The copy missed an important detail, clearly intended by the original artist: Trump’s face. In the original artwork Trump is pictured as oblivious to the situation, making the plane noises, acting childish. In the statistical engine generated image, no such emotion is depicted.
A few important details, actually. In the original the Qatari is looking straight at the “camera”, in a kind of “see this?” way.
The Qatari looks dead and lifeless, staring into the distance in the AI one.
The real one he looks quite sinister, like he’s pulling the strings and he knows it. Part of that is, as you mentioned, his look into the camera, and another part is the lighting the artist chose, which is entirely absent in the AI image.
For me I view it as 2 different styles entirely even though its a copy and when you see it that way I think the ai one just gets the message across (Like The Original) which is the most important for me personally. But yea your points are not invalid but the results Are still decent
I’m sorry to tell you this, but your view is incorrect.
It is not a “style”. The statistical engine has no creative intent. You cannot have a style without intention. An absence of style is not a style.
It clearly does not get the message across that was intended by the original artist, since it lacks key elements mentioned in my previous reply. It gets ‘a message’ across, but it’s dumbed down and lacks subtlety, as the slop often does…
I’m sure you clearly understood the message of the original artwork, and you didn’t need the gen one to somehow explain it? If not, I have bad news for you…
Some side Info: I assume This is new Art and Not some caricature from years ago.
Just a layman so im genuinely asking how is the Original one subtle? You can clearly tell this is an arab man (probably saudi or qatar) who basically „controls“ trump? I think Both are quite telling. Yes admittedly compared to the original art it may be slop but I still think its a somewhat decent caricature getting the Right Message across.
Well, on the original, you can see the the date on the side, and it’s based on pretty topical current event. I don’t know why would it be from years before?
The subtle nuances mentioned in my first reply, that were not included in the gen’d one.
And, as mentioned, of course you understand the message, it’s a copy. One wouldn’t exist without the other. One would (and did) exist without the other. I don’t know if you want me to explain what plagiarism is?
Now to be fair I just didnt See the Date, my bad but at least I was Right.
You did not explain the subtleties I was asking for. Yes there is the duck face and the guy staring at the viewer but imho the Lack of these do Not distract from the message nor otherwise negatively affect it (much) as you say.
Because you Said it does not get the Right Message across which is Why I was asking for the subtleties and asking you to explain to me:
Whats so lacking when it imo does get the Message across? Am I missing something or is it you?
Its a (cheap) copy yes but not plagiarism by Definition (according to Wikipedia). Besides that opening this can of Worm distracts from Whats important. It gets the message across even if its a copy so im Not sure why you delve into that? I thought This is what the Post is about?
Edit: nvm he did explain subtleties but the Rest still holds up.
Also maybe the last sentence wasnt the smartest I Wrote but still its valid that ts gets the message gets across
This post is literally about plagiarism in its definition. So to answer your question - yes, it is you who are misunderstanding.
This is Fuck AI, may I remind you. We do not celebrate that someone has generated a “good enough” copy of an original artwork, but rather discuss the sloppiness of said copies and the sheer audacity of creating such blatant copies, in attempt to pass as original work.
If you choose to purposefully ignore my arguments regarding the missing subtelties and still prefer the, to quote you, “cheap copy”, I have nothing to say to you besides maybe a suggestion to read the rules of “Fuck AI”, because it pretty much aligns with the usual “AI” booster rethoric, where slop is always “good enough” and “better than the artist if you ignore this this and that”.
It’s a shitty, sloppy copy of an original artwork, and I gave you arguments why it is a shitty sloppy copy. If you prefer shitty copies of original artwork, you clearly don’t care about art itself, nor the artist, so I don’t see any point in discussing it with you.
Because it seems that you’re just happy that statistical engines can generate sloppy copies of original artwork.
Making/Selling knock-offs is a business and people have been doing it long before the emergence of statistical engines. I just don’t want anything to do with it, nor do I care about people who do.
I didnt know that it was actually plagiarized nor was there any hint about it in the post. I merely figured someone went thru the effort to make an ai comparison versus real art.
So i guess i was wrong on that Front but cmon… im Not a regular here mind you…
Yes This is fuck ai so maybe some things were obvious in retrospective but still… cmon?
I think my key takeaway in that the caricature gets the message across even when its AI slop still holds up and you honestly haven’t given me a Single (convincing) Argument against that.
Let me get some things straight:
I do not care much about ai.
