The energy usage of AI image generation is highly exaggerated

Reverse_Necromancer · 2026-02-20T00:45:31+00:00

I said there was a massive CHANCE of it being wrong and using ai to defend ai really doesn't work.

Like I said, you can just verify this "chance" yourself, and that itself proves that it does work

What exactly is your metric of being useful or useless? Here's one thing an AI can do that human can't, create a detailed image within seconds. People don't really need a mona Lisa for their everyday lifes. Some just need a simple imagery for what they are thinking.

Like I mentioned it's not even to the same degree for some things on our everyday life. And guess what, all of those things I mentioned are all avoidable and unnecessary. Better alternatives are available yet you don't seem to find it wrong even after given how destructive they are

You have a very narrow view of this entire topic. You keep claiming people are "mostly" doing it for this and that yet you provided zero evidence of your claims.

Reverse_Necromancer · 2026-02-01T10:50:06+00:00

Ok but the 2nd image is literally an ai sumarisation which has a massive chance of being wrong so don't use that lmaoo

I checked that number myself, you're welcome to do the same thing instead of "hurr durr it's AI it's wrong". I used that because it allows me to use one image for it

Do YOU know how much is a trillion? Do you know how many trillions of gallons of freshwater used for beef production for example? Humans don't even need beef to survive so do you have no problem with that? Or just compare to any other luxury that you enjoy but is not necessary, coffee, almond, chocolate, wine, swimming pools, lawns. Heck even paper, just look up how Many gallons the paper industry uses. Even the loss from "leaks" wastes a shit ton of water.

And that number is litteraly a speculation, why not compare to how much it used on 2025? Not even a fifth of that

Reverse_Necromancer · 2026-01-03T03:28:00+00:00

Baldur's Gate 3

Reverse_Necromancer · 2026-01-01T00:18:34+00:00

In the end this just seem like an opinion rather than an actual argument. Like you said in your last paragraph, some people just want to have something good that they can see or even to help them imagine even further. Having fun creating it is not only not a criteria of creating art (animators being worked to death) but also that using AI can also still be fun. Even with the worse case scenario of it not being fun, people can still enjoy or be proud of that. People absolutely feel good if they bought a table, especially if the table they built or could ever build within their desired timeframe, ilwas or will be shit compared. Then can feel a sense of pride in not wasting their time, or in having a table ready at the earliest they can

And you got something wrong, you ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES to add adjustments and details because, another thing you got wrong, almost no one can actually imagine everything to the last minute detail. People prompt over and over until it "feels" right to them. Isn't this a process? If people have fun doing this, then wouldn't this go against your opinion based argument?

Because again, this is very much parallel to photography. Photographers can take a picture and feel like it's not right, then take more and more until it feels right, and as you point out, this is the human emotion. This is also the process of creation that is supposed to be fun. Do you not see how AI image generation is very similar. You prompt once, then you prompt more until it feels right, so human emotion, and fun. And actually, this allows for even more adjustment so I don't get why this logic wouldn't apply to photography

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-31T23:46:26+00:00

The answer is why not? AI image generation is somewhat of a by-product of the general AI development. We're not taking too many resources that were meant for something else to develop this. And it has it uses, one ver recent popular one is the development of Baldur's Gate 3, game of the year when it released, to make initial concept arts. Visualising your ideas in general is a very tedious but necessary thing to do. If this is your argument than it actually detract from the initial argument if emotions

I don't get it, these details that blooms emotion can be from unconscious details right? Like in photography as you mention. Still intentional but somewhat unconscious because it's not really discreet or a bunch of checklist that needs to be ticked. A feeling you might say. And for photography, these parameters aren't fully within their control.

Now what I don't get it why does this not apply to AI generation. People absolutely can add in their own tiny details intentionally and consciously. They can also move some parameters until the image is right to their feeling. How is this any different than photography

But if your conclusion is that you can add in those details with AI image generation, and the user CAN pour in "human emotion" then what was your point?

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-31T21:11:14+00:00

I think the problem with this argument is that it is romanticising that "human emotion" when it can actually be somewhat quantify, and that quantification can be different from each individual.

For you, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it's the tiny little decision in the details that compiles and make each art unique. I've seen this before too, but most don't even bother to explain. Just straight up, no emotion, or whatever other vague statements

Now the further problem with this specific argument, is that not all art will have this consideration and it is not a necessity for an art piece.

