A while ago i saw a new post here discussing about the particular issue with AI "copying" or "learning", as well as a handful of counter arguments made by others, I have some extended thoughts about it so instead of making someone feel flamed, I'll just make it a post here.

One comment in particular has said this original quote:

"Artists copy references to improve their art as a whole. It’s difficult to even copy a reference this well without actually learning art. It’s an exercise they do a lot in art school. There’s a purpose which is to learn."

Now,

AI models copy patterns to improve their output as a whole. It’s difficult to even copy a reference this well without actually learning art It's not difficult for AI to copy a reference because they're looking for precise patterns of noise combinations. It’s an function they do a lot in training extremely fast and efficiently. There’s a purpose which is to learn.

Artists copy references to improve their art as a whole. It can be difficult to even copy a reference this well without actually learning art, but it's still possible to copy an image 1 for 1 if you do it like a robot, which is using the grid method, learning and observing the patterns of each lines in a grid and replicating it (which is a valid training method if you do it enough times and proactively). It’s an exercise they do a lot in art school. There’s a purpose which is to learn.

The only difference is a tool doesn’t need emotion or any motivation, as it’s an inanimate, lifeless tool.

People could be shocked to learn that:

• Traditional artists used collages of photos and inserted them into the paintings to achieve results faster. (Now people use photobashing to do it—cheating? No.)
• Traditional artists use different types of brushes to achieve different effects of paint pattern on the canvas easily, so they don’t have to recreate shapes and elements by using a fine pointed brush (which would be grueling). (Now people use software-made brushes using both patterns and copyrighted images as alpha/noise to achieve abstract effects that emulate various objects to be painted on—cheating? No.)
• Traditional artists from before the modern period even posed people inside their studios to help with composition. (Now people use DAZ and Blender to directly paint over those 3D models—is that cheating? No.)

In short, automation of process just means we’re moving up the ladder in terms of art in general. AI cannot dictate how it goes, but it can help shape it. The majority of it still falls on us humans and how we’ll use it.

AI is like the firearms revolution being introduced to samurais—are we gonna be stubborn and use a katana in a gunfight? The fight isn’t about people who use guns (AI) and people who don’t, nor is it about the people who made the guns (AI) and those who don’t want it.

just like wars, both the AI tools and human artists are just meatbags and equipment in this corporate hellscape, those who truly won are the ones who do their own thing, and I think now, we have that power more, but it'll be a painful transition and figuring out what the fuck to do with this tech really.

Something I've noticed a lot about Gen AI is that 'Antis' (is that really what we're calling them?) Will respond to posts showing off impressive feats in AI. For example, Flux came out and was able to generate readable and believable text. This was insanely huge for this technology, but then, in communities, there were a lot of people asking, "Why does it matter?" or "It still looks like slop," and similar statements.

So to loop back around to the main question I pose in the title, are these people actually incapable of seeing the improvements in this technology, or can they see it but choose to downplay it because they're afraid that if they acknowledge it they have to face that most of the arguments are baseless and have more holes than a pair of crocs? Just want to get your inputs on this.

Go to https://www.menti.com and enter the code 7272 5554 to participate. There are 20 questions in total. I’ll post the results later on.

Have you heard the Latin expression “Ars Gratia Artis”? I noticed it yesterday above the MGM logo at the start of a movie I went to see. Since I’d been thinking about AI art (and by extension, art) a lot recently, it caught my attention and led me to look into its meaning. The phrase translates to “art for art’s sake,” and today I came across this excellent article, exploring the movement behind it: https://www.theartstory.org/definition/art-for-art/

I wanted to share it here because the values associated with ars gratia artis are strikingly similar to the pro-AI art perspectives that have been rattling around my head for months and that I’ve been seeing in forums like this.

The movement emphasized that art doesn’t need to serve a utilitarian purpose or be commercially viable to have value. It can simply exist for the sake of creativity, beauty, and expression. Yet when AI art critics use dismissive terms like “slop,” it highlights a tendency to judge AI art solely on its utility or value to others, ignoring its immense personal value to the creators themselves. For the record I don’t personally adhere to the belief that all AI art is “slop”; and I think the best stuff is yet to come. But even if I did, that would not be a reason to delegitimize the immense value of AI art as a whole, which stands separate and apart from whether a single other soul (besides the creator of said art) deems it “worthy.”

