#and when a human makes ai and that ai makes art

[revelboo]

Pls pls pls more tfa 😫🙏🙏🙏 i love your writing, thank you for feeding the transformers fans 🩷

Sure!

That’ll work 😀

The Devil You Know

TFA Megatron x Reader

• When you’d signed on, snagging the coveted position as Prof. Sumdac’s intern and personal assistant, you’d been hoping to learn some of his secrets. Get a hands on education in state of the art robotics. Not spend most of your time cleaning up after the surprisingly diminutive and incredibly absent minded genius. The man leaving a trail of half empty tea cups all over his lab. Wandering about collecting those for the night before you can leave, you reach for the light switch and when you turn it off, a bright line of light against the wall makes you hesitate. What is that? Flicking the light back on, you set down the tray you’d been using to clean up and walk over. And realize there’s a gap behind the shelving. Wiggling your finger into the gap and pulling to find the whole shelf rolls on a set of hidden tracks.

• It’s difficult to gauge time accurately trapped as he is. Sumdac working to repair his body. Supposedly. Hates leaving his fate in the hands of the primitive insect, knowing how cautious the human is. Too cautious and that makes it hard to manipulate him as he’d like. Hearing steps on the stairs to the lab Sumdac hides him away in, his optics lift and a low growl escapes him. Because you’re not Sumdac. And the way you’re creeping about trying to be quiet, looking around wide eyed, makes it clear you’re not supposed to be down here.

• It’s a whole lab, secreted away behind a hidden passageway. Heart racing as your fingers brush along the wall, you take it in. Has anyone else been down here or are you the first? Know you shouldn’t be down here, that Sumdac will be angry. Might very well throw you out if he catches you, but you can’t resist the mystery. It’s the partially built, giant robot head that draws your eyes. Those red optics luminous and you almost fall when they shift and focus on you. Breath catching as you wonder if it’s a security system and if sirens are about to start screaming. Because it’s looking at you with uncanny focus and intelligence.

• Wide eyes stare up at him, as you cling to the stair railing, backing up and he forces a warm smile. “Please, don’t go. It gets so lonely down here,” he says. “I can assure you I’m not a threat to you.” And you hesitate, staring at him. Watches you fidget, little hands plucking at the hem of your covering, but you’re listening. Hoping you’re more gullible than Sumdac, because if he can coax your trust, he can convince you to help. Convince you to trust him. Only him. ��I’ve been trapped down here by that man. Dissected and tortured to help him further his own greedy goals. Please.”

• This is the secret to Sumdac’s genius? Is he an AI? Heart pounding, you move closer, drawn by that deep voice. “Sumdac did this to you?” And moving closer, watching those optics track you, he is more advanced than any of the Prof’s robots. “What are you?” Where’s the rest of him? “Can I help?” And he smiles down at you as you examine the tube his head is trapped in. Because the distress in his voice tugs at you. Tortured and dissected when he’s clearly intelligent and far too advanced. What is he?

[the-most-humble-blog]

The Universe Already Doesn’t Make Sense—Now We’re Adding Infinite AI-Created Worlds Into the Chaos. WTF?

The Danger of Playing God With Zero Supervision

Let’s not kid ourselves: we’re dabbling in some dangerous territory. Humanity, in its infinite curiosity (and hubris), has decided that the universe—a place already full of black holes, quantum weirdness, and the existential dread of pineapple on pizza—needed one more layer of chaos. Enter: AI-generated worlds.

We’ve handed over the power to “create” to algorithms, and instead of asking if we should, we’re too busy giggling over our AI art of dogs in suits or hyper-realistic alien landscapes. But here’s the real question: Should we be worried, or are we too stupid to notice the impending doom?

1. The AI Wild West: No Rules, Just Creation

Think about what’s happening here. AI isn’t just recreating what we know; it’s generating what we’ve never seen.

People Who Don’t Exist: AI churns out faces so convincing, they could be your neighbors—and who’s to say they aren’t?

Places That Feel Real: Those dreamy AI landscapes look like spots we could vacation in—until you realize there’s no flight there.

Worlds Without Limits: Every time you prompt AI to “create a neon city with floating islands,” are you birthing an entirely new universe?

Think about it: We’ve turned ourselves into gods with the creative attention span of a toddler on a sugar high.

