As much as i hate AI generated art, this is a shit argument. You can run an AI on your phone (which you would have anyway) without a subscription. You can also doodle on your phone for free.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
13 points (93.3% liked)
furry_irl
1643 readers
183 users here now
"For the fur in u"
Welcome to Furry_irl, a community for furry memes, shitposts, and other relatable images or comics.
Community rules:
- Code of Conduct — Follow our instance rules.
- Post formatting — All titles should be a single word, followed by _irl. An emoji may substitute the underscore.
- Credit artists — If it's not your art, include who made it in the title or the post body. Links are appreciated, except to X/Twitter.
- Stay on topic — Images should contain or be related to furries. Images should be relatable or a meme. This isn't the place for general art posts.
- Avoid AI images — Our fandom has countless artists, please share their (or your own) labors of love instead.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I feel it would be better if they they have shown the sheer cost of making these models and their upkeep instead.
It's perfectly fine price to use in cancer treatment. But when they mention AI girlfriends I want to scream.
why are you assuming that someone who wants to make art would have a phone anyway? some people are poor
My friend, phones can be very cheap and accessable and most has one. Like one of the comments said below said, you can find a cheap phone for under 100 dollars.
keep in mind that 40% of the global population doesn't own a smartphone.
that's billions of people that you're leaving out of your analysis which doesn't sound very fair to them. you don't understand poverty because you're assuming your living conditions will be the same as theirs.
Do i have to consider every person alive whenever i make a comment? of course, people in poverty will have different ways of doing things and won't be able to afford things you and I can. I thought this is a given, no?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh yeah, I forgot everyone is born with inmate talent, time and privilege.
“innate talent” is a pervasive idea that undercuts years of work and practice. art is HARD and most people just don’t find the doing part to be fulfilling.
everyone wants to make a masterpiece, but no one is born with some kinda artist-gene that gives them the ability to do so as if by magic. outside of savants at least, but that’s a whole other thing lmao
Yes, talent is oversold and used as an excuse to often HOWEVER there ARE differences in people's skill level and rate of learning. Especially if learning disabilities are involved.
I really really wanna draw regularly. And i practice regularly have for years. Ive gotten much better than couple years ago me but overall my art still sucks (others confirm not just the usual artist hates own work) and it's mainly because i have a learning disability that affects my spacial reasoning and ability to visualize shapes.
This may come as a surprise to some people but that makes drawing very difficult, i can't get proportions correct and I struggle to find shapes. My best drawings are ones that i practically traced the initial outline to get the shapes. AI generated art absolutely makes getting an idea out of my head more accessible. And i can then trace the outline of the ai art and draw the rest myself.
I know people hate it but just blindly saying "anyone can draw just do it bro" is basically just as worthless of an argument that ignores reality
wrong, you're just too much of a coward to make shitty art and say it's yours. it's a hurdle that all of us had to get over
If you have people that talk like this around you as an artist I think you need to find different people to be around that is the real take away here.
Also, I have genuinely never in my 29 years of life heard people say anything like this. So this post can kind of fuck off.
You could run it on your own PC instead
You could also draw in the sand with a stick or piss in the snow. I'm pretty sure the point is it doesn't take advanced technology to make art.
Yeah it didn't take computers or anything to make art. More about the artists than the method right?
What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can't be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren't suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it's not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don't care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don't care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.
At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.
Artists understand that art is primarily about self-expression. Non-artists often instead think art is about producing nice pictures. When all nice pictures come with self-expression baked in, the two groups seem to be on the same page, but when a computer makes nice pictures that are completely devoid of self-expression, we find out they're not on the same page at all.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, OOP is mocking the supposed barriers to art that AI users will bring up as an excuse to use AI.
If what you need is a constant stream of ever-changing imagery that you don’t glance at for more than a second or two before moving on, I’m sure AI is great for that. So are jangling keys and those slime ASMR videos. But if that’s what you want from viewing or making art, you are an alien to me.
I use it for illustrations of characters, items, and locations for my homebrew TTRPG campaign. That's basically exactly what happens: party looks at it once, gets a general idea, and usually never looks at it again. Without AI, I just wouldn't have the illustrations; I'm not commissioning art that's going to get looked at once.
I wouldn't call that "art", in any real sense. They're visual aids, not aesthetic masterpieces.
See also Spiderweb Software's "Failing To Fail" talk: solo dev used the same assets in every game, and a constant complaint in the forums was that the graphics sucked. So once his sales were decent, he hired an artist to overhaul everything. The next game had the same complaints. He celebrated. Now he knew he could ignore that shit.
load more comments
(18 replies)
Lol right, because there are no free AI art services and you need a dedicated iPhone to do AI art. OP forgot to add $400 for a leather upholstered "gaming chair".
I'm sure those free services run on pure hopes and dreams and will do so forever.
I wish we could start arguing about the ethics of compensation for training data and requiring a concrete way to both protect opt-out, as well as compensate those who contribute, rather than argue about a product that absolutely does have a user base (as is continually proven). I don't think there's a win against the demand, but you can win the ethics battle and force better regulations.
GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they're all running ethical models already and it's perfect, but they also want artists' right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can't even agree on the importance of consent.
load more comments
(2 replies)
People can have opinions about AI or dislike it, the problem is that a lot of Anti-AI people don't understand that facts must be based on and supported by reality. Something that isn't the case with this argument considering that:
- There are open-source volunteer run services that are in fact free, and open-source (@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com already mentioned the AIhorde in the other thread), and to add to that...
- There are low power models that can run on a standard GPU and cooling, if one has a gaming PC they can run it themselves for the price and energy usage of a gaming session.
You can dislike that people use AI software, but the things you say need to align with reality otherwise it's lying and it costs you credibility. Strawman arguments and ad-homeim aren't going to fix that or make you seem more right. At the end of the day people are entitled to their own opinions. However facts rarely care about people's feelings, and in this case they don't care about yours. I await the logical fallacies that people will spit out to try and combat this.
Forgot the
Disability
Part
Society thinks everyone is able-bodied. Until a machine is made so I can draw directly with my mind, creating art is a pipe dream. I need something that doesn't require any type of force, so no pencils, pens, mice, etc. I always associate the word "accessible" with disabled people so this meme was funny to me.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I understand, but I disagree.
The comparison isn't between using an ai service and doing it yourself, but rather between using an ai service and commissioning an actual artist. I can afford $20/mo for infinite mediocrity. I cannot afford $20/image (or more depending on the artist).
Of course, there is a flaw in my argument, in that I was assuming that the techbro was being honest. People aggressively pushing dalle or midjourney or whatever aren't interested in "making art accessible". They hate art and artists, and want to force creative types to be miserable doing jobs they hate. I have to remind myself that this is the kind of person that the comic is complaining about.
view more: next ›