I do not have any strong feelings against it (controversial thing to say in this community i know😮).
I absolutely think ai critique is valid and i do think people standing up against ai (slop) is the Right thing( to do).
Original (art)work should absolutely be appreciated and can never be replaced with ai.
So all in all, I dont care if you hate ai; to each their own but can you not fucking (subtly) Shove the role of an idiot who just loves shitty work onto me?
Imo its not shitty work. If anything its shittier work because it still gets the message across.
As a reminder: This is all my original comment is about.
It also does not mean that the ai Image does Not Carry the original authors Intention cause in my Eyes it clearly does (albeit it might be tainted by slop).
If you disagree you absolutely may do so but…
Although opinions are subjective i think my Argument is still objective enough that others who disagree with my General views, can agree that the Image gets the message across to some degree.
I did not Choose to ignore your Arguments. i even went for further discussion about the subtleties which you did not further discuss with me, so yes its okay that you have nothing to say to me cause you didnt even say anything in the First Place.
Obviously you are not obligated to discuss with me when our views are far enough apart but then dont bullshit me with me being ignorant?
Regarding the rules thing…
Seriously now, where the fuck are the rules? Am I blind or sum or did you just suffer from hallucinations?
Maybe they got deleted or moved somewhere? Me personally I dont see no fucking rules…
Again, you gave me arguments regarding why this is shitty ai slop and said my statement that it gets the message across is false but you did not further Carry out why you think your opinion still holds up against mine even though I addressed yours.
And just because I dont see the ai Image as the worst Image ever it does not mean I dont appreciate art and that the original Artist is not to be appreciated.
I absolutely agree with you on that front and that the audacity to attempt to plagiarize the original Art should rightfully be criticized.
Also I clearly Never Said This is better than the original art. I Said its good enough which is the whole point of my discussions…
I also clearly never said i prefer it. I Said its fine.
Not more not less.
So I dont understand why you open a whole slew of can of worms about how plagiarism is bad etc. When I never denied any of that and just say its not the worst ai Image???
I think you absolutely sidetracked this discussion into a territory this should not have delved into in the First place. Sorry to say this, but your arguments and views although valid are absolutely misplaced…
If you actually wanted a proper discussion you could have just addressed my points instead of pushing your own personal agenda (that far into this discussion) and without painting me as a fool who does Not appreciate art and is not worth saying anything to.
Edit: I can see how it Looks Like I ignored your First arguments but I clearly did not as i mentioned them immediately after saying „you did not explain“. Still sorry about that Part of the sentence tho. You clearly did explain some but the Rest of what I Said still holds up
I think I prefer the AI one just because I don’t understand what they are going for with Trump’s face in the original. I assume he’s supposed to look like something specific that I’m not understanding.
Imo (unless we Are Talking about costs (which again is also very nuanced)) ai will Never be more appealing than the original. Just maybe stand alongside them :)
Might be an unpopular opinion but honestly the ai one isnt even that bad
The Qatari looks dead and lifeless, staring into the distance in the AI one.
The real one he looks quite sinister, like he’s pulling the strings and he knows it. Part of that is, as you mentioned, his look into the camera, and another part is the lighting the artist chose, which is entirely absent in the AI image.
For me I view it as 2 different styles entirely even though its a copy and when you see it that way I think the ai one just gets the message across (Like The Original) which is the most important for me personally. But yea your points are not invalid but the results Are still decent
I’m sorry to tell you this, but your view is incorrect.
It is not a “style”. The statistical engine has no creative intent. You cannot have a style without intention. An absence of style is not a style.
It clearly does not get the message across that was intended by the original artist, since it lacks key elements mentioned in my previous reply. It gets ‘a message’ across, but it’s dumbed down and lacks subtlety, as the slop often does…
I’m sure you clearly understood the message of the original artwork, and you didn’t need the gen one to somehow explain it? If not, I have bad news for you…
Some side Info: I assume This is new Art and Not some caricature from years ago.
Just a layman so im genuinely asking how is the Original one subtle? You can clearly tell this is an arab man (probably saudi or qatar) who basically „controls“ trump? I think Both are quite telling. Yes admittedly compared to the original art it may be slop but I still think its a somewhat decent caricature getting the Right Message across.
Well, on the original, you can see the the date on the side, and it’s based on pretty topical current event. I don’t know why would it be from years before?
The subtle nuances mentioned in my first reply, that were not included in the gen’d one.
