I think AI companies would prefer if we didn’t differentiate between real art and AI art. Photoshop did little more than provide some convenient and more powerful paintbrushes for artists to use, whereas AI cuts out the artist entirely, and eventually will cut out the person making the decision about what to make. To conflate the two misses some important nuance in my opinion.
How much energy is too much energy to oppose something I think is harmful to society? This is just a small example of the greater shift in society, but it doesn’t need to just be accepted as the way things are.
I would expect a community of makers to be more opposed to AI slop.
How about you present your real art and see if everyone here likes it? Maybe we can vote on it and suggest that BL uses yours for the next collection. That will be a positive contribution.
I think it takes advantage of those who don’t even realize it’s AI slop (yes I’m framing it as though it’s for sure AI when I can’t prove it for sure, but just look at it). Not all of those 4632 people but surely some. If they want to wear it and are happy that’s good
I don’t consider myself an artist in this way. I certainly design things but not something I’d want on a t-shirt. And I’m not selling AI slop. Any other ad hominems?
No it doesn’t. It cuts out the technical skill of the artist such that anyone with an idea can apply their artistic vision, no matter how unskilled, to the medium. Technical skill is not the singular hallmark of an artist. Their conceptual ability and their vision for the piece is. Someone with no clue or concept of what makes a great image will still produce a piece of crap with AI.
A person using a cordless drill to put a hole in a piece of wood does not diminish the value or quality of their concept compared to the dude who used a piece of obsidian on the end of bow drill.
Are there people who will pay exorbitant rates for the person with the bow drill to handcraft their dining room table? Yes.
Are there people who just want a table that works and don’t care that a CNC machine blasted out 75 copies before lunch? Also yes.
There’s also people using CNC machines to produce insanely high quality furniture, one-off pieces that will last multiple lifetimes, and are themselves pieces of art. Does that mean the use of the machine makes it less valuable?
And just like the mass produced crap, “AI art” is the same thing. Cheap, mass produced, and disposable garbage that serves the same purpose as any other cheap garbage. To be used and discarded.
I would take it all back if they attributed someone. Even though artists can also make AI slop at least I would feel too bad to accuse them. Right now in my mind I’m insulting a robot.
Yeah, we know. That’s the issue.
You are unable to identify the fact that not knowing something means you shouldn’t just assume whatever thing you like to be true.
Why on earth is this insulting? Whether it is AI generated or not it’s simply showing some merchandise you can buy if you want. It’s not pretending to be anything else, it’s simply some clothing (and accessories) that may be available and not pretending to be anything else.
This thread does feel like a rant, and suspicion of AI should not be founded just based on a smell test, but I do see some possible AI use:
These two lines in the top left seem to have no purpose, and it doesn’t seem to be a deliberate design choice, there are no other white lines in the rest of the picture, except to show the movement of the toolhead. These two lines wouldn’t make sense for movement next to the watch and the mat. It could be just a really weird design choice, but combined with the other small details, it seems suspicious.
Also, under the build-plate in the top left, there is a slight bulge where it meets the lightning lines, which seems like something a designer wouldn’t do, as they would have to specifically add this area, as opposed to having the lightning lines meet with the plate in a flat line. Also the shading in this area looks pretty weird.
The text saying “print” in the top right pops out at you from multiple different angles.
Also, the filament winding around the hand seems to pass through the “print” text. Over the thumb, it makes a sharp turn.
(also the the things that look like signatures are the numbers 01, 02, 03, and 04)
Again I want to say that these could all just be weird design, but together I think it feels kinda off.
Oh and in the watch face of the bottom left panel, there seems to be a reflection of the finger, but in the makerworld model and in the h3c info, it shows that form of the watch as using a silver silk filament covered with a black screen with holes, which wouldn’t recreate the white reflection line, it wouldn’t be even close to that reflective.
Imagine the uproar from the Fun Bunch here when they realize Salvador Dali utilized a GUN to create the 105 images for the Biblia Sacra series. Gonna be a long weekend filled with some very uncomfortable dinner conversations.
Thanks for the photo. Honestly, it looks way better in this shot than in the promotional images. I’d actually wear it. For a company T-shirt, it’s refreshingly subtle too. In fact, if you didn’t look closely, you probably wouldn’t even realize it’s Bambu. I only spotted the logo on second glance.
