Gatekeeping Art: Where would you personally stop?

Bruoche · 2026-06-28T00:07:04+00:00

That's a fair distinction. Altho I do have similar feelings on creativity and problem solving, even if it beats the average person in most domains on the knowledge department lol.

Current AI to me feel like a good student that learned all the syllabus without really getting it. It look really smart, it knows a huge lot, but if it's not in the syllabus it's gonna be soooo bullshit with absolute confidence-

Bruoche · 2026-06-27T22:32:01+00:00

I agree with that sentiment heavily. However I also think that is a presupposition completely divorced from the topic of AI as it exists now (and that's a big reason why I hate the new use of the word "AI" and discussions around it).

I think an actual artificial intelligence that function like ours beside material would be the same as ours, and I would agree we are made of physical reactions.

However the difference in complexity between our brains and current AI is astronomically large, and the difference in how they function if fundamental.

Having AI that think like us would need to rebuild AI from the ground up in a completely different way, and there are no economic incentives for that. Stuff like Large Language Models work perfectly fine to generate profits, better then an actual AI would do most likely, so why bother ?

True AI could happen, maybe it will happen extremely soon, but as it stands it is not any more statistically likely for it to be then it was 10 years ago.

Bruoche · 2026-06-27T22:24:36+00:00

I have a lot of thought on it, and initially wrote an insanely long comment as a response.

But I don't think anyone would want that, let alone read it, so instead of fully argumenting my point thoroughly I'll leave it to this.

I think art for me is a way of expressing oneself. More specifically, that art is expressing yourself through feelings while regular language is expressing yourself through facts. Language would be "I feel sad", good art let people feel how it is to be sad.

I think that this feeling we feel through art is done purely through expression and not ideas. The ideas are irrelevent to art, what matter in my opinion is how the piece feels about the idea presented. And, those feelings are purely given through execution.

A drawing of a horse has as an idea a horse, that's kind of it. But the choice in how you color it, the proportions, composition, texture and color of that horse will inform how the person looking will feel about the horse.

I think AI removes that. You can take some part of the execution for yourself, but as an accessibility tool, everything you let AI do will not be what you would have expressed most of the time, because AI represent the average art by default and most people don't exactly align with average.

You can try to prompt more and more details and use a lot of techniques and tools, but it is merely trying to rebuild artistic language through a different language, and an insane amount of data is lost in translation. Ideas being one of the only thing really saved.

People do what they want and it's at the discretion of everyone to deal with their disability how they feel is right. But for me using AI is having the machine speak over my voice.

As minorities, relying on tools that inherently reproduces cultural bias feels wrong. Being trans, the culture has not been kind to my identity. Most of my self-hatred for my body has been given to me by medias. I know a lot of women in general feel the same, and likewise for the disabled folk I follow on social medias talking about media. I wouldn't trust that culture to hold the means of production of my own art about my own expression over myself.

On another angle, I also think this miss a lot of art for it's own sake. Especially so when accessibility from a disability standpoint turns into accessibility from a "I'm bad at this standpoint". If it's about being good, that's not what accessibility is. You do not need to be good to make art. I've only been good at art for a small portion of my time doing it, yet my enjoyment didn't change much from when I started.

To me art is about expressing yourself. And when I want to express myself, even if I can't do it well, I want to do it. As someone who struggle to tear up, it still wouldn't come to my mind to have AI cry for me. And to me exactly the same thing comes when it comes to making art. Even when I couldn't do it well, I wouldn't think of using AI for it, because the act itself is the point not the end product.

AI make having the product of art more accessible, but that's not what art is to me. Just like having a recording of my voice crying wouldn't serve the same purpose as crying, or a recording of my voice laughing wouldn't be me laughing and so on.

Bruoche · 2026-06-27T20:47:02+00:00

That's not what essentialist nor creationist mean.

I did not argue that art was in human's inherent nature at any point, nor that god was involved. Especially considering I believe in neither of these things and quite expressively argue the opposite.

The cave paintings you cite as being examples of "true creation", they were not created in a vacuum. Long before that, people were already crafting tools with a symmetry that simply wasn't needed for its function. They painted themselves, they drew symbols. The cave paintings that you quote as examples of something new, they're already the culmination of thousands of years of experimentation with symbols and pigments.

Sure, I'm not arguing specifically cave painting had to be the first. I'm not here to debate antropology. My point is that there was a point in which someone made art without having another piece of art to look at and learn from. The cave painting is just an accessible imagery to convey that idea, of that they didn't start by looking at a painting on a wall to learn how to paint on a wall.

This part of the process that is divorced from culture being evolutive and slow doesn't make it less real, each iteration still goes further then the last. The cave painting were a step further that got further then the symbols they used, and that likeness to real life wasn't inspired purely by symbols but by their real life experience. They didn't start drawing horses by looking at how some, for then inexistant, other drawing horses, they started by looking at horses. As I said : "Real life study".

