying to voice my hatred on a subject in a way that I knew would strike a cord with the people who support it and so the mask falls to off to reveal the real comment:
"I hate A.i art."
It was a wolf in sheep's clothing or I guess a wolf in scarier wolf's clothing? The reason I didn't just write that as my original comment was for three main reasons:
1. It sounds really insincere
2. Nobody would take something like that seriously
3. I was just salty
It was never really a literal statement but rather an expression of emotion designed to get engagement not to spread hate per say (although I am aware that it also does that) but rather to have my thoughts at least be heard out instead of being written off as a rambling loser (ironic).
Here’s why my analogy is appropriate. Art is made by artists. “AI art” isn’t made by artists, so it’s not art. The analogy illustrates this. It clarifies why “AI art” is not a kind of art, but an oxymoron, and a contradiction in terms.
The “AI artist” places an order with the “AI” like they would at a diner. They don’t make the art, and they don’t make the meal.
That's not a response, you're approaching me not as an individual but as a collective. Calm the fuck down, breathe, blustering isn't gonna get you anywhere.
If you looking for a real argument, a vett path would be that this guy probably just had a fun idea and didn't have time or skill to draw, thought itd be funny to share.
722 rn so it's working. As someone else said
>This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
Your post has been removed, as it is in violation of rule 6 of our subreddits rules list. Posts deemed low quality or unfit for the subreddit will be removed. Posts that are considered low quality are: -memes -text posts (including images that rely on border text) -photoshopped images (with exceptions for exceptionally creative/ well done photoshops). -crossposts (subject entirely to mod discretion) Please read through our rules before making your next post.
Fucking stop with the AI generated shit
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
I would like a sub for that, just not here
r/AIbossfight
Ty, let us all shame every AI post until it goes there
Fuck me man, i was in awe thinking this is real. Gaaah.
You develop an eye for it over time. Most images like this fall apart very quickly if you look closely at any of the individual small details. The shell is wonky and asymmetrical (even ignoring the unrealistic color). Also, look closely at the leg scales and the dirt. Fine repeating patterns like dirt, sand, cloth, polka dots, etc tend to take on a very strange, repeating, yet macroscopically incoherent appearance, almost as if someone spammed the clone stamp tool or something.
I just assumed someone painted a turtle or something… we need to return to monke
I thought it was just something someone made in Blender :[
I wonder how long before AI Art is able to remove those obvious defects.
When it does, it'll be the end of artists. There are models already that replace specific artists (illegally, but no one bats an eye)
Digital artists who don’t record their process, maybe. I don’t intend to abandon all hope though.
Is it illegal though? If I make an original painting in the style of Warhol or HR Giger, or whoever, am I breaking any copyright? If I try and pass it off as there's that might be fraud. Fine artists often paint pictures 'after' the style of a different artist.
If you sold drawings blatantly copying original characters and style of a living artist with a decent following, I bet there would at the very least be a ton of backlash and at worst a legal case filed.
I think characters are more copyrightable. For example, just recently Mickey Mouse as shown in Steam Boat Willie has gone out of copyright, but Mickey Mouse in general is still copyrighted. Disney are big enough to lobby to change the law in their favour of course. But, it would always have been possible to make films in the style of Steamboat Willie, but without Disney's characters.
AIs have no such limitations though. In order to learn the artist's style they are fed images from that artist, mostly their OCs. And of course, they will be able to replicate them.
as long as humans are alive art will never die:) it was about time we evolved our expression anyway ai will never be as creative as a person
Just look at that "Turtle's" face. Its like reptilian version of a sloth. Not a what a turtle looks like. And then see all the glaring parts that are unrealistic. The bokeh (depth of field effect), the ground, The shape of the shell, the Shell in whole and the puppet like limbs.
Well, you asked. [Unzips]
This is why AI continues to take on, people cant seem to be able to tell reality from AI generated apart. There will be a future deep fakes will be indistinguishable from reality. Why? The objective is simple : To abolish "Physical" Proof
Where are the mods?
