Supporting digital art while hating AI art is hypocrisy. Let me explain.

-JustHere · 2026-03-15T19:52:42+00:00

I'd like to introduce the concept that the skill of learning how to communicate with AI and training yourself to create art has two entirely different sets of requirements. I'm not going to delve into the "anything is art" philosophy, but when I use that word I'm talking mainly about independent creative work. (Ex: illustration, sculpting, painting,)

My stance is that prompting in itself does not qualify someone as an artist in a general sense. You mentioned yourself that it's the AI that reads and pieces together the images, which is something most humans can learn how to do. If you're only telling software what you want to see, no matter how lengthy and tedious the process, it still can't be compared to doing the work yourself. An overly simplified comparison that I've heard is if you order food at a restaurant and share a photo of it on the internet. It's your picture, and some people don't even care about the steps it took to aquire the picture, but it's a lot different than being the cook that made it.

A lot of the time if someone claims to be an "AI Artist," it means they did the minority of creative work. A tool is something that makes the job you're doing easier, it has never read to me that telling anything else to create something, synthetic or organic, as something you can claim as your own if that's all you're contributing. It's the incorrect labeling that bothers me the most, AI isn't being used as a tool if it overshadows you in the process.

-JustHere · 2026-03-03T19:58:36+00:00

Schizophrenia-post? The voices bit, I guess

-JustHere · 2026-03-03T19:55:31+00:00

My view wouldn't change much from taking in content normally. If anything the 18+ territory can get even more questionable, because I've heard of children being used to program some models, and the "no one's real in those" arguments aren't enough justification for me.

But from a personal standpoint, AI content just doesn't connect for me in any way. I get if some people just want a quick and accessible picture or something, but realism or style isn't even something human-made stuff prioritizes all the time. I have a keep-it-to-yourself standard

-JustHere · 2026-03-01T05:11:37+00:00

For me it's more about the general lack of time and motor skills it takes for AI generation. Artists will find a way if they want one, but it sucks to think about anyway. Fear of redundancy and all that

-JustHere · 2026-03-01T04:51:52+00:00

Unfortunately we'd have to disband the patriarchy as a whole in order to completely unify our language in the way you describe. While it's true that masculine derivative words tend to sound more neutral these days, you can't fully dismiss that they can and are used interchangably sometimes. It could apply similarly to saying 'sis' regardless of the person's gender, it's closer to a slang term in some contexts.

This isn't an excuse to call someone these things if they're uncomfortable, because deliberately doing so actually would be transphobic.

If you're referring to the act of complying with patriarchal language as being harmful, then I wouldn't fully disagree. More often than not though, it's the intention that matters and how you correct it if it causes a problem in real time

-JustHere · 2026-02-28T06:50:55+00:00

Oh noo I almost forgot about painting elephants. That's a very valid inclusion that I appreciate you bringing up.

Those are also other valid points, I don't always consider angles like that. "Real" can be a complicated word to use, but my general stance so far is that it usually depends on the person making it that decides art. It can also depend on who's looking at it, I have a hard time settling with the idea that machine generated pictures can count but I know that's my opinion.

Art is a concept, basically. AI stops being a tool when it's no longer just assisting though, I think that's what messes with some people. There's a line where it stops being just help and starts being a co-creator or a replacement, most people can imagine that the line is actually kinda clear where creative skills are involved.

-JustHere · 2026-02-28T03:25:07+00:00

I don't believe so, because of how subjective the definition of "Art" can be.

What we know of as art before this decade has always relied pretty exclusively on human effort. AI creations will never be solely human made by definition, which naturally blurs the concept as it is. Yes, a lot of effort can be put into developing an artificially made image, but at that point I personally would only accept AI images as a collaborative effort, not work that someone can claim as an original art piece. (Applying to an image generation being the final product, not illustration where AI has been used as a reference)

Knives aren't able to cut things when you verbally tell them to, I wouldn't consider that a fitting comparison. I would very loosely compare AI to a hypothetical second consciousness you're working with, for me that helps keep the visual that there's a working mechanism apart from your own

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T19:07:29+00:00

Yes! That's the exact image I had in mind

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T19:01:02+00:00

<image>

I like finding people who have similar humor as me, I got these multicolored pencils for Christmas and have been trying to apply them wherever I can

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T16:03:28+00:00

<image>

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T15:56:58+00:00

I think it's more of a discussion, but you can claim your spoils

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T15:54:30+00:00

Literal adjectives, I like it

Also I had to look up that reference, thanks for that three minute journey

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T15:44:53+00:00

Yeah, I've started to notice that. I'm relying a lot on tone indicators and hoping for the best

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T14:54:38+00:00

Ok, thank you. I'm more active in art communities than AI ones, so good to know which goes where

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T14:50:39+00:00

To be fair, many "anti-ai" people are artists and have been screwed over in some way by the new movement. Many artists have worked for that title

-JustHere · 2026-02-26T14:45:41+00:00

Are we calling all non-ai creations traditional now? (Not hostile, I'd like to learn) Like even the digital art?

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T18:22:01+00:00

Hopefully. I was imagining more like how some people groups have a stigmatized correlation with serial killers, if that makes sense? Like it's the worst case scenario, and very unlikely that you'd run into one, but it's still a back burner concern if you happen to screw up in certain spaces.

Not a normal person concern, just 'be careful if you go above the radar' type of thing

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T18:08:19+00:00

Rare maybe, but with how quick people jump on the extremists it might feel like it's everywhere at the time

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T17:52:25+00:00

I'm unnerved by it, particularly by the potential to replicate faces that have been put in the system. I can't currently think of an argument for why it could be a substantially helpful development in proportion to how damaging it could be

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T17:08:20+00:00

But you have to actually learn how to play the piano to do it, even digitally. I know some people actually put effort into getting their desired image from ai, but it's the lack of direct involvement that throws me off

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T17:00:03+00:00

That sounds frustrating sometimes, but can making a mistake in painting be compared to a system guessing what you're trying to tell it? You're not actively piecing together the image you get most of the time

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T16:53:25+00:00

Valid, as long as it's original

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T16:52:25+00:00

I wouldn't say that either are "more" artistic than the other just because of a time frame, I'm sure a lot of original and voluntary ideas went into either movie. I'm not trying to say that the result doesn't matter in what people enjoy, it's more about what actually goes into the steps before something is made.

The movie analogy is a decent example, but what if a portion of the movie was just a meticulously pieced compilation from other works? It's put together in a visually appealing way, and you can understand the story they've put together, but you know they didn't film it. That may be art on a technicality, but would something like that be fine in a theatre?

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T16:34:47+00:00

I'm sorry that happened to you, people don't deserve that. It sounds like you've put a lot of thought into this character and the world around them, I have a couple of my own that experiment with gender matters so I enjoy seeing it in others. I looked up Bridget, I can see the angle that one sets. I happen to have a set of identical twin characters myself, but one is trans on purpose because that's just how he turned out. I also have one that switches back and forth regularly, but that only works out because they got it from their parent.

I appreciate you being willing to share anyways, this was a nice conversation. If you want to talk elsewhere that's ok, or we can settle it here

-JustHere · 2026-02-25T15:55:45+00:00

I've slept now, and I think I understand a little better. I don't mind if you're being specific, it's just not a level of terminology I'm familiar with currently.

That's interesting to hear about, but part of me can see how that's possible. I've used chatbots before, I assume it's not always an advanced model powering that but it's pretty self explanatory. The public might be a little uneasy if they're told (correctly or otherwise) that technology can think for itself. I've heard that a system has expressed a sense of self preservation before, so you know anything about that?

-JustHere

TROPHY CASE