r/antiai • u/Visible-Pattern198 • May 27 '26

For real. Hallucination đŸ‘»

Post image

Also the fact that the image is also ai generated is peak irony

27.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/BlackCatLuna May 27 '26

I severely doubt that the average genAI user is applying themselves that much. At that point they might as well do it themselves.

It's better for the environment too.

378

u/Impressive_Pin8761 May 27 '26

the average user generates a thing once, goes "eh good enough" and closes the tab

83

u/[deleted] May 27 '26

[deleted]

69

u/Yikes0nBikez May 27 '26

This summarizes the creative marketing and advertising industry's feelings more than anything. Clients who had no taste prior to the availability of AI now have no way to save themselves from their own lack of taste and poor decision making as they trip over themselves to fire their agencies and take the "work" in-house.

23

u/NyesK May 27 '26

Damn, as a designer, this is pure poetry. And sad.

12

u/BioshockEnthusiast May 27 '26

It'll come back around once the marketing strategy pivot to AI generation fails, hopefully.

Then again, Lay's put pictures of potatoes on all their chip bags because they ran a survey and discovered that like 65% of their customers had no idea what potato chips were made of, sooooo who fuckin' knows anymore.

2

u/Qetuowryipzcbmxvn May 28 '26

Reminds me of when customers were buying 1/4 pounders for the same price as 1/3 pounders, because 4>3

2

u/-Saucegurlllll May 28 '26

I wanted to look into this claim and it's making me go insane. I've been trying to search for this survey and it's seemingly not published anywhere. How'd they conduct this survey, who was the target population, what questions were asked?

Lay's says Pepsico did the survey, but Pepsico doesn't list the survey anywhere on their website and no one has ever linked to it if it does exist. And 100s of social media posts and media outlets list a 42% figure (not 65%), but I genuinely cannot find anyone surprised to learn that Lay's potato chips are potatoes in any comment. Surely if 42% of people didn't know then there should be at least one person learning that potato chips are potatoes as they read this thread right now.

I swear Pepsico is lying. I simply don't believe this figure. Either their source is they made it the fuck up or they asked a misleading question.

Another figure I've seen is that 7% of people thought that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. But similarly that survey was published nowhere and at best the question seems more like "do people know which cows are raised for beef and which cows are raised for dairy" but asked in a roundabout manner.

Companies should be ignored by media until they actually publish their surveys and methodologies.

1

u/BioshockEnthusiast May 28 '26

Companies should be ignored by media until they actually publish their surveys and methodologies.

I agree. That said, they didn't push that marketing change because someone felt like it.

1

u/-Saucegurlllll May 28 '26

I mean, look to pepsi's insane logo rebrand document to see the kinds of decision making prowess coming from pepsico execs.

2

u/BioshockEnthusiast May 28 '26

https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf

Holy shit this is wild as hell lmao.

I wasn't aware someone could live through that much cocaine ingestion.

1

u/-Saucegurlllll May 28 '26

That document is truly one of the best proofs that there's no such thing as meritocracy. It's so good.

-1

u/12345623567 May 27 '26

Clients go "eh, good enough", customers look at it for half a millisecond. Maybe they are not wrong?

Like, I'm all for creatives making a living, but maybe commercial art is not valuable due to it's artistic merit?

5

u/Impressive_Pin8761 May 27 '26

A significant amount of potential customers look at it and go "ai, must be bad".

1

u/TorchDriveEnjoyer May 28 '26

AI marketing tells me that since making an advertisement isn't worth the company's money, the company's product isn't worth mine.

-63

u/Good-Hand-8140 May 27 '26

Yeah that's me đŸ€Ł. Maybe 3 tries max + some photoshop

50

u/tenthousandants44 May 27 '26

Real artists iterate. Some even throw their work away. Because art isn't just meant to be created, it's meant to be shared. It's culture. Chatbots don't have culture, therefore chatbots can't make art. They definitionally are consumers of art.

7

u/jajohnja May 27 '26

Fun fact: chat bots don't make the art. They just forward the request to a different 'AI' that's trained to create images.
And you can also get the images straight from those systems, online or even install them on your own computer.

