My moderate take on AI art

1. 

   @wingflop3938

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   Really a relief to hear a perspective like this. Spending an excess of time on the internet would have you thinking that moderate and open-minded takes on AI are a fringe minority opinion wedged between the moralizing grandstanders and the slop merchants of the world.

2. 

   @antarticanemperor2199

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   Did not expect JJ to mention italian brainrot lol

3. 

   @jsdpatters473

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   AI will never replace real high quality art
   AI is for cheap slop
   Companies will now refuse to hire artists, designers, actors / voice actors
   Have fun seeing ads, TV, music, entertainment and news being generated by greedy companies

4. 

   @yaronimus1

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   I agree with everything you said verbatum. AI is like another set of hands. It does not reduce the amount of work because we still strive to do something better than what we are used to. Be on giant's shoulders.

5. 

   @r4z0rv1n3

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   Honestly, when it comes to AI my take has pretty much solidified. This technology is here, and it's clearly not going to go away. In a lot of ways, generative AI, which is definitely still in its infancy, is absolutely going to change the landscape of art as a field of work in which you can make money.

   Honestly, art and artists have been trying desperately, almost the entire existence of art as a whole, to place themselves next to regular manual laborers as something that we can codify into some sort of reasonable "fair" standard of pay. And that's just an exercise in futility. Art and artists fall into such an insane spectrum of quality, mediums, speed, styles, etc…. Meaning that, honestly, we have to take each individual artist into account to decide what is "fair".

   And that's not even taking about the incredibly massive problem of supply and demand that art just can't get over the hurdle of. Art isn't like food or shelter or other singular/limited-use items; it's not a zero-sum game where I eat a sandwich or occupy an apartment and no one else can use it.

   Most art once created can be seen and shared by everybody, and unless you have tight control over it, that art is now out in the world, and everybody can partake in it. Even the most famous art in history, like the Mona Lisa or the statue of David, doesn't require me to own the original piece to experience them in some form.

   Sure, there's the dream of owning the original or experiencing them in person. But that's I'd say is similar to the whole brand name thing that we do with singular/limited use items. It's a prestige thing rather than a guarantee of quality/functionality.

   A lot of my artist friends make the argument that art is a need. And I don't even necessarily disagree with them. However, as a need, it's completely unlike the most important human needs. When you use shelter, food, water, etc. It has a very distinct finite usefulness; after so many uses, depending on the item, it stops being useful. Art isn't like that. I can use the same art over and over and over, and the worst that can happen is that the art falls out of relevancy or usage.

   But even then, unlike limited-use items, art, almost uniquely, can even come back from becoming irrelevant or falling out of usage and take on new or different cultural relevancies. It's the ultimate in an industry where the product can simultaneously be incredibly valuable and completely and utterly useless.

   That's not even going into the part about how, as a need, art has an overabundance of people willing to throw their artistic idea at you, for example do you need that graphic designer who's going to charge you 100's of dollars to create a border for your website or do you pay someone who's only gonna charge you 5 bucks for it that will do just fine?

   I feel like generative AI is the Industrial Revolution finally coming for the one group that thought that machines would never replace them. And I don't think it will totally, but it will take art and make it like any of the other craft trades. Handmade 100% purely done by human art, will become like amish furniture or organic produce or etc.. Expensive and for those with the money to pay for it.

   This will mean that those who want to live their entire lives doing nothing creating art will have an even harder time doing so. The starving artist was already a thing, and it will be made even worse by AI for sure.

   Art might even become the thing that a lot of high-brow/elitist/hipster people demand that it be, only done by those who truly, truly care about the art over the monetary rewards it can bring.

6. 

   @akirariccixam1882

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   YouTube contents these days are either crappy AI slops or an hour long high-quality essay about AI slops

7. 

   @sadimsora

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   A reasonable take?!?!? In this economy

8. 

   @caiwillis4355

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   We already have several studies that show how use of AI to complete tasks causes our cognitive and creative ability to decline. The challenge and experience you would have gained from bringing a design to fruition, or even learning to model yourself, is lost. Your “experiment” proves that AI is useless. You said you didn’t have to hire someone, so now modelers have less work. And you said didn’t save that much time. The amount of energy it took to generate that image is disproportionate to the energy it takes for a human to create. These data centers are spiking up electric costs, mostly for rural poor folks.

   Your comparisons are also not apt. Illustrators put out of grocery flyer work went to work in architecture, instruction manuals, movie posters etc. Some even learned photography! The technology changed, but humans were still employed. Also, walking vs driving a car is not akin to creating art vs using a machine. A car does not put walkers out of work. A car does not replace legs lol. It also strikes me that you characterize pro-artist advocates as extreme, because all the comments i see on this video explaining why your argument is incomplete are measured and logical.

9. 

   @digaddog6099

   November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

   I try not to be a full zealot against ai, but I do think there are some points you underestimate.

