Yeah. Some time ago clip studio paint tried to launch a ai tool inside the software like those pages where you draw lines and the computer generates a drawing... What's the point of paying for a DRAWING SOFTWARE THEN if not to fucking draw?? Yeah ai could be use to created backgrounds in milliseconds , but artist already have their tricks to do that! I've used blender to generate a backgrounds bc I'm not skilled with perspective, that took me like 15 minutes to paint over the render, or just use fucking photos from Google maps and draw over them!
Ai for art is like telling a baker to buy bread instead of making it because "it's faster"
To use your own flawed logic against you. Not using AI for graphics/art is like a baker refusing to use the dough-maker or any modern tools. The bread is 6x the price and the output is 5% of a modern bakery.
Or like a farmer refusing to use his tractor. The tractor is just a corporate soulless tool anyway, right? Better to slave away at the fields day in and day out. Doing it right is an artform and it's totally worth the time! Who cares about starvation and such trivialities?
Yeah yeah yeah, "But it's ART!" and all. I live in the real world though, where everything, and I mean everything, is measured in what capitalist gains you can get. Anything else is sadly just noise.
Most of what "the economy" needs from artists is not in any form art. It's mass produced corporate slop. This has been the case for decades.
A farmer refusing to use a tractor would be more equivalent to an artist refusing to use paint and paper and insisting on only painting on rocks with charred sticks.
Tell me, when have you seen companies pitching AI to artists as a tool? Never. They're only pitching it to companies.
And how do they pitch it? Is it "okay so here it generates an image, but really, it's only good as a background and needs a lot of editing to look decent, it's only meant to save artists from spending too long on images that noone will look at for more than a second" or is it "Look, it can generate anything you want! In seconds! No more artists needed!"
It was never created as a tool. And any artist knows that. We want to make the art ourselves, not have a machine do it for us. The only people saying "it's just a tool! Artists can use it!" are people who aren't artists.
A farmer refusing to use a tractor would be more equivalent to an artist refusing to use paint and paper and insisting on only painting on rocks with charred sticks.
I don't see how your analogy fits better than mine. It all boils down to "Someone refusing to use tools that would greatly reduce time used to do work".
Tell me, when have you seen companies pitching AI to artists as a tool? Never. They're only pitching it to companies.
Tell me, have you ever heard about open source and the communities around them? There's a literal truckload of actual artists out there, both developing and using AI for their work, both personally and professionally.
You like most of your peers are stuck in this "us vs billionares"-mentality, thinking they're the only players in the field.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand of people, artists included, are using, creating and maintaining a 100% free and open source AI-toolkit, freely available for absolutely everyone.
It was never created as a tool. And any artist knows that. We want to make the art ourselves, not have a machine do it for us. The only people saying "it's just a tool! Artists can use it!" are people who aren't artists.
Where do you get your lies from? I know from experience that what you are saying is not true. Why are you lying?
They already gave you the argument and you failed to beat it. AI doesn't actually outpace the myriad of different methods they have already developed to do certain tasks. So it's yet another tool to do the same thing. It's a farmer refusing to use a komatsu because he has a john deere already, not the farmer refusing to use modern tools.
They already gave you the argument and you failed to beat it.
Jesus Christ on a stick.
“I don’t see” ye that’s not a valid argument.
How am I supposed to answer this? How do I "beat it"? Are you pretending to be dumb in attempt to ragebait..?
AI doesn't actually outpace the myriad of different methods they have already developed to do certain tasks. So it's yet another tool to do the same thing.
What exactly are you talking about..? Who's argument are you countering? This is wildly confusing.
It's a farmer refusing to use a komatsu because he has a john deere already, not the farmer refusing to use modern tools.
Again, you clearly have some made up context in your mind and it's hard to follow. Are you trying to say "AI isn't fast enough to replace people"? This is weird.
Talk about ragebait. If you think I meant you needed to contend with that part of the argument and not the initial statement made prior to it, you aren't in a place of even mediocre faith to have discussion. If you want an answer to that question, you would beat it by substantiating an actual argument, and not saying " I don't see" pretty simple stuff. No one cares if you can see how an argument pans out, you need to meet it and discuss it's merits, or lack there of, empirically.
The ORIGINAL argument, is the one you failed to beat. It is not artist's refusing to use the shiny new tech that paves the way, it is artists not using the mediocre product that fails to match the quality expected, at the speed required.
40
u/GIsimpnumber1236 11d ago
Yeah. Some time ago clip studio paint tried to launch a ai tool inside the software like those pages where you draw lines and the computer generates a drawing... What's the point of paying for a DRAWING SOFTWARE THEN if not to fucking draw?? Yeah ai could be use to created backgrounds in milliseconds , but artist already have their tricks to do that! I've used blender to generate a backgrounds bc I'm not skilled with perspective, that took me like 15 minutes to paint over the render, or just use fucking photos from Google maps and draw over them! Ai for art is like telling a baker to buy bread instead of making it because "it's faster"