AI images we have created

[sergeauckland]

Because humans are more important than AI.
Will you really choose a machine over a human ?

I wouldn't want to do business with you...

Sadly, we have the example of airlines where service has gone totally, as has comfort and dignity, all in the interest of lower prices. And yet, more and more people are putting up with all this and flying as much as ever, if not more. Do 'Full Service' airlines like British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, KLM still exist? Their brands exist, but is the spirit of Service still there? Haven't flown anywhere for years, but before I retired, over 20 years ago, I spent what felt like half my life on an aircraft, and BA or KLM were still a pleasure to fly on.

People will use an AI Gordon Ramsey if it's that much cheaper.

S.

 

[Brian Hall]

What is the difference and advantage compared to images that can be generated by Gemini or ChatGPT, for example?

They limit how many you can do in a certain time unless you are paying them monthly. I have a monthly sub with grok.

 

[FTB]

[...]

People will use an AI Gordon Ramsey if it's that much cheaper.

S.

That's the problem with AI, people preferring lifeless machines instead of living beings for price consideration.
Soon we will speak only to machines then nothing between us, humans.

 

[Robin L]

Philip K. Dick was way ahead of the curve with this one. And the PKD adjacent "Blade Runner 2049" expands on that. "K" is a skin job but his companion, Joi, appears to be a commercially available holograph of the girl of your dreams. Which leads us straight to AI Girlfriend aps.

There is the possibility of something artistically worthwhile coming from this brave new world, but I have reason to suspect that the societal effects will be horrendous.

 

[Zgrado1970]

AI “art” = misanthropic nightmare fuel.

 

[Brian Hall]

Sorry, but I think that people stating that they created something when the wrote a couple sentences and software did the rest is idiotic.

I'm not very impressed with people who intentionally misinterpret what someone else said as clearly as possible to prevent anyone from thinking I was claiming some special skill when my point was the opposite - how easy the current AI is to use and get great results with very little effort.

 

[kemmler3D]

Exactly and well duh!

I clearly stated in the post that "Each is created with only a text prompt and takes about 1 and a half minutes to generate".

I'm not claiming any skill at all here, just seeing and showing what current AI image generators are capable of now with fairly good prompts. All I did was tell it what to create, changing the prompt until it created something close to what I was aiming for. Something almost anyone could easily figure out and do themselves.

The point is that being a skilled software coder or a skilled photoshop user no longer means what it used to or holds the same value. I am a retired software developer who created systems with 100s of thousands of lines of code and I'm amazed at the quality of code and even full applications that can be generated in seconds with the right prompting. I would not be wanting to start a career as a software developer or photoshop user now, much less in a year.

Getting angry about that doesn't change the facts about what is possible with free and open source AI models and applications.

Everything is changing very fast. I think it is best to know what is actually possible today with various AI options.

I have always seen art as a means of communication between people. Done right, it is a way of accessing another person's point of view, or understanding an idea, in a way that can't be achieved with words alone.

From this point of view, AI "art" is no different than having AI write messages to your family or friends. Not good, not good at all. Discarding the real purpose of art entirely in exchange for... convenience? Pretty pictures?

The fact that it *can* be done is pretty meaningless, and IMO mostly serves as a trap for people who never understood why anyone would bother creating art in the first place. AI art, in and of itself, is a terminally shallow endeavor.

I messed around with image generators a bit when they first came out, I am not going to say it's so wrong to just bang out a random picture of something for convenience, but when the scope of what was intended for them became clear, I left it alone.

 

[Robin L]

I'm not very impressed with people who intentionally misinterpret what someone else said as clearly as possible to prevent anyone from thinking I was claiming some special skill when my point was the opposite - how easy the current AI is to use and get great results with very little effort.

I get what you're saying. What's striking to me is how much of the AI I'm seeing is so obviously uncreative. My daughter-in-law makes a lot of AI art, a lot of it is very attractive. She is exceptionally skilled at Tie-dye so I guess knowing how to make an image without AI will doubtless make for better AI art.

 

[pablolie]

With so many creative experts around in the discussion, I wonder why no one is stating the obvious: You can't use any of the AI generated pictures in a publication. The reason? Intellectual property. You have no idea how derivative (or not) of exisiting art the AI generated stuff is, hence no legal deparment will let you incur the risk of using it in a publication... if you do, you incur the legal risk personally. So no, this stuff is not threatening any established, original artists' jobs.

 

[FTB]

I have always seen art as a means of communication between people. Done right, it is a way of accessing another person's point of view, or understanding an idea, in a way that can't be achieved with words alone.