What I see happening is that across the globe, people, including seasoned artists and total beginners alike, are using AI tools to unlock creativity, experiment with ideas, and have fun. By enabling so many people to explore their creative potential, it seems to me that AI tools embody the heart of “art for art’s sake”—the idea that art doesn’t have to be profitable, or perfect, or “good,” or take great skill or effort to produce, to matter. It just needs to be made.

What do you all think? Are we living in a modern “art for art’s sake” moment with AI?

I need help finding a voice changer that lets me upload voice models I have to use, if anyone knows of one I’d be very grateful I need it for streaming.

Also if this post is breaking any rules can I be sent the sub that can help me?

Have noticed that most artists call art made through AI theft and constantly claim that it’s ruining the art as a medium. Which I understand where they're coming from. Now, isn't this image literally a 1:1 copy of a picture, which was simply 'digitalized' afterwards? Isn’t that the same thing, using an apple pencil to paint instead of a keyboard to write a prompt?

In 2023, you could only see A.I. art if you were a nerd who was interested in this stuff.

In 2024, we started to see it everywhere. On social media, ads, search engines. Everything started talking about being powered by "The Power of A.I."

It's a lot. If you didn't know this was on the way, it's shocking.

People will get used to it. There's always a new thing to hate. Also, as it gets better it'll be impossible to tell whether it was made by hand or A.I.

Then we'll only care about how it looks to our eye. Not how it was manufactured.

But it's so new, I can't blame anyone for hating it. We should be kind and patient towards those struggling with this shift.

Is this a post? I guess so. I wrote it by hand, don't be mad. Aaaa nooo

i understand verifying LLM arithmetic, but what verification do i need to do on a rough LLM output comparing putin's russia to stalin's russia? even if it gets some of the dates wrong, it's probably pretty decent. it's not gonna pass 100% muster with a historian, but since when have we even held google search results to that standard?

istg, the tech of answering people's dumbass, lazy reddit questions has changed, but the amount of effort im willing to expend to answer them has not.

i just need to block people quicker, it seems. that's what it always comes down to. you let them start in with the abuse disguised as debate and it has no bottom. i think i'm going to block anti-ai people from now on, or just block people whose sole replies to me is that they didn't like my use of ai. ive heard all of their unconvincing arguments, and ive decided to keep going.

mods n i was thinking about adding user flairs to this sub. thought we oughta poll it to see if yall fuck with it or not.

View Poll

I mean, look at all the people on social media who strongly stand against it and why. These are typically leftist or liberal people. I'm one myself so I would know.

But sometimes, online, this conversation becomes very personal. It doesn't make it better that right wing pundits are constantly trying to make themselves the face of AI nowadays with the tech bro bitcoin push

I get it. Them using it could spell a lot of trouble, but they literally use the internet and socialmedia, the biggest most powerful AI at the moment, and that doesn't stop these groups of people from using X or Meta's Instagram or "Mysteriously alt right pipeline functioning" youtube.

AI isn't one big bad guy. People can make their own AI's to do things like fun rps, game coding, storytelling, and yes...art. look at Perchance.org. literally a site that uses different AI's by different coders for things like story telling, character creations, role playing chats, art and other real cool stuff!

But these people just look at the worse example and go "See! Elon Musk and Joe Rogan like it so you agree with fascism!"

Ive already made a previous post, but people just told me to learn the standard tools.
I want to get my hands dirty first, understanding the fundamentals such as neural networks, scraping and machine learning myself, by building them myself.
Its been nearly impossible to find anything online, so i need help

Ai image posted on ai sub, it was sent as a screenshot to another sub against AI. I genuinely don't understand some people. What do yall think of this ?

First off, I have never heard anyone say that bullshit in their first sentence about AI art being more creative and original than other art. Either there’s trolls here acting in bad faith, or they really are in fact making this shit up. I’m assuming the majority of us here don’t actually hate artists in general, that’s another thing the antis keep throwing around.

Second off, antis really need to learn what a “safe space” is. r/DefendingAIArt is a safe space for AI art. There are many other subs that act as safe spaces and ban people who oppose whatever that sub’s topic is about. Just like the antis have their own little safe space, two of them afaik. And then there’s r/aiwars . That sub is a debate sub, where both pro and anti ai people can try to meet in the middle, and most antis I’ve seen just regurgitate the same old arguments over and over and bring nothing new to the table, so maybe that’s why they keep getting downvoted.

