aidiscoursebingo

[aidiscoursebingo]

if anyone would like to play bingo on my blog rn

[aidiscoursebingo]

[aidiscoursebingo]

the anti ai discoursers are constantly SO close to an epiphany

[aidiscoursebingo]

congratulations to the tag team on this post for scoring a bingo!

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "to think that theft is either ethical or ok to encourage"

we NEED overworked animators: all of the attitudes expressed wrt art-as-labour by both anon and the screenshotted tags

art is a Special Kind Of Labour: the idea that a lack of "work and effort and skill" makes art "disrespectful to customers and other artists"

It's Not Real Art: "AI prompting is not art"

"soul"/"humanity": "you have put in no soul or effort into the piece"

motte & bailey/strawman: the tags dressing up a moralistic objection with terms tangentially related to labour rights + the bouncing between arguments of "effort" and "theft"

"stolen"/"theft": "to think that theft is (...) ethical"

(in)directly insults collage/readymades/photography/etc: insinuating that "effort" or time sunk dictates what qualifies as "art"

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: unethical, cheating, disrespectful. "what the fuck is wrong with you"

art requires effort: "you have put in no soul or effort into the piece", also broken down by sexhaver above

stealing jobs from artists: the case made by anon

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: self-explanatory

acting like AI operates independently: "if someone is looking to hire an artist and they find out the person they hired was just prompting an AI theyd rightfully want their money back"

no understanding of how machine learning works: "the act of plugging in prompts to a generator"

cope all you want but if someone is looking to hire an artist and they find out the person they hired was just prompting an AI theyd rightfully want their money back. AI prompting is not art.

fascinated by this world you live in where you can consider something "art" but then reverse course after learning how it was made, almost like you believe something's "artsiness" is defined by effort put into it + "rightfully" is doing some extremely heavy lifting here + begging the question + L + ratio + marine iguana eating marinara at a marina

[aidiscoursebingo]

this didn't get a bingo but it's genuinely impressive how many boxes were ticked in two tiny screenshots!

(breakdown under the cut)

all art is hobbyism: "everyone can make art dipshit it came free with your fucking humanity"

"soul"/"humanity": "it came free with your fucking humanity"

motte & bailey/strawman: the second screenshot, explained by pupyjpeg above

ableism: blatantly

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: "dipshit"

classism: "everyone has art inside them", because as we all know there has never been a material barrier to any of the arts

This is such a bleak intersection of patronizing ableism and reactionary art snobbery, masquerading as progressive art optimism.

"Hey due to paralysis/tremors/muscular+skeletal issues, coding, training, and prompt-writing AI image models are much more accessible to me than other forms of visual art"

"Don't be silly (read: lazy), of course you can make art other ways, you have art in your ~soul~!!!"

It's just classic fuckin "you're not really incapable of things, that would be scary and inconvenient for me, you're actually just different or maybe not trying hard enough!" line that is used any time a disabled person says that they literally can't do something, or need a specific tool to do it.

I hate that this post (with 30k notes no less) is using the "spark of creativity we all have within us" or whatever schmaltzy inspirationbait to obscure the point they're actually making, which is that they think people using AI image models for accessibility reasons —or even just by choice!—are being lazy, not doing real art, and cheating their way into artistic expression; instead they should be eking out whatever they're capable of with limited resources or ability because that's somehow purer or more real than just using a tool that makes things possible for them that weren't before.

Can you imagine if you talked about how a digital camera allowed you to take portraits that you couldn't do otherwise, or just in a way that made you happy, and somebody told you to use paint instead because it doesn't matter how it looks, what matters is that you're expressing yourself, and they simultaneously insinuated you were being lazy? Nobody would like that person, basically everyone would recognize they're a jackass. But if they leaned on already popular conceptions of people using AI tools as cheaters and liars who weren't making "real art", then all of a sudden they're being a brave truth teller and speaking to the powerful artistic strength we all have within us. It makes me sick.

