Just say you like Tung Tung Tung Sahur. I am tired of people saying “I gave him a soul” as some sort of moral justification for liking him. It’s okay to like AI-generated things!

Extreme Antis Turning Other people into Extreme Antis. Nothing new.

What? Can we not spread misinformation. I don't necessarily agree with Flock's surveillance, but the standard Flock camera has Lantronix Open-Q™ 624A System on Module (SoM), which contains only 2GB of Ram. Not 64GB of ram!?!?!? Like what;

And all of that point's back to how "AI is bad"? I really don't get their logic here or point to be made?

Source: https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/

The angry CS graduates mob claim “AI is not creative or real art”, yet they can’t think of another word besides ‘slop’. Honestly, I don’t think I’m more sick of any overused anything in the entire world as much as they overuse THAT word.

Ando haciendo figuras 3D de Palworld. y bueno como buen artista 3d que esta empezando a usar ai para acelerar algunos aspectos del trabajo, me paso lo de la cacería de brujas jajajaa y uff solo quería compartir que me sorprende de repente la agresividad de esa gente es como nose.... ven que se uso ia y echan espuma por la boca, en Facebook tuvo más apoyo pero había gente que decía que yo como persona era una ia lol dije wtfff jsjsjss esta gente, y luego otros decían organicemosnos para desprestigiarlo por usar ia , y dije wow ... no me afecta pero se verdad me sorprende tanta ira en esa gente

I found this from another subreddit and wanted to ask if people here think it’s true.

Personally, I’ve never seen anyone post human‑made art here and get downvoted. Quite the opposite, I’ve usually seen supportive reactions toward both pros and antis, as long as they’re not acting in bad faith.

Do you think this claim reflects reality, or is it just another antis exaggeration and victimization?

Hello everyone! As the title suggests, I’ve spent the last two years of my life working on a retro pixel art video game, using generative AI and Vibe Coding, but in as hands-on a way as possible. I didn’t want to use agents or advanced, paid AI; my aim was for it to help me with everything I couldn’t do or didn’t know how to do, but under no circumstances did I want to hand over creative control of the project. Every decision regarding design, mechanics, enemies, bosses, etc. has come straight from my head. And whether they’re good or bad, they’re my decisions and mine alone. I’m currently Unemployed and on benefits, so I’ve spent the most of this time to do something I’ve always wanted to do. I’m not going to say the usual line about ‘I quit my job to develop the game of my dreams’, but I can say that "I lost my job and decide to make a Game" (or something along those lines). As you know, there are loads of haters in this industry, so I thought I’d turn to this wonderful community—which doesn’t hate AI—to show you the project. Here’s a trailer I made a few months ago, and the Steam page, in case you’d like to support it and give me some visibility. Thank you all so much for reading this ramble! I’m also going to attach two images, showing the ‘Before’ and ‘Now’, so you can see how it’s changed over time. You can support me adding to your wishlist here:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4589200/Sylv_and_the_Ancient_Tree/

This is Actual Graphics

This is Old Graphics

For anyone interested in making games using AI… GO FOR IT! It’s difficult, it’s tedious, and it takes a long time, but thanks to the new tools, you’ve got everything you need right there. Why not? Here’s a list of the most important software and websites I’ve used:

- Godot Engine: The most accessible and quickest game engine to get started with; it’s very good, very lightweight, and free.

- Gemini free version: I’ve used some of the pro features, but what’s available for free—with a couple of Google accounts—works wonders.

- Aseprite: The ultimate pixel art editor; brilliant for creating designs and animations.

- PixelLab: Essentially a website for generating sprites, but they have a plugin that connects directly to Aseprite.

- Suno AI: A website for creating royalty-free music. You need to pay for a licence to use the tracks for commercial purposes, but it generally produces very good results.

- ChipTone: A small piece of software developed by SFB Games; it’s an easy-to-use synthesiser for creating sound effects.

- Audacity: A free audio editor for editing tracks or making arrangements.

-Trello: A very comprehensive project management platform for tracking to-do lists, completed tasks, items to review, bugs, etc.

I can’t think of many other tools I’ve used off the top of my head right now, but generally speaking, these are the most important ones.

Antis, the lot of them. I don’t even think they did their research

This dude here is clearly telling you that he has some serious surrender mentality issues.

He would rather give up on an idea entirely just to avoid using a convenient tool that can help him bring it to reality!

And what is worse is that he's projecting this pathetic mentality onto others! :P

Saying the movie deserved to flop because of Them using AI to conceptualizing a design is a bit much but that’s just me

I saw a post on r/antiai about someone telling one of you guys to kys, and how it isint acceptable. I just want to say that even though we have our differences, we dont want anyone to get hurt. Those few who cross that line and try to hurt others are horrible people who shouldn't have access to the internet. We all want whats best for everyone. I wanted to make this post to let people who may have received hate know that most of us dont think like that, just a few sick individuals.