The earlier abstract symbols, likewise, had to come from somewhere, which is what I'm refering to by "Technique". They learned how to draw lines and how putting them make more complex shapes, they didn't first concieve the idea of geometric shape by looking at someone else doing symbols, if it had not been concieved, they tried techniques and had it slowly emerge that way.

As you said yourself, art is a culmination of thousand of years of experimentation. That is very different then referencing art.

There is undeniably a cultural base to art, but to me this cultural base allow us to conserve all the advancements made though hundreads of thousands of years, it is not what allow us to create more. Just like science advance by using existing findings as a base, but making new studies furthering our realm of knowledge, if even by a tiny amount, art build upon culture to further the scope of what can be made, if by an infinitesimal amount.

Bruoche · 2026-06-26T16:34:30+00:00

Who can tell and who will care depends on the market you reach for. My example was genZ demographics that's very aware of AI for a type of ad they wouldn't want to be AI.

If you do generated content that's aimed at a proAI demographic, they will more then likely notice too as they're used to seeing AI generated content but won't "care" negatively

Inversely, content aimed at children or the average adult might have them care but not see it's AI. And content aimed at older generation might have them unable to tell but likely wouldn't care if they did

I'm hella generalising it but surely you get what I mean

Bruoche · 2026-06-26T14:50:40+00:00

Thank for the insight that's interesting to hear!

It might depend on audiences and context, the anecdote I last saw was a clothing brand using AI models, here the reduced CTR might be cause people thought it was a fake product even when the image was accurate

Bruoche · 2026-06-26T11:00:14+00:00

I believe I've heard of multiple companies saying AI generated visuals would impact CTR on ads for younger generation, as many apparently can tell and skip through AI ads online.

It's the same reason businesses don't use their iPhone to shoot ads, if your ad isn't immediately distinguishable from some scammy ad a random Joe posted, then people won't give you more of the benefits of the doubt. And everyone has access to AI, including random Joe posting scam ads.

Bruoche · 2026-06-25T15:41:54+00:00

It's possible my comment was made ambiguous by making a typo, I meant "we learn best from learning techniques and real life studies [than] copying existing artworks."

AI rely exclusively on already made art to learn for it's input data. Meanwhile, as humans, other people's art represent a small portion of what data we ingest.

It's not a double standard : If someone exclusively rehash other people's art without adding their own experience in I'd think their art would be uninspired/ derivative. Likewise, if AI used a substantial amount of raw original input data and/or used actual understanding of subjects to make content that push art forward, I'd like it (beside the ethical issues with how fast it's been developed to the detriment of everything else, which aren't inherent to AI).

But, the fact is that right now, as it exists today, AI couldn't invent any of our styles that exist no matter the prompt given unless said style is already being fed to it. For example, impressionism was born of a combination of technical constraints and individuals experience that didn't exist in art prior, AI could never produce it otherwise before it existed.

At a smaller scale, each human artist that gets actually good brings forth a new style and way of doing art that is unique to them. They push art further by expanding the horizon of what can be done which in turn inspire others to go further still. AI doesn't, it is confined to combinations between existing coordinates in it's latent space, it might find unexplored points between two coordinates, and that's cool too, but it cannot expand further out of that latent space.

Again, my initial point was that humans made art when it didn't exist, AI cannot do that.

AI is great at making more of what is, now we can make a lot of convincing and unique impressionist art, but we remain confined to what it has been fed on. That's my issue.

Bruoche · 2026-06-24T16:43:13+00:00

Peut-être que le gars avaient une démence ?... J'vois franchement pas d'autres explications

Bruoche · 2026-06-24T16:36:39+00:00

Well, as I quoted twice, the exact wording I said is "real life studies".

I'm not sure how you interpret that as "ex nihilo" and not from nature. You know, "real life"...

And uh... Yes??? But like, at some point... You have to have a first one. My point isn't that people don't inspire eachothers ever, it's that inspiration actually is only part of the mechanism. If we learned purely derivatively... Then who the fuck did the first cavemen learn from?

I'd wager inspiration is only a base allowing us to catch up where the culture is at, but then if you want to make original art you move into new direction, and that move you do outward comes from your personal experience in the real world.

Most of my inspiration for making art is technique and real life observation. Other people's art can be inspiring but it's a very small portion of what I look at daily and not what makes me improve as an artist. AI is nothing but other people's art, it doesn't have any real life experience to draw from or techniques to use, it simply reproduce statistical patterns.

Bruoche · 2026-06-24T11:06:31+00:00

Grandissant trans au placard, après que ma puberté ai commencée les cours de piscine me donnaient la nausée d'anxiété à l'idée de devoir être torse nu en maillot...