[aidiscoursebingo]

no bingo unfortunately! better luck next time anon

(breakdown under the cut)

hyper-conventional conception of what makes "good" art: "blurry, uncanny images"

motte & bailey/strawman: "the idea of being able to have an idea made into a picture in front of you, without having to like, learn to draw"

ableism: self-explanatory. the whole "aphantasia" thing

(in)directly insults collages/readymades/photography/etc: positioning "learn(ing) to draw" as the only viable way to "have an idea made into a picture"

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: "a manchild obsessed with video games and drugs" is a new one

classism: "obsessed with (...) drugs" + the implication of cheapness

art requires effort: "without having to like, learn to draw, or expend any effort"

childish insults directed at AI: "slop printing out for his amusement"

acting like AI operates independently: again, "slop printing out for his amusement at only $0.02 per image"

no understanding of how machine learning works: "prompted mashups"

What is a tangible benefit to any of this? Wow look the computer can make prompted mashups of blurry, uncanny images. What is the fucking point? Yes, it's here, we can't put it back in the box..but why wave it around like it means something?

Fundamentally I think your aphantasia is the only reason you're so obsessed with this. the idea of being able to have an idea made into a picture in front of you, without having to like, learn to draw, or expend any effort, is probably really appealing to someone like you, ie, a manchild obsessed with video games and drugs, defending tooth and nail his ability to have slop printing out for his amusement at only $0.02 per image.

there are a lot of snarky/flippant things i could say here, but i'll leave them as an exercise for the reader. my main concern here is that you've clearly followed me for a while to know about my aphantasia. were you hatefollowing me for months or did you suddenly start hating me this much in response to my takes on AI? if it's the former then stop making yourself angry, and if it's the latter then lol.

[aidiscoursebingo]

our very first double bingo!

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "Copying someone's work isn't creating art."

we NEED overworked animators: "This is why paid/commission artists exists."

art is a Special Kind Of Labour: "So not even if you think of every single detail for your artwork you're not the one making the art/painting."

It's Not Real Art: "Copying someone's work isn't creating art."

motte & bailey/strawman: tragicallyphosphorescent repeatedly pivots to variations on their argument

ableism: blatant, explained by gothhabiba above

"stolen"/"theft": "telling a machine to do it based on the artwork they stole from others"

(in)directly insults collage/readymades/photography/etc: tragicallyphosphorescent overtly tries to gatekeep what qualifies as art

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: talentless, uncreative

art requires effort: "a person getting a vague idea of what they want and telling a machine to do it based on the artwork they stole from others isn't making art"

"just commission an artist": "This is why paid/commission artists exists."

stealing jobs from artists: again, "This is why paid/commission artists exists."

childish insults directed at AI: tragicallyphosphorescent's contributions comprise entirely juvenile rants

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: the heart of TP's argument wrt independent artists being Harmed by AI

acting like AI operates independently: "So even if some AI had exceptional original creativity it would be the artist not you."

no understanding of how machine learning works: "I'd like to hear what kind of AI does no rely on stealing art from artists.AI is literally a computer working for you."

I wish the introduction of (sometimes admittedly very bad) new technology didn't always seem to unleash a wave of ableism from everyone, lmao

[aidiscoursebingo]

sadly, anon's effort, while valiant, did not secure a bingo

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "stolen art"

we NEED overworked animators: anon's argument wrt "market competition"

art is a Special Kind Of Labour: "But antara you work with computers."

motte & bailey/strawman: "They aren't imperialists for not wanting corporates to train softwares on their stolen art."

"stolen"/"theft": "stolen art"

classism: "People whose livelihood depend on making artwork"

stealing jobs from artists: "It is a competitive market. This will jack the competition level upto a thousand + level!"

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: "People whose livelihood depend on making artwork are saying that this is bad for business."

no understanding of how machine learning works: "not wanting corporates to train softwares on their stolen art"

But antara you work with computers. Your livelihood isn't dependent on art. People whose livelihood depend on making artwork are saying that this is bad for business. Shouldn't their voice matter here? They aren't imperialists for not wanting corporates to train softwares on their stolen art. And how long till artists contribution are curtailed even more. It is a competitive market. This will jack the competition level upto a thousand + level!

