this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
286 points (85.6% liked)

Asklemmy

49804 readers
541 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn't been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn't it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teagrrl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes. Your examples you provide don't teach those skills. Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want. It can train on my own style of [insert medium]. But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush. But when you use a thought limiting tool like AI it gives you limited results in return. It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on. Artists develop a style over years, it changes from day to day, year to year, AI cannot evolve, yet an artist's style does just through repetition of creation. AI creates the predictive average of existing works.

I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity. You can't train AI to develop a new concept or a new idea, that's reserved to humans alone. It's that human intangibility that's yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you're never going to get that from a limited tool like AI. If sentience is achieved, you'd have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes.

I think was pretty clear in what I actually said. I think AI is a tool that automates the mechanical aspect of producing art. In fact, I repeatedly stated that I think the intention and creative thinking comes from the human user of the tool. I even specifically said that the tool does not replace the need for artistic ability.

Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want.

This is just gatekeeping. You're basically saying that only people who have the technical skills should be allowed to turn ideas in their heads into content that can be shared with others, and tough luck for everyone else.

But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush.

That's completely false, you're either misunderstanding how these tools work currently or intentionally misrepresenting how they work. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn how a tool like ComfyUI works and what it is capable of.

It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on.

What it's trained on is literally millions of images in every style imaginable, and what it is able to do is to blend these styles. The person using the tool can absolutely create a unique style. Furthermore, as I've already noted, and you've ignored, the artist can train the tool on their own style.

AI cannot evolve, yet an artist’s style does just through repetition of creation.

Yes, AI can evolve the same way artist evolves by being trained on more styles. Take a look at LoRA approach as one example of how easily new styles can be adapted to existing models.

I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity.

With all due respect, I think that you simply haven't spent the time how the tool actually works and what it is capable of.

It’s that human intangibility that’s yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you’re never going to get that from a limited tool like AI

Replace AI in that sentence with paint brush and it will make just as much sense.

If sentience is achieved, you’d have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.

You're once again ignoring my core point which is that AI is a tool and it is not meant to replace the human. It is meant to be used by people who have sentience and a critical eye for the specific imagery they're aiming to produce.