In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn’t been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tech itself. Your issue is with capitalist relations and the way this technology is used under capitalism. Focus on what the actual problem is. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/a-marxist-perspective-on-ai
I read your link. I think my main issue is the framing as though AI is just a new tool that people are afraid of similar to the introduction of the camera.
Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It’s a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists. It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful. The creative process isn’t just about the final image. There’s choices, mistakes, revisions, and personal investment, etc. No amount of super long and super specific prompts can do this.
This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a “flawless” AI generated piece. Statistical approximation can’t imbue a piece with lived experience or subvert expectations with purpose. It is creative sterility.
I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop. But I think framing creative folks’ objections as an act of self preservation as though we are afraid of technology is a bit of a strawman and reductive of the reality of the situation. Although there are definitely artists that react this way, I admit.
It is true that new tools reshape art. The comparison to photography or Photoshop is flawed. Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process. In the link you provided the argument is made for a pro-AI stance using the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself. That’s where their argument falls apart.
As for democratization goes the issue isn’t accessibility (plenty of free, nonexploitative tools already exist for beginners) and that is something that could be improved. AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.
There’s little evidence that this is fundamentally different from how our own minds work. We are influenced by our environment, and experiences. The art we create is a product of our material conditions. If you look at art from different eras you can clearly see that it’s grounded in the material reality people live in. Furthermore, an artist can train the AI on their own style, as the video linked in the article shows with a concrete use case. That allows the artists to automate the mechanical work of producing the style they’ve come up with.
That’s what makes it a tool. A paintbrush or an app like Krita also lacks intention. It’s the human using the tool that has the idea that they want to convey, and they use the tool to do that. We see this already happening a lot with memes being generated using AI tools. A few examples here. It’s a case of people coming up with ideas and then using AI to visualize them so they can share them with others.
If we’re just talking about pressing a button and getting an image sure. However, the actual tools like ComfyUI have complex workflows where the artist has a lot of direction over every detail that’s being generated. Personally, I don’t see how it’s fundamentally different from using a 3D modelling tool like Blender or a movie director guiding actors in execution of the script.
Right, I think that’s how these tools will be used professionally. However, there are also plenty of people who aren’t professionals, and don’t have artistic talent. These people now have a tool to flesh out an idea in their heads which they wouldn’t have been able to do previously. I see this as a net positive. The examples above show how this can be a powerful tool for agitation, satire, and political commentary.
So do tools like ComfyUI, if you look at the workflow, it very much resembles these tools.
I do photography and I disagree here. The photographer looks at the scene, they do not create the scene themselves. The skill of the photographer is in noticing interesting patterns of light, objects, and composition in the scene that are aesthetically appealing. It’s the skill of being able to curate visually interesting imagery. Similarly, what the AI does is generate the scene, and what the human does is curate the content that’s generated based on their aesthetic.
Again, AI is a tool and it doesn’t magically remove the need for people to develop an aesthetic, to learn about lighting, composition, and so on. However, you’re also mixing in mechanical skills like operating the camera which have little to do with actual art. These tools very much do empower people to create, but to create something interesting still takes skill.
It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes. Your examples you provide don’t teach those skills. Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want. It can train on my own style of [insert medium]. But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush. But when you use a thought limiting tool like AI it gives you limited results in return. It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on. Artists develop a style over years, it changes from day to day, year to year, AI cannot evolve, yet an artist’s style does just through repetition of creation. AI creates the predictive average of existing works.
I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity. You can’t train AI to develop a new concept or a new idea, that’s reserved to humans alone. It’s that human intangibility that’s yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you’re never going to get that from a limited tool like AI. If sentience is achieved, you’d have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.
I think was pretty clear in what I actually said. I think AI is a tool that automates the mechanical aspect of producing art. In fact, I repeatedly stated that I think the intention and creative thinking comes from the human user of the tool. I even specifically said that the tool does not replace the need for artistic ability.
This is just gatekeeping. You’re basically saying that only people who have the technical skills should be allowed to turn ideas in their heads into content that can be shared with others, and tough luck for everyone else.
That’s completely false, you’re either misunderstanding how these tools work currently or intentionally misrepresenting how they work. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn how a tool like ComfyUI works and what it is capable of.
What it’s trained on is literally millions of images in every style imaginable, and what it is able to do is to blend these styles. The person using the tool can absolutely create a unique style. Furthermore, as I’ve already noted, and you’ve ignored, the artist can train the tool on their own style.
Yes, AI can evolve the same way artist evolves by being trained on more styles. Take a look at LoRA approach as one example of how easily new styles can be adapted to existing models.
With all due respect, I think that you simply haven’t spent the time how the tool actually works and what it is capable of.
Replace AI in that sentence with paint brush and it will make just as much sense.
You’re once again ignoring my core point which is that AI is a tool and it is not meant to replace the human. It is meant to be used by people who have sentience and a critical eye for the specific imagery they’re aiming to produce.
I think, ultimately, AI-generated images have their own utility, but fundamentally cannot replace human art as an expression of the human experience and artist intent through their chosen medium. AI-generated textures for, say, wooden planks in a video game does little to nothing to change the end-user’s experience, but just asking AI to create a masterpiece of art fundamentally lacks the artistic process that makes art thought provoking and important. It isn’t even about being produced artisinally or mass-produced, it’s fundamentally about what art is to begin with, and what makes it resonate.
AI cannot replace art. AI can make the more mundane and tedious aspects of creation smoother, it can be a part of a larger work of art, or it can be used in a similar way to stock images. At the same time, just like AI chatbots are no replacement for human interaction, AI can’t replace human art. It isn’t a matter of morality, or something grander, it’s as simple as AI art just being a tool for guessing at what the user wants to generate, and thus isn’t capable of serving the same function for humanity as art in the traditional sense.
I always like your posts when I see them here, so I really do value your perspective on this.
Thank you, I was hoping I wasn’t going to get eaten alive for my comments. That said, the question asked in the original post is why is our banner AI generated? And I think our answer should be: It shouldn’t be, if this is going to be a community made of people for people, then banner should be made from someone from this community not a capitalist AI image generator. I don’t think that should be controversial and illicit responses that are hostile to the question even if OP’s intentions are being questioned.
Haha, I went back and forth on whether or not to post my thoughts for quite a while, I understand being reluctant to posting on this. Up front, I am not an artist, which I think is obvious but nevertheless should be stated.
I personally don’t care for the people trying to question OP’s motives, that’s not the point here. Questioning the purpose of an AI image is an extremely salient issue, and one OP has every right to ask. AI is not a “settled issue” in my eyes on the left, and what I shared earlier is easily one of my least strong opinions.
As for the purposes of the banner, I think, personally, whether or not it is AI generated depends on what the users of the community want. If someone wants to put in the time to design a banner, and the people using the community prefer it to the AI banner, then it should change to the artist’s banner. Art made by humans is desired for that artistic process, grappling with the medium as a form of expression, something the viewer can contemplate (in my again untrained, unartistic view), but in the interim AI can at least make servicable images, especially if run locally and on green energy.
I see AI images fulfilling a similar use to stock images. Good for quickly drafting up something as a visual representation of an idea, horrible for being art as a stand-alone subject to contemplate and appreciate, the skill, the decision making, the expression.
Am I off-base? I dunno, I feel a bit like I got eaten alive in my comment I made earlier. I’m certainly not “pro-AI,” I don’t even use it myself, but at the same time I took issue with how people are framing the conversation.