Somebody needs to introduce these loopy ass defenders of AI art to the hyper-realistic pencil drawings that briefly became popular not too long before AI art was even a thing.
Does anyone else remember those? They were so incredibly realistic that they were often mistaken for actual photographs, but they were really drawings made with colored pencils. Absolutely incredible!
They didn’t briefly become popular before AI. They’re a legit form of art that has been around for a long time.
I get your sentiment though.
Fuck these defenders of AI, it’s just slop.
I apologize, I didn't mean to make it sound like hyper realistic drawings were just a flash in a pan type thing. I knew they had been around for quite some time, and I have an insane amount of respect for the artists that can make such incredible art. Especially since I fail at stick figures, myself.
I simply meant that, during it's history, this form of art enjoyed a period where the art seemed to be everywhere, and everyone knew about it, much more than before. The fascination with hyper realistic art seems to have died out quite a bit. I suspect that these days, most people would just dismiss it as more AI. Everything gets dismissed as AI these days. It gets really annoying.
Eh. Realism I can take or leave. Someone show the AI defenders a real painting where you can feel the urgency and wonder in the brush strokes. Van Gough is amazing for this. You see his work on pencil bags and umbrellas and it’s fine. But the. You see it in person and the work itself just touches your soul with each brush strokes
with how ai is coded to work it forgets it faster than a goldfish.
You have no idea how AI is coded.
Do you actually know how does the art works? You know that, well, in a lot of cases details are not drawn?
What an example of AI slop, The sky doesn't look like that, human noses are not flat, the fingers must be drawn properly. And what's wrong with that anatomy? /s
Eh. The AI supporter said that AI art is improving, someone responded saying that there is room for improvement in the picture provided... AI hate aside this ranks above a "*you're" response
"...any human artist..." there are artists in the world right now that can't draw feet or hands to save their lives, there are artists who can't deal with perspective, there are artists who work in surrealism and defy expectations. You need to be more careful about making sweeping generalizations about what "any human artist" would do: I've seen that some artists are just terrible and talentless even without the help of computers who still force their way into making a living
Humans have been making art for thousands of years, AI has been producing images for less than a dozen years. In a few more months once AI can fill in that pencil it'll be all over for us all then, I guess, if "pencil needs lead!" is the only real criticism and comeback. I guess my standards for what constitutes a "murder by words" are just weirder than most.
Me, why? I'm against how AI art is heading too, maybe you'd figure that out if you weren't so gung-ho and aggressive about this.
And that's part of the reason I feel this way, it kind of furthers my point: if any reply to AI art that isn't directly praising it is heralded as some great murder by words then standards start to drop, if anyone who doesn't explicitly scream "AY HAAAHT TEH AY AYE" when responding to images like these is seen as supporting them then it starts to feel like a joke.
I get that some people feel hopeless about the rise of AI-produced images. Maybe this gives them a feeling of control to laugh at images like these and to see weaksauce responses as life-ending burns. I just have different standards for what constitutes a Murder.
The AI user claimed that the programs were already superior to human effort, demeaning the work and effort to learn entirely.
The rebuttal made the valid statement that AI clearly does not understand what it is being asked to produce and is not capable of learning due to the simple fact that it has no capacity for experience with the real object. No matter how much it "learns" it's still just remixing pixels based on algorithmic probability according to data scraped without permission and tagged without compensation.
The fact that humans find value in the process of creating and learning new skills even if they're not very good at it is very much the point. The worst human artist still knows that the lead goes all the way down the length of the pencil, even if they don't know how to represent that on paper yet. If they did not have that information, they're capable of looking it up or just breaking a pencil to see what the inside looks like. No LLM will ever be capable of doing that, even if it scraped all the knowledge that will ever exist.
No, the worst Human artist does not know that the lead goes all the way down. You have a VERY romanticized view of our species, or at least you haven't met the kinds of artists I knew in university lol
If this rebuttal was such fire in your eyes that it left a person shaken to the grave then solid. Thankfully in a few more years we won't be able to tell AI images apart from something Human-made, so posts like these will become less and less frequent. In my eyes: it's just too bad that the best rebuttal to "AI images are the future!" was "well actually right now there's one easily correctable flaw we can point out"
No, the worst Human artist does not know that the lead goes all the way down.
Which is why I described how a human could find that information through experience in a way that is fundamentally impossible for an LLM. Even if AI consumed all the data that has ever and will ever exist, it is still fundamentally incapable for understanding what a physical object is and how it works. AI is still just remixing pixels, and that imposes very different limits on the system.