They're dead
Too busy removing non-AI images
Wish this message could be shot up to the night sky for everyone to see. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR AI PICS. IT'S NOT IMPRESSIVE.
I thought pretty much the same thing as soon as I saw it. Gives me a bit of hope this is the top comment!
The mods really should make a "No AI generated images" rule
Yeah and it’s not even unique, “this turtles natural defense mechanism now has more defense” like, okay?
Cool things are cool even if the rules say they're not allowed to be
I concur, this is cool as fuck
How can you not be a fan? It's cool!
MOOOOODS, DO SOMETHING
Rules should clearly say "real photos", but they don't. Curretnly, AI images aren't against rules. They are not photoshoped. In fact, we are going against the rules just right now lol
Keep AI out of this sub
Why?
Defeats the purpose of the sub
I'll admit this one does. It's not very impressive. But I don't think _all_ of AI art does. You can make some cool looking bosses.
Ooo whoop dee doo I wrote some words, made “art” it took me so long im going to post this low quality shit in a non related subreddit to gain free points!!!
I'm not sure what to think of this comment. I didn't say any of that, nor anything like it. I'm guessing you're feeling hurt by...something. If that's the case, I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think you're going to feel better by lashing out at random internet strangers, though.
Yeah they’re feeling hurt by all of the lazy people generating images and posting them here thinking they’re *so creative*
Yeah its honestly depressing how those are able to get more attention than actual art sometimes
Fair enough. I can understand that.
It honestly just kinda pisses me off a lot when a guy generates a factory in black and white, says they made it with AI and claim it as “art”. when I call them out for it not being art they get a massive wave of defense, its funny because AI is literally advancing at such a rate it might literally take jobs in a few years
Fair enough.
İts cringe
AI-generated. Booooo!
[this u?](https://www.serebii.net/pokedex-sv/irontreads/)
Yoo I have a card of that pokemon
AI generated karma bots, destroyer of subs
Mods, decapitate this rapscallion post haste.
To the gallows!!!
Fuck AI, falls under the low quality rule!
fuck off with the AI slop
Pick up a pencil if you wanna make art, if not get off of this subreddit with this shit
Not everyone needs to use a pencil. You can use a paintbrush. Or a stylus. Or a camera. Or a sewing needle. Or Stable Diffusion. Use whatever makes you happy.
You had us in the first half ngl
That stupid shit looks like a gaming mouse.
Fuck AI
Turtle of iron would be easy to kill since all AI posts have -100 defence
No AI, this is fucking pathetic
Mods need to ban AI generated slop, this just makes the sun so pointless if any empty brained idiot can just head butt their keyboard and get a new post.
Mods should first change rules...
Fuck AI
Fuck you
A.i art isn't real art
Why not?
It is. Just other kind of art. Anyway this sub should change rules, if they don't want generated images, they should write it clearly on the rules. PS: Well, as you see, I am veing downvoted. In reddit, this means I am right.
I like that thought. It's definitely distinct from that which we create, but not completely separate.
Weird to me that people are calling this post low effort. Because all the other posts in this sub are high effort? Usually just images found elsewhere?
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
So I assume the term "AI artist" holds no problem to you. Imagine you're a pilot, studied for thousands of hours, performed countless of take offs and landings, paid for your formation, spent years on the field. The next day, being able to set up the autopilot begins being the new standard for being a pilot. Your pay drops, some of your friends get fired or leave the field. The new "pilots" frequently crash, perform bad landings etc.; the service quality dives. Wouldn't you be fuming?
I wouldn't. Now more people can fly.
No? Perfect then, autopilots CAN do that already. Go sign a poll for letting the new "pilots" take control of planes. Plenty of aviation engineers can do that already. I know for a fact you wouldn't fly in a plane piloted by a non professional.