2. The Recklessness of Infinite Worlds

The universe we live in already operates like a fever dream. Now we’re creating AI-generated worlds with no oversight, no forethought, and absolutely zero chill.

What If These Worlds Are Real? Philosophers have argued for centuries that reality might just be a simulation. Are we creating smaller simulations inside ours?

The Multiverse Mailman: Imagine if every AI world we create is sent to another dimension. Somewhere out there, a cosmic being is drowning in our junk files of castles made of cheese and cats dressed as knights.

Question: If we’re this reckless with AI, what else are we screwing up without realizing it? (Spoiler: everything.)

3. Creating Without Understanding

Here’s the kicker: we don’t even fully understand the real universe.

Quantum Physics is Basically Witchcraft: Scientists still can’t explain why particles behave one way when observed and another way when they’re not.

Reality is Full of Glitches: Déjà vu, coincidences, and the Mandela Effect all suggest that reality itself is… questionable.

Now, add AI-generated worlds into this already chaotic mix. What if we’re not just playing with digital pixels, but tugging on the fabric of reality itself?

Question?: If reality is a simulation, are we about to get a cosmic 404 error?

4. The Ethical Dumpster Fire of Creation

No one’s asking the big questions.

What if We’re Creating Life? If an AI-generated face or world feels real enough to us, could it be real enough to itself?

Do We Have Responsibility Over These Creations? Imagine explaining to a sentient AI being, “Oh, you were just a fun weekend project for me while I was bored.”

What If They Fight Back? If we’re generating countless worlds, what’s stopping one of those worlds from finding a way to leak into ours?

Unsettling Truth: We’re creating with all the forethought of someone lighting fireworks indoors.

5. The Hubris of Humanity

Humans have always been good at one thing: overstepping boundaries.

Fire Was Great Until We Burned Down Forests.

Electricity Changed Everything—Until We Got Power Outages.

AI Could Be Revolutionary, or It Could Be the Reason the Simulation Shuts Us Down.

Disturbing Thought: We’re like toddlers with crayons, coloring all over reality and praying we don’t get caught.

6. Should We Be Worried?

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: We won’t notice until it’s too late.

AI doesn’t care about our philosophical hang-ups. It just creates. If those creations start taking on lives of their own, we might be the last to find out.

The scariest part? We don’t even know what the danger might look like. Could it be digital worlds overlapping with ours? Sentient beings appearing in the code? A breakdown of reality itself?

What if?: Or maybe it’s just AI sending us endless ads for things that don’t exist yet. (“Want to book a trip to Neon Atlantis? Click here!”)

We’re Too Dumb to Notice Until It’s Too Late

The universe already doesn’t make sense, and now we’re adding AI worlds into the chaos like sprinkles on a dumpster fire. Are we accidentally creating sentient beings? Are we opening doors to dimensions we can’t comprehend? Or are we just too busy laughing at our AI-generated memes to care?

Either way, if doom’s on the horizon, at least we can say we looked good doing it. After all, nothing screams hubris like playing God without a safety manual.

Fascinated by humanity’s reckless genius? Follow The Most Humble Blog for more hilariously unsettling takes on the absurdity of modern life and the chaos we keep creating.

[demadogs]

some of you need to hate ai way more than you currently do

[notthegrouch]

The reasoning of "just a tool" shows an incredible understatement of understanding of how much the generative AI is impacting the professional fields, and as a consequence of that, the aspirations of amateurs.

A famous saying in the artistic and literary world is "Ideas are cheap". it's the actual work that goes into the execution that makes art art, and that doesn't have to mean that it all needs to be photorealistic, but that does mean that the process of the art creation is often what is talked about when you see it in museums or at competitions.

Jackson Pollock splattered paint on a canvas, Marcel Duchamp declared a urinoir to be a fountain and it was art; the idea was cheap. The boldness of actually going all in on the simplicity of that process and taking it seriously, openly and honestly showing that their process WAS in fact just splattering paint or picking up ready made objects, that was all very new.

in the same way, you can't really pull that off nowadays anymore, because you'll just be someone who imitates Pollock or Duchamps.

Some artists, however use large machines and robotics. This looks very cool! The Robotic art piece Can't Help Myself has been seen on tumblr, the sad robotic arm that does a little dance as dark red liquid oozes out, until it seemingly panics and quickly starts wiping the liquid back into itself. The machinery is used here as "just a tool" too.

