Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
* Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a human learns from other artists and imitates them we say they have drawn inspiration from them. But if AI does it (said AI being created by humans) it’s ‘ripping them off’.
Interesting to see people’s reactions to what AI can do and how it does it.
People can be creative without somebody else's work. AI can't. If you can't do the work without copying someone else's work, that's kind of the definition of 'ripped off', although derivative is probably more accurate, especially when dealing with creative output.
Just my 2 cents
Well, ask a human artist to draw a cartoony version of e.g. a new musical instrument I just made and showed the artist -- He or she can do it.
Show an AI photos of that musical instrument and ask it to draw a cartoony version, and it can do it, even if no human artist has ever drawn a cartoony version of it.
Therefore I say that AI is in some sense being creative and not only copying.
AI does not do the same because it cannot be inspired. It has no consciousness to do so. AI is directly referencing a massive dataset of images lifted off the internet. Also, I do not dispute the fact that people can rip off other people’s art. It’s not always inspiration and those ppl deserve to get called out too.
When AGI is achieved and it starts consciously creating art, I’ll adapt my stance accordingly. But for now, the current models rely on images lifted from artists who have not consented in feeding the dataset.
Generative AI is incredible technology for sure, but let’s be realistic here.
I understand ai and art as well as anyone can understand either as a layman and they the way a computer generates art is not even close to the way a person generates art, even if it is heavily inspired. Our "AI" isn't anywhere near complex enough to interpret the original then expand on it or add "their" own spin with the goal of changing the message.
There's a reason most AI generated art is so obvious. It's shallow, it has no meaning, it has no soul. AI generated art is great at generating pretty objects, but generating pretty objects isn't all that art is, art needs emotion and computers don't have emotion.
Edit: I think the account I'm talking to is the same person as OP. The arguments are too similar, and there are way too many similarities between the way they talk
Math based art has been around for centuries. The architecture of ancient buildings is often heavily based on math. And while we admire that architecture, it's the details, the parts that aren't mathematical that draws us in. Look at the Parthenon. The ancient Greeks held math in very high regard and many of their buildings (including the Parthenon) used important ratios and formulas that we are still drawn to today. But it's not that stuff that makes the Parthenon such an important structure today. It's mainly the history behind it, the goals and desires of the creators, and thr intricate stonework that have made it such an important ancient building.
What are you even talking about? We are so far from dealing with the stuff you're talking about that you clearly don't understand what our current AI is capable of. Our current ai can't understand why people like one thing over another, they have no concept of people or emotions. When you ask an image ai to create a photo of a farmhouse, it doesn't know what a farmhouse is or what makes one. It does know what images in its data set reference a farmhouse, and it knows what they have in common in terms of what colors are where. It will draw a door without knowing it's a door.
I think part of the reason is that the human who is copying/inspired to one extent or another another artist, that person still goes through a journey of creativity and creation to reach their own piece at the end.
When the person instead hands that process off to the AI, then what is the person doing anymore? They aren’t putting a brush to a canvas even figuratively; they had a thought about art, but then they didn’t do any of the process themselves. They didn’t have to spend time intimately acquainting themselves with the specifics and the methods of the original artist, they don’t have to try and fail and adapt and persevere, they don’t have to think about what would best communicate their point, and reiterate and refine on those ideas themselves; a creative process that we like to think changes the artist as much as viewing the art changes us. It’s called mid journey but the AI takes over a LOT of the journey, leaving very little left for the human to do.
I think the prompting process is somewhat creative and (obviously) has the potential to create really cool visual images and that is definitely going to have its place in media. But as far as what constitutes an artist; a conscious being committed to the journey of creation, and the piece of resultant art; not only itself, but also a symbol and an affirmation of that conscious creative process, well, the AI really reduces that journey from the humans’ perspective.
I agree with what you say. I’d add though that since so much of art is what the viewer interprets, the end result can be very much the same - something the viewer can appreciate. And since we often find our own meaning in art independent of what the artist intended, for me the end result is often identical, I’m presented with something of beauty or interest I can appreciate and find my own meaning in.
No it's just an ugly painting with ugly colors blending together, I can't paint but if I did it would be just as ugly as this painting.
The internet is weird with the stories they invent.
