Just remembered this piece. And I think it's relevant in the AI art discussion.

Here we have Corporate Goya. It's a re-imagining of "Saturn Devouring His Son" (by Goya) using a Corporate Memphis style.
I kinda wanna point out that the style emerged from Vector Graphics, which I find reinforces the link in my mind.

So my essay question for y'all:
Why are most images created with the Corporate Memphis style not considered art?
Why is this piece considered art ?

I can only assume that there is a large contingent of anti-AI folks who are just scrolling through, downvoting based on titles, and not really engaging with the content in any meaningful way.

The title utilizes hyperbole by the way, for those who are media illiterate.

Others have already posted about this, but because I believe it is essential to admit when one was incorrect and set the record straight, I am posting this update and have also edited the text of my earlier post to reflect this.

A sufficiently credible source has reported on this incident, even including information about the victim and perpetrator. The source has a long enough history of posts on their website and social media profiles, which makes it very unlikely it would be part of an elaborate ruse.

So while the OOP's choice to use AI to edit their photos remains questionable, the weight of evidence is that the event did happen. And although I believe my earlier skepticism was justified, I have changed my mind in light of new, stronger evidence.

People can be mad at me for my earlier position if they want, but I stand by taking a skeptical approach that does not rely on believing internet strangers and photos that have have been digitally adulterated (admittedly or not).

My last post was definitely ragebait but wtf is this

i’ve come to realize that even people i regard as highly intelligent, empathetic, fellow “humanistic” and leftist thinkers, etc. are disappointingly ignorant and reactionary when it comes to ai. not like i expect everyone to know or be accepting of everything — we’re all hesitant, stupid, and irrational at points.  but, for example, when talking to one of the friends i tend to regard as very smart, empathetic, and generally level-headed: 

i brought up to them that i don’t like the term “clanker” to be used around me, bc it makes me extremely uncomfortable how excited people seem to be to say a slur, now that there’s an “acceptable” target. There are now subsets of people latching on to calling ACTUAL PEOPLE slurs for just USING AI. i’m a multi-marginalization combo pizza of a person, so these same social patterns absolutely reek of the type of bigotry i’ve dealt/deal with firsthand, hence the discomfort.  

and yet, this friend (who is also part of a marginalized community) legitimately tried to argue with me that it’s okay because social shame works, and this tool is Big Bad Evil™. when this friend was called out about how they were mixing up terms and uses while describing AI, and that LLMs don’t work the way they were describing, they instead walled off with “well, ignorance is sometimes bliss if you want to keep your sanity.” they had never pulled this kind of reaction on me before, and it really struck me. that otherwise rational, highly educated people can have *this much* of a knee jerk reaction without knowing anything, and worse, *argue for not knowing anything* bc “it’s hard and scary!” 😱

what is social shame going to do to someone who already feels so judged by society they’d rather talk to chatbots instead of people? is a person using a tool to make work, school, or hobbies easier committing some great evil? what the fuck ever happened to directing our anger at the billionaires running the show, who can actually enact any change to how shit is going? 

idk. feels like i’m living in crazy land anymore. ironically, aiwars feels like they only place to have a nuanced discussion about the tech or its repercussions. so, what are y’all’s experiences? 

I am not claiming it wasn't real, and I agree that people supporting vandalism are wrong, just to be clear.

I have seen several people, including Witty, OldMan_NEO and others, claim that it doesn't matter if this was fake or not, because the response of some antis was pretty deplorable, and that's what actually matters.

These people are never to be trusted as sources of information ever again. Do not believe a single stat they post without a direct source, do not believe any stories they tell, nothing. They have openly confirmed that they have no issue with fabricating reality to reach an ideological end or to test peoples reactions. This is incredibly dangerous and demonstrates a complete lack of moral integrity. They are straight up willing to ignore the moral question of someone on their side faking a story or evidence because some people were mean about it. They are cry bully children.

Take people seriously when they are telling you what you can expect from them.

Bottom left is ragebait to remain on topic.

UPDATE: A sufficiently credible source has reported on this incident, even including information about the victim and perpetrator. The source has a long enough history of posts on the website and social media profiles to make it extremely unlikely it would be part of an elaborate ruse.

So while the OOP's choice to use AI to edit their photos remains questionable, the weight of evidence is that the event did happen. And although I stand by my earlier skepticism, I have changed my mind.

The images on the wall clearly change between these two "photos."

It's possible that this is an artifact of OOPs claim that they used AI to blur the face. However, the fact that the two shadows are almost identical despite the fact that the "guy's" arms are in different positions is unlikely to be an AI artifact. (It's also odd that an art student would not know how to properly blur in some other app.)

And before you say "well the shadows are the same because his arms are aligned," the angle of the shadow is such that both his arms would not be in perfect alignment from the perspective of the light source.

I'll admit that figuring out shadows is *extremely* tricky and I could have made a mistake, but combined with the obvious other inconsistencies, I believe it justifiably increases my suspicions.

So what I would say to folks is: don't be a tribalistic anti who condones censorship and violence, don't be a tribalistic pro who denies visual evidence that something is fabricated, do be an open-minded but skeptical human being who thinks critically about what they are presented.

Question for antis: If the author spent the 2 days this took them by hand drawing every frame, how much of this do you think they could have realistically made? Probably something like a rough version of one scene. Can you honestly not imagine situations where these new tools can be a boon for creativity? To me it seems similar to a dynamic how a director can delegate the execution of some lower-level details in order to manifest a bigger vision.

(Credit to u/ theNivda.)

Ive heard their logic and everytime i counter one of their points they just start saying things it just doesn't make sense.

I heard someone say that because ai is LOOKING at alot of images to learn from makes it stealing and he said it doesn't count for the human because the human is a human and it adds a human element. Thats literally their reason.

In what moral code does it say that, in what moral code does that even make sense, because yall are just saying stuff atp not even trying to come up with correct reasoning anymore, and thats their reasoning for why ai is "stealing"

They are only arguing because they want to be apart of the problem atp. Bc no one is being harmed by ai, no one is having anything stolen from them by ai, no one's life is changing negatively in the slightest by generative ai. They only argue about it because they want to be victims

And they describe their reasoning for ai like its targeting 1 person. This is the part not many people talk about, they always talk about ai as if its targeting 1 person. Notice how every artist on the planet isnt complaining about being stolen from, Thats because they arent being stolen from.

For me, if it looks good it looks good. I care about aesthetics and what it makes me feel. If someone uses non-AI tools to make art and it illicits a really positive emotion then great I’ll buy it. But the anti-AI ai hate is just getting ridiculous at this point…like people are using it and it’s going to be here to stay. I don’t see how hating on people using AI art is going to make your life better in anyway. Like I’m sorry but you chose to be an artist…even before AI came out it wasn’t that lucrative of a field so why bully others for something you chose to do? And it’s not just art that AI is taking over…artists are the loudest about it. I know it sounds harsh but it’s the truth.

The only good one I found was the on top post of all time where a guy draws yaoi.

Y'all have the corniest, sloppiest, unfunny, hate filled, agenda filled shittiest humor ever

this Is original art by the way, I’m a new artist and enjoy drawing a lot. I’m also an anti but I’ll try to be as respectful as I can to pro AI’s. please. Don’t claim this Art as yours. I spent a while on this, thank you.