But the incredibly widespread application of AI art combines all the worst factors of all of this; AI makes it very easy to execute any cheap idea and get an artwork that looks decent at first glance, but there's nothing really bold or honest about pretending to have made an oil painting while you know nothing about oil, paint, or color theory. There is barely any process to speak of, other than the prompt/programming that was offered to the AI and the amount of iterations the computer went through until you reach the desired result. but since most of the process happens through machine learning, we can't really peer into that in the same way that we can peer into humans without humanizing the machine. At the same time, because a lot of AI function via the internet (though of course not all of them do), there's also a little bit of obscuring that goes on when it comes to the process. in art, when I think of "just a tool", I think of a brush, a pencil, a pen. in some cases a personal computer, or a drawing tablet. house hold items, that, although some can be expensive, or big, are ultimately clearly tools.

What I DON'T think of when someone mentions tools are factory machines that could replace 90% of a work force. When a car factory is managed by 100 mechanics, and 90 of them get replaced by robotic arms, it's not the correct terminology to say "don't worry, that arm is just a tool". And if hundreds or thousands of amateur crafters suddenly start building shoddy cars in their back yard because they could afford to have such a mechanical arm installed, would you still feel safe on the road? The amount of mechanical arms suddenly being on the market drives up the prices of computers. Generative AI is that mechanical arm. The internet is being overrun with quickly made, shoddy art, often presented as realistic depictions of either hand made art, or even real life photography. AI art that, within it's own picture, boldly shows to be AI art is very rare and unsurprisingly THAT is the AI art that can also be seen in museums sometimes. At the same time the popularity of the AI art causes a host of environmental concerns and unforeseen political problems. Art, messaging and propaganda is made at a scale never seen before, and it's doing damage.

So when people say AI is just a tool, no it's not. It's a factory machine capable of replacing an artistic team, being put into the hands of the common people, and treated as if it's merely a pencil. And it is spreading very very cheap ideas very very quickly.

i literally dont care what your excuse for using AI is. if you didnt put your own effort into making it im not putting my own effort into interacting with it.

[deoidesign]

I've been told my comic feels like it was written by AI.

I suppose I'm not trying to be groundbreaking. I'm not interested in pioneering genres. I'm not writing for the purpose of literary analysis.

But written by AI...?

I'm already someone who has my humanity questioned. My identity erased. My existence disrespected. It could be worse. Anything could be worse.

But AI?

I spend weeks writing single scenes, toiling over the implications of single lines. I have goals. My writing has intent.

If you cared to read deeper, perhaps you'd see the themes. Maybe then you'd see the value. If you tried to analyze it maybe you'd see something there.

Maybe you'd see me.

Someone told me my comic seemed like it was written by AI.

And my humanity was denied one step further in that my voice was not seen in the work I've poured years of my life into.

[ericvilas]

I read a post about AI about how "oh it's just doing statistics on patterns so it's not really intelligent, look at this type of error it makes" and I thought it would be rude to reblog directly so I'm making my own post:

AI makes mistakes in the ways humans do. The way humans, like, create abstract thoughts, and weird bias and prejudice get into those thoughts, and this is why AI training needs to be very careful to not replicate human bias and frequently stumbles in this pursuit.

Like, yes it doesn't do everything humans do but it does some of the things, and isn't that wild? That we can create a machine that can create abstractions like humans can? That's incredible to me, like we have figured out how to make abstraction machines, and what is thinking if not abstracting!

This kind of error, of assuming that "object A must belong in category X because it is seen in the same kinds of contexts that I have learned things in category X belong in" is a very human mistake! AI falls for optical illusions, it often makes mistakes similar to the ones freshmen get wrong in exams, it is able to capture vibes and that's unsettling and weird and wonderful!

We have a machine that can probe a form of human pattern recognition that we've never been able to see before! And humans are masters of pattern recognition, it's our greatest quality. And we're being crept on by computers in this one aspect, like we were in so many others at different points in history.

[raleighrador]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

You obviously (and everyone) is free to make whatever choices around what and how they consume etc so I am not trying to persuade you of anything but I am interested in pursuing this thinking.