   You compare AI to photography, which is an industry which failed to supercede its predecessor, but there are cases where the new does overtake the old. A better example, I think, would be CGI. CGI is a different type of art because it came about post Reagan, which means in America it wasn't able to form strong unions which could bargain with business. The results are those which I'm sure I don't need to inform you of. 2d animation and cinematographic tricks have been almost fully supplanted by CGI. There's also an argument that movie stars, actors who bring people into theaters, have been replaced by intellectu!l property to some extent, to the detriment of labor. Tailors have also been supplanted by the sweat shop. Besides, we do have history of automation being used against working class interests with the luddites, even if it's more efficient in the long run.

   It also seems like companies are becoming more willing to produce slop. I could point to the rise in remakes as a clear example, but after that point the argument gets a bit subjective, but I'm sure many agree with me here.

   Lastly, I do think theres6 inherent value in art being produced by humans because art is a medium of communication. What is written is a real reflection of beliefs or personality. This isnt the case with AI, and it wont get better even as AI advances to masterpieces. But it can become harder to tell the difference, which I find unfortunate.

10. 

    @PresidentGreenwood

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    They persecuted him because he told the Truth.

11. 

    @LonelySoul-000

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    Excellent Take. What you said about the process of AI art creation is spot on. And i love that you basically say we should just use it as a tool rather than try to fight it, in essence. It's very tiresome always listening to people throwing the same anti arguments out there like "Its stealing this and that, its just typing a prompt" and so on. If it were i don't believe a thing such as "Ai artist" would exist and i don't think within the community there would be such a large competition of who is good and who is not good. Its just like the "real artist" community, no difference. It's good to have a Voice that just stands in the middle and looks at things realistically.

12. 

    @exceptwhy1293

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    The issue is less that the technology exists and more that its presentation invites the laziest among us to cut corners and just pump put more slop. It's more than possible to use these tools responsibly but a lot of people will, for instance, ask a question of a chatbot and accept its answer without scrutiny, thinking they have just done "research". It will have a degrading effect on society because it's impossible to expect your average person to be as level-headed or critical of generative AI as they should be.

13. 

    @ampersignia

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    The recoil has been fundamentally about jobs/income and not wanting to change your job. If we imagine a genAI company that paid training source artists (like streaming services do) or got volunteers, nor did it harm the environment at all, there’s not much of an argument beyond income per hour. To them, it’s annoying that people can make art in minutes that normally takes a lot of prior IRL learning and time and effort. They are like a from-scratch baker upset that Betty Crocker cake mix exists and people like it for most occasions and can get it at any grocery store.

14. 

    @haveumeted

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    I personally don't see ai being used as a tool that much, like 95% of what ai content I see is just slop as opposed to actual creative works, and with that being said I feel like negatives outweigh the benefits with a good amount of the slop being NSFW, political slop made to appeal to one political base (I think the Whitehouse is the most guilty of this) and also the water lost in the cooling process for ai systems

15. 

    @jellyfishin-water9331

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    People are against AI mostly because they’re afraid of losing their jobs. But expecting humanity to halt progress just because some can’t keep up is unrealistic. AI will continue to exist and expand, whether we like it or not. You can cry about it, find a new job, or adapt — but stopping it isn’t an option.”

16. 

    @grengrenhuskey

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    https://youtu.be/BcQb_8hmxSI?si=AriQHiJLihJu9wC_

17. 

    @ProGremlinPlayer

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    Checked back on your channel after a while: holy shit you're graying.

18. 

    @Dissonance-b6b

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    A remarkably nuanced and thoughtful response. This video, as well the example of the zodiac toys, shows that the value of art cannot be assessed based on the medium: what is important is the creative impulse that gave rise to its conception and the sensibilities with which the idea was turned into a reality. Ultimately, I do think, in coming decades, as GAI and even artificial super-intelligence starts to become a reality, there are going to be fundamental changes in our socio-economic structures. But these will be determined not by the technology, but the humans who employ the technology. With so much catastrophizing nowadays about an impending AI apocalypse, the zodiac toys were a refreshing case study in how current AI tools can potentially be used a positive way. Whether emerging technologies will end up enhancing or diminishing the human experience will be determined by human choices, and we cannot afford to neglect that responsibility based on our anxieties and nostalgic sentimentalities.

19. 

    @meganfraser5358

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    I'll push back on the idea that we have to be insecure about our own creative works to be worried about AI in our space. Many of us are not independent, we work for studios. We don't need to think AI can replace us- our bosses need to think it, and most of them do not have enough experience in art to know whether or not AI will work in the work flow or not. They only need to think they'll save money, and time, and all of a sudden people are out of work, and the company is not actually better off.

20. 

    @anando123

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    This seems to run counter to his hostile take on Wikipedia

21. 

    @MerryMutant-b6m

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    The reason AI-generated images are considered theft is because the AI’s are trained on people’s pictures without permission.

22. 

    @DW94576

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    I run a small production company and the way that you describe your use of AI in your video is exactly how we use it. We will sketch something up that we cannot find an asset for, then create a few versions with AI that we can then Photoshop together. It is by no means easy, but it does speed up process of creating certain graphics we need.

23. 

    @InfomayonnaiseAnimation

    November 23, 2025 at 12:41 am

    I think robots should do hard stuff so we can do fun stuff, not the other way around

Comments are closed.