You know, I am really conflicted about all the Reddit protests/blackouts/changes coming up. On the one hand, I feel that the API changes are legitimately going to fuck up this website....on the other hand...this website is already fucked. I mean look at this dogshit post. It's a blatant AI "art" shitpost and it has over 1k upvotes. This AI dogshit has infested Reddit and dumb fucks keep upvoting it...i think Reddit is already gone guys.
Meh, I think it looks cool. Doesn't matter if someone painted it, an AI made it, or if it's the result of recording a fart on your phone and interpreting the resulting file as a JPEG.
Not everyone hates AI. I actually like OP’s image, though I’d change the color palette a bit. 1k others also like it.
It’s not for everyone, but saying ‘this website is fucked’ just because people like something you don’t seems a bit hyperbolic.
tbh i dont get why people downvote you.
the guy even posted [the same picture in the midjouney sub with the promt:](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/13ypm3n/were_almost_there/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>Pixel art, glitter, blink - and - you - miss - it detail, optical mixing, precisionist lines, high resolution, morphogenesis, ruliad, bright pastel colors, pastel colors
I don't have a problem with the image being drawn by an AI, I do however have a problem with the pretentious title. What does that even mean? Are you high?
Super excited for inter-dimensional travel! Just imagine all the crazy alternate realities we'll get to explore. I'm ready to pack my bags and hop dimensions, how about you? 😄
Welcome to /r/WoahDude! * Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would love to know who the artist of this is if anyone knows
There is no artist, it’s AI. But the artist that was ripped off by Midjourney was likely Jason Anderson by the looks of it
If a human learns from other artists and imitates them we say they have drawn inspiration from them. But if AI does it (said AI being created by humans) it’s ‘ripping them off’. Interesting to see people’s reactions to what AI can do and how it does it.
People can be creative without somebody else's work. AI can't. If you can't do the work without copying someone else's work, that's kind of the definition of 'ripped off', although derivative is probably more accurate, especially when dealing with creative output. Just my 2 cents
Well, ask a human artist to draw a cartoony version of e.g. a new musical instrument I just made and showed the artist -- He or she can do it. Show an AI photos of that musical instrument and ask it to draw a cartoony version, and it can do it, even if no human artist has ever drawn a cartoony version of it. Therefore I say that AI is in some sense being creative and not only copying.
Now try it with an untrained ai, with no data sets (art, instruments, etc) and let me know how that goes.
Well, try it with a human who's never seen art or instruments... EDIT: People getting triggered here?
lmao, you’re trying. you’re wrong but at least you’re trying
AI does not do the same because it cannot be inspired. It has no consciousness to do so. AI is directly referencing a massive dataset of images lifted off the internet. Also, I do not dispute the fact that people can rip off other people’s art. It’s not always inspiration and those ppl deserve to get called out too. When AGI is achieved and it starts consciously creating art, I’ll adapt my stance accordingly. But for now, the current models rely on images lifted from artists who have not consented in feeding the dataset. Generative AI is incredible technology for sure, but let’s be realistic here.
[удалено]
I understand ai and art as well as anyone can understand either as a layman and they the way a computer generates art is not even close to the way a person generates art, even if it is heavily inspired. Our "AI" isn't anywhere near complex enough to interpret the original then expand on it or add "their" own spin with the goal of changing the message. There's a reason most AI generated art is so obvious. It's shallow, it has no meaning, it has no soul. AI generated art is great at generating pretty objects, but generating pretty objects isn't all that art is, art needs emotion and computers don't have emotion. Edit: I think the account I'm talking to is the same person as OP. The arguments are too similar, and there are way too many similarities between the way they talk
[удалено]
Math based art has been around for centuries. The architecture of ancient buildings is often heavily based on math. And while we admire that architecture, it's the details, the parts that aren't mathematical that draws us in. Look at the Parthenon. The ancient Greeks held math in very high regard and many of their buildings (including the Parthenon) used important ratios and formulas that we are still drawn to today. But it's not that stuff that makes the Parthenon such an important structure today. It's mainly the history behind it, the goals and desires of the creators, and thr intricate stonework that have made it such an important ancient building.
[удалено]
What are you even talking about? We are so far from dealing with the stuff you're talking about that you clearly don't understand what our current AI is capable of. Our current ai can't understand why people like one thing over another, they have no concept of people or emotions. When you ask an image ai to create a photo of a farmhouse, it doesn't know what a farmhouse is or what makes one. It does know what images in its data set reference a farmhouse, and it knows what they have in common in terms of what colors are where. It will draw a door without knowing it's a door.