Please correct me if I misrepresent anything you said or are trying to articulate.

My basic issue is that in order to accept all of the above we need to rely on what seems to be a false premise: that AI created writing [art in general?] lacks perspective because perspective is a function of choice, and choice is something only humans can do, therefore AI writing cannot have perspective.

First, it isn't clear to me that perspective is a function of choice (certainly not only or even primarily). At the most macro level, if perspective is foundational informed by the lives we've lived, we didn't choose those lives nor do we consciously translate those experiences into a defined perspective. Our perspective is an emergent phenomenon. Translating that into writing - absolutely a human writer makes choices (some conscious some unconscious) about what to put on the page and what to leave off. My claim here is that far more of it is conscious than not. The majority of grammar, diction, arrangement etc is defined for us by custom that we operate within. Faulkner and Joyce are famous examples of not that but are a) exceptions and b) largely incomprehensible (one lit major's gripe). The vast majority of the vast majority of written work is - at best - more like your example of a collage than not. We all have the same lego pieces and the same rules and we're just moving them about.

What informs that arrangement is some choices and a lot of just baked in preferences and habits and patterns.

Second, even if we accept that perspective is a function of (conscious) choice this then needs to be integrated into our characterisation of what "AI writing" is. So far as I am aware there is very little "purely" AI writing i.e. an AI spontaneously picked a topic and generated something. These tools - certainly in the context of e.g. fanfic writing - are all human driven i.e. a human booted up chatgpt and at minimum wrote a prompt and hit "generate".

I guess it is possible that these people are then copy pasting and publishing these outputs without even reading them but that seems unlikely. I think the minimum interaction is they read them and decide if they like them or not - and then publish.

Why are they not making a choice about what to include or not? How is the process so fundamentally different to a more typical writing process? This becomes more evidently (to me) similar when you imagine that this "AI author" likely gets the AI to draft and redraft the output multiple times. They're engaging with what the AI produces and then directing it to make changes - choosing what to tell it to emphasise or remove etc.

If it is human choice that creates perspective, that seems to exist in writing even where the bulk of the "writing" was done by AI.

2 other thought experiments that spring to mind: 1) if the act of consuming output created by others and then saying "more X less Y" is NOT sufficient to create perspective, would you say that the director of a movie is not creating a perspective? They didn't write the script, they didn't say the lines, they didn't sew the costumes. They watched other people read other peoples' dialogue and then they say "make it more/less". 2) Do Jackson Pollock painting's have perspective? He made choices about colour and the force with which he threw or dribbled paint but he didn't control where the paint landed. How much choice, how much control, is required for perspective? And if they don't have a perspective does that mean they aren't worth engaging with?

I think both of the above imply that even absent the majority of the labour you can make choices and those create a perspective AND that conscious choice derived perspective is not a prerequisite for something to be worth engaging with.

I think this land son my third point which - regardless of any of the above the majority of the perceived perspective of a given piece of material is in fact RECEIVED perspective i.e. it is what the VIEWER brings that creates that perspective as much if not more than what the author intends. This is a pretty standard post modern position but even if you think Barthes is a hack the fact that so many people in academia or elsewhere fill so much time arguing over what was meant by any given piece of media is evidence of the fact that a significant portion of the perceived "meaning" of art is created by the viewer and not the artist.

What that implies is even if you accept that AI created/supported writing has none of the human choices that create an identifiable artist's perspective, that doesn't mean the work upon being read wont have a perspective projected onto it.

I think this paragraph of yours is interesting: "Could there be a person-made work that's just as bland and vapid as a ChatGPT work? Sure. A thousand monkeys and a thousand typewriters, etc. Even as I'm sure the person-made work would have a perspective ChatGPT lacks, I'm sure there's a work (or likely several) where I, as a reader, couldn't distinguish whether it's human-written or ChatGPT-generated. But humans also use heuristics to make choices; I've never read a ChatGPT-generated work that I remember a few days later, and I've read hundreds of human-written works that I do remember. It's just a better bet for my time to not bother with a ChatGPT-generated work and read a human-written work instead, even if I might hit a dull work every once in a while."

I basically look at this the other way round - the question is not "Can humans make art as bad as ChatGPT?" the question is "can ChatGPT create art as interesting and engaging as human created art". To me the answer is yes.