From this point of view, AI "art" is no different than having AI write messages to your family or friends. Not good, not good at all. Discarding the real purpose of art entirely in exchange for... convenience? Pretty pictures?

The fact that it *can* be done is pretty meaningless, and IMO mostly serves as a trap for people who never understood why anyone would bother creating art in the first place. AI art, in and of itself, is a terminally shallow endeavor.

I messed around with image generators a bit when they first came out, I am not going to say it's so wrong to just bang out a random picture of something for convenience, but when the scope of what was intended for them became clear, I left it alone.

Hopefully there is still people seeing what is the problem with AI.

 

[Brian Hall]

I have always seen art as a means of communication between people. Done right, it is a way of accessing another person's point of view, or understanding an idea, in a way that can't be achieved with words alone.

I am not impressed with all "artists" just because they can get paint on a canvas one way or another and call it art. Biggest example is the garbage produced by Jackson Pollock. "Paintings" that could be easily be created by a group of toddlers. Some people claim to like that kind of thing along with other "modern" art.

Should people who lack painting, drawing or photography skills be prohibited from using tools to get their ideas out or just have fun with them? Where do we draw the line and who gets to decide?

Should Photoshop really get a pass and be considered superior? It is used to manipulate pixels from scratch or pixels from an existing photograph with a mouse instead of words. The end result can be the same. There is skill (learned) in selecting the right tools in the right order and in moving the mouse where intended.

Since Photoshop is easier to learn and use than painting or drawing by hand shouldn't it be rejected as a bad thing too?

The ending image is what moves people and evokes feelings (or not). Should we really care how it was produced?

AI can generate crappy images and it is capable of generating great images. That difference can be as simple as a bad prompt or a good prompt. Sometimes due to randomization, a bad prompt can produce a great image. "Good" prompts can be misinterpreted and produce bad images. Trial and error and repeated iterations. No special skill is needed, just a little thinking to create a prompt that works to explain to the AI tools what you want.

Humans can create crappy images (Jackson Pollock) or great images (Da Vinci).

Monthy Python had it right in the sketch with Michaelangelo and the Pope, even though it was satire: "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like".

 

[kemmler3D]

To what end? More profit? More productivity? To what end?

The end goal of AI and robotics is to make human labor redundant in all situations where a human being's involvement isn't the entire point. To relieve humankind of every burden.

Unfortunately, most of us make our livings by carrying various burdens, and the people currently pursuing the development of AI are pointedly 0% concerned about what happens to us burden-carriers once our burdens are taken from us.

If other people or groups were leading the development and deployment of AI it might not be a problem, but the current cast of characters seems determined to create the biggest and most destructive problems imaginable. I don't think it's crazy to say (even though it sounds extremely crazy) that their end goal appears to be to enslave humanity as a whole.

If all labor is done away with, and nobody has access to resources except the builders of AI... what else would you call that scenario?

 

[CB89]

I can't value AI art in its current form. The reason for this seems to be an interesting psychological factor, suggesting that art is only appreciated when it involves a corresponding amount of effort. As long as I don't know how the artwork was created, AI art could probably fool me, as long as the image doesn't look artificial. But as soon as I know, any initial enthusiasm vanishes.

I am curious, however, whether it will be possible to create art with AI that truly reflects the effort involved. Until then, it's sufficient for brochures or visualizations, but I can't currently mentally recognize it as art.

 

[pablolie]

Hopefully there is still people seeing what is the problem with AI.

How about talking about "the problem with *art*"?

Is this great because a real human wasted precious hours of their life creating such a tasteless abomination?

I have no problem with AI creating "art" of any kind. I just don't see it replacing genuine artists' work anytime soon. AI out put is and will remain derivative, it never genuine *creates* from a blank empty page - it leverages existing stuff and mixes it up and it sees fit by its "generative" algorithms.

The problem with AI tech is and will remain to make it legally defensible as original art. In text generation, AI already lost the battle - it now must be able to cite sources or risk lawsuits.

The dirty little secret on AI use within a corporate environment -and the reason why companies typically work with limited, local datasets in their AI applications- is because *we* human employees can't sue the company for re-using any of our creations during our employment, since our employment contracts include passing ownership for all of the IP we create to the company. Not the same with other content out there in the wild.

 

[kemmler3D]

I am not impressed with all "artists" just because they can get paint on a canvas one way or another and call it art. Biggest example is the garbage produced by Jackson Pollock. "Paintings" that could be easily be created by a group of toddlers. Some people claim to like that kind of thing along with other "modern" art.

