I did the opposite on Reddit. r/art was cruel on one of my posts because they assumed something I had made was ai, but it was a 3D piece made to look like a water colour with procedural textures and shaders. I spent hours on those textures to get them looking pretty cool imo but the instant someone accused it of being ai everyone tore it to shreds and were dming me with hate until I got banned from the subreddit lol

So I made a new account and posted ai watercolours of bland crap and they ate that shit up. Thousands of upvotes for a sailboat even though the ropes from the sail turned into the hull. A house on a snowy hill got compliments on my stylistic choice to have the smoke from the chimney turn into the clouds, but a few critiques telling me the lighting from the window didn't lie on the trees outside correctly. Which, yeah it was clearly ai but they couldn't tell because it was "water colour". The house also got over 1k upvotes.

I posted a few more all with positive reception before I got bored with them though lol

why does this please me so

Its definitely an interesting case study in human behavior.

Marking it as AI-generated and then laughing that people critique it is a weird bait-and-switch that preys on people taking things at face value. We've come to have baseline trust that when something is marked X, its because it is X. But that's something different.

People (IMO) don't like AI generated art because of both the lack of actual thought put into it as well as taking away from people who put their all into actually creating art that then is cribbed by AI generators.

Combine those two factors and of course you'll have people taking knee-jerk reactions. I'd be interested in seeing how many people did call out that it was a real Monet, rather than a cool person copy-pasting reactions that met the expected outcome. I tried looking at replies but only have his "gotcha" reply showing up on nitter* instances.

Also: holy shit this guy is kind of a dick on twitter in general lol

Edit: spelling

The fact is that AI has reach a point of not being identifiable as AI, but that does not mean it is beyond criticism.

Art is inherently about meaning, intent, background, humanity. An amazing art piece is rarely amazing because it is the most skillfully crafted most beautiful piece that exists (though some are)

Look at almost all famous paintings, most of them are not all that impressive when compared to what other people can create, not that they are shitty, but rarely do they actually surpass all others with beauty or skill.

And the final point is that AI art is built on theft of human art, it is the abuse of the human artistic spirit for the purpose of capitalism.

AI being indistinguishable from human art isn't the point.

if humans are replaceable by AI, what's the fucking point of human civilization?

Oh, so a bunch of art nerds discovered that Monet is also a thing that you can gaslight an LLM about.

You can gaslight an LLM about literally anything.

Monet paintings are included in 'literally anything'.

Sure yeah this is a social experiment, in the sense of we get to see how art nerds relish in mockery of things they don't have respect for.

Its a fancy auto complete algorithm, that has read the entire internet.

You lied to it, and told it to tell you why something was bad. It believed your premise and then did as you asked.

If you did the reverse, it would do that too.

... Its like picking on a toddler, we've known you can gaslight LLMs for years now... did... Twitter art nerds just now figure this out?