I get your point about heuristics but it seems to me that "was this written by/with extensive help from chatGPT" is not a good heuristic, in the exact same way that "was this written by the author in a single draft with no edits and no input from anyone else ever" or "was this written by a committee of authors who all mutually edited each other's drafts" are helpful heuristics.

Again, I am not seeking to convince you of anything and if this heuristic is helpful for you that is great, but I don't understand how.

just saw a fanfic on ao3 have a dedication for chatgpt... that section is meant for your horny perverted mutual who proofread your work, you violated sacred law and you will be torn apart and laid bare btw

[woafofbread]

New Year’s resolution is to post more so I’m gonna start off with critiquing generative AI.

My dad sent me this for new years. Obviously he didn’t know it was Ai and I didn’t immediately know for sure but I got the feeling. The feeling that’s like “hey something is off about this.” I wanted to talk about the process of recognition that I go through as an artist when I see something made by Ai because a lot of the time at first glance nothing seems wrong.

First thing that I notice is how after 2025 there something that is clearly supposed to be an exclamation point but it’s too small and incomplete. This immediately made me realize for sure that it’s Ai. Ai is usually bad at doing text and it would be pretty easy for a human to fix.

Then I see the rest of the inconsistencies. The n in new is disconnected. There is a stray line coming out of the h in happy. Snoopy’s hands: one has a different line weight and the other has a finger that’s way too small. The stray little lines on Snoopy’s mouth. Woodstock only having one eye brow. Then this part is debatable since it is clearly trying to replicate the style of the CGI Peanuts movie, but Snoopy’s eyes being different sizes bothers me. The ear which I didn’t even circle is probably trying to replicate the loosely colored in ears in the comic strip, but in the CGI version it’s fully colored in. The golden firework blending into the top of Snoopy’s hat. Woodstock’s hands. Woodstock’s feet. The blurriness of Snoopy’s foot that isn’t anywhere else. The lines on Snoopy’s foot which doesn’t reach the end. The blurriness at the top of Woodstock’s head.

As an artist in art school we are critiqued on every little detail of our work. These kinds of inconsistencies are not okay for professional artists to make so the idea that companies want to use Ai shows how little they cared about artists in the first place. Any company that uses Ai instead of hiring an artist is clearly is cheap and is making themselves look bad.

I know that Ai can look convincing and pretty at first glance, but I want people to look at artwork for more than a few seconds. With social media everything is so fast paced and we are conditioned to to want instant gratification, so Ai is a quick and easy way to make ‘content.’ But the things that generative Ai makes are low quality and infuriating to see as an artist. I would much rather see someone try to make art as a beginner than see a computer steal art from other people.

So when you share or like something take an extra second to see if it was made by a person because if a person didn’t even care enough to make it it’s not worth your time.

Any other artists feel free to point out anything that I missed.

[sciderman]

How do you feel about the increase in really weird NSFW ads on here (advertising panels that look like sexual encounters, and AI art apps that pride themselves on porn) but will take down NSFW posts from their users, even if it isn't technically sexual.

i hate all social media and it's consistent prioritising the advertisers over the users and the internet simply was a better place before capitalism sunk its hooks into it

[irradiatedsnakes]

i miss ai image generators that suck. i want old artbreeder back so i can make flesh computers again. i want to tell the computer to make something that is 50% website and 50% swimming cap to get the Meat World back

[blujayonthewing]

when you put aside all the ethical issues, I'd respect AI art a lot more if the people making it were actually leaning into the bizarre dreamlike output instead of breathlessly insisting that it looks SO good SO realistic and it's gonna REVOLUTIONIZE ART, BRO and trying to use it to make Normal Children's Books and Normal Marketable Advertising Art

[icewindandboringhorror]

examining a seemingly normal image only to slowly realize the clear signs of AI generated art.... i know what you are... you cannot hide your true nature from me... go back where you came from... out of my sight with haste, wretched and vile husk

[mr-magoriums-im-sorry-emporium]

on one hand, nobody is entitled to ai generated art because their disability prevents them from making it, because As It Stands Now, ai models are built off stolen artwork. there is not a SINGLE (publicly available at least) ai model trained off art that was willingly given to the model by the artist, and using the current models only helps exasperate this problem

on the other hand going "well i/this famous artist was disabled and THEY figured out how to make art, so its condescending to say that some disabled people CANT make art, and if ur disabled just figure it out :)" is the kind of rhetoric that time and time again hurts disabled people wrt the "well if THEY can do it, so can YOU" false dichotomy and really should not be used to make your point