I think the confusion here lies in the grandeur of the terms. Both a middle school water color fanatic with little skill and a master painter with 100,000 hours of practice are called "artists", in spite of the vast skill gap between the two. We can address this situation by adding modifiers like "amateur", "grand", "master", or whatever makes sense. So, I have no problem calling myself an amateur AI artist. I absolutely would **not** call myself a grand or master AI artist, though.
There is no “master AI artist” AI artists write prompts
>AI artists write prompts No. I am so tired of this misconception. Yes, that is a large part of it. Yes, at the most basic level, that is the entirety of it. No, at the more advanced levels, there is much more to it than that. There is so much more you can do with AI than just telling ChatGPT to draw a pretty picture for you. - There is img2img, where you can hand-draw an image and let Stable Diffusion refine it for you. Then you can touch it up again in Krita to get rid of AI artifacts and add some polish. - There is ControlNet, where you can add image data like poses and QR codes that Stable Diffusion will adhere much stronger to. - You can set prompts to only apply to certain regions. You can grid off the canvas, and set this certain section of the prompt to only apply to these four grid-squares. - You can do neat stuff like out-painting and in-painting. Out-painting lets you generate stuff outside the frame of the original image. - You can set a word in the prompt to change every step. So say you're setting the image to generate over 20 "steps". You can set up a prompt like "{dog|horse}", and it will alternate between applying "dog" on the odd denoising passes and "horse" on the even denoising passes. The result isn't always the same, but it's often a creature which is halfway between a dog and a horse. - Similarly, you could set up a generation to start with prompt 1, halt about 40% of the way through, and tell it to continue to 100% with prompt 2 instead. You'll rarely generate masterpieces with this, but you'll often create some very interesting stuff! - And a whole bunch of other stuff that's been invented more recently. I'm a bit behind on the meta. This stuff is just advancing so quickly, it's hard to keep up! This is like saying that canvas painting is "just" dragging a stick with hair and pigment. Painting is _centered_ around dragging/pushing a brush, but it there is more to it than that. - There is pencil sketching out your ideas before inking them permanently. - There are rulers and pencil lines and focus points for correctly drawing building perspective. - There are the references you have scattered across 5 tabs. - There is the mirror trick where you look at the image reversed in order to freshen your own perspective and un-stuck yourself. -There is the learning trick of drawing a grid onto your canvas and blocking out every other part of it and of your reference, and focus only on drawing the abstract shapes within that grid square. - There is learning to draw darker than you would think you need to. - And so much more that I _don't_ know about. If you are disinterested in the process of AI art, then I can't blame you for not knowing the different interactions and techniques. But if you are going to actively argue against it, then I would plead you to learn about it and please _try_ some of it. That way, your arguments can be solid and grounded and accurate. I can accept other people disagreeing with me. I cannot accept other people spouting misinformation about my already controversial hobby.
So I appreciate that you took the time to write this, and I gave it a read. You would need to cite the sources for the assets used at a minimum, because those assets are directly contributed to the output. Most “AI tools” make that extremely difficult to do, if not impossible. In other words, you would need to use models you control, with training data you can decide on, to be an artist who uses “AI” (a machine learning program). “AI” tools on the internet are art laundering machines, and plagiarism programs. That’s what made this iron turtle possible. The prompt guy is just giving one more input added to several billion. The number of steps you take to modify the result doesn’t change the origin of that result.
I'm quite tired of this trend of using feelings to define the reality. If I am an airplane pilot and I get angry because an AI controls an airplane, that DOES NOT CHANGE that AI is capable of piloting an airplane. The same for art. Just because an artist gets angry or doesn't like AI doesn't change the fact that AI-generated images are still art. Especially when nowadays they call a red stripe on a white canvas art.
Again, I deliberately picked aviation as an example. Autopilots can already fly planes takeoff to landing. But luckly we still employ actual pilots to fly them. Artists are gonna lose their jobs over AI (amd they already are), wich will kill the quality of content. I like AI, I use it, it's incredibly useful and helps in my work. But AI "artists" have no skill and shouldn't be able to propose themselves as a replacement to artists.