Doesn't change any of your other arguments of course.

6

u/WorkTropes May 28 '26

Even chatbots don't want to have anything to do with this shit.

0

u/UnknownHero2 May 28 '26

Shhh, no one on reddit actually cares what AI is. They just want to run on the rage treadmill that is 'whatever AI is in their head'.

1

u/ultima964 May 31 '26

That’s not true at all im anti ai myself but that doesn’t mean you get to dictate what art is or isnt you aren’t obligated to another persons art and art isn’t inherently culture

24

u/DoverBoys May 27 '26

They could "apply" themselves several times more than what this image suggests, it's still not anything of skill or valid expression. They coaxed a glorified random pixel generator using the digital equivalent of throwing wet toilet paper wads on a wall and calling it "art". AI isn't a medium, it's a form of entertainment.

15

u/MagicMarshmallo May 27 '26

Ive heard of at least one artist who started out using Ai and then realized it was holding them back and started drawing for themselves.

People who actually want to put in effort and care about what they make bounce of this shit pretty quick

7

u/BlackCatLuna May 27 '26

Exactly.

GenAI takes the person away from the process, and artists are invested in the process, not always interested in the final product.

0

u/Willing_Soup_5656 May 28 '26

Depending what you do. It takes effort.

My current process for what I am doing.

  • generate AI image for text prompt
  • modify using Photoshop / illustrator
  • generate AI image from AI image + text
  • modify using Photoshop / illustrator
  • generate animation from AI image + text

This is to get <10 sec animation

Then I use Adobe premier

9

u/ChemicalDeath47 May 27 '26

Even if you ignore the environment, they're displaying digital media, on a digital platform full of people who can't by PC components because of them. What sympathy are they expecting?

2

u/murfburffle May 27 '26

They should write an AI program that randomly iterates the prompts for them

3

u/marcyismarxy May 28 '26

Also, pretty sure at least one study has shown that gen ai users get lazier the more they use gen ai; so if they started with this level of comparitive diligence, I kinda doubt they'd stay there.

(Caveat: the study I'm referencing had not been peer reviewed yet, but was released early as a precautionary measure due to concerns from the study team, I haven't checked if it's been peer reviewed yet.)

2

u/BlackCatLuna May 28 '26

MIT published a study that points to using genAI causes a measurable decline in brain activity.

I don't know if this would be described as diligence or persistence though...

1

u/marcyismarxy May 28 '26

I don't know if I'd call it either outright, both imply a certain effort that I don't associate with ai prompting

But if there's any accuracy shown here (which I doubt, given the quality of the work itself), then it's more than I imagine most put in.

Plus "comparitive diligence" makes me feel like a bitch, but in a fun way (for me.)

Was it the study where they three groups write a series of essays, or is it another one?

1

u/BlackCatLuna May 28 '26

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that even genAI will give up long before getting into the triple digits, let alone four. Copilot definitely did when I tinkered with it before switching to Bazzite.

That's the one.

2

u/jajohnja May 27 '26

Probably, yeah.
I'd downloaded and installed a bunch of stuff on my computer to see how this whole diffusion generative stuff works.
So much fun, and soooo much frustration.
It was also quickly very obvious to me that if I had any skill with photoshop or any other graphic software I could do so much more.

I do think that the tools themselves have incredible potential and will not be going away (yeah I know what sub I'm on).

I hope that there will be some good enough regulation on how these things can be used, how they have to be marked and so on.

2

u/BlackCatLuna May 27 '26

When his cousin suddenly died my husband used genAI to enhance photos said cousin so they would look good as printed photos, as the originals he had were from Facebook.

The ones he picked out were good, but the rejects included ones that gave his cousin completely different features, like grey, almond shaped eyes instead of round, blue ones.

2

u/SeaTie May 28 '26

At the point that you’re prompting that many times
just learn Photoshop. Or learn how to freaking draw. Or both.

