[f6v]

There're a strong disdain agains any AI among the artists. I've seen these kind of comments many times, like people getting upset someone uses AI-generated profile pic in Discord.

I get that they're scared. They should be: it was difficult to make a living for many artists even before AI. The market was already oversaturated and they had to accept low-paying irregular jobs. But now there's literally no light in the end of the tunnel for 99.9% of artists.

That being said, boycotting AI use will get them nowhere.

[ottah]

I'd say there's strong disdain from people who make a living producing art, but it's not nearly as universal with artists outside that group. I do resent people who have a monetary interest in an activity being presented as the only ones with a valid interest. I have seen more people becoming interested in personal creative expression since diffusion models, than I have ever seen before in my life, and that's a good thing.

[madamelic]

Something I read elsewhere was "if someone is using an AI avatar, they were never going to be your customer anyway".

I used to commission avatars every year or two from a specific artist. It wasn't super cheap (hundreds of dollars). At the end of the day though, spending hundreds of dollars, waiting weeks, and then maybe getting 85% of what I wanted doesn't make sense when I could instead spend ~$0, wait 30 seconds, and get 98% of what I want.

In my view, artists should be moving up the 'stack'. If they are a commission artist, they should be having customers come to them with their '98% efforts' or only taking on commissions that either mean too much, too elaborate for AI, or otherwise sensitive.

Humans want art. Humans love pretty things. AI will never replace the entire need for artists. I see it as getting rid of the bad commissioners (price sensitive, beggars, etc) and making it easier for people to express themselves thereby making an artist's job easier to extract info from their commissioners.

[Ruthalas]

This is very foreign to my way of thinking.

I commission artists somewhat regularly, and if I had to name the top two reasons, they would be 1) I really like their style, and want a piece in that style 2) I want to support them so they can continue making the art I like.

Meeting my checklist of inclusions is important, but definitely secondary to the reasons above. (And sometimes the deviations are reflections of the artist's particular style and therefore welcome.)

[palmotea]

> Something I read elsewhere was "if someone is using an AI avatar, they were never going to be your customer anyway".

Is your point that what you quoted is false?

> I used to commission avatars every year or two from a specific artist. It wasn't super cheap (hundreds of dollars). At the end of the day though, spending hundreds of dollars, waiting weeks, and then maybe getting 85% of what I wanted doesn't make sense when I could instead spend ~$0, wait 30 seconds, and get 98% of what I want.

...because you just gave an anecdote that shows the truth is "if someone is using an AI avatar, they might have been your customer before AI".

> In my view, artists should be moving up the 'stack'. If they are a commission artist, they should be having customers come to them with their '98% efforts' or only taking on commissions that either mean too much, too elaborate for AI, or otherwise sensitive.

That doesn't make sense. That's not "moving up the stack," that's the work drying up and only a small remainder of the most difficult/sensitive things being left. And that might mean being driven out of your profession because there's not enough left for you to feed yourself.

[madamelic]

> because you just gave an anecdote that shows the truth is "if someone is using an AI avatar, they might have been your customer before AI".

I stopped commission artists for avatars years before that because of "It wasn't super cheap (hundreds of dollars). At the end of the day though, spending hundreds of dollars, waiting weeks, and then maybe getting 85% of what I wanted"

I got tired of waiting weeks only to get honestly a middling result. I stopped buying art and won't go back because the economics don't make sense to me regardless of AI.

> only a small remainder of the most difficult/sensitive things being left

Yep. It's what happens to industries as technologies progress. Horse carriage drivers and elevator operators either found something more specialized or moved out of the industry. If someone is making a living off onesie-twosie low-dollar commissions and can't figure out how to translate that to something else in the industry, they don't have any other choice.

Personally I think a lot of technology progression is long-term positive for humans because it means humans get to do something more fulfilling than rote work. It's dystopian and awful but personally, it's a shove for artists to move onto better art.

[palmotea]

> Personally I think a lot of technology progression is long-term positive for humans because it means humans get to do something more fulfilling than rote work. It's dystopian and awful but personally, it's a shove for artists to move onto better art.

Dude, you need to update your memes. It's 2026: technology progression means humans "get" to do more rote work as the fulfilling creative and intellectual aspects are automated away.

Have machines do the creative part of building the system, so you don't have to! Instead you get even larger piles of code reviews instead!

[rsynnott]

Well, also, I mean, the output is generally bad.

(AI 'art' also has the fascinating, and possibly unique, property that, the more you look at it, the worse it is; it is fractally bad, in that the badness tends to crop up in small details more than anywhere else. I actually kind of enjoy it in small doses for this reason; it's fun to play "spot the broken thing".)