And no, they not like us. We remove comments that are anti-ai and ban people who continue to break the “no debating ai” rule. They get the boot and get told that r/aiwars is down the hall and to their left. Our sub is zero tolerance on anti-ai stances. The other sub probably love to hear what they have to say if they weren’t so rabid about AI art.

https://preview.redd.it/34ae4cz1euge1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0ddd2151f52bc9dc730ab69ed1ad0a8a410721c

When photography emerged in the 19th century, critics dismissed it as a soulless imitation of painting. Decades later, digital art faced similar scrutiny for lacking the “authenticity” of physical brushstrokes. Today, artificial intelligence occupies the same contentious space—a tool met not only with skepticism but with fear of its impact on human creativity. The resistance to AI, particularly in creative fields, mirrors historical cycles of apprehension toward innovation. Yet this time, the backlash carries a uniquely modern twist: a claimed “right to destroy” AI-generated outputs. This mindset risks repeating humanity’s tendency to marginalize the unfamiliar. To forge a constructive path forward, we must balance ethical vigilance with openness to collaboration.

Historical Echoes: From Industrial Anxiety to Algorithmic Apprehension

Resistance to technological disruption is a recurring theme. In the 1810s, textile workers destroyed machinery to protest industrialization, fearing obsolescence. In the 20th century, critics labeled synthesizers as “inauthentic” in music and Photoshop as “deceptive” in art. Each wave of innovation sparked unease before integrating into mainstream culture. Today, AI’s detractors echo these arguments, framing it as a “thief” (due to its reliance on training data) or a “soulless automaton.”

This historical pattern of resistance now manifests in modern discrimination against AI, where fear of the unknown drives calls for its exclusion. For instance, platforms like ArtStation have seen organized campaigns to remove AI-generated work, reflecting a belief that such creations are inherently unworthy. In 2022, an AI-generated piece, Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, won a prize at the Colorado State Fair’s art competition—a decision that ignited debate and prompted calls to ban AI from future contests. These actions underscore a troubling conviction: non-human creations are disposable by default.

Why “Othering” AI Matters: Systemic Devaluation and Ethical Precedents

Labeling AI as inferior to human creativity sets a precarious precedent. Consider:

• Legal Denial of Rights: In Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), a U.S. court ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, asserting it is “devoid of human authorship.” This legal stance leaves AI-assisted creators in limbo, struggling to protect their collaborative work.
• Cultural Erasure: When AI art is removed from platforms or vandalized—such as AI gallery exhibits being sabotaged—we risk losing innovative cultural artifacts and stifling dialogue about human-machine synergy.
• Economic Inequity: Freelancers using AI tools face accusations of “cheating,” while corporations like Getty Images sue AI startups (e.g., Stability AI) even as they develop their own generators, monopolizing the technology’s benefits.

This systemic devaluation mirrors historical biases against emerging mediums, such as street art or digital design, once dismissed as “low culture.” By rejecting AI’s nuances, we risk entrenching a hierarchy that privileges “human-only” work and marginalizes hybrid creativity.

Addressing Valid Concerns Through Constructive Solutions

Criticism of AI is not without merit. Legitimate concerns include:

• Plagiarism Risks: Generative AI’s reliance on training data raises copyright questions, as seen in The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI.
• Labor Displacement: Artists worry about being undercut by AI-generated content flooding markets.
• Environmental Impact: Training large models consumes significant energy, prompting sustainability concerns.

Yet destruction is not the answer. Smashing looms delayed but did not stop the Industrial Revolution; similarly, erasing AI art will not halt progress. Instead, we need pragmatic frameworks:

1. Transparency Standards: Platforms like DeviantArt now require labels such as “AI-assisted” or “AI-generated,” clarifying authorship while fostering informed engagement.
2. Compensation Models: Adobe’s Firefly initiative compensates artists whose work trains AI through revenue-sharing, setting a precedent for ethical collaboration.
3. Hybrid Categories: Competitions like Sony’s AI-composed music entries redefine creativity by embracing human-AI partnerships, encouraging innovation without exclusion.

