Any AI girlie to help with GOE MV?

[Sepsami 18,913]

47 minutes ago, River said:

When Beyonce does that, people defend her at all cost and she's not even using AI 

If rich celebs can steal art and go away with it, then we don't need to feel guilty by doing that as well.

My dead bitch of a grandma used to say: "Don't post your nudes online if u don't want people to flishy flooshy on them"

I don't think Beyoncé types singing and dancing into a machine and that's what makes her sing and dance

Also rip grandma river 

[Sepsami 18,913]

48 minutes ago, ANVEEROY said:

Oh my, you all have a lot of energy - it's GGD. I don't think you can change the opinions of people here. For intellectual discussions, maybe try Reddit.

[Head Empty 25,207]

The worst part about AI is that it's dumbing all of us down.

You want to do something creative related to Garden Of Eden? Draw something. Take an art class. Meet people and discuss your ideas. Make an outfit. Heck, get some friends together and film a music video.

Instead we're taking the biggest mental shortcuts in human history. Just: computer goes BOOP and yaaay I got what I want. Now what? You're not learning. Not building community, not developing character, not honing your own mind.

We're conditioning our brain to think less, to digg less deep and to put in less effort. We're unlearning patience. We're banking on the scraps that big tech companies throw us.

I'm just so f***ing cynical and tired about all of this right now and I don't know how to solve it. I just know how much value REAL art can have in our life, and I feel like there's less and less room for it each day.

[River 117,262]

2 hours ago, Sepsami said:

I don't think Beyoncé types singing and dancing into a machine and that's what makes her sing and dance

Also rip grandma river 

she just watches other people do it and steals it, her brain 

she was a bitch, we hated each other 

[Quentin 6,142]

6 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

gross

You don't have to be mean

[ANVEEROY 61,241]

3 hours ago, Sepsami said:

*pun intended*

[TrdkMonster 1]

17 hours ago, llemesm said:

 guys why are you taking it so seriously? I will never understand this rejection to AI, he just want to make a nice fan-art video 

How could an ai generated video be fan made? 

[TheFrenchGuy 122]

Bottom line for me is that this is not about stealing, pollution, water usage, or any of the other valid concerns people raise. Those issues are inherent to technology, and whether we like it or not, it is too late to turn back.

What truly bothers me is when I see people dismissing criticism by saying things like, "It's just a new technology" or "People reacted the same way when Google appeared." That frustrates me deeply. Technological advancements can be jarring, yes. But this is not about improving humanity. This is not about making things better. This is about cutting costs and devaluing the work of artists and designers.

This is about business leaders thrilled to pursue their capitalistic ventures while involving as few creatives as possible. It is about ego, money, and greed. "Look I made a video of Gaga and Taylor kissing" ok congratulations, now swipe up and move on to the next trash your algorithm feeds you.

AI is undeniably useful. As a disabled person with autism, LLM are very helpful to me. Generative art brings nothing meaningful to humanity. The only thing it does is give you a confidence boost by letting you create images without the actual skill required. Sure, it lets the daycare across the street create a cute poster for their family event next week. But do we really need that? Who does it really help? Is that truly what we want to prioritize as a society? For me, AI art reinforces the idea that in the 2020's, everything is disposable, including humanity. It has no soul, no intent, no genuine creativity. Just a first draft made from other peoples scraps. It is the millennial gray of Gen Z: lifeless, sanitized, and disposable.

Edited Tuesday at 03:44 PM by TheFrenchGuy

[llemesm 1,579]

On 8/26/2025 at 10:41 AM, TrdkMonster said:

How could an ai generated video be fan made? 

when it's made by a fan... holy days, some people over are very s l o o o o o o o w

[TheFrenchGuy 122]

8 hours ago, llemesm said:

when it's made by a fan... holy days, some people over are very s l o o o o o o o w

more like prompted by a fan

[Juanlittlem 45,823]

8 hours ago, llemesm said:

when it's made by a fan... holy days, some people over are very s l o o o o o o o w

No its not, you could have the idea for the video but youre not making the video. You're not bothering in searching locations to film, using people to star in it, you're not filming it, putting it together, making cuts and retouching colors. Its not fanmade if a fan didnt do it.

You might be too slow to get it so I will show you

Fanmade:

AI made:

[TheFrenchGuy 122]

20 minutes ago, Juanlittlem said:

No its not, you could have the idea for the video but youre not making the video. You're not bothering in searching locations to film, using people to star in it, you're not filming it, putting it together, making cuts and retouching colors. Its not fanmade if a fan didnt do it.

