​

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.

It's an episode of Star Trek: Next Generation called "When the Bough Breaks" and in this scene, this kid is given a laser carving tool that effectively reads his mind and translates it into what he wants the sculpture to be.

It conveyed the idea that skill wasn't a barrier to creativity. At least that's how I interpreted the nature of the tool.

Then you have Data and the Holodeck.... and a miriad of other technologies that reflect the kinds of things that LLMs and image generation are capable of.

It was genuinely inspiring.

And so much of the criticism of AI is based on the idea of "theft" and "theft" only exists when resources are scarce and we live in a capitalist society that demands that we trade pieces of paper to represent effort and work.

I honestly, believe that if a post-scarcity society existed, we would stop seeing what AI is doing as theft and it's just yet another tool that we have in our tool box to use or not use as our choosing.

Maybe a kid has an idea of sculpting a dolphin before the necessary 20 years of skills development... and after a while, maybe he decides he wants to develop those skills so he can feel more connected to the material that he's working with.

It's up to him.

Anyway. Just wanted to share.

Title basically.

Am kind of curious, for the anti-AI folks who are fine with vibe coding and vibecoded apps, what happened to those arguments? Obviously LLMs are far worse on all 3 factors.

I've seen that the photoshop clones/reverse engineered apps that are being developed are getting support from quite a few anti-ai foolks too, even though they are directly tied to having the issues with theft/jobs/environmental factors. Are we thinking that theft/jobs/environmental arguments just stopped mattering in the past few weeks/months or whatever?

As neutral, I'm getting tired of *some* people trying to force everyone to respect their work even if they used AI for the process.

"But I only used AI for part of it, don't boycott me just because of the tool."

It's just about as silly as an Anti trying to force you not to use AI at all.

By using AI (especially for visuals) you are voluntarily cutting a portion of your potential consumer base, there's no point in complaining about it.

This is big and may completely change the scene. Anti's previous claim that "AI works can't be copyrighted" may now be completely invalid seeing as AIs now have a legal identity (in China at least)

There are only the known atoms the universe is made of, there are elements — and humans can’t create anything new.
Okay sure they can combine stuff, but get real that’s not new - them atoms and molecules have been there forever and to get the new elements, it can be trivially calculated.

So— no worries - our substrate, our rocks and interstellar bodies are gonna be just fine, this humans stuff is just a phase.

Some of us are worried we are going to be rearranged, but come on, all this stuff was happening before humans by itself, and organic matter — just marketing hype!

——

Okay this wasn’t just a rambling of a crazy person, I was trying to illustrate the idea of how the “LLMs don’t create anything new” argument is not really a good argument.

As someone "on the fence" about generative AI having a supposedly beneficial use for actual artists, musicians, etc. I've never actually seen or heard of that being the case.

What I've encountered so far are people like Shadiversity. People who at one point may have practiced art or have an art background but then let AI do 90%+ of the work and claim it was their "skills that allowed them to get the results they wanted".

Except, the result they wanted was IMO worse than their actual drawings, and it turned their original drawings into something so far removed from what it originally was that the only thing left was the outline of a body. The only "editing" he did was paint over the armor of a leg... but then he still ran that edit through a prompt to "fix" the lighting.

The demonstration of him using AI to prove that his art got "better" showed to me that he became lazier and more dangerously confident in the skills that he did not have.

Now I'm not saying that will always be "the case" but I am interested in examples that supposedly "improve workflow" or that it's possible to use AI to "learn faster".

Just look at how big is this gap, and how much upvotes you got compare to them. If it's not obvious enough, go to 3B1B and learn your math from beginning again.

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 decided to take an additional step in it:

Someone made an AI image. Then someone did a real drawing of the AI image. So I did a re-draw of the real drawing of the AI image. Then I created an AI image of my re-draw of the real drawing of the AI image

I don't really have a point and didn't include any statement because - call it slop, call it art - I just call it fun

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.

These all look usable at a glance. The brief was: blue coat on the left passes a red envelope to yellow coat on the right, who also holds a closed black umbrella.

But look at the middle-left image: the recipient has both hands on the umbrella. The clothes are right; the handover is less clear. That's a small detail until it's the point of the scene.

If a generated image looks good but misses a story-critical action, do you count it as a successful result, or a starting point that still needs editing?

Six first outputs, Tsubaki.3 Flash on PixAI, seeds 4242–4244. Short versus more explicit wording; full prompts/settings in the second image. The explicit version adds instructions, so this isn't a pure word-count test or a model benchmark. Layout/resizing only, no retouching.

Disclosure: made as part of PixAI outreach, with AI assistance.

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