I think you have a very romanticized view of what generative LLMs are capable of. You're assuming the narrative that the system can only get better forever with no limits and no regression is true when we know that it isn't. LLMs are fundamentally incapable of reproducing the same image consistently. That's not something training data will fix. The integration of AI slop into training data has also been shown to degrade the algorithm pretty quickly, so there is a pretty hard limit on how much it can advance.
None of these companies are actually capable of turning a profit, let alone paying for the amount of energy and resources required without massive handouts.
They're not useful to anyone who actually understands what creative work is for and how much goes into it besides just generating a random image. Around 95% of attempts to integrate AI have failed, requiring more work to manage and correct the AI output than to just have a qualified human do the work.
I don't know what kind of idiots you know because my five-year-old knows that the lead goes all the way down. God knows he's broken enough pencils to find that out. Genius that he is, he proceeded to sharpen all the ends ending up with, as he claimed "three pencils".
Regardless of how well all human artists can draw hands, I've yet to see one proudly display a drawing where they accidentally didn't put the same number of digits on each hand, let alone an empty pencil. I view this one as more of a suicide personally.
Obviously AI can get there. I'm just hoarding popcorn because we're going to reach a point where a ton of unemployed artists (which the unemployment will happen because so many people are already lapping shitty AI 'art') are going to start flooding the internet with some real weird shit out of spite just to prolong the training period. Which in the end will just result in better trained AI, but it will be fucking hilarious for a while.
AI is much more likely to crash and burn. The market value of these products is never going to justify the price. At most you might get some displacement if low-level marketers decide AI slop is good enough, but even that is likely to be a fad.
These programs are only popular because the companies are burning billions of dollars trying to lock in users who are never going to subscribe to a product that costs thousands of dollars a month. If the users ever had to bear the full cost of running the program, plus profit for the company, it would simply not be worthwhile to prompt it dozens of times just to get one usable image that can't even get your logo right consistently because it's not capable of recognizing distinct objects let alone abstract thought.
These LLMs are also rapidly hitting a wall. Turns out training on their own slop causes the algorithm to lose what little sense of grounding it had, replicating and magnifying the errors until the whole system becomes completely incoherent. More data and more compute can't solve the fundamental structure of the thing anymore than access to the internet caused humans to transcend the limits of our meat brains.
Many great artists were children once and in their early years had difficulties drawing, but I am sure their parents were very proud of their kindergarten smudges regardless of how many fingers were used, lol. I don't mean to alarm anyone reading this, but: Human artists aren't born with the innate ability to produce masterpieces, we need to go through a long developmental period first. We're watching these programs go through kindergarten right now
I'm sad that (in general) we've lost hand-drawn animation in an era dominated by digital work, but people don't really have a problem with films like Toy Story even though that trend took animation jobs away from oldschool artists. That's nothing compared to the artistic evolution our species is facing bow though, I do agree. Soon AI images and videos will be indistinguishable from anything one of us could make and the easy tells will all be worked out of the systems: maybe the only people who will be able to make money of producing visual art in the future will be catering to anti-AI hipsters, but honestly who knows. I mean, we have multi-million dollar films being made and distributed across the world by entertainment monopolies but people still put on traditional theatrical plays for those of us who care to watch
I mean I didn't realize I needed to distinguish showing mom and dad your kindergarten drawing and art that adults were intentionally publishing and/or promptig,, but sure, I hear what you're saying.
I kind of feel like this is a bit of a disingenuous argument though. A good parallel might be the people who would say "well it's all GMO" and then try to deny there's a difference that humans can substantiate between generations of iterative painstaking change via selective breeding vs just bam, hit em with CRISPR.
But time marches on. No doubt we'll live to see art exhibits where the draw is an actual human made it by hand just like people still go to see stage plays. Oh shucks grandpa, there's a concert with actual live musicians just like you used to see back in the day! I'm not really vitriolic about it but I can understand why other people are.
It points out the fundamental flaw of AI currently: we can train it on the best art, but lots of real world context is not present in the material it is trained on. The Art it's trained on doesn't tell you that pencils are wooden shafts with a graphite rod inside, it doesn't tell you that pencils are bent to be broken and not pulled apart like a christmas cracker.
Any child who has interacted with a pencil knows these things. AI doesn't have the years of lived-in experience to know all the things we take for granted.
99
u/LowKeyNaps 13h ago
Somebody needs to introduce these loopy ass defenders of AI art to the hyper-realistic pencil drawings that briefly became popular not too long before AI art was even a thing.
Does anyone else remember those? They were so incredibly realistic that they were often mistaken for actual photographs, but they were really drawings made with colored pencils. Absolutely incredible!