I never called them imperialists. The art is not stolen from them. They still have the original copies. Intellectual property theft is a genuinely meaningless concept. I understand that they're worried, and I have sympathy. But the problem is in their fear they're getting in bed with reactionary forces. That will hurt more than artists, it hurts everyone in the way it makes copyright enforcement more draconian. I highlighted what that looked like in the last reblog of this.

sure, you can standpoint epistemology me into a heartless techbro – but I find this insistence on the special position of artists to be considered for protection from technological forces frankly self invested too. we didn't get this hysteria when grocery store cashiers got replaced by self checkout machines or skilled assembly line workers got replaced by KUKA industrial arms or bookkeepers by accounting software – is it because some workers and their work involve intrinsically more valuable skills than others? if not, shouldn't we ban any technology that can potentially replace a worker? protein folding and drug discovery by AI may save lives, but its taking jobs away from older researchers who did traditional work. should we all burn down washing machines so we can have laundrywomen again? or should we argue for stronger social security and reorganise our society to enjoy reduced working hours when jobs are automated and let people pursue work that they want without market pressures?

[aidiscoursebingo]

a really impressive bingo for the screenshot!

(breakdown under the cut)

(note: this is a slightly revised version of the bingo card!)

all art is hobbyism: the tags imply that art is a universally fun and involved activity with a "soul" that other professions lack

we NEED overworked animators. To Save Human Artists: artists must be protected from automation, unlike other workers

art is a Special Kind Of Labour: "art is intrinsically more valuable than menial work" (i give special points to this line for being one of the most insane things i've ever read!)

hyper-conventional conception of what makes "good" art: "for slop to replace creativity"

It's Not Real Art: again, "slop to replace creativity"

"soul"/"humanity": "soul-sucking", "soulless"

motte & bailey/strawman: insinuating that AI is meant to "replace" other art forms

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: "evil and soulless"

classism: self-explanatory

stealing jobs from artists: the entire anxiety motivating these tags

childish insults directed at AI: "slop" again

acting like AI operates independently: the implication that AI removes all human input from the creative process

[ID: screenshot of tags reblogged on my post

#art is intrinsically more valuable than menial work #so your point is moot #it's one thing to automate washing clothes or dangerous factory jobs and a whole other thing to automate human expression #what you're advocating for is the soul-sucking of art #for slop to replace creativity #and that is evil and soulless on the face of it

end ID]

you guys are beyond parody. artists are special workers the rest of proletariat should get ground down into dust by technology.

[aidiscoursebingo]

this discourse is making me realize that a shocking amount of people are not only working with a definition of "art" that directly correlates the quality of a piece with how much effort was put into it, but assume everyone else on Earth is also working with this definition. Protestant-work-ethic-ass worldview

[aidiscoursebingo]

not even close to a bingo sadly, but I am impressed at how many boxes were checked in such a short paragraph!

(breakdown under the cut)

all art is hobbyism: pretending that corporate media is a passion project from a team of heartfelt artists

we NEED overworked animators. To Save Human Artists: self-explanatory

(in)directly insults collages/readymades/photography/etc: art is something actively Created by Artists

art requires effort: "the hard work of DreamWorks Studios"

stealing jobs from artists: the implication of the screenshotted argument

it is so laughable to deliver a righteous moral lecture on crediting and respecting artists and then say that shrek was made by "the hard work of dreamworks studios." like amiguita you are really revealing something there

[aidiscoursebingo]

bingo! that's really impressive for such a brief post!

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "AI steals art."

all art is hobbyism: artists are people with "creative bone(s)" who reserve the right to invite others into the "artist community"

hyper-conventional conception of what makes "good" art: "You're mad you can't draw or do anything" (i.e., "illustration is the Realest art form" + "you lack conventional artistic talent")

motte & bailey/strawman: again, "You're mad you can't draw or do anything"

"stolen"/"theft": again, "AI steals art."

(in)directly insults collages/readymades/photography/etc: all derivative, "copyright infringing", or low-effort art is lesser non-art, according to OP!

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: talentless, uncreative, not "an actual fucking artist"

art requires effort: "You didn't create shit."

acting like AI operates independently: "AI steals art" yet again

no understanding of how machine learning works: one more time, "AI steals art"!

AI art is trending again. The people who defend ai and using it to "create art" aren't artists and don't have a creative bone in their body. You didn't create shit.

"you're just mad cause-"

No. You're mad you can't draw or do anything, and mad cause we are calling you out on your shit and not welcoming you into the artist community.

AI steals art. It is not the same as using another persons work as inspiration.