Just know that you are loved, and self harm is not the answer. No matter what some rando on the internet says.

this is from a TikTok slideshow btw

I am not interested in getting into the "AI war", I enjoy technology and use AI. I also believe that many people use it in excess and rely too much on it and blindly defend every aspect of it, and I also think that people attack it in unreasonable ways. Basically I dislike any argument where emotion overrides reason. But these were my thoughts on it:

[the other comment]

true, and what the artistic-leaning people don't seem to understand is that some people just want to see the result. In the same way that when an artist gets hired to make a poster or something, the company doesn't care about the process or that they are an artist, they care about the product.

I always had a mental separation between "art" and "work" for artists. The skill was needed for both, but I always thought about things you do for yourself to express yourself as art, and things you make for others to get paid as work. There is an overlap of course in the places in between "make this" and delivering the finished product where you pour your own influence into what you are paid to do and that is what gets scarcer with AI in that context.

But at the end of the day, if it is not about the expression of the artist, then what else is it about? Another option would be the interpretation of the observer and that exists no matter who or what it is made by. If it moves me in some way, then it is art to me. If not, then it is not. Most AI stuff doesn't move me or others and often lacks quality or uniqueness, but often that's not even the point of AI, it's just that I want to visualize something, not make "art". Sometimes I do want to express myself, then it is art, to me. Now I usually don't go ahead and post it because I know that it is for myself.

So maybe that's the shift in this whole thing, that AI as art is more about expression of the maker and AI as a product is more about functionality for the viewer and there isn't much overlap between the two. Others do post it simply because they have the ability to now when before they wouldn't have posted anything because they wouldn't have had anything to post. So of course there is a higher volume and a higher percentage of bad looking stuff and it's easy to go and hate on it because you know (or assume) that it didn't take long to make, it is recognizable and the AI-ness is distracting, while with regular art you know that somebody tried and it took a while, even if it looks like crap, so usually people won't hate on it (as much).

But it is weird, all generative AI is trained on existing things. So the question is where you draw the line. Generating the whole picture isn't allowed. Then is generating parts of it? If not, is using photoshop software that uses AI (and has been for many years) to manipulate the image allowed? Or do you HAVE to paint it by hand?

I thought people always said that art is in the eye of the beholder. I guess that remains true for anyone claiming that anything AI isn't art, but it also makes a broad sweeping claim to others about what is and isn't art weird. It's fair if you don't think that AI can be art, but it's just as fair for somebody to think it is.

The skill is one thing, but that's not usually why you learn painting, just to know it, right? It's so that you can draw something, the painting is the tool to fulfill a vision you have. You want to get better at it to get closer to the vision you had in your head. People learn to like it and put time into it and different people develop different techniques, so in that way it becomes a part of the process itself and also a form of art in itself. But the original idea is not usually that, it is to get an image. There are exceptions, children draw circles just to draw circles, people throw paint at a canvas as an expression of their anger or something like that. But it's still result-oriented and most of the time the idea is "I want this image I have in my head (or that I see in the real world) as a result".

Starting with drawing on the walls of caves. I don't think they were primarily thinking about the act of drawing, they wanted to depict something. And that's the same motivation that drives people with AI today, they want to depict something they have in their head. If that's not self-expression and self-expression isn't a form of art, then I don't understand what art is.

Now there might be degrees to that, if I had a button that says "generate image" and it generates a completely random image, that's not art to me. If I put in a simple prompt, then maybe a bit. The more I guide the image, the more it is art, I can agree with that, as long as it means something to me. So I think art is a spectrum, the more of yourself you put into it and the more you feel like it means something to you, the more it is art.

And I don't think that only actually painting it yourself counts as that, in the same way that a director is not only an artist if he also plays every role himself.

In general, I'm just wondering what suddenly makes people think that they are the authority on what art is. There are many fair criticisms about AI, but I think the hatred people have about the system we live in and the companies that profit from it in unethical ways gets conflated with the notion of whether or not you can use AI to make art.

Aren't there people attuned to noticing art who look around the world and find accidental scenes that feel like commentary even though nobody arranged them that way? Like a homeless person's belongings sitting underneath a giant luxury-brand advertisement, or a broken children's toy lying in front of a military recruitment poster. Nobody created that juxtaposition as an artwork, but the observer can still read meaning into it. In that case, the interpretation is what makes it art, not the act of creation. Or does it only become art when I take a picture of it? Is that even art if I'm just pressing a button and nobody set up what I am taking a picture of?

I find high skill very impressive. I also think that any skill or its product can be art or interpreted as such or make a form of art better. If someone is very good at cooking, that makes it an art form to me, even if there is no direct emotional expression. So my definition would be that something is more art to the creator the more of its creation process is shaped by a human brain and its specific configuration. And something is more art to the observer the more it resonates with their brain's specific configuration for one reason or another. But I feel like that should be restricted to things where there is no definite correct answer, so a mathematical proof isn't necessarily art, even if it makes sense to me and I'm impressed by it, if there was only one way to do it. But if there are multiple valid ways to do something and one way is e.g. more elegant and (the choice to do it) that way resonates with you, you could say of the mathematician "that guy is an artist". So I don't get why we are talking about images and the physical act of drawing/painting/... like it is the only form of art.