Why many people hate AI art?

Recently I uploaded some AI wallpapers.And immediately,one user told me to add 'AI art' tag unless many people will mad and don't download it. I heard AI art for a long time and knew it still has some disadvantages.So I don't think we should hate AI art because it's just a part of art and can't replace human's works. So what do you think about it?(My native language is not English so sorry for my grammar mistakes)

I recently downloaded an amazing AI wallpaper of a certain character which is better than pretty much every other picture of said character, just ignore the haters, they have nothing better to do with their lives than complain.

It's often low quality, boring, uninspired, and (maybe the most important part) IT'S EVERYWHERE in LOADS. So it gets even more boring FAST. As an added bonus many practices regarding its implementation are either unethical or questionable. It's the same reaction MLM/Pyramid scheme, cryptobros and NFT shills get... like... why is this thing even here? So yeah, a lot of people hate on it. On a measured note, the technology seems to have some future cool applications, but not nearly as overwhelmingly present as everyone is making it out to be.

Note: My native language is not english either, but spanish. If you'd like to chat about it in any of those languages feel free to message directly.

SuccubusJJ said:

As an added bonus many practices regarding its implementation are either unethical or questionable.

Such as?

AI "art" kill sites like this. Pets are not real, faces, bodys. Nothing is real, maybe we live in not real Matriks.

AI art is ugly. I can't stand it.

The real question should be "Why so many people like AI art and what they find in it?"

hayatojin said:

I recently downloaded an amazing AI wallpaper of a certain character which is better than pretty much every other picture of said character, just ignore the haters, they have nothing better to do with their lives than complain.

Basically this.

Some AI art is meh but others are just absolutely incredible. Then I see someone say "this sucks" for one of the incredibly detailed ones and I think bruh what are you talking about lol.

Everyone has their own opinions however. One mans junk is another mans treasure and vice versa.

One thing I dislike though about the AI images is I notice a lot of blur at times. I hate blur... bleh

There will always be haters for everything everywhere basically no matter what someone out there will find a reason to hate it lol

Though I do get it when almost everything uploaded is nothing but AI images. Be the change you want to see. Want less AI images? Upload more realistic images :3

Let's not forget you can still find plenty of great and real images by using random instead of latest all the time ;]

This all comes down to people not understanding this development (i blame misuse of the term "AI" everywhere these days)

• You dont have to share the pictures you make with image generation in a few minutes, we can all make those (not saying you do this btw, just an example)
• A good picture made with image generation takes just as long (or longer) to make as making one with photoshop or whatever image program (the real good pictures are literally the result of people trying to find the perfect balance of prompts for days with many different models)

When Photoshop implemented "AI" stuff a few years ago (all that "content aware" stuff) pretty much nobody bat an eye & the few "artists" that whined about it quickly realized that they still had a job, so honestly no clue why some people are acting all weird about it now, it still takes a lot of work to get something good out of it, ignore the haters, they just want attention or blame AI for not being good artists themselves. 🤷‍♂️

Content-aware fill didn't create 10 additional pages of uploads each week - it didn't change the number of uploads at all and it wasn't lower quality. Whereas AI Art is getting uploaded to this website at a mass amount and in 99% of them there are clear visible artifacts or "blur" as CharlieDontSurf described it.

(the real good pictures are literally the result of people trying to find the perfect balance of prompts for days with many different models)

Days is how long real art typically takes. I've worked on uploads for weeks before. Which should show you that even at its most complicated state, AI ART is much easier to create, where you can easily spit out 10x the amount of uploads.