Should people who lack painting, drawing or photography skills be prohibited from using tools to get their ideas out or just have fun with them? Where do we draw the line and who gets to decide?

Should Photoshop really get a pass and be considered superior? It is used to manipulate pixels from scratch or pixels from an existing photograph with a mouse instead of words. The end result can be the same. There is skill (learned) in selecting the right tools in the right order and in moving the mouse where intended.

Since Photoshop is easier to learn and use than painting or drawing by hand shouldn't it be rejected as a bad thing too?

The ending image is what moves people and evokes feelings (or not). Should we really care how it was produced?

AI can generate crappy images and it is capable of generating great images. That difference can be as simple as a bad prompt or a good prompt. Sometimes due to randomization, a bad prompt can produce a great image. "Good" prompts can be misinterpreted and produce bad images. Trial and error and repeated iterations. No special skill is needed, just a little thinking to create a prompt that works to explain to the AI tools what you want.

Humans can create crappy images (Jackson Pollock) or great images (Da Vinci).

Monthy Python had it right in the sketch with Michaelangelo and the Pope, even though it was satire: "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like".

"The ending image is what moves people and evokes feelings (or not). Should we really care how it was produced?"

Send a loved one condolences for a loss - written by AI - and then tell me.

It's obvious you haven't spent any time at all learning about art, nor do you give a flying f*** about it, (in fact, you seem hostile to anything that might be called "the art world") so why are you even making these arguments? (BTW - none of which are less than 100 years old. The names and media in question have changed but not the disputes.)

I actually have a friend who is an incredibly talented, professional artist. He uses AI art to create some stuff. Mostly just messing around. I don't begrudge him that at all. But he understands what he's doing.

 

[kemmler3D]

How about talking about "the problem with *art*"?

Is this great because a real human wasted precious hours of their life creating such a tasteless abomination?
View attachment 520320

I have no problem with AI creating "art" of any kind. I just don't see it replacing genuine artists' work anytime soon. AI out put is and will remain derivative, it never genuine *creates* from a blank empty page - it leverages existing stuff and mixes it up and it sees fit by its "generative" algorithms.

The problem with AI tech is and will remain to make it legally defensible as original art. In text generation, AI already lost the battle - it now must be able to cite sources or risk lawsuits.

The dirty little secret on AI use within a corporate environment -and the reason why companies typically work with limited, local datasets in their AI applications- is because *we* human employees can't sue the company for re-using any of our creations during our employment, since our employment contracts include passing ownership for all of the IP we create to the company. Not the same with other content out there in the wild.

This is a good point, and maybe people missed it, but AI output is not copyrightable in the US: https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/

We can have our debate on what it means to produce AI art, but legally speaking, it's not art.

 

[Robin L]

I am not impressed with all "artists" just because they can get paint on a canvas one way or another and call it art. Biggest example is the garbage produced by Jackson Pollock.

See also:

 

[garbulky]

Sorry, but I think that people stating that they created something when the wrote a couple sentences and software did the rest is idiotic.

As to the jack ass that said I created nothing, this PDF contains 3 images created from nothing and totally created by me. Software used was Electric Image, Form Z and Photoshop.

The M&Ms Mutant Minis were done for an ad agency. The temple scene and Tea & Warm Beer were personal images created as much for the learning experience as they were for my portfolio.

The M&M image had a budget to adhere to and was done in one work week.The other two each took months of free time to complete and required a lot of experimentation.

You want to create AI slop, go ahead. Don’t expect real artists to care.

No it's not. They did create something - the idea - though the large majority of the heavy lifting was done by AI. No one's acting like they setup a photoshoot. You said you did CGI and photoshop, one could use similar lines of logic for what you did. You manipulated an image (i.e. the computer did the manipulating, you gave the commands). If you were photoshopping an image you did not create yourself, then you gave commands to a computer to manipulate someone else's image.

 

[pablolie]

No it's not. They did create something - the idea - though the large majority of the heavy lifting was done by AI. No one's acting like they setup a photoshoot. You said you did CGI and photoshop, one could use similar lines of logic for what you did. You manipulated an image (i.e. the computer did the manipulating, you gave the commands). If you were photoshopping an image you did not create yourself, then you gave commands to a computer to manipulate someone else's image.

Our personal opinions on the matter are just that - opinions. The real outcomes in declaring something original art as per (c) are legal in nature, and how we personally feel about those carries zero weight.

 

[Pauli]

Had this created by ChatGPT’s image feature about a year ago. Found it quite OK: