i promise this won't all be doomerist...

Sure, sitting here could be considered a waste of time — same as scrolling YouTube, but I'm talking about your entire life. The hill is too big to climb, you can see the top and so many people have trekked the trail that the borders where the path meets the grass have faded.

Every step up this mountain. Every skill you've learnt to make money.

music, drawing, 3d-modeling, art...

There is a robot out there who can do it faster. A machine that can do more in a minute than you could in a lifetime. I'm not kidding.

i've heard that somewhere else...

So much of the talk surround AI nowadays has become overly depressing for shock value or clickbait— and true, nuanced conversation is becoming a relic. But sure, it's already been happening for years — so what do I know?

I'd like to drop any overly 'doomer' talk in place for a more balanced conversation. That doesn't mean I can't include some fun games for y'all though, and I hope you enjoy :).

can I ask you a question?

When before has a tool made the creative decisions for an artist?

All at your fingertips.

Till you run out of stamina.

AI art has been likened to the invention of the camera, to photoshop.

"It's just another tool that speeds up the creative process, like digital art. People demonized the camera and drawing tablets when those came out, it's the same damn thing!"

He described how it changed art, and how it definitively altered the experience of art. It changed art permanently, but for the better.

However, I'm afraid that AI art won't improve art; the art it creates lacks any true intention or message from the start.

It predicts what a 'true artist' would do, but it doesn't understand any of the meaning behind it.

"An image is a sight which has been recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance and preserved - for a few moments or a few centuries. Every image embodies a way of seeing. Even a photograph. For photographs are not, as is often assumed, a mechanical record. Every time we look at a photograph, we are aware, however slightly, of the photographer selecting that sight from an infinity of other possible sights.

"...The photographer's way of seeing is reflected in his choice of subject.

"The painter's way of seeing is reconstituted by the marks he makes on the canvas or paper.

Yet, although every image embodies a way of seeing, our perception or appreciation of an image depends also upon our own way of seeing"

Did you catch that? The photographer takes a creative choice to select a sight from an infinity of other sights!

In this case, it's not just a dice roll left up to random chance, to some... algorithm.

the improv analogy

Interestingly, there are large misconceptions about AI art — specifically in how it functions compared to the human brain.

Many people assume a sense of continuity between messages or ideas — a creative thread — but that can't be further from the truth.

Take memory functions in AI (or custom instructions for that matter), as well as the conversational flow.

AI is not continuing through a conversation with you — because it isn't alive. The illusion of continuity comes from AI models being very good improvisational actors.

This is because the core architecture of an AI doesn't even begin to mimic a human brain. And it won't — not for a long while.

Just look at the Blue Brain Project.

We are still missing many components to inject a lived life into the art that is currently created. Continuity, consciousness, emotional intelligence, or even a lived experience...

All we have now — are compelling simulacra.

But if I take an AI image and touch it up in Photoshop, I'm doing the same thing as the photographer, aren't I?

With all due respect...

that's wack.

If a painter takes an AI generated image and "touches it up" in Photoshop, they are modifying a foundation that lacks human intentionality.

If I were to take a frozen ready-to-go pizza and slap it in the oven for 15 goddamn minutes, I'm not Gordon fucking Ramsay, am I?!

While an AI "artist's" alterations might introduce some elements of personal expression, the core of the image remains rooted in an entity that cannot possess a way of seeing.

a replacement.

I'd like to further argue that it's not a tool, it's a replacement. These systems are being developed by computer scientists — not to aid artists, but to replace them entirely in the process, marketed as a way for anyone to create art without needing the effort, the skill.

What, like the fucking "Democratization of art"?

Exactly

I was joking...

And with an infinite onslaught of images, stories and music, the market will be flooded, reducing the perceived value of human created art, making it harder for artists to stand out.

"I probably won't be able to find [my] work out there because the internet will be flooded with AI art".

We are seeing this effect already happening in front of us. More and more artists need to put in proof that their personal work isn't AI, not the other way around.

Take artstation: a platform built for sharing and selling art, and for artists to showcase their work through portfolios or courses. Recently, artists on this platform have united in one of the largest online protests against AI-generated art.

And artstation addressed it—

Kinda.

The almighty judge ruled that there will be an AI tag to allow these so-called 'artists' to label their work.

But of course, tags mean nothing if people lie, and many do.

facebook grandparents

And the same happens on twitter, or 'x', albeit not always with images.

With financial incentive too — as the X Blue users now receive money for each impression, leading to them commenting as much as possible,

paying off what they paid to use twitter blue and the AI they generated the posts with.

tag that AI pic!

Welcome everybody to "tag that AI pic", where YOU need to TAG the AI generated images in our slightly dated collection of images sourced from the greasy, murky confines of the DeviantArt caves.

These are all from a 'weapon design and concept art' tab, a tab that is separate to the AI tab that exists on the site.

Now, a lucky contestant will have a chance to try and win ten thousand dollars by selecting the correct images.

Now, contestants, which of these 18 images are AI?

Ready... set... guess!

Did you play fair? No cheating!

These images were AI.

13 out of 18 images, 72%. You love to see it!

But hold on to your horses, gentlemen, let's do a quick round of fun trivia!

Out of these 13 artists, how many did NOT disclose that they were using AI?

Now for double or nothing, can anyone name what AI service the—

i'll cut the show off here.

But you see, there as no tag at the bott-

"Can't you use your eyes?"

And you'd have a point.

And this artist used to make art back in 2017

Aha!

No! No "aha"!

I don't want any hate going to this artist. They seem to be still making some level of real art, but even if they were using AI... come on y'all... grow up.

here's a fun trivia for you.

Can you imagine the great shame of having someone reveal your work for being a farce? For revealing that your skills that were once true are now fake? Any image this artist could make would now be called AI, and none of their true skill would be acknowledged anymore.

I would like to add as a small warning that if any artist's work that I mention here isn't AI, and the artist wants me to remove the section:

nuh uh.

If your art isn't AI, then this only proves my point more that it leads to a mistrust between people.

And if it is AI? Well then it's AI.

I will stress again that nobody mentioned in this blog should be subject to harassment, no matter their crimes against humanity.

People will mercilessly gun down an artist on a loose assumption, ruining their careers— hell, maybe even their lives.

That's not right.

What about photo bashing? Artists do it all the time — stealing bits and pieces from other artworks and smashing them together. It's like touching up an image.

Well, does tweaking an AI's output truly infuse it with human creativity, or is it just polishing a component the machine produced?

I remember a work— though I don't remember from whom. The artist had asked an AI to generate the most beautiful landscapes or views, and then proceeded to splatter paint over it.

This functions as a commentary on the function of AI as a tool, and the role of the artist as a creator. By disrupting the AI's output, the artist reclaims creative agency, turning the piece into something uniquely his own.

Now contrast that with simply 'touching up' an ai generated image — adjusting the colors here, refining the details there.

This isn't transformation; it's cosmetic alteration.

You're putting a chrome wrap on a shitbox car.

The foundational creative decisions - the composition, the human subjects, the style — were made by an algorithm, not a human. And yes, sometimes the algorithm is the art, but this is different.

No personal experiences or emotions were put into the painting. In the example, AI is used not just as a tool, but as a subject of critique and exploration. The approach shows that AI can be integrated into art ethically and creatively when used as a medium for exploration rather than a shortcut.

However, if the use of AI is a shortcut to produce images quickly , without deeper purpose or meaning, it lacks the artistic intent that gives art its meaning and value.

Now back to the ex-artist.

I couldn't find any definitive evidence, and it leads to these doubts, especially when they have works like the one above from 2017 (with their signature).

Nobody took money away from artists through this, what's the harm? Where's the foul?

take AlectorFencer on X.

Wonderful.

slop.

This harkens back to TikTok slop content. Needing someone to read your reddit posts for you.

What was believed to be hours of effort now seems to be a single prompt in something like suno.com, a free AI music service.

Let's run on the assumption that it is AI art. This is 2 million views that were stolen from artists who have put hours of work into designing melodies, chord progressions, and more.

and "stolen" is the right word.

Many people don't have a say whether their work is trained on by AI.

What I'm saying is that the real musicians lose money, while Suno rebranded as (a)'s or (w)'s or (w)homever's content makes the bag, running away to other platforms as well

But it's lo-fi background music, nobody really cares about that crap—

Now that's one hell of a point. What sucks for you though, is that I'm moving different. I got that dog in me, I'm smoking that—

mindset.

It promised artists a break, you could color in your animations automatically, forget all that boring, monotonous stuff.

It was big, it got support —

I mean, RubberRoss featured it on his channel.

But the tool itself is, to an extent, problematic, and I think the artists who are in support of it are thinking similarly to tech bros, valuing the speed and efficiency over the artistic nature — a topic that I'll touch on in a bit.

yet another question.

Do you think filling in these blanks is ok?

We think that this small scale 'filling in the blanks' is ok.

Let the AI make these creative decisions, just a small bit of a larger whole.

So then, why would the CEO of a big firm think any differently? Just let the AI fill in a small bit of the company's art. It won't really hurt anyone.

It's like a Roomba!

don't forget to insert scene of janitor being shot!

Too on the nose?

And it's an over exaggeration, yes, but I think it's reflective of the mindsets of people who are pro AI-art. They don't see the art as something worth the time.

This might be a slippery slope fallacy, but there is historical precedent, which firms choosing to take the cheaper option over the healthier option.

I don't mean to fear monger but... let's say for a second that AI art is art.

The person prompting and posting the art... are they even the artist anymore?

Personally, I don't think so. They merely become an agent for the true artist — mid journey, suno, Dalle-3, etc.

But how is commissioning a freelance artist different from using AI?

And what if that artist then uses AI?

I've recently seen some album cover art that is AI generated and that's... nonsensical.

My thought is: If you don't care about it, then show that. Do some cool minimalism like "brat", but don't force an AI into your work.

And hey, if they don't know, they don't know. That's valid.

But what if they didn't generate, but the contractor did?

Well, that's on the contractor, yes. And again, if they didn't know that the contractor did, then it's more a product of the circumstances.

But sometimes it's even more sneaky on the side of the contractor.

The contractor may use AI to generate conceptual images.

now ain't that something?

I'm paying you to come up with the ideas, to inject some of your own personality into my project.

I'm essentially paying for the honor of working with someone as talented in art as you.

And you turn around and you use AI to get preliminary concepts, essentially ripping away the entire premise.

You're just polishing the output.

and this isn't some 'avant-garde' process. You're plagiarizing the plagiarist's homework, and then hiding behind the concept of "being open and accepting to new kinds of art" to justify your laziness.

But let's be realistic here. I can't change the artistic landscape with one blogpost.

Especially not my first or second one.

And it doesn't matter if I "help spread the word" or not.

Wanna know why?

economics.

The artistic company that foregoes artistic integrity is able to operate at a larger profit margin if they are to price their products similarly to other companies.

That means, the company that uses AI generated artwork makes bank, while the authentic ones that actually care about their work are left in the dust.

I mean hell, COD's already doing it, and they spearhead game development to some extent, so you know that other companies will follow suit.

And the ones that stick to their guns?

They'll lose.

They'll eventually get undercut by some firm, and will be forced to exit the market.

But why am I saying all of this?

I told you all to give up in the beginning, and have now shown you that it's useless to fight against it.

Yo this shit is depressing as hell!

I know, right?

And what's even worse is that Adobe forces artists to agree to predatory contracts to even use the software, thus exploiting the artists.

They actually stopped using user work to train AI, but I'm sure they're only sorry they got caught.

Or there's harassment from the AI community, making an AI slave model of SamDoesArts to bully him for even questioning the decision of the almighty gods to copy your style.

a link.

Ignoring all of that, why should you continue doing art?

Well, it's a difficult question to answer.

Logically, the best thing to do is to give up.

And if you think it's still bad now, check back in a couple of years

this is starting to drag on

You want an ultimatum? fine.

It's pseudo-random number generation.

Someone could remake your exact work with the same seed and prompt.

With any art, there is some influence from a human's life that alters the final product in some way.

We do not accurately remember art pieces, our memories of them are warped by our own perspectives, experiences, and emotions.

I would go as far as to say that any form of AI art that is trained on art without the artist's knowledge or permission is plagiarism.

And if there is some small terms of service that they unknowingly signed to use Photoshop, it is still plagiarism.

This is not to say that if we had a 100% sentient AI it would not be capable of creating art, that is a completely different debate.

I'm talking about AI art now, in this moment.

I'm happy classifying it as its own category adjacent to art, but it is not a subsection of art like photography or music.

It is, at best, a toy.

I do implore you to check out the other side's arguments for AI art though.

It's a great form of entertainment for an evening.

You never actually answered the lo-fi music bit, you just changed the subject. Like... why can't I just enjoy art for the aesthetics?

The process and intent behind art are as important as the final product.

AI lacks any capability for introspection and storytelling. Even if there is no intentional emotional meaning in human art, it will be subconscious.

Similarly, it's an expression of skill.

Take the original meaning of the word 'Ars' or 'Artis', the Latin roots for 'art'. They meant an expression of 'skill' or 'craft'

But doesn't that imply that putting hours into a piece makes it more art than others? That seems flawed...

Good question!

One of these factors alone doesn't make something art.

That is to say— emotional reactions to AI art might be more about aesthetics or novelty, rather than a connection to the 'artist's' intention or deeper meaning.

Furthermore, the nature of artistic creation is in the human flaws, our small mistakes. Things that the AI lacks.

Every mistake, every failure teaches you more of that skill, and at some point down the road, you may finally succeed.

stolen directly from drew gooden.

I can't predict what it will become, but currently it is a cheap way of creating art that reflects poorly on the creator of the art, showing that they do not value human expression.

But even more so, they do not value the product they are selling.

They're alright with letting a machine interpret and warp their creative vision into... art?

I told you to give up at the beginning of this thing, and I stand behind that.

Give up the shortcuts.

I know you've heard that a million times, and it's an absolute groaner, but that's a big hole in a lot of the arguments of AI tech bros.

They value time and quantity over quality, and are willing to sacrifice the artistic integrity to achieve their goals.

Saying AI just speeds things up assumes that speed and creativity are the end goals for art, which (in most cases) misses the point entirely.

It's that process and intent which gives art its depth.

It's not just efficiency — it's about who holds the creative agency.

Because, if you're only here for what comes after the art, why create when you can consume?

If an AI "artist" doesn't put in the effort to create images for their art — why should I spend my time consuming those images, if the creator themselves doesn't think they're worth the effort?

That is to say, if you pump out thousands of AI 'masterpieces,' each one will be scrolled past without second thought, and you'll never reach the depth or respect that comes with the process.

Well what do you suppose we should do then?

In my opinion?

Stop supporting AI art in cases where creativity is the norm.

Don't follow AI 'artists' or like their posts.

But ignoring the issue doesn't make it better.

AI artists will slip past the cracks and trick enough people for a while, again taking profits away from real artists.

So... finding ways to support the fight?

so go ahead and climb the hill.

Learn the skill you wanted to learn, be it drawing, 3d modeling, or music.

Try your hardest at the thing that makes your soul light up, so you can look back down the hill and see how far you've made it.

But there's a man standing at the top and he's happy. Why even try?

because his enjoyment of his hike doesn't change yours.

In this half-assed metaphor, AI's just a golf cart that takes you to the top of the mountain.

But here's the thing — when you ride that golf cart, you skip the climb.

The ache in your legs.

The rush of the wind in your face.

The stumble, the laugh at how damn hard it was.

Empathizing with your buds at the top.

And what is the view worth if you don't feel the burn in your chest? If you don't fight for every step?

People don't hike as a chore, they hike because the journey is the damn point!

So if AI is that easy ride to the top, remember that sometimes, it's the climb that teaches you why the view matters.

And it's not wrong to learn something for money, but, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you play it safe — life pushes you back down the cliff either way.

So at least choose your own damn cliff.

bsky: thebigbubbowski.bsky.social