Banana1234 said:

This all comes down to people not understanding this development (i blame misuse of the term "AI" everywhere these days)

• You dont have to share the pictures you make with image generation in a few minutes, we can all make those (not saying you do this btw, just an example)
• A good picture made with image generation takes just as long (or longer) to make as making one with photoshop or whatever image program (the real good pictures are literally the result of people trying to find the perfect balance of prompts for days with many different models)

When Photoshop implemented "AI" stuff a few years ago (all that "content aware" stuff) pretty much nobody bat an eye & the few "artists" that whined about it quickly realized that they still had a job, so honestly no clue why some people are acting all weird about it now, it still takes a lot of work to get something good out of it, ignore the haters, they just want attention or blame AI for not being good artists themselves. 🤷‍♂️

I like how you disregarded artists that complained about AI "Art" as not really an artist by using Quotation marks, and then calling them bad artists. That's almost like gaslighting but different or maybe it is Gaslighting, or what's the term for downplaying the work of others in pursuit of defending something so generic in stupendous manner? I'm not sure, english is not my first language. It also seems like you're advocating hard for it because you can't do art yourself and this is an easy way to do it and feel good about yourself, just basing it on how you phrase your words, I'm not saying you're a bad person (Yet) I'm just reading how you phrase your words. Seems whiny at best. And I think I've read that response as well on facebook once when a comic book page condemned it and someone just left almost an exact word for word response in a comment section. Feels like you're saying "Why are you offended?" while being offended that someone is commenting something about AI Art.

Anyway AI Art is basically taking all of those hard earned skills by actual artists and using that as a database, hence why some AI art look so eerily the same to other artists works like for example SamDoesArts, or Proko, David Finch, Ghibli, etc. Depends on what you want as a result. It's also somehow generic looking with multiple defects and that's because of again, it's just stolen from several sets of pictures and mushing them together, I should know, I have one, I use it to hustle, print shirts, mugs, tumblers, plates, etc. Am I proud of it? No, I basically stole some artists artworks and claim them as my own because it's slightly different, and for that reason is why I'll never defend AI Art as much as the other guy.

Also, I call bullshit on it taking long or longer, yes it takes long to train the AI but once you get it started, there's no stopping you generating soulless generic works every 10 minutes. Again, I use one. It's basically Copy Paste but more high-tech but less uniqueness or personality, and too many defects.

BobJustBob said:

...

So like, i dont mean to be rude, but to me, yes, i do feel like the people that complained about "content aware" stuff in the past we're just mediocre/bad artists.

For as far as im aware Gaslighting is not a term that exists in other languages, its an American concept that i dont even fully understand after reading several definitions for it, its one of those catch-all terms that people use like 'woke'? Again some weirdly vague American concept.

Anyway lets not derail into linguistics, my 2 cents on "AI art" since apparently i failed to bring them across with my previous reply: It's here to stay and all the hate its getting is totally unneeded, its not going to replace artists/photographers/etc. In regards to the "spam" argument, we dont need a special section for it, we just need wallhaven to enforce proper tagging more. And the fact that people upload "low quality" stuff is fine as long as they tag it properly, everybody has to start somewhere.

Yes im not an artist my any means and yes i did generate some images with StableDiffusion spin-offs, i dont consider anything of what i made upload worthy tho, im not an artist & very much consider image generation as a tool for artists. Imho people should use it to make a basic composition with roughly what you they are going for, then change the output into an actually good piece of art with the usual tools, saving like 50% of the time in the process? i dont see why people are so opposed to this idea & like in the past im leaning towards "some people are just salty that some guy with some software can make half decent pictures with less effort", the thing that sets artists apart from 'some guy' is putting in the extra effort.

Again, im focussing in the bigger picture here, because that's what the topic title asked about, the argument of "spam on wallhaven" is just a matter of enforcing proper tagging & not something im really worried about, im just saying that "hate" towards "AI Art" is completely unneeded.

Banana1234 said:

BobJustBob said:

...

So like, i dont mean to be rude, but to me, yes, i do feel like the people that complained about "content aware" stuff in the past we're just mediocre/bad artists.

For as far as im aware Gaslighting is not a term that exists in other languages, its an American concept that i dont even fully understand after reading several definitions for it, its one of those catch-all terms that people use like 'woke'? Again some weirdly vague American concept.