You'd know that if you were an actual fucking artist.

Go fuck yourself.

[aidiscoursebingo]

the bingo card template ^^

(breakdown of each box under the cut)

IP brain: several arguments against AI art hinge on IP and copyright law: e.g., accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement, navel-gazing wrt "ownership" of art, etc. this means nothing to anyone who doesn't believe in the virtue of copyright lol

all art is hobbyism: anti-AI types frequently pretend that all art is something done solely for fun and/or personally meaningful to the artist and/or not labour

the hands/teeth!!!!: a common argument against AI art is that the hands or teeth look uncanny or unrealistic (even though that's one of the coolest things about AI art lmao)

we NEED overworked animators. To Save Human Artists: many argue against the use of AI to automate more menial aspects of creative labour (e.g., background art in animation), even when the work in question is famously backbreaking. (animation is only an example, and this box can apply to other art-related jobs)

art requires intentionality: a bizarre and common argument--"AI art isn't art because real art is 'intentional'." ignores (a) that there are intentional aspects of AI art (even setting aside the formation of prompts, the decision to choose a generated result and share it publicly is an undeniably intentional one) and (b) that several other art forms (photography, documentary, collage, etc) also preclude artists from having that flavour of foundational "every-brush-stroke" control over the piece

art requires a financial transaction: "it's only real art if someone got paid for it" (in other words, the opposite of the all art is hobbyism argumetn. thank god for the consistency of the anti-AI movement o7)

hyper-conventional conception of what makes "good" art: the manner in which opponents of AI target perceived flaws in AI art (blurriness, spatial abnormality, "count the fingers!", etc) tends to betray deeply reactionary values wrt "good" art as art that pursues representational realism.

"techbros": "-bro" is a commonly used, ill-defined pejorative that generally means "any person the speaker doesn't like." opponents of AI tend to cast what they call "AI advocates" as "techbros" interchangeable with NFT shills. besides being implicitly gendering, it's also hilarious--which side in this debate is closer to saying "i own this image so you can't right click it"?

"soul"/"humanity": there are frequent pseudo-spiritual appeals to art (even corporate art, apparently!) as having an essential "soul", "humanity", or even "godliness" that AI art lacks. this is of course meaningless to people who don't see any value in spiritualism

motte & bailey/strawman: opponents of AI frequently switch gears whenever they get cornered--when they realize that "we need stronger copyright law" is an indefensible position, they say "well REAL art requires effort!!", and when they're defeated on THAT front too they switch to "well AI is making artists lose their jobs!" and they keep doing this ad nauseam instead of acknowledging the flaws in their arguments. really it's less motte & bailey and more bailey & bailey & bailey & bailey &

ableism: people critiquing AI frequently choose to be ableist for some reason. the most common trick is inspiration porn (i.e., "so-and-so disabled person learned to paint with their teeth, what's your excuse?!")

"stolen"/"theft": two of the three favourite words of the anti-AI crowd. even if you accept the fundamental IP-brain premise (which, to be clear, you shouldn't), a baseline knowledge of how training datasets work should still make claims of theft fall flat.

reactionary BS (free space): arguments against AI tend to rely on several foundationally reactionary concepts, be they luddism, copyright, or the ~essence of humanity~

(in)directly insults collage/readymades/photography/etc: a massive portion of diatribes against AI include arguments that also lock several other mediums (the above plus music sampling/covers, choreography, film direction, etc) out of "counting" as art. frankly, a massive portion of them are indistinguishable from the reactionary outrage against duchamp's fountain

"you know it's not even ACTUALLY AI right??": people love to point out that "AI" is a buzzword and that computer programs are not actually sentient, and then pretend they've done something

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: several pejoratives tend to come out. see also: stupid, talentless, heartless, abusive, etc

"collage": the third favourite word. to be clear, AI image generators are NOT "collage machines", and if they were, that would be a good thing

classism: another thing that jumps out frequently. right-wing ideas about labour and poverty abound

art requires effort: another bizarre idea--the implication that more effort = better art. surely by this logic the amount of labour hours behind Avengers 16 must make it the ultimate opus

"just commission an artist": an annoying adage

stealing jobs from artists: same argument as self-checkouts

childish insults directed at AI: lots of people love making juvenile jabs at the AI. there's no sweeter irony than seeing someone write a diatribe about how AI is Not Really A Person then act as if they've just humiliated it

