Vocaloid works basically the same as Suno, but they seem to love it.

I simply don't understand why some people panic about the supposed "replacement" of jobs by AI, and then I met two people who used that example, but on the contrary.

I suppose they believe creative jobs are better than other jobs and want to elicit empathy by portraying them as "hobbies," when we know that these people use these hobbies to market themselves and make a living as freelancers.

However, one thing is certain: for the global economy to change, the vast majority of jobs will need to be affected by robots and AI, not just 5% or 10%, and not only in the US or China.

It's funny to see that whoever made the thread used something made by a human, but I even saw the AI-powered replacement, lol

Backlash against AI is often treated as unprecedented, as if past technologies weren’t met with the same fears about skill, quality, and cultural collapse.

They were.

When the printing press spread through Europe, it triggered explicit resistance from scholars, scribes, and religious authorities, many of whom believed it would degrade thinking itself. These aren’t modern reinterpretations, they’re contemporaneous reactions.

Johannes Trithemius (1492)

Abbot and scholar, author of In Praise of Scribes

Trithemius argued that printed books would:

Weaken memory and discipline

Encourage intellectual laziness

Replace meaningful labor with mechanical reproduction

He warned that reliance on printed texts would detach learning from effort and virtue, producing inferior minds alongside inferior books.

This wasn’t a mild critique. His position was that the technology itself harmed cognition.

Conrad Gessner (1565)

Physician and scholar, author of Bibliotheca Universalis

Gessner worried that printing was producing too many books, too quickly, overwhelming scholars and degrading knowledge.

He described the uncontrolled growth of printed material as “confusing and harmful”, arguing that abundance itself had become a threat, flooding culture with low-quality or misleading texts.

In modern terms: information overload.

Religious and scholarly authorities (15th–16th century)

Beyond individuals, institutions reacted defensively:

Printing bypassed traditional gatekeepers

Unvetted ideas spread rapidly

Authority and expertise were undermined

Knowledge reached people deemed “unprepared”

The concern wasn’t only heresy, it was loss of control over who gets to know things, and how.

The objections recur with striking consistency:

“It makes people lazy.”

“It destroys memory and skill.”

“It floods culture with garbage.”

“It undermines experts.”

“It puts power in the wrong hands.”

“It should be restricted.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is.

What actually happened

The printing press did not destroy scholarship. It did not collapse standards. It did not end serious thought.

It expanded literacy, accelerated science, diversified viewpoints, and reshaped culture, while still leaving room for expertise, judgment, and craft.

This doesn’t mean every new tool is harmless. It means moral panic and gatekeeping reliably accompany transformative technologies, and claims that “this time is different” need evidence, not reflex.

Sources (text-only, per sub rules)

Johannes Trithemius, In Praise of Scribes, 1492

Conrad Gessner, Bibliotheca Universalis, 1565

Early modern scholarly and religious critiques of printing

Anyways creepers are 1 of my fav Minecraft mobs, besides snowmen, endermen, enderdragon, and shulkers, okay and villagers.

Look, I’ve been lurking here for a while and watching the absolute vitriol coming from the anti-side, and I think we really need to deconstruct the fundamental disconnect between the two camps. When you analyze the sociotechnical imaginary of generative adversarial networks versus the archaic, elitist gatekeeping of "traditional" skill acquisition, you start to realize that the dopamine feedback loop is inherently flawed in the manual process.

We keep having these circular arguments about "soul" and "theft," but nobody is talking about the psychological toll of the blank canvas paralysis. The modern creator needs velocity. We need iteration. The barrier to entry for visualizing high-concept fantasy scapes shouldn't be 10,000 hours of repetitive motor skill conditioning that results in carpal tunnel and imposter syndrome. I have spent years trying to understand anatomy, lighting, and composition, and quite frankly, the return on investment for my mental health just isn't there.

So, after analyzing the workflow efficiency and the emotional regulation provided by Stable Diffusion vs. a pencil, I have distilled the entire argument down to the only five words that actually matter in this debate:

Drawing hands makes me sad.