Anyway lets not derail into linguistics, my 2 cents on "AI art" since apparently i failed to bring them across with my previous reply: It's here to stay and all the hate its getting is totally unneeded, its not going to replace artists/photographers/etc. In regards to the "spam" argument, we dont need a special section for it, we just need wallhaven to enforce proper tagging more. And the fact that people upload "low quality" stuff is fine as long as they tag it properly, everybody has to start somewhere.

Yes im not an artist my any means and yes i did generate some images with StableDiffusion spin-offs, i dont consider anything of what i made upload worthy tho, im not an artist & very much consider image generation as a tool for artists. Imho people should use it to make a basic composition with roughly what you they are going for, then change the output into an actually good piece of art with the usual tools, saving like 50% of the time in the process? i dont see why people are so opposed to this idea & like in the past im leaning towards "some people are just salty that some guy with some software can make half decent pictures with less effort", the thing that sets artists apart from 'some guy' is putting in the extra effort.

Again, im focussing in the bigger picture here, because that's what the topic title asked about, the argument of "spam on wallhaven" is just a matter of enforcing proper tagging & not something im really worried about, im just saying that "hate" towards "AI Art" is completely unneeded.

You're not focusing on a bigger picture at all or at the very least it's not the only thing you're focusing on, you're just vehemently trying to defend a shitty act while calling anyone who opposes it as garbage, downplaying their efforts and works while stealing from them, that's like when a thief steals your bike and then that thief beats you for not having the bike he wanted. That's the issue there, "oh look, he hates AI Art, he's not a good artist" Yeah, SamDoesArts is not a good artist, All of the artists who feel violated and their hard work stolen without given credit are not good artists, yet we stole from them. I'm guilty of it too, do I tell them "Do better" or "You suck, you're not a real artist for complaining about AI" while crying that you're the victim here because your "hard work" that lasted for 10 minutes is being questioned. fuck no. It's shameful. You do better, instead of degrading artists for their works being stolen and acknowledging that fact.

Such a toxic mindset reminds me of me when I was 14. And you keep referencing the Photoshop feature doesn't mean that they're still not done by hand, unlike AI, and you keep glorifying it to a point where you're almost saying it takes more effort to be an AI artist than an actual artist, who mind you, spends hours in one piece, not minutes. And you AI Bros keep parroting these for some reason, why? You know it's not true, it's never true.

Everyone wants AI tagged out or blocked because they're sick of it, I'm sick of it and I use it for my livelihood (Despite in fear of being copyright infringed) and I should be thankful for it, but no, the guilt is too much, and that's before I knew that artists are complaining about it.

My point is, you have to do better, don't lie to everyone about AI Art is hard work, don't lie about it not just a bunch of datasets smooshed together to make an image in an amazingly short amount of time, and Definitely don't shoot any artists down for complaining about AI Art while stealing from them, Do Better. I'm not saying feel guilty like me, I'm just saying, Do Better.

And I may sound Brazen at most but that's just because English is again not my first language and it's hard to translate.

AI is perfect,but actually no perfect for art.Art needs creativity and specially. But AI's 'perfect', is a kind of destroy.

AI art is just boring and lazy. That's it.

BobJustBob said:

...

We're going around in circles, im sorry that my opinion makes you feel like im toxic or 14, i just feel like this is another case of "upset people not accepting progress" and i pretty much cant describe it more friendly. Besides that its weird that you say you work with it and then also say that it takes mere minutes to make something good, surely you should be aware that a good generation takes lots of time and effort? if you disagree with that you pretty much contradict yourself? I think we should just agree to disagree.

The one thing i would love for you to take away from this is these 2 points i made in earlier posts:

• "AI Art" is not simple and you really cant make something good in a few minutes
• "AI Art" is a tool for artists, not a replacement for artists, and 99% of people (both artist and non-artist) are well aware of this

Lets just agree that we need better tagging for AI Art, but a button (wich would be ignored just as much as a tag but more work for wallhaven) isn't needed, strict rules about tagging (and acting when somebody doesn't follow those rules) are what's needed.