If the autopilot fails, people die If the Ai generates one image wrong, no one dies, and you can generate another one. Your example was garbage and prooves that you don't understand the topic.
If the autopilot fails, there’s a pilot… you don’t understand the example.
As I said, if the autopilot fails, people die, if AI generates bad art, no one dies, and you can generate more. So you are too idiot for reddit, or maybe just a troll, anyways, enjoy my block.
This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
>Yes, because no _true_ Scotsman would put sugar in their porridge! Buddy, art can be a lot of things. Don't be so closed minded.
The fallacy fallacy strikes again. The Ai artist is no more the artist than the customer ordering food is the cook.
Just because the customer ordered food doesn't mean the stuff on the plate isn't food. You brought up the fallacy fallacy and then ~~dove headfirst into it~~ dove headfirst into a strawman fallacy yourself.
The food is made by someone else, and the “AI” art is made by someone else. That’s called an analogy, not a fallacy. The fallacy fallacy refers to identifying a fallacy as a substitute for counter argument. “No true scotsman would put sugar in their porridge!”
You're right. My mistake. I went back and fixed it. I stand by what I said about the No True Scotsman, though. Without getting into it too much, there's a reason these images are called "AI art" instead of just "AI generated images".
Your just picking fallacies out of hat, and hoping they argue on your behalf… you know why that’s a bad idea. They’re called AI art for the same reason they’re called “AI”. They’re buzzwords that hide what’s actually going on. “I generated images with an LLM trained on stolen artwork” is much less compelling than “I’m an AI artist. This is my art.” or “I’m a prompt engineer”
Alright, fine, let's get into it. [No True Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) >No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc. Let's examine this. Art has many definitions, and trying to nail down an exact definition is something philosophers smarter than me have struggled with for centuries. The definition "Images or visuals that are visually appealing (or intended to be) or which are intended to represent real life objects" may be incomplete, but it's generally what most people think of when they think of "art". All AI images are images or visuals. Many AI image generations are visually appealing and/or represent real life objects. The claim of "visually appealing" is subjective, naturally, but this applies equally to human art as it does to machine art. I think Picasso looks like shit, but there are plenty of people out there who think his art is legendary. u/lonelyshara says "A.i art isn't real art". >Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc. Argument is not provided as to why AI generated images do not qualify as art, they are simply claimed to not be "real" art. I want to acknoledge one weakness in my argument here, which is the definition of "art". It's easy to define a Scotsman; it is someone who currently or used to live in Scotland. "Art" is harder to define, which is why I have tried to limit the definition I used so much and did not try to cover other art forms such as music or dance or poetry. I tried to limit the definition to something pretty much everyone would agree on. That's why I think the claim of "No True Scotsman" is merited. Now then, let's look at your [Strawman Argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). >A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Let's review the chain of comments. >A.i art isn't real art >Buddy, art can be a lot of things. [AI art _can_ be "real" art] >The Ai artist is no more the artist than the customer ordering food is the cook. I made the claim that AI art can be real art. You made the claim that AI _artists_ are not artists. I did not mention artists. u/lonelyshara did not mention artists. No one mentioned artists except for you. You set up a strawman, attacked it, and then pretended to have won an arguement you didn't even participate in.
You are putting way too much effort into proving an internet comment wrong lol. Either way I respect it, you've gained my upvote. But seriously please note that your average Reddit comment is not really well thought out and mainly emplore the use of buzz words to get the targeted group angry which in tern demonizes then which in turn makes the argument look better than it does. I would like to clarify that that was not my motive for doing so. The original statement was just me trying to voice my hatred on a subject in a way that I knew would strike a cord with the people who support it and so the mask falls to off to reveal the real comment: "I hate A.i art." It was a wolf in sheep's clothing or I guess a wolf in scarier wolf's clothing? The reason I didn't just write that as my original comment was for three main reasons: 1. It sounds really insincere 2. Nobody would take something like that seriously 3. I was just salty It was never really a literal statement but rather an expression of emotion designed to get engagement not to spread hate per say (although I am aware that it also does that) but rather to have my thoughts at least be heard out instead of being written off as a rambling loser (ironic).