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: a lot of commission fanartists are convinced that aligning themselves with (petty-)bourgeois interests is going to help them in the long run

acting like AI operates independently: everyone seems to think that no humans are even involved in the process and that AI generators just sit in a dark room operating themselves, spitting images into the void

no understanding of how machine learning works: self-explanatory. opponents of AI don't seem to even know the bare minimum about the subject they argue about

(also yes i do consider diagonals to be a bingo, i dont care if it's not proper lmao)

[aidiscoursebingo]

sadly no bingo

(breakdown under the cut)

we NEED overworked animators. To Save Human Artists: the speech about "market disruption"

"soul"/"humanity": "it's literally an inhuman amount of speed and quality"

motte & bailey/strawman: the definition of ableism is going through a whole shell game here

ableism: already described extensively by deepseametro above

Ai artists are immoral/lazy/etc: talentless, uncaring, and harmful!

art requires effort: "Either practice and figure out how to enjoy making art(...)"

stealing jobs from artists: luckytrine's entire argument

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: again, luckytrine's whole comment

i guess i should preface im not anti ai but how is "everyone can make art it comes free with your humanity" ableist? i could see the argument for illustration and drawing and stuff as i agree with that the other statement is ableist ("oh this guy picked up paintbrushes with his mouth oough") but art is a lot more than that especially cause ive seen people make pretty interesting works of art using AI as a tool

in a vacuum it's not an objectionable statement but in context it's being said as a response to disabled people being like "hey, i like making visual art but can't move the pen/mouse too well, this new technology seems like it could help me make some cool art with minimal physical effort on my end". and in that context, "everyone can make art" stops meaning "humans have an inherent creative drive that manifests in a variety of ways" and starts meaning "okay, sure, you can't make visual art any more, but you can still do poetry or writing, right? like you can type the prompt for AIs, so you can type words, right? just do that instead, it still counts as art. what? you wanted to make a specific kind of art instead of just any random form of expression, and you don't particularly like writing, and also you're bad at it? well too bad, shouldve thought of that before you lost the ability to draw, because your only option to continue doing that without me yelling at you for using Ontologically Evil Technology is holding a brush in your mouth, and if you disagree with that then i'm going to call YOU ableist and post inspiration porn".

tl;dr it treats all different forms of art as fundamentally interchangeable and completely disregards the feelings and desires of disabled people

[aidiscoursebingo]

close, but unfortunately no bingo!

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "rips off other people's work," "glorified plagiarism," etc

soul/humanity: "in no way beneficial to humanity"

motte & bailey/strawman: yOu'Re AdVoCaTiNg ChIlD aBuSe

ableism: "crack is unironically arguably better than this"

"stolen"/"theft": "he literally stole his own child's work"

"you know it's not even ACTUALL Ai right??": "It's not even an actual AI, it's just some bullshit machine learning program(...)"

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: "repugnant", "evil", "lazy", and "abusive"

classism: see ableism

childish insults directed at AI: "Everything about it causes harm to innocent people. It's fucking garbage and needs to be banned"

no understanding of how machine learning works: "glorified plagiarism", etc

how many layers of post-hoc justification for kneejerk reactionary technophobia are you on

[aidiscoursebingo]

that's a bingo!

(breakdown under the cut)

IP brain: "René Magritte is dead. He gave no permission for this misuse of his work"

hyper-conventional conception of what makes "good" art: "The worker's (sic) features blending together like a collective of horrors"

"soul"/"humanity": "And yet it feels empty. It has little soul."

"stolen"/"theft": "slopjank of stolen art"

AI artists are immoral/lazy/etc: describing OP as unfunny, "a word generator", etc

art requires effort: "stealing hard made work and turning it into(...)"

"just commission an artist": jikkybytt's entire comment

stealing jobs from artists: jikkybytt's comment, again

petty bourgeois artists = underdog: the entire spiel about Magritte

acting like AI operates independently: the crux of the argument. "mass consumed product"

no understanding of how machine learning works: "stolen art from millions of unpaid artists"

Defending AI gruel is weird as hell

seahorse in a gaming chair playing League of Legends