this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
480 points (90.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
980 readers
18 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The "lazy" artists of human history, none of which are as lazy as AI prompters too lazy to even touch a brush, were never able to create art meaningfully quicker than the "quality" artists. And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam. I know when I say art you just see dollar signs, but art actually means something to passionate people.
Not to mention how insanely lazy it is that AI doesn't even generate original art, it has to steal from artists in its training data.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not prevented from seeing genuine human art.
I don't think that will be the case. We have machines that make us clothing and such, but hand-crafted goods are admired for their artistry, and those who can afford them will happily pay a premium.
Over 50 games were released daily on Steam in 2024, but we still found the great titles by word of mouth, reviews, and awards.
Maybe a lot of "art" will be generated, but I think not being able to copyright AI works will make corporations prefer human-made art so that they'll have a monopoly over the rights. I think it's more the case that generated assets will replace/broaden stock assets.
What makes you say that?
One of the reasons I don't have a burning hated for AI art is because I can't see a difference between what it generates and what I generate. I also steal from artists in my training data, be it watching a tutorial or using references. A seemingly original idea like a cat drinking tea on the moon is really just combining every Victorian tea party painting I've ever seen, every cat I've ever seen, real or drawn, and every depiction of the moon I've ever seen. Anything I can imagine comes from stimuli previously consumed and techniques taught by others.
If you’re making art to show it off to other people, then you’re just trying to make profit, not make art.
Nobody can take art away from you. It’s a manifestation of your emotions. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to manifest those emotions, art made with AI isn’t somehow lesser than art made with a brush. And nobody, including you, gets to say otherwise.