AI Art, is simple, that's it, and your exaggeration earlier about how it might take as long as an artist would do is nothing more than an exaggeration and false at that. Yes, it only take me minutes or at best an hour or two to come up with simple designs and I did exaggerate how fast it can be but it surely doesn't take long like how you would suggest or imply it. It gives me results in mere minutes and hours, multiple results, mediocre or good, doesn't matter, I can just crop or frame some parts that are bad, it's so easy. Contradicting, ha.

It's also not about being against progress, it's more like "don't steal my work and pretend that it's for science" But then again, how can an AI do that? Come up with something on their own. But again, this isn't the issue here.

Now that's just a minor issue for me, the fact that you're willing to debase anyone who despises AI Art, and call them shitty artists is just bad. It's one of those audacity that I can't admire somehow. Again, you use AI art yourself, and can't acknowledge the fact that you're just gathering other people's artwork and mushing them together, then anyone who says "AI Art is Bad" you call them shit artists. Do you not see what I'm pointing at? Then you even go ahead and lie about how hard AI art can be, there's literally youtube tutorials on how to install it. And have you drawn anything? I have, I'm not artist but I tried, it took me hours and 1 gig of file (because I'm still not used in using Photoshop other than to crop or frame AI Art mistakes) All just to imitate David Finch's style, but with AI Art, pfft.

Again, I'm just pointing out that you can't call someone who spent so much on a piece, a shit artist for saying AI Art is Bad, not even checking their work, you just go "They hate AI Art, they're garbage artists" I'm paraphrasing of course but here's the actual quote "ignore the haters, they just want attention or blame AI for not being good artists themselves."

Better tagging of AI Art is just a minor inconvenience for me that will eventually kill what I love about art one day. So it's Ok. Debasing and degrading people's work for not liking what's stealing from them, now that's a problem. So I'm just saying, don't do that again, that's not cool, just call them wrong then prove them wrong, don't comment on what you don't know.

Good talking to ya bud, this improves my English a lot, and I'm sorry if this is long and repetitive I think, I don't know anymore. Iit's just really hard to translate, while fasting for 2 days, who knew it can make you dizzy a bit.

Ok,now ai art has changed wallhaven successfully.In fact,when I came here last year,I never thought one 7-years website force to do a change.For someone,ai art is over.But obviously,it will live forever and do better in the future.Just like ChatGPT.

I think a lot of criticism about AI is misplaced. I have personally seen children drawing human asses on birds because they didn't know better. Just like a child is learning by imitating so does the algorithm. How do you expect it to learn if it has no references? Pulling stuff out of thin air? Imagine if every little thing you learned at school was suddenly immoral because "it technically plagiarizes someones years of work". It's the same thing factory workers complained about when machines became a thing. Or even better: Chess players complaining about Chess computers. You can but you can't stop what is happening. That is ultimately the cost of progress. I understand why someone is salty because years of work are suddenly seemingly irrelevant because one button seemingly does days of work but ultimately it is for the betterment of 99% of the rest of humanity. The point is: This is the worst AI Art is going to get because it is literally a newborn trying to win the drawing Olympics. Either adapt and provide something the machine can't and won't (like a lot of people, for example, blacksmiths or other craftsmen) or go under while complaining about "back in my days we didn't have, printing presses, typewriters, tablets or Photoshop". Oh wait...

It was a good decision to have AI Art disabled by default. It's a newborn in a space of masters but don't act like it's the antichrist dumping on your pictures.

Ra3ieL

It's always amused me when artists freak out and claim AI is plagiarism because "it looks at millions of other artists and then rips them off by blending all of those styles together!"

So...you mean the way humans learn to draw? By studying millions of other artists and eventually developing your own style which is often a blend of other artists that were the most influential to you?