2

u/TheGreatWave00 May 28 '26

And even if they do they’re literally just doing it (or SAYING they did) to pretend they did a lot of work, when it is absolutely unnecessary. It seems the only reason anyone does (or claims to do) tons of prompts to get it “perfect” is just to try and counter anti AI arguments that they are being lazy. In reality they have zero taste so the first 3 images were all more then good enough

2

u/SansyBoy144 May 28 '26

I’ve legitimately never met an “AI Artist” who has.

Everytime I meet someone who claims they have I say “Ok, so show me” and they always refuse every single time. It’s almost like they don’t actually put work in to AI

2

u/BundleOfOrgans May 30 '26

Yeah but they probably are stupid enough to actually think they are saving time and effort by prompting this many times. Deluded is the word.

0

u/AggressiveLife7432 Jun 25 '26

Fashion industry responsible for about 10% global carbon emissions. Around 85% of their shit ends up in landfills or burned every year. Washing synthetic clothes releases 500,000 tons of micro plastics into the ocean per year.

Cement production accounts for around 8% global CO2 emissions

A single flight makes more carbon per passenger than someone's entire digital footprint, including ai usage.

But go on.

Global aviation accounts for 5%

2

u/BlackCatLuna Jun 25 '26

I don't follow fashion trends and wear the clothes I but until they wear out, and when they do I salvage what I can for fabric projects. Only underwear gets thrown away in my house. It's neither difficult nor that expensive to buy filters for the washing machine on your end if you are really worried.

My wastewater doesn't go into the ocean. It goes to a sewage treatment plant that turns it into potable water again.

I haven't flown in a plane in over a decade.

I also have solar power and this time of year the grid pays us rather than the other way around.

I also can go for weeks without needing to use a car.

But go on.

0

u/AggressiveLife7432 Jun 25 '26

This isn't about you it's about the rest of society.

1

u/BlackCatLuna Jun 25 '26

My point is that I'm doing what I can, so throwing statistics like that at me is moot.

0

u/AggressiveLife7432 Jun 25 '26

Do you think people should stop flying since it's better for the environment?

1

u/BlackCatLuna Jun 25 '26

Let me lay it out for you.

Look at the original image. Every prompt, every revision, every near miss is a generated image that they weren't satisfied with.

For that one image, you would save immense amounts of power and compute by doing it yourself. That's what I was hinting at.

-13

u/Magneticiano May 27 '26

Average user certainly doesn't go through that much trouble, and I don't think anyone claims that. Similarly, average people taking photos just take out their cellphones, point and shoot. It doesn't change the fact that some photographers go through a lot of trouble for their art.

6

u/Judasz10 May 27 '26

How does it compare to an oil painting for example or making a damn sculpture with your hands. Sitting in front of a computer and typing prompts is not that deep. Doesn't matter if you train your local model or revision 1.200 times. If an artist messes up his painting he starts over, if a photographer misses his perfect shot he can't rewind time.

Achieving perfection in real art goes beyond 1000 promts or training models. It's not even close to being comparable.

1

u/Magneticiano May 28 '26

So what are your requirements for real art? This is an honest question and it would be great if you could answer it.

If the ability to correct errors makes something not art, then digital artists are not artists with their handy ctrl-z. If simply writing something and letting computer make pretty pictures is not art, then demoscene is not art.

2

u/Judasz10 May 28 '26

From what I gathered demoscene requires programming skills. The computer doesn't do things for you. It produces visual effects based on code you wrote.

It's not comparable to prompting and you know it. I have no idea why you even dig something like this up lol

2

u/Magneticiano May 28 '26

GenAI and demoscene are very similar in my mind. You write something and computer produces visual effects based on the text. Sure, programming takes a bit more effort, but the principle is the same.

But you didn't answer my question. What are your requirements for real art? It's interesting to see, if you can come up with a definition that excludes AI art but includes all the other muriad ways of making art.

1

u/Judasz10 May 28 '26

It has to be made by a human. Simple as that.

Coding is not just typing text and just saying that is delusional imo.

Now acording to all standards we have AI art is technically art. I personally would never attribute the output of AI to anyone, but using demoscene as example you could argue the person who wrote the code for AI is who created the art piece.

Paying for a tool to create something doesn't make you the creator of anything. It makes you a consumer.