You might be too slow to get it so I will show you

Fanmade:

AI made:

 

Exactly. Everybody can have ideas. Having ideas does not make you an artist. What makes you an artist is taking the time, investing yourself, and actually executing the idea. It’s about how you shape things along the way, the choices you make, the things you leave out. THAT is your point of view. Fan videos are so precious for that reason.

It’s like when people look at a monochrome by Yves Klein, or any other abstract work, and say, “I could’ve done that.” Sure, but you didn’t. You don’t have the vision. The ego doesn’t like being faced with something it cannot understand. AI content only feeds the ego, not the art. And that’s exactly why some people resort to name-calling when they are told they are not all that.

[lastpopicon 30,735]

19 minutes ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

 

Exactly. Everybody can have ideas. Having ideas does not make you an artist. What makes you an artist is taking the time, investing yourself, and actually executing the idea. It’s about how you shape things along the way, the choices you make, the things you leave out. THAT is your point of view. Fan videos are so precious for that reason.

It’s like when people look at a monochrome by Yves Klein, or any other abstract work, and say, “I could’ve done that.” Sure, but you didn’t. You don’t have the vision. The ego doesn’t like being faced with something it cannot understand. AI content only feeds the ego, not the art. And that’s exactly why some people resort to name-calling when they are told they are not all that.

It's funny, when digital art came along we had exactly the same complaints from "art purists" (not saying you are one, just lacking a better word tbh), they argued that creating art on a Computer wasn't real art...

Now pretty much all art is created in a Computer and much of the complaints about AI are from digital artists that fear for their livelihood, much like the "real" artists feared for their livelihood when Computer art came along decades ago, we are repeating history, the technology now is just better.

Some interesting reading:

https://csalateral.org/issue/2/up-for-grabs-early-digital-art-taylor/

Edited 7 hours ago by lastpopicon

[TheFrenchGuy 122]

14 minutes ago, lastpopicon said:

It's funny, when digital art came along we had exactly the same complaints from "art purists" (not saying you are one, just lacking a better word tbh), they argued that creating art on a Computer wasn't real art...

Now pretty much all art is created in a Computer and much of the complaints about AI are from digital artists that fear for their livelihood, much like the "real" artists feared for their livelihood when Computer art came along decades ago.

We are repeating history, the technology now is just better, and this is just like 30 years of computational evolution, imagine where we'll be in 30 years more. 

Some interesting reading:

https://csalateral.org/issue/2/up-for-grabs-early-digital-art-taylor/

The article you shared is indeed interesting, but I don't see how it supports your point. The initial resistance was about legitimacy, not authorship. Traditional artists and critics doubted that “computer art” counted as real art because of its ties to science, engineering, or the military-industrial complex. But the people producing it were still artists, fully responsible for the vision and execution.

I think you're missing my point. When digital art came along, digital artists still had to make the art. They had new tools that made certain processes faster or more efficient, yes, but they were still the ones creating (I know the article talks about a different area of digital art, but I think a closer analog would be when Photoshop came out). They had to learn the craft, develop their vision, and shape the work themselves.

Generative AI is not the same. It’s not a tool in the sense that Photoshop or a digital tablet is a tool. With AI, you don’t actually make the art. You describe what you want, and the machine does it for you. That leap removes the artist’s hand, their struggle, their choices, their point of view.

That’s the distinction. Efficiency tools extend an artist’s practice. Generative AI replaces it. If the system makes the art for you, you are not the artist. It’s the same as a movie producer who has an idea and provides the funding, but doesn’t actually make the film. They enable it, they prompt it, but the artistry belongs to the people who bring it to life. 

Yes, there was skepticism toward digital art, but those artists still had to be artists. They were programmers, experimenters, visionaries shaping something from scratch. Generative AI flips that dynamic: the agency is outsourced to the machine. That’s not repeating history; that’s changing what “making” even means.

Edited 7 hours ago by TheFrenchGuy

[lastpopicon 30,735]

1 minute ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

Generative AI is not the same. It’s not a tool in the sense that Photoshop or a digital tablet is a tool. With AI, you don’t actually make the art. You describe what you want, and the machine does it for you. That leap removes the artist’s hand, their struggle, their choices, their point of view.

you are using computational power to achieve a result when you use Photoshop or other editing programs, from that perspective, generative AI is the same type of tool, it uses computational power to achieve a result.

Photoshop is just code on a nicely packed GUI, does math on the CPU and GPU by user input and you get a result, now, I'm not saying it's easy, but it's essentially what it is, same goes for every other editing software.

Let me ask you this, if you had a AI model that you knew for sure never stole art, and created art on its own, would you be ok with AI art?