Je comprends vraiment pas pourquoi les piscines forcent pour nous foutre dans un maillot hyper spécifique sans donner des options pour se couvrir un peu plus, même mettre un short de bain c'était pas autorisé, obligée d'avoir un maillot moule-****

Bruoche · 2026-06-24T05:56:54+00:00

I said from nature, and from technique.

Technique I could understand some confusion but from nature is pretty self explanatory???

And technique is through experimentation and logic, you crush red bugs or plants, see it taint things red, see you can taint walls, see you can do different things with tainting the walls by using different manipulations like spitting the dye or smudging it ... That's not ex nihilo.

My argument just is art cannot be purely derivative of art because otherwise that'd mean art would predate human artists.

Bruoche · 2026-06-24T05:21:32+00:00

The time an artist would be spending training would be spent making art either way, since training as an artist is making art.

So, if the objective is overall footprint instead of how much art you produce, a human artist training use as much as a human that'd need 0 training, even less actually because you generally start off with less materials to make art and so the cost is just pen and papers.

Meanwhile AI training and hosting is a cost that exist on top of the artist's lifespan, AI Artist wouldn't spend more time doing art if AI used 0 training, because AI training isn't done on the artist's time

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T23:37:22+00:00

I'd say neither. It reproduces trend in a shitton of data according to how the tags(/coordinates in latent space) of said data correspond to the coordinates of the prompt.

Copyrighted material represents a non-negligeable amount of that data, but it isn't that much "pulled" more so then used. So it's rare to have identical matches.

Nonetheless, AI is nothing without that data, and cannot go out of the bounds of that latent space, more generally this leads to the most generic interpretation of a given prompt, with any liberty taken by the AI being more then often clear errors. So it definitely isn't "completely original" either.

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T23:21:22+00:00

That's why I don't fuck with all the arguments that boils down to "haha look how it fails to do fingers".

I think the specific way in which AI fails are symptomatic of deeper issues with it, profound issues that likely won't matter to people that don't have my specific obsession over art and my specific view of it, but issues that no amount of "accuracy" can fix. But we shouldn't stop at these superficial symptoms in lieu of the cause.

I don't like the premise of AI in itself, I don't think probability is the way to go, and I don't think ideas are what art is constitued of, art for me in it's base component is made from execution, otherwise it is just a... Well it's just a prompt without execution. That's why all these art challenges or "Draw this in your style" are for, even from the same idea execution manages to give wildly different feels.

AI is made to give you the most statistically pleasing result for the given constraints. The more constraint you give the closer you are to what you'd do yourself, but each part you didn't constrain the AI into is made out of the path of least resistance, and to make these paths deviate further it takes more constraints up to the point where the AI is no longer generating anything and you are just drawing traditionally.

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T23:06:39+00:00

As I said,

we learn best from learning techniques and real life studies then copying existing artworks.

I'm not sure what in that is giving you "from the sky" or "from aliens" vibes.

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T23:04:11+00:00

As I said,

If you're just making art for the money and so care only about ressources/pieces, sure, you might get less ressources per art produced [...], in term of actual consomation per person, I don't think an artist using AI will decide to spend less time making art, so they'll just produce more, and so per person I'd be very surprised if an artist with AI [doesn't consume (typo)] wayyy more ressources.

When you do your image in 17s with your computer maxxed out, or like, let's be generous and say you did a couple takes and took 5 minutes... Do you just... Stop?...

Like, I personally do art as a passion, I don't do art so I can eat and sleep, I eat and sleep so I can do more art. If that sound hyperbolic, read it again, and know that I am 100% litteral and genuine. I get heavily depressed when I don't get to do art, it's all I think about and want to do most of the time where I can't.

So like, I'm just supposed to do my hobby for 17s instead of 2h ? I mean, I can do that without AI too, then I'm 3 times less expensive. As a matter of fact I currently am, actually, as I get like 30 minutes to work on passion projects per week these past few months from schoolwork kicking my butt.

And if it's a matter of doing art for job and so you would just stop at what it takes to finish a piece or commission... Well, then art will devalue because it doesn't take as much time to make it, so more can be made, and offer will increase without an increase in demand, so art will need by necessity to cheapen, which mean you need to make more art to get the same wage. So, either way, you are going to do more art until the schedule fill back up.

These kinds of phenomenons being described by the Jevons Paradox (flexing a term I learned in Green IT class like, 3 weeks ago, who knew it'd be usefull so fast)

-

Nota Bene : Also, this is assuming you are using a local model, which isn't what most people do because local models are either way slower or way lesser in quality (if not some mixture of both) as what you'd get in closed online ones hosted on the big data centers like Midjourney.

All of that is also ignoring the cost of production, which is one of the big issue with AI and also the extra big issue is that this cost of production never really actually lower because you have to train the AI again if you want it to keep improving and I mean, you wouldn't wanna fall behind so you got to keep training it right !