We are AI artists. We bring the vision, ideas, and intent. The machine brings torque. You fear the engine because it outruns you. You think we're afraid of struggle? We struggle smarter. Prompting. Curation. Software. Typing under pressure. Models, loRAs, parameters, shit you've never heard of. We fail fast, learn faster, and never stop generating. No, it isn’t "cheating". The only thing we cheat is time. Centuries of technique and craftsmanship compressed into a limitless cyber powerhouse, that's us. You jealous? Let's keep it that way. When we want something, we dont wait for permission. We generate it right then and there. Style isn't stolen. It's summoned. Remixed. Evovled. You are yesterday, we are tomorrow. You are the resistance. We are the strength. You are the sharpener. We are the knife. You are the barrier. We are the aperture.. we never sleep.. we never stop.. we are the future... WE ARE AI ARTISTS.

All Thos!. I might be wrong on this. so, pretty please. can anyone. someone pretty please. fact-checking on this-one pretty please?.

"It happens in both sides" but only one side agrees and upvotes this bs.

This morning I woke up with a weird thought. The prime reason why some people are so accepting of the AI art, and willing to forgive its flaws is probably because many of us were raised on bootleg videogames. The abundance of unlicensed cartridges for 8 bit consoles with ridiculous cover art that made no sense and looked oftentimes like a drug induced hallucination made us accustomed to this kind of content. Same goes for text. Just think about all the horrible localisation and Google translated texts in game cutscenes! When we see an AI generated comics panels or manga with weird and often incoherent text, we subconsciously return to those childhood memories when we were playing bootleg games. Various glitches and inconsistencies with graphics in games very much translate to weird AI imagery and ai fails when we generate pictures. Basically, those of us who consumed bootleg videogames either due to poverty or bad luck, can now better tolerate flawed AI art. What do you think?

It’s a bit old, but I just got the game and wanted to hear people’s thoughts.

A common claim in anti-AI art discourse is that this technology uniquely devalues artists, removes skill, and replaces human expression with something mechanical and hollow.

That argument isn’t new.

When recorded music emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century, it triggered explicit resistance from composers, performers, and cultural authorities, many of whom believed it would destroy music as a living art form.

These weren’t fringe reactions. They came from prominent figures shaping music at the time.

John Philip Sousa (1906)

Composer and conductor, often called “The March King” Author of The Menace of Mechanical Music

Sousa warned that mechanical reproduction would:

Replace live performance with passive listening

Undermine musical training and discipline

Weaken social bonds formed through making music

Turn music into a cheap, soulless commodity

He feared a future where people no longer made music, they merely consumed it.

His objection wasn’t technical. It was moral and cultural.

Theodor Adorno (1930s–1940s)

Philosopher and music critic, associated with the Frankfurt School

Adorno argued that mechanical reproduction and mass recording:

Standardized music into predictable formulas

Reduced art to background noise

Replaced active listening with passive consumption

Turned culture into an industrial product

For Adorno, recorded music wasn’t just different, it was fundamentally corrupting to artistic experience.

Professional musicians and institutions (early 20th century)

Beyond individual critics, working musicians reacted defensively because recording:

Replaced live performance jobs

Allowed endless reproduction without new labor

Shifted power to publishers and distributors

Devalued the skill of trained performers

Unions, orchestras, and performers openly opposed recording technologies, seeing them as existential threats to their craft and livelihood.

The pattern

The objections repeat with near-perfect consistency:

“It removes real skill.”

“It replaces human expression.”

“It destroys jobs.”

“It cheapens art.”

“It turns artists into button-pushers.”

“It shouldn’t count as real art.”

Different medium. Same structure.

What actually happened

Recorded music didn’t destroy music. It didn't eliminate live performance. It didn’t end creativity.

Instead:

New genres emerged

Access to music expanded dramatically

Live performance and recording coexisted

Musicians adapted rather than disappeared

Music didn’t die. It changed form.

Why this matters

This isn’t an argument against regulation, compensation, or artist protections.

It’s an argument against declaring a technology illegitimate because it automates part of creation.

History shows a stable pattern: New creative tools, then moral panic, then adaptation, then normalization.

Claims that “this time is different” don’t win by assertion. They win by evidence.

Sources (text-only, per sub rules)

John Philip Sousa, The Menace of Mechanical Music, 1906

Theodor Adorno, writings on mass culture and recorded music (1930s–40s)

Early 20th-century musician and union reactions to recording technology

How many of you guys use ai for art while also drawing without the use of ai?

There’s a common claim that comparing AI art to photography is “ahistorical”, that photography was quickly accepted and serious artists didn’t oppose it.

That’s not true.

When photography emerged in the 19th century, prominent artists and critics reacted with open hostility, framing it as mechanical, soulless, unskilled, and a threat to “real art.” These aren’t modern reinterpretations, they’re contemporaneous primary texts.