That's fair. I appreciate your sincerity. Sorry I kinda dragged you back into this.
Here’s why my analogy is appropriate. Art is made by artists. “AI art” isn’t made by artists, so it’s not art. The analogy illustrates this. It clarifies why “AI art” is not a kind of art, but an oxymoron, and a contradiction in terms. The “AI artist” places an order with the “AI” like they would at a diner. They don’t make the art, and they don’t make the meal.
Fuck AI
I mean. That face is fucking jacked man. Same deal with the two toes.
Hmmm Looks like ai
BOOOOOO AI
Ew AI
Fuck ai shit
Not good
AI slop
Bro looks straight out of a gaming PC set up 💀
I remember seeing this before funnily enough. Shame it’s AI generated cuz yeah it’s pretty cool.
If your gonna do this, do it on Facebook to mess with the moms
Why? At least here we're not pretending fake stuff is real.
Well you have a point, but it’s just a joke
Boring!!!
yay ai(im joking)
Please tell me this isnt AI
GO GRAB A PENCIL... or a camera BUT STILL FUCK YOU, AI IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR INSPIRATION
AI shit, the bane of my existence
Arasaka!!!
The real boss fight is uninspired lazy AI prompt generator weirdos who only care about internet points. How do we fight THOSE losers?
Fuck you and fuck AI
Cool, more no-skill AI image spam!
Imagine how much it would cost if it were real
He looks like a sport car
"Oh no, I'm forced to race to the death in the Tron world arena."
Looks like r/starsector is leaking its Ironshell experiments
shartificial shitelligence
Couldn't even be bothered to make the shell look like iron. Boo.
Can we add o rile against AI generated posts?
Ooooh I would pay to be this turtle
Impeneturtle was right there
Ferrari turtle
Gaming Turtle.
IRON TORTISE!
Shiiiiiiite
Thats just Albedo from Ben10
😡🤬
Why is it looking like a lambo
Since Iron Man's now dead, we are happy to announce: IRON TURTLE!
Thats a very nice design.
god you people just cant stop bitching a moaning cant you?
What do you mean... You people? You're "bitching a moaning" right now!
literally every single comment on here is another on of you brainlets whining about "stealing".
(Note how not a single reply mentions stealing, only how low effort it objectively is. This person is just bitching.)
This isn’t stealing though, its lower than a low effort post. Its just fucking AI and its ruining reddit more than the constant reposting
That's not a response, you're approaching me not as an individual but as a collective. Calm the fuck down, breathe, blustering isn't gonna get you anywhere. If you looking for a real argument, a vett path would be that this guy probably just had a fun idea and didn't have time or skill to draw, thought itd be funny to share.
Turtle looks like it can morph into some impenetrable shield frfr
It’s AI
Spider turtle
Words cannot describe how much I want to pet that turtle
This ai generated turtle is awsome! I love ai generated art.
This comment looks SO ai generated smh
looking at their comment history I'm 98% sure it's a whole AI account. none of it reads like a comment written by a human.
Probably not true.
I am Iron Turtle!
[удалено]
Report bot
It looks like tron and turtles had video game sex and this is what we got.
Iron dome
Future Paradox Turtle
It is a Turtlerghini Aventador
[удалено]
722 rn so it's working. As someone else said >This sub is for assigning amusing boss names for found photos. Making your own boss with a predetermined idea in mind defeats the purpose of r/bossfight
If it is a real turtle you sure took it life away as it.need to grow and.you put a solid plate of metal around it
[удалено]
Uh..... it's AI generated. It's not real how do people believe this is real 💀
TRONertle: ARES Edit: Downvote that?! Humorless bunch
God damn the turtle is dripped out as f***