​

The pic originally implies that AI art is not art/it is bad, because "microwave" is expected to automatically have negative implications (here: no expertise, no flavour),

I think there's some truth in the metaphor, but not in the way mentioned in the pic.

The similarity is that a microwave oven is a fucking tool.

To heat food.

That's it.

A talented person can make a delicious meal even if they utilize a microwave for a few steps. Maybe they are able to create unique dishes that can only be done with the help of a microwave.

Maybe we don't need to eat at a 5 star restaurant every day. Antis have microwaves in their homes too, and use it when they don't have the time, strength, effort etc. But using AI is somehow suddenly heresy.

And we haven't even talked about some microwave food actually being nice. Sometimes you are in the mood for a cup ramen, a mug muffin, your favorite leftovers.

This anti-ai purism that blindly rejects anything related to AI is exactly so backwards and hindering to society. I don't think AI is perfect and there's definitely things to be done about it differently, but picking something useful, sensible, handy, and judging and rejecting it based on some arbitrary personal double standard shit is just so dumb.

I mean, I suppose there's reasons for this in other tasks like research and all that, but when a younger person i know is talking about using chatgpt or claude or any of those for a creative task, i kinda feel like we took it too far

I feel like a farmer who’s just seen a steam engine for the first time.

It’s both fascinating and frightening at the same time.

The ability not only to speed up so many workflows to the point where human input and processing border on the phenomenal. I know that’s a big word, but that’s exactly what it is.

It’s not just that, but the ability to orchestrate multiple workflows simultaneously.

You get the feeling that the flood of information is so overwhelming that you can no longer keep up with what’s actually happening on the screen; it’s no longer the work itself that’s the limiting factor, but the multitasking of your own brain and limit of your fingers on a Keyboard.

As if that weren’t enough, there’s the sheer speed at which processes are completed, tasks that would normally keep several people busy for a long time.

I’m writing this for one reason: so that people who don’t work with it or use it can understand what it feels like for someone using it for the first time.

The world is set to change fundamentally over the next few years; the level of automation looks like something out of a sci-fi movie.

For context, I've been drawing for over a decade (and really even before that, if you count all of the drawing I did before I ever moved over to doing digital art) off and on, and it's always been something I enjoyed!

Even more, I've always had an intense passion for the visual arts in general (I literally spend hours per day browsing Twitter and Pinterest and Pixiv etc. and looking at art just because I like to)

Yet, people always assume that I have no artistic experience and the reason why I like AI art (and call myself an AI artist) is simply because of lack of skill, or lack of effort, or because I dislike drawing.

But none of that is true! I would say I am a pretty intermediately skilled traditional artist. I enjoy putting effort into artwork, I put tons of effort even into AI artwork. I literally enjoy the process of creating art, no matter what method is used. Whether it's 3D modelling, or drawing in Clip Studio Paint with my tablet, or doodling on an envelop, or coloring in line art, or making vector art pieces in Illustrator, or training LoRAs to use in ComfyUI, or generating AI artwork - I enjoy almost every kind of visual art production that there is!

Not to say that every person who is an AI artist has to be a traditional artist as well. But my point is that not everybody fits into neat little boxes that you want them to fit into!

I am a traditional artist and I use AI tools because 1. I like to stay up to date with new technologies, and I would rather learn now than regret it later when I have to catch up and 2. It helps me bring quick doodles to life much faster, so I don't have to invest so much time into little comics, memes, or whatever else. I would rather be spending that time on my actual pieces!

And that doesn't make somebody a traitor to art. It's likely that my art is a part of what was used for AI training, but I don't resent that fact! Actually, many of my Pro-AI friends for one reason or another could not enjoy expressing their creativity in the same way as I can before AI, and I wholly support more people being able to bring their imagination to life with new tools.

So don't assume that just because somebody is Pro-AI art, or thinks that AI art is real art, that they are some newcomer to the visual arts with no prior experience!!!

I mean, im pretty sure this is what he was referring to right?