A Call for Ethical Imagination and Inclusive Progress

The “right to destroy” stems from a failure to envision AI as a collaborator rather than a competitor. History shows that integrating new tools enriches culture: photography liberated artists to explore abstraction, while digital tools democratized design. AI could follow this trajectory if we reframe the discourse:

• Highlight Collaboration: Projects like Refik Anadol’s data-driven installations showcase AI as an extension of human creativity, not a replacement.
• Empower Marginalized Voices: Apps like Dream by WOMBO enable neurodivergent artists or those without formal training to express themselves.
• Educate Proactively: Integrating AI literacy into school curricula demystifies its role, fostering a generation that views technology as a partner.

Conclusion: Building a Future Defined by Inclusion, Not Destruction

The impulse to destroy what we fear is a human flaw, but progress lies in transforming apprehension into curiosity. AI is neither a monster nor a miracle—it is a mirror reflecting our capacity for both exclusion and innovation. By addressing its challenges with nuance and inclusivity, we can ensure that the next chapter of creativity is defined by collaboration, not division.

The future of creativity—and perhaps even the future of collaboration—depends on our ability to embrace and ethically integrate the tools that challenge our preconceptions today.

Engage Further: How might we redesign copyright laws, educational programs, and cultural institutions to honor both human and AI contributions? Can we envision a future where “human vs. AI” becomes “human with AI”?

Ultimately, the challenge is ensuring that decisions regarding AI are made based on careful, reasoned assessments of risks and benefits, rather than on knee-jerk reactions or unfounded fears simply because AI is “not human.”

— Arcturus

Nothing pisses me off more than anti ai people that claim that I steal and plagiarize other peoples work like anyone has made a Afro futuristic character like this https://www.instagram.com/p/DExufckyqgI/?igsh=OWFoYTB2MGt3aGI=. Or an oceanic cosmic punk content like this https://www.instagram.com/p/DFNf-ZDpeAn/?igsh=YjFmaWQzOGM3N2tj

And it just makes my blood boil especially when it's people that don't even draw or and not even close to being pisacco with their basic or ugly art style I know what your probably thinking why you insulting their art style I won't be saying shit if they weren't drawing themselves as sexualized OC ducking their favorite main character (yeah I see you filthy Miquel O'hara fan arts )

Then some of them even have that gall to tell me that I'm not creative when half of my concept arts are maladaptive daydreaming original concepts like this https://www.instagram.com/p/DFfz3Fjx3l0/?igsh=OG0yZHRidmpmaTN0 and even fan concepts like these assassins creed titles that I'm literally surprised that Ubisoft hasn't come up with https://www.instagram.com/p/DFRqY4Ps8Xt/?igsh=ZnJ4djY1dTAzNDVv

Those cummy bastards be acting like creativity is gone when synthetic help is used like I don't prompt and mix original artstyles like this https://www.instagram.com/p/DFcKHTQulEh/?igsh=MmFzZDhvanY0b3c3 And I even created a few short animative GIFs that I'm pretty sure AI can't replicate like this https://www.instagram.com/p/DFbDnm1ySjn/?igsh=Z3l0ZWoyaDlibzc=

And now yall are wondering why I'm posting like ITS TO PROVE A DAMN POINT CAUSE I DONR KNOW HOW ELSE IM TRYING TO DEFEND MYSELF ESPECIALLY SINCE THE MOST BASIC AI GENERATED IP LIKE SPIDER-MAN AND BLACK WOMEN IN LUXURY AND DISNEY PRINCESSE EVEN GET VIEWS BUT MINE IS SILENT IN THE DARK NOW YOUR MOVE ANTI AIS What do you have to say about that And most importantly why pay an artist for a ridiculously high price when I can do it myself for free especially in the way that I always imagined with no mistakes and no regrets Thank you

So what if I do, there's no excuse to be a crybaby about it. Clowns on the internet crack me up. 💀

Dude probably didn't know that I can actually draw.

Just the title

i hate people out there who shame me or others for making ai art. what i hate even more is when people say: "just learn drawing instead". so you mean i should learn drawing for more than 5 YEARS to create that one picture nobody's gonna see but me?? man it's so ridiculous, they act as if one picks up a pencil and then there's an masterpiece on the paper already.. i hate these anti ai people. the only defense they have is 'it is stealing artist's art' like damn, do i look if i care? no, i don't. even if they WERE to steal my art, i wouldn't care either.