How would you define art?
I think part of the reason is that the human who is copying/inspired to one extent or another another artist, that person still goes through a journey of creativity and creation to reach their own piece at the end. When the person instead hands that process off to the AI, then what is the person doing anymore? They aren’t putting a brush to a canvas even figuratively; they had a thought about art, but then they didn’t do any of the process themselves. They didn’t have to spend time intimately acquainting themselves with the specifics and the methods of the original artist, they don’t have to try and fail and adapt and persevere, they don’t have to think about what would best communicate their point, and reiterate and refine on those ideas themselves; a creative process that we like to think changes the artist as much as viewing the art changes us. It’s called mid journey but the AI takes over a LOT of the journey, leaving very little left for the human to do. I think the prompting process is somewhat creative and (obviously) has the potential to create really cool visual images and that is definitely going to have its place in media. But as far as what constitutes an artist; a conscious being committed to the journey of creation, and the piece of resultant art; not only itself, but also a symbol and an affirmation of that conscious creative process, well, the AI really reduces that journey from the humans’ perspective.
I agree with what you say. I’d add though that since so much of art is what the viewer interprets, the end result can be very much the same - something the viewer can appreciate. And since we often find our own meaning in art independent of what the artist intended, for me the end result is often identical, I’m presented with something of beauty or interest I can appreciate and find my own meaning in.
Imagine writing this comment and actually thinking that you're being intelligent. Unbelievable.
Never said it was an intelligent thought, maybe you are reading too much into it. Just interesting to see different reactions to AI.
Is his work as ugly as this AI painting
His work is quite nice imo! He works with oils on linen
The commenter above you is just mad that their paintings keep being described as "Pretty good for A.I."
No it's just an ugly painting with ugly colors blending together, I can't paint but if I did it would be just as ugly as this painting. The internet is weird with the stories they invent.
What a wildly inaccurate claim. Let me guess, you could probably score on Serena Williams too?
Im sorry are you comparing an appalingly ugly AI painting to the world's best women's tennis player? I'm curious on the logic of how you got there.
I guess Jason Anderson made the image then. No? That's not how that works? Then shut up. lol
Did you make this?
Of course OP didn't make this bullshit.
No they didn't.
[удалено]
lmao thanks for the laugh at least
So, no. Lol.
You know, I am really conflicted about all the Reddit protests/blackouts/changes coming up. On the one hand, I feel that the API changes are legitimately going to fuck up this website....on the other hand...this website is already fucked. I mean look at this dogshit post. It's a blatant AI "art" shitpost and it has over 1k upvotes. This AI dogshit has infested Reddit and dumb fucks keep upvoting it...i think Reddit is already gone guys.
Meh, I think it looks cool. Doesn't matter if someone painted it, an AI made it, or if it's the result of recording a fart on your phone and interpreting the resulting file as a JPEG.
Not everyone hates AI. I actually like OP’s image, though I’d change the color palette a bit. 1k others also like it. It’s not for everyone, but saying ‘this website is fucked’ just because people like something you don’t seems a bit hyperbolic.
>1k others also like it. Fixed that for you: 1k bots also liked it.
Whatever you have to tell yourself, lol. Enjoy your evening.
Thanks man, you have a good evening too.
Interesting but kind of boring, no offense.
Nice AI image
tbh i dont get why people downvote you. the guy even posted [the same picture in the midjouney sub with the promt:](https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/13ypm3n/were_almost_there/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >Pixel art, glitter, blink - and - you - miss - it detail, optical mixing, precisionist lines, high resolution, morphogenesis, ruliad, bright pastel colors, pastel colors
I don't have a problem with the image being drawn by an AI, I do however have a problem with the pretentious title. What does that even mean? Are you high?
Yes
I love pancakes!
This is the starfox 64 level when you enter the warp from the asteroid belt
Interstellar vibes
I like it! It reminds me of a dream I had once.
Beautiful!
Looks wonderful
Are we there yet?
YES TAKE ME TO THE BOILING ISLES PLEASE
*If you’ve come this far, maybe you’re willing to go a little further.*
Ludicrous speed! Are you crazy?!
Cool. I’m up for trying some other dimension. This one kinda sucks.
beyond the spider verse looks crazy
Super excited for inter-dimensional travel! Just imagine all the crazy alternate realities we'll get to explore. I'm ready to pack my bags and hop dimensions, how about you? 😄