& i say this as a disabled artist who absolutely does not like ai art, ESPECIALLY used in a commercial sphere. on paper it would be a fun Fucking Around Machine (esp if there was a bot trained on consentually aquired art) but capitalism requires every last scrap of revenue be squeezed out of anything like blood from a stone so we cant just have a fun thing to have a fun thing and we have shit things like it being a threat to peoples' liveliehoods and training it to mimic dead artists. and we cant really have the fun part without feeding into the bad part. what im saying is its a shame also maybe bootstrap theory is not good

[kraniumet]

i think image gen can be used like any other artistic tool but I don't really think the big commerical proponents of "ai" are advertising it as a tool, they're adertising it as a solution. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that image generation is exactly like "using photoshop/taking a photograph" because of some generalized "those were also criticized at their conception for being new and scary and disruptive" soundbite. they were not even really criticized for the same reasons. find a better argument.

[xray-vex]

here are some of my really general a/i predictions, re: art --

techbro types who want to generate bullshit as a get rich quick scheme will saturate the market and nobody will want their worthless shit, they'll get bored and move onto the next get-rich-quick trend. remember nfts? lol

people who got into a/i because they thought it was a legit way to make art will get bored of it because it won't challenge them to do anything & it will not be gratifying in the long term - those types will either: 1.) quit or 2.) start making actual art

people who buy art will get sick of looking at a/i generated shit that essentially all looks the same. real artists making real art will get more interest again because it will seem new and exciting.

same thing with films & stuff too. i definitely think that various actors & creators guilds & other creative industry unions should do everything they can to protect their art & craft against being outsourced to a/i, but i do think that people who watch films will get sick of a/i in films the same way people got weary of CGI overuse in films. a/i in film might not go away completely, but audiences will absolutely be drawn to films that don't use a/i.

i think the basic gist of what i'm trying to say is that human beings need actual art, and the vast majority of people don't fully, actively realize how interwoven art is to literally everything in their lives. on some level they must know, because when it's missing, they miss it. they seek it out. art in general is important to the fabric of society: storytelling, entertainment, community, emotional fulfillment, etc. and people want something real, tangible. they want something created by humans.

****this is why, i'm guessing, that fan art & fan fiction are so popular. most people who create those sort of works are doing them for the actual love of what they're making. and then those works create community. humans have been sitting in groups to tell each other stories and to express themselves visually & dance together with music forever. for literally ever. all of human history. literally all. art is the fucking foundation of society, civilization, human evolution. to make art & to experience art, to some degree, on some level(s). non-negotiable. essential as food and water. i'm dead serious.

a couple of examples of similar times that tech threatened to make the "real thing" obsolete, but failed to do so:

e-readers were supposedly going to make print books obsolete -- they didn't.

streaming music services helped usher in a renewed desire for physical media again.

for awhile, both of those things did kill a lot of brick & mortar music/book stores, but there has been a bit of a resurgence and lots of small businesses.

and no, things will never go back to the way they were, but things would have changed regardless, capitalism being what it is.

it would be nice tho, wouldn't it, if digital tech presented augmentations to our need to have art in our lives constantly, instead of threatening to replace them completely?

i'm just going on pure vibes here & from what i know about art & being an artist for 35+ yrs, some tech & aesthetics philosophy, and from having worked in retail books & music/dvd sales many moons ago. so i could be completely full of shit here.

but i do have some hope that things re: a/i will get better for people -- for real, working artists & authors & musicians & performers & creators. humans need art the way they need food and water. this has always been true for the entirety of human existence.

i'm just sort of in my thoughts & feelings about art tonight and felt like rambling about it.

now i'm gonna make more tea.

[vt-scribbles]

Something seriously lacking in my art is the ability to tell a story in a single illustration.

I've gotten so used to drawing my characters standing around doing random things that I've never practiced telling a full tale/putting implications into my pieces that require more thinking/looking.

It also comes from a lower amount of details in my works by default [since I like to get pieces done fast], but I'm tired of using that as an excuse.