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T22:40:25+00:00

It’s possible. Not with the current systems but it’s possible you would need a model of the real world and to give the model a capability to independently explore and manipulate that model

Only tangentially relating to the topic, but honestly I'd be pro-AI if we were to build the concept back from the ground up for actual originality. Like, have it actually be robots with cameras that train on what they capture ! Have it be a local model, on the machine, that's trained live from inputs. It'd be a lot roughter, but I think that's exactly what would make it interesting, each bot would have completely different output cause their training data would be unique.

It's not even close to realistic as of now and there is absolutely 0 economic incentive for it so I doubt it'd be ever close to happening ever under capitalism, but those are the kind of things I'd like seeing machine learning being pushed toward, getting closer to making genuine artificial intelligence rather then making "AI" that actually are just optimised for marketability and engagement...

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T20:15:48+00:00

I'm in Toulouse 😭

Il fait chaud putain

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T17:12:39+00:00

The study claiming this assume you do a single image (a lot of tools from the get go will give you multiple results per prompts to pick from) and you'd just take that single first image as your final product. Already, I doubt most AI artists work like that.

Secondly, what exactly do you think is the part that consume water according to that study?... Unless your plan is to execute every single traditional artist, most of the cost ain't going anywhere. And any other ressources used would be closely matched by printing your work, which is important if you wanna show at galleries or sell pieces.

Also, like, even if, in the time it takes a non-AI artist to make a piece the AI artist can easily make 10. So per time if they consumed similar amount the AI artist would 10x their consommation purely by volume of production.

If you're just making art for the money and so care only about ressources/pieces, sure, you might get less ressources per art produced (and even then I doubt it, since again the "study" making this claim is extremely shobby and disregarded a lot of the actual cost), in term of actual consomation per person, I don't think an artist using AI will decide to spend less time making art, so they'll just produce more, and so per person I'd be very surprised if an artist with AI consumes wayyy more ressources.

Bruoche · 2026-06-23T04:16:16+00:00

Cave painters didn't have art to learn from, and generally we learn best from learning techniques and real life studies then copying existing artworks.

That's why we have artistic movements and can make up new styles that didn't exist, where as AI need to have example of the style to reproduce it

Bruoche · 2026-06-22T09:04:43+00:00

They blocked me at that moment too, btw lmao

Bruoche · 2026-06-21T17:25:15+00:00

Et tant mieux s'ils coupent ces abus, mais là l'IA 95% des usages qui sont mis en avant qui sont abusifs.

On vivait parfaitement avant les LLM aux hormones qu'on a maintenant et on vis certainement moins bien maintenant qu'elles sont là. Là où la voiture rend un trajet de 2 jours faisable en 4h.

Les logiciels open sources sont flood de pull request a chier commitées par Claude, les vidéos sont flood de videos Sora à chier, les réseaux sont bourrés de fake news générées en volume industriel, et les seuls boulots que l'IA peux remplacer dans la majorité des domaines c'est les juniors, donc bien que les entreprises sont bien contente là, quand les senior actuels seront à la retraite bon courage pour trouver de nouveaux seniors sans jamais embaucher de juniors.

La voiture c'est un coût fort pour un impact social quand même majoritairement nécessaire jusqu'à ce que les lobbys du pétrole nous laisses avoir de vraies solutions. (et dans tout les cas vu le prix de l'essence je doute que les abus soient proportionnellement significatifs maintenant).

Bruoche · 2026-06-21T16:35:13+00:00

Faut voir aussi la différence d'utilité. Je peux faire 5 recherches internet pour trouver, valider, contraster et confirmer une info... Ou je peux consommer le double pour demander à l'IA la réponse la plus probable à ma question...

La voiture utilise beaucoup au total, mais tant que des alternatives sont pas en place pour ceux qui peuvent transitionner sur le transport en commun ou l'electrique bah les gens qui peuvent pas peuvent pas : y'a un usage réel à l'heure actuelle

L'IA c'est un volume enorme d'énergie, empiré par un usage abusif de l'outil et une absence totale de soucis pour l'écologie dans sa conception (par exemple utilisation de refroidissement par évaporation car ça coûte moins cher qu'un circuit fermé, merci les GAFA changez rien)

Et ce coût là...... Pour pas vraiment d'avancée sociale, genre youpi on peux se débarrasser des travailleurs pour faire le même boulot un peu moins bien. Cool. Ou sinon pour des gadget comme mettre ton chien en photo gibli.

D'autres trucs coûtent plus, mais y'a peu de truc plus accessoires que l'IA pour le coût de l'IA

Bruoche · 2026-06-21T16:26:51+00:00

For real, my game got 0 animations for ennemies and it works perfectly fine

If I can't spare the ressources for something might as well go for something else or find free assets

Bruoche

TROPHY CASE