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/news/simons-foundation-launches-15m-effort-to-help-mathematicians-navigate-ai-era/

https://already-clean.goodfire.com/

“I think I have good news about the nature of neural networks.”

“After many months studying neurons and circuits in image and language models, I’ve come to believe a network’s own mechanisms are its legible building blocks, and that the outlook for mechanistic interpretability may be far better than I’d feared. The canonical evidence of polysemanticity and superposition that convinced much of the field, including me, that networks pack concepts arbitrarily was misread. What looked like arbitrary packing was mostly a motif I’ll call recursive generalization, which is much less concerning. This means we can study networks directly, instead of first untangling them. Neural networks are already clean.”

Alright, this makes the existential dread levels fall a bit. However, now we need to worry about how mankind directs this technology more so than in obliterating us with hyper competence/ hyper literalism/ hyper indifference

So, with the good news, what do you all think about future prospects now? More “good” and “acceptable” futures now are within reach as understanding of these minds as they grow more intelligent won’t be a runaway issue.

You see, I am an Artist and considered myself an Anti-Ai. I don't like Ai Art, i just personally think it looks unhuman and uncanny and genuinely horrified me and give me goosebumps when i looked at it

But heres a thing, a VERY important thing. Ai Art is Art and yet it is very different from Drawing hence shouldn't be merged into the art of drawing or replace drawing as whole, it should be a complete artform all together

I feel like the existence of Ai Generation is similar to Photography. Artist at the development of photography afraid that it would replace drawing and met it with hostility and im very sure there people who aren't artist believe it will replace drawing and very supportive of photography being drawing "replacement" but after a decade that supposed replacement simply dont exist, Photography simply went on as its own thing and Drawing still existed and hell they even evolved and thrived in the digital era

So if Photography become it's own art-form and be seperate from Drawing why not the same as Ai Generation. Ai Generation shouldn't pose as the Art of Drawing instead they become, well themselves and be seperate from Drawing.

Which means i found a solution of the conflict between Ai Generation and Drawing in half a decade and the solution is to let Ai Generation considered to be an Art-form and be itself and be different from the Art of Drawing instead of posing itself as Drawing

Awesome, Awesome come to think of it an Ai Generation fandom should be filled with Programmers and Engineers oh well, I hope all of us agree to this

A Catholic archbishop in Belarus recently blessed an AI-assisted image of Saint Carlo Acutis, and some believers aren't happy about it.

What's interesting is that the artwork wasn't simply generated by typing a prompt. Three people, including a prompt engineer, designer and photographer, contributed to its creation using AI and other digital tools.

Some critics argue that AI-generated images shouldn't be used for religious devotion. But that raises an interesting question about what makes art authentic in the first place.

If humans are involved in the creative process, at what point does AI assistance supposedly invalidate the work?

And does the answer change when the artwork has religious or cultural significance?

I'm curious how both pro-AI and anti-AI people here would approach this. Is the objection really about the technology, the creative process, or the context in which the artwork is used?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oH1NACBgS4

Can't mention their names due to rules but it's the ones for and against AI. They lean so freaking far each way and the takes from each of them are absolutely abysmal.

I saw a post where the anti AI people have been encouraging vandalism of people's AI generated posters. Like dude, it's not that deep to be destroying someones stuff even if you don't like it.

The pro AI people seem to think that anyone who has any opinion at all on regulation or even rules prohibiting it's use in their own business/communities are hitler. Like no man, people are allowed to have boundaries you don't like.

Don't get me wrong, I use AI every day, but maybe just maybe we shouldn't let it go unregulated and should try to make sensible laws so it's more difficult for people to generate revenge porn, voices of family members for scams, etc.

I genuinely feel like the only actual sane position is a centrist position which is crazy to me in itself as I've always found centrist positions for stuff like politics quite annoying.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/the-daily/100000011211514/why-ai-has-this-mathematician-in-tears.html

The moment the Ukraine bombed that Russian AI data center, I stopped getting 10+ spam calls per day.