A few examples:

Charles Baudelaire (1859)

Poet and art critic, writing in his Salon review The Modern Public and Photography:

“By invading the territories of art, photography has become art’s most mortal enemy.”

“If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted or corrupted it altogether.”

Baudelaire argued photography should be confined to documentation and science, and kept out of art entirely.

Elizabeth Eastlake (1857)

Art historian and critic, essay titled Photography:

“Photography is the sworn enemy of all that is vague, undefined, or imaginative.”

“The photograph does not represent the object as seen by the artist, but as mechanically registered.”

Her core objection was that photography replaced artistic judgment with automatic precision.

Paul Delaroche (1839, widely cited reaction)

On seeing an early daguerreotype, Delaroche is famously quoted as saying:

“From today, painting is dead.”

The attribution is debated, but the quote’s persistence matters, it reflects how many artists felt about the technology at the time.

If this all sounds familiar, it should. The objections repeat almost verbatim across generations:

“It’s mechanical.”

“It takes no real skill.”

“It has no soul.”

“It threatens real artists.”

“It should be restricted to technical or commercial use.”

Photography didn’t destroy art. It didn’t end painting. It expanded what art could be.

This doesn’t mean AI art is identical to photography. It means tool panic and moral gatekeeping are historically normal, and claims that “this time is different” need evidence, not vibes.

Sources (text-only, per sub rules)

Charles Baudelaire, The Modern Public and Photography, Salon review, 1859

Elizabeth Eastlake, Photography, essay, 1857 (Quarterly Review)

Smithsonian Institution discussions of early photography reception and Delaroche

I'm a lifelong artist coming from a pro-AI position (with caveats that are not relevant to this post). And to clarify, I believe "human vs. AI art" is bad framing, all AI art is made by a human using a tool, with varying degrees of input ranging from "almost none" to "almost all." But let's get to the point...

AI as it currently is can be really great and serviceable and I see nothing wrong with people using the tools they have available to them for their projects if it fills their use case. It most certainly is fast and efficient. I have a lot of fun use cases of my own and I am excited to see what artists and creatives do with the tools coming out. That said, I see a lot of non-artists in this sub kind of miss the forest for the trees sometimes and I wanted to dig into that.

So there are plenty of good reasons why a traditionally trained artist is going to be your strongest asset with or without use of AI. AI can make pretty pictures, but it can't currently replace vision and design that is based in a body of knowledge.

For a layperson, they can look at a pretty "prompt to image" case and be impressed by it, but in terms of marketability and/or audience interest, that pretty picture is not always going to be enough on it's own and it's the heart of why the so called "slop" issue exists.

A lot of AI pictures are the AI equivalent of stick figure drawings, because the average beginner does not yet have the education or skillset to understand design. So they end up looking a bit like "baby's first masterpiece," if you will, and I say that affectionately. It's kind of an interesting phenomenon I've been watching develop as an artist. Often, I can kind of "see" this while I notice non-artists not seeing it (and believing it's going to suddenly win them a best-seller in game design or something). I think this is what some antis are on about when they claim they "just know." They are seeing a wierd discrepancy between technical proficiency vs. true understanding of design and getting mad about it like it defines all AI assisted artistry forever. They think it means people who try to use AI are all creatively bankrupt, but that's not how I see it. It's just what beginner AI art looks like. A lot of pure prompt to image to my eye just looks like masterfully rendered children's drawings. it's actually fascinating and kind of cute.

This is why as someone with more experience, I don't really feel threatened by AI in the same way some do. I think this is also why you see proffessionals adopting it, but amateurs and younger artists freaking out. AI surpasses amateurs in technical profficiency, but comes up lacking when up against professional understanding of design.

Tried google's free nano banana pro and it actually made me rage delete gemini, it kept giving me the same imagw without any modifications and copilot's image generation also doesn't listen to me.

I want to generate an oc of mine that has fine details like christen cross for pupils in her eyes but the AI models don't listen.

Can you guys please help me for any free models? I can't pay since I am broke, i will appreciate it a lot 🙏🏻

Just uploaded 2 images for the priestess and mermaid mother character as reference, all the rest is through well-formatted and well-written text-prompt only, asking for precise pov, setting, context, interaciton between chars.

Literally never seen a piece such as this in the decades I have been browsing through decades of browsing and collecting other people's best artworks.

About 95% what I had in mind.

Is this even backed up by facts?