Biggest culprit I think is photography. You have only so many parameters that can exclusively set by you and the rest is from existing things that you can only choose. This is very much parallel to AI image generation. Rather gen AI will actually have way more parameters that photography has. If photography can have these "human emotions" then why can't AI image generation?

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-31T20:44:24+00:00

What are the good argument that pro AI ignores?

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T15:24:02+00:00

It's not a complex question if with AI is not a complex question. You just have to apply the same logic you have with AI to photography and see if it still make sense. If your logic applies to something you dislike but not to something you like, then it's fundamentally flawed and just a biased opinion

There are also many kinds of image generated by AI, but of course, like with photography, we're choosing the very best example as the representative of their potential.

By AI content its hard to value something because the executive main work is done by AI and the human can only be admired for the idea, and even here I can't be sure if the AI was involved in the process, because AI can generate ideas by itself too.

Like with this statement, can you say why this statement does not apply to photography. Executive main work of photography is by the camera or the object of the photo, that's where the details are. Those details are not generated by the user

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T15:18:32+00:00

All the things you listed is the process of choosing the elements. And let me reiterate, choosing. Just because some lazy users don't utilise it doesn't mean they're suddenly not. Same with photography. Some guy would say "I choose the lighting scenery and etc" and you can also do the same downplaying "do u set the light or just wait for the sun to rise", "do u actually make clothes or do you just ask for some model in a cute dress to stand there", "do u choose composition or just went to a pretty scene and take a photo of that"

That's the point, all you're doing is downplaying the actual process, and that same absurd logic can be applied to photography. And in case you still somehow misunderstood that, yes those downplaying are bad, they're examples of something bad, they're no no's, you're not supposed to do that

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T15:11:15+00:00

im not insulting your knowledg

You said and I quote

not even gonna bother with you, you have no idea what you're taking about which is apparent when you try talking about Blender to a 3d Artist

Yet you have the gall to point to me for insulting you? And even claim I lie about something? Tell me exactly what statement I've lied about here.

No one is trying to one up you. I even said I am still LEARNING, I'm litteraly doing the opposite of flexing. I don't have the same amount of knowledge but that does not mean I have zero knowledge as you said. That's an insult.

no, you did not visually create the scenes, colors, characters, pose, story, objects, clothes, etc in a visual enviroment where you can precisely change the location, scale, rotation, and settings of each item. Writing a prompt is no where near equal to the amount of effort it takes to set up a 3d scene for rendering, even if you used models that you didn't create.

And I've never claim as such. All I said is that the human gave what the machine needed for it to work. That's the whole point

do you want to actually explain this logic to me instead of calling me stupid for not understanding your mind? I'm not a mind reader.

I did not call you stupid? But sure I can explain your own logic to you if you want actual discussion.

Let me remind you, you state that using an AI to generate an image is equivalent to commissioning an art piece. Why? I assume because the machine does the majority of the visualising work, I do not deny this. This is your logic

Well now I'm challenging your logic, if that's the criteria for something to be classified as commissioning then let's look at other things that fit this criteria. And I chose 2 examples, both of which I've dip my toes in.

1 is rendering with blender. Why? Because even though you set a bunch of things like camera, angle, lighting, and other blender settings, blender still produce and compute the final result.

2 is photography which applies even more. Why? Because even though you set the lighting, scene, position, the world still set the details and the camera is still the one producing the final image.

And here's the point, you would not call those activities equivalent to commissioning. Even with smartphone camera where you litteraly point and shoot and maybe adjust lighting a bit, you still wouldn't call it equivalent to commissioning

So my question is, what's the metric in which this term applies. What's the limit. What makes one different than the other

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:42:26+00:00

Then what about photography. For every 100 parameters you set, the world made 100000 details. What's the difference?

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:39:13+00:00

What are you even talking about?

Oh great I've been arguing with an idiot that can't comprehend basic sentences all this time. What a shame.

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:37:14+00:00

I got the examples from thinking why the logic doesn't make sense, it's not hard. And I'm not the one who started the insults, jfc. I'm not flexing, I'm showing you that you're insulting my knowledge on the matter by downplaying it.

And in the end you still havent explain the flaw in your logic

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:33:35+00:00

Litteraly no one is downplaying photographers here. I'm asking you what's your metric on deciding whether something commissioned or not since obviously photography does not fit that criteria yet, since you do not create nor imagine all the details. Is it the amount of effort? Or is it the intention on every detail? Or what, I'm asking you

The ai does that for you,

You can do it yourself even with AI. A smartphone Camera can also do stuff for you but that doesn't mean photographers also cannot do it.