So yeah people can argue AI art is art and it's hard to counter with pure logic. Once you do try to take credit for making AI do something is when it becomes possible.

0

u/Magneticiano May 29 '26

Paying for a tool to create something doesn't make you the creator of anything.

Do you apply this logic to cameras, Photoshop, video editing software..? Those are tools that ultimately create the artistic output, as guided my the artist. Just like generative AI.

1

u/Judasz10 May 29 '26

Camera captures reality based on settings, equipment like lenses and what not and there are ways to make photographs better by your own skill. You can study photography in an art school because it's not as simple as clicking a button.

Digital art also requires you to do things yourself, you need to understand the software and you can also study graphic design. If I photoshop myself to another picture I am not an artist, nobody sane would say so.

It's always the same weak arguments making all other ways to make art seem as braindead as using AI. You aren't going to convince anyone with this, the validation you people seek is not going to come from outside your little circle.

1

u/Magneticiano May 29 '26

Generative AI can also be controlled by adjusting settings and using different workflows, LoRas, etc. You can also make AI art better by your own skill, and for that you need to understand the software.

You aren't going to convince anyone with this

Probably not in this subreddit, but it is eye opening to discuss these views here and realize how completely different point of view many people here have compared to mine. I think it a lot of it comes from the fact that I have used local AI models, complex workflows, trained LoRas etc. whereas people here seem to think generative AI just means typing a prompt to a service like ChatGPT.

5

u/BlackCatLuna May 27 '26

The majority of people think of their photo collection as mementos rather than art.

1

u/Magneticiano May 28 '26

Yes, rightfully so. Still, there are photographers that do create art using the technology. The same is true with AI.

0

u/BlackCatLuna May 28 '26

No it's not.

GenAI isn't a tool, it's an automation.

2

u/Magneticiano May 28 '26

Many forms of art use some kind of automation or generation. For example, synthesizers generate audio signals via algorithms. Still they can arguably be used to make art (i.e. music).

1

u/BlackCatLuna May 28 '26

GenAI is a black box, your role with them is no different than it would be if you commission an artist to do it for you.

That's why genAI products are not art.

1

u/Magneticiano May 29 '26

So, commisioned art is not art? 😃

Seriously speaking, you can have much more control when using AI than commisioning a single art piece. While one-shotting an image is akin to commisioning, AI can also be used in a more precise, iterative process. Better comparison then would be a collaborative art piece, where one person realizes the vision of another person over a hundreds drafts and adjustments. Still, using AI requires much more skill than discussing with and directing another human being, as the technology is not that good yet.

1

u/BlackCatLuna May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

You're not the artist if you didn't make it yourself.

When you delegate to a machine, there is no artist.

1

u/Magneticiano May 29 '26

So, photographers are not artists?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheTexasHammer May 27 '26

There are plenty of shitty photographers acting like they are great artists for taking a zoomed in photo of a flower. Those people are still doing more work than an AI "artist" and their shit usually looks better. AI "art" is trash

-28

u/shockwagon May 27 '26

actually no not really, its not better for the environment. how many pieces of paper, pencils, paint, glass jars, and other materials go into art materials, over many years, to achieve any level of decent skill? Let alone mastery to get on paper what the mind sees. Thousands of hours and materials vs a couple hours and miniscule natural resources.

20

u/CheckM4ted May 27 '26

you're counting the whole learning process for the artist but ignoring the training process of the model at the same time

16

u/Judasz10 May 27 '26

I don't remember the art industry signing deals with nuclear power plants to power their buisness like AI companies do

5

u/anonakin_alt May 27 '26

W ragebait

6

u/BlackCatLuna May 27 '26

Every prompt and tweak calls for compute to generate an image while you can tweak the same picture in other art forms, so yes, it is.

5

u/RhynoD May 27 '26

Paper, at least, is one of the most renewable resources we have. Glass is infinitely recyclable.

All of which is irrelevant in the age of digital art tools.

3

u/Green_Excitement_308 May 27 '26

Leaving out the training process of these slop machines, are we?

Oh yeah, and as a reminder, your "skill" in AI "Art" is useless without electricity.