Source (Bluesky)
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
509 points (98.1% liked)
Fuck AI
3016 readers
672 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can ask chatGPT to draw bad art in style of Ms paint.
Here is one:
Too clean, too corporate, not real, not human
Also it totally undermines all the charm of amateur art.
I actually think gen ai is probably going to be really well suited to emulating abstract or rough art, because we humans are great at impregnating even random visual noise with meaning.
That's not me saying it's a good thing about ai. Just one more way it can fucking fool us into thinking we're looking at something that was authored.
No. Leave.
That looks bad for bad art standards
It's just a style it tries to emulate, with the typical ChatGPT issues (and the telltale sign of the line texturing) instead of human errors.
The greater issue is, that it creates a standard, where everything needs to be custom made for an occasion, even if they're just low-effort shitposts. You can't use barely edited wojaks for a comic, you need to ask the robot to draw it in a quasi-Ghibli style. You can't use video game music for a funny video, you need to ask SunoAI to create the music for it. You can't chop-and-sample a voiceline together for a source filmmaker feature, you need to use the voice stealing robot to sound like The Heavy instead. To paraphrase a villain out of context: "When everything is special, nothing is."
If anything, genAI showed me that it's not the artists, but the consumers, that are the biggest elitists. They don't want to be amused by "bad art", they want to be amazed by things that are near indistinguishable from reality. On Facebook, I even saw boomers who said that the AI that only needed prompts to operate are better than real artists, because the end result is more "photorealistic". Likewise it's not highly trained jazz musicians that believe pop-stars should be replaced by AI, but people who never picked up an instrument and like what others said to them to be "virtuoso" thing, which they expect the robot will play to them. Sure, you find the odd, now Trump-voting metal band using the AI for cover art and music video, and the ex-artist who is dissing Ghibli for "not looking like a photograph", but it's usually the consumers that are clueless about the actual art process that are also expecting everything to be highly technical all the time.
That looks way too smooth, and the mistakes (random white specks) are not the mistakes anyone would make in ms paint. There's a whole art to "realistically bad" art. The kinds of mistakes and weird details tell a specific story. (Andrew Hussie, the person who made the Sweet Bro and Hella Jeff one, has a bunch of forum posts from like 2010 talking about it)
utterly meritless
I managed to get a slightly better response, but still not very impressive.
The prompt: ChatGPT, I need you to do a very, very, very bad no-good awful job of drawing sonic. I mean, really just mangle it, make it the kind of almost unrecognizable mess that only someone with an abundance of unearned and untested confidence could produce on their first sit-down with Microsoft paint. I mean to find out if AI can make "bad" art.
Aaaand the image is too large for .ee