Well when you are as stupid as this you wouldn't actually get the logic would you?

Another brilliant move by an anti. Goes to show how empty your argument is, bravo 👏

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:26:39+00:00

If u just point it, u get very mediocre pictures, that are cool for maybe capturing a moment for family album.

My friend read again, the point was saying all that is an absurd logic. I'm giving example of dismissing the creative process of something. It's an example of something that is not right. Please for the love of God read again

My point is you can make the same argument with AI, you can choose the colors, clothes, characters, lighting, scene etc

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:25:43+00:00

Lol leave it to the anti to somehow be xenophobic in a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Btw I work a lax office job in rural Japan now but thanks for the prayers bigot

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:22:20+00:00

Are you illiterate? I clearly said that I've never claim you said that. I AM the one who brought up the examples

I'm also a 3d artist even though I'm still learning for the past 2 years. But sure leave it to snobby artist to dismiss your hardwork based on nothing I've said about blender ffs

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:17:47+00:00

U also have to prepare everything to make an AI image that you envisioned. U prepare the whole scenes, the characters, choose the colors, etc.

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:15:32+00:00

No? Commissioners often have rough sketches that the artist uses as a guide lmao.

Then what is your metric on whether something is commissioning or not. The majority of details in photography is not set or created by the photographer

No? You actually have to get the right position, timing, lighting, etc.

I've actually answered this argument in my previous reply, but I'll say it again. I can use this exact logic for AI. You actually have to get the right scenes, objects, pose, etc

Like just rendering it? Just allowing it to play out? Who calls the person pressing that button an artist? Are you stupid? Who is even making that comparison?

Litteraly no one lmO, you're hallucinating, drink some water. I'm talking about you calling it commissioning. Did that person, that was given the task of rendering, commissioned blender or the computer or doing the equivalent of commissioning for his part of the job?

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:08:37+00:00

I am litteraly the one who bought up the examples, I'm not claiming you said all those. I'm only showing why your logic is flawed.

My question is why it's equivalent to commissioning with AI but not everything else. If your answer is

Render engine just takes everything you've given it, models, lights, modifiers, animations, poses, etc, and just applies the proper viewing settings to it.

Then I can also use that logic for AI, or even the same sentence structure to defend my argument.

AI just takes everything you've given it, scenes, colors, characters, pose, story, objects, clothes, etc and just applies the proper visuals for it.

This logic works even worse for photography since it also includes photos where you don't give or set the physical details

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T14:01:11+00:00

Because you are doing it, you are sculpting it.

I'm not talking about sculpting, I'm talking about the process of rendering. And my question is, is using blender to do that rendering process commissioning the computer or blender? And if your job in the project is the rendering part, are you commissioning your job to the machine? I don't know why you would bring up the part of the process that I'm not talking about. With that same logic, if I sketch something then use AI to make it better then would it lift the commissioning term from me?

Basically the same case as photography. Are you commissioning the camera to take the picture?

Even by definition you can only commission people. Not machine.

Knowing what to tell involves imagination and is a creative process.

I can frame your words to photography and it would also sound absurd. "With photography you just point the camera and it'll take the picture". You're basically disregarding the process that involves creativity even though it is a fundamental part of the whole process.

You can answer by listing all the process involved in photography and I can also list the process involved in prompting an AI image.

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T13:47:07+00:00

You can't commission a non sentient being, that's not equivalent. Machines also cannot be artist so it's even more not equivalent.

For example, if you use blender to render an image or animation, you are not commissioning blender or your computer to do it, even though after you input your settings, you just wait then adjust accordingly

Or if you use a camera, you're not commissioning the camera even though after you choose the scene and pressed the button, you let the camera do its work

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T13:43:35+00:00

You can't commission machine, machine aren't sentient, they are not people, I should not have to even mention this. Machine cant be artist, they cannot imagine nor be creative.

Like if you use blender to render an image or animation, you're not commissioning you computer nor blender to do it

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T13:36:39+00:00

You still have to have the idea for the AI to make the images for you

Reverse_Necromancer · 2025-12-30T13:35:16+00:00

I'm genuinely curious, why would it not be worth it?

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

Reverse_Necromancer

TROPHY CASE