Yes I do. Although I don't use text generation for writing creative pieces I use it for coding and help in the Linux terminal. It's not like I was going to pay anyone to do that for me.

Wait what? I'm really confused I thought this post was about a different image when I commented that.

I totally agree this is definetly ai and I can tell very easily.

A couple more spots:

The one at the back in the middle with the arrow pointing above its head also has hands emerging directly from its torso

The one at the back squished in between the two signs is missing an ear

Iris/pupil size 2nd from the right are wildly asymmetrical

Also the whole thing looks like shit

Artists do labor for free for the benefit of their communities all the time, myself included, mostly out of the goodness of their hearts. Although maybe Lemmy can offer some compensation if they want to commission something. Tbh, I've never approached someone or an organization and said, "hey, I think you should change your logo/banner/whatever, want me to make a better one?" I think that's a bit forward.

If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people's art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger -- don't use AI if it puts an artist out of work.

Real artists use uncited reference art all the time. That person that drew a picture of Catherine the Great for a video game certainly didn't list the artist of the source art they were looking at when they drew it. No royalties went to that source artist. People stopped buying reference art books for the most part when Google image search became a thing.

A hell, a lot of professional graphic artists right now use AI for inspiration.

This isn't to say that the problem isn't real and a lot of artists stand to lose their livelihood over it, but nobody's paying someone to draw a banner for this forum. The best you're going to get is some artist doing out of the goodness of their heart when they could be spending their time and effort on a paying job.

It's a Greek term used by the head mod for their community. Sorry for the confusion

Impressive footgun. I agree with your point though, it's jarring.

If you wanted to make the post look good, why didn't you commission an artist to make your image? Instead you stole the hard work of another artist without their permission, attribution or compensation.

I think, ultimately, AI-generated images have their own utility, but fundamentally cannot replace human art as an expression of the human experience and artist intent through their chosen medium. AI-generated textures for, say, wooden planks in a video game does little to nothing to change the end-user's experience, but just asking AI to create a masterpiece of art fundamentally lacks the artistic process that makes art thought provoking and important. It isn't even about being produced artisinally or mass-produced, it's fundamentally about what art is to begin with, and what makes it resonate.

AI cannot replace art. AI can make the more mundane and tedious aspects of creation smoother, it can be a part of a larger work of art, or it can be used in a similar way to stock images. At the same time, just like AI chatbots are no replacement for human interaction, AI can't replace human art. It isn't a matter of morality, or something grander, it's as simple as AI art just being a tool for guessing at what the user wants to generate, and thus isn't capable of serving the same function for humanity as art in the traditional sense.

I always like your posts when I see them here, so I really do value your perspective on this.

Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It’s a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists.

There's little evidence that this is fundamentally different from how our own minds work. We are influenced by our environment, and experiences. The art we create is a product of our material conditions. If you look at art from different eras you can clearly see that it's grounded in the material reality people live in. Furthermore, an artist can train the AI on their own style, as the video linked in the article shows with a concrete use case. That allows the artists to automate the mechanical work of producing the style they've come up with.

It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful.

That's what makes it a tool. A paintbrush or an app like Krita also lacks intention. It's the human using the tool that has the idea that they want to convey, and they use the tool to do that. We see this already happening a lot with memes being generated using AI tools. A few examples here. It's a case of people coming up with ideas and then using AI to visualize them so they can share them with others.

This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a “flawless” AI generated piece.

If we're just talking about pressing a button and getting an image sure. However, the actual tools like ComfyUI have complex workflows where the artist has a lot of direction over every detail that's being generated. Personally, I don't see how it's fundamentally different from using a 3D modelling tool like Blender or a movie director guiding actors in execution of the script.

I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop.

Right, I think that's how these tools will be used professionally. However, there are also plenty of people who aren't professionals, and don't have artistic talent. These people now have a tool to flesh out an idea in their heads which they wouldn't have been able to do previously. I see this as a net positive. The examples above show how this can be a powerful tool for agitation, satire, and political commentary.

Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process

So do tools like ComfyUI, if you look at the workflow, it very much resembles these tools.

the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself

I do photography and I disagree here. The photographer looks at the scene, they do not create the scene themselves. The skill of the photographer is in noticing interesting patterns of light, objects, and composition in the scene that are aesthetically appealing. It's the skill of being able to curate visually interesting imagery. Similarly, what the AI does is generate the scene, and what the human does is curate the content that's generated based on their aesthetic.

AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.

Again, AI is a tool and it doesn't magically remove the need for people to develop an aesthetic, to learn about lighting, composition, and so on. However, you're also mixing in mechanical skills like operating the camera which have little to do with actual art. These tools very much do empower people to create, but to create something interesting still takes skill.