this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
972 points (94.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
7269 readers
2789 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Depends on the artist. Shitty at drawing but got skills on the comp? Ill take the art you used AI for.
Plenty of AI slop out there sure, but there is also plenty of drawn/painted/sculpted/whatever slop out there as well.
Hating on new tools is some dumb shit.
It's less a tool and more a short cut. and short cuts are a disservice to the artest and the art appreciater.
Ok yeah. That's what they said about the hammer. It's a disservice to the fine artisans using rocks.
... No, they didn't.
Yes they did. And all of this is the same as what was said about photography and the invention of the camera and its utilization as art.
Photography is art. Film is art. Digital media is art. CGI is art. AI art is art.
You may not like it. But most people didn't like those other new forms at first either. And they stopped being afraid of change and new things and learned to love it. The same will occur here. It is inevitable and impossible to oppose or resist
This is progress. And it will continue to accelerate regardless of whether or not you approve of it
One of those things is not like the others. AI "art" is just feeding an AI a prompt until it spits out something you like. Some people may do a touch up to hide the hallucinations, but they aren't actually creating the image.
Coming up with the idea is the art, as is transposing that idea into reality. If ai can transpose your idea into reality more effectively than any other artform then it should be utilized for such purpose
No AI will ever turn an idea into a picture better then taking pencil/paintbrush/pen in hand doing it yourself. The best you can get is "yeah that's close enough to what I was Invisioning" the computer doesn't know what you are thinking, and a description, no matter how in depth, can ever take what you have in mind and perfectly create it. AI is doing it's interpretation of what you ask for. And plus, the AI isn't an art tool, if anything, it's the artist. The prompt whiter is just the one commissioning it.
If you aren't artistically talented, whether through lack of ability or through disability, then AI is significantly better at turning an idea into existing art than using a pencil/paintbrush/pen
Stop with the excuses. art is a skill that requires practice. if you don't put In the practice you won't be very good, but that doesn't mean you can't get good and gain that artistic ability. And go into any art community and ask about doing art with a disability. Half the artist probably have a disability. (If one has a disability the that makes it hard for them to hold a more conventional job, art can actually be a great source of income.) It may be more challenging, but with enough determination and practice, anyone can get good at art.
It's not like I'm very good at art either, the best I can do is sketch simple things I can see.
Mechanical skill at manipulating a tool like a brush is not in any way correlated with artistic talent. Creating and imagining the meaningful concepts and transposing them into reality to convey emotional and intellectual meaning is a reflection of artistic quality. Not how good someone is at drawing. If AI can empower person's to transposing their ideas into reality then it should be encouraged and widely adopted
Ok, creativity is also something you can practice and get better at. I funny that in the first part, you mention creating art with "emotional and intellectual meaning" and then still support AI "Art" that lacks much of that.
Creativity isn't the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn't reflective of one's creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality
Now you are just arguing in circles. All it takes is practice. And if they truly don't want to do the work themselves, working with an artist can be a very rewording experience. Will hiring an artist cost money? Yes, but then you get to directly support the people making your idea come to fruition. Instead of using AI that steals those artists work to train it's algorithm and does nothing to support artist.
But being able to mechanically draw well doesn't make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do
High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That's a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art
Yes, that is also something you can practice and get better at. Every aspect of Art is something you need to practice at to get better at. im not arguing that skill with an art tool is important to being an artist. I'm only arguing that AI isn't a tool, it's a shortcut that tarnishes artistic integrity at best. And at worst, it takes the place of an artist and the user becomes nothing more then the commissioner. (Hence why you can't copy write AI "art", it legally not something you made.)
I'm sorry, how is a favorable view on AI "art" not the "STEM view" of things? It literally lacks all connection between life and art. It's just a fucking algorithm. I'm the one saying a connection between life and art is important for it to be art.
The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.
Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.
Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.
Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.
As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.
AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.
The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.