And, as mentioned, of course you understand the message, it’s a copy. One wouldn’t exist without the other. One would (and did) exist without the other. I don’t know if you want me to explain what plagiarism is?
Now to be fair I just didnt See the Date, my bad but at least I was Right.
You did not explain the subtleties I was asking for. Yes there is the duck face and the guy staring at the viewer but imho the Lack of these do Not distract from the message nor otherwise negatively affect it (much) as you say.
Because you Said it does not get the Right Message across which is Why I was asking for the subtleties and asking you to explain to me: Whats so lacking when it imo does get the Message across? Am I missing something or is it you?
Its a (cheap) copy yes but not plagiarism by Definition (according to Wikipedia). Besides that opening this can of Worm distracts from Whats important. It gets the message across even if its a copy so im Not sure why you delve into that? I thought This is what the Post is about?
Edit: nvm he did explain subtleties but the Rest still holds up. Also maybe the last sentence wasnt the smartest I Wrote but still its valid that ts gets the message gets across
This post is literally about plagiarism in its definition. So to answer your question - yes, it is you who are misunderstanding.
This is Fuck AI, may I remind you. We do not celebrate that someone has generated a “good enough” copy of an original artwork, but rather discuss the sloppiness of said copies and the sheer audacity of creating such blatant copies, in attempt to pass as original work.
If you choose to purposefully ignore my arguments regarding the missing subtelties and still prefer the, to quote you, “cheap copy”, I have nothing to say to you besides maybe a suggestion to read the rules of “Fuck AI”, because it pretty much aligns with the usual “AI” booster rethoric, where slop is always “good enough” and “better than the artist if you ignore this this and that”.
It’s a shitty, sloppy copy of an original artwork, and I gave you arguments why it is a shitty sloppy copy. If you prefer shitty copies of original artwork, you clearly don’t care about art itself, nor the artist, so I don’t see any point in discussing it with you.
Because it seems that you’re just happy that statistical engines can generate sloppy copies of original artwork. Making/Selling knock-offs is a business and people have been doing it long before the emergence of statistical engines. I just don’t want anything to do with it, nor do I care about people who do.
I didnt know that it was actually plagiarized nor was there any hint about it in the post. I merely figured someone went thru the effort to make an ai comparison versus real art. So i guess i was wrong on that Front but cmon… im Not a regular here mind you… Yes This is fuck ai so maybe some things were obvious in retrospective but still… cmon?
I think my key takeaway in that the caricature gets the message across even when its AI slop still holds up and you honestly haven’t given me a Single (convincing) Argument against that.
Let me get some things straight: I do not care much about ai. I do not have any strong feelings against it (controversial thing to say in this community i know😮). I absolutely think ai critique is valid and i do think people standing up against ai (slop) is the Right thing( to do). Original (art)work should absolutely be appreciated and can never be replaced with ai.
So all in all, I dont care if you hate ai; to each their own but can you not fucking (subtly) Shove the role of an idiot who just loves shitty work onto me?
Imo its not shitty work. If anything its shittier work because it still gets the message across.
As a reminder: This is all my original comment is about.
It also does not mean that the ai Image does Not Carry the original authors Intention cause in my Eyes it clearly does (albeit it might be tainted by slop).
If you disagree you absolutely may do so but… Although opinions are subjective i think my Argument is still objective enough that others who disagree with my General views, can agree that the Image gets the message across to some degree.
I did not Choose to ignore your Arguments. i even went for further discussion about the subtleties which you did not further discuss with me, so yes its okay that you have nothing to say to me cause you didnt even say anything in the First Place. Obviously you are not obligated to discuss with me when our views are far enough apart but then dont bullshit me with me being ignorant?
Regarding the rules thing…
Seriously now, where the fuck are the rules? Am I blind or sum or did you just suffer from hallucinations? Maybe they got deleted or moved somewhere? Me personally I dont see no fucking rules…
Again, you gave me arguments regarding why this is shitty ai slop and said my statement that it gets the message across is false but you did not further Carry out why you think your opinion still holds up against mine even though I addressed yours.
And just because I dont see the ai Image as the worst Image ever it does not mean I dont appreciate art and that the original Artist is not to be appreciated. I absolutely agree with you on that front and that the audacity to attempt to plagiarize the original Art should rightfully be criticized.
Also I clearly Never Said This is better than the original art. I Said its good enough which is the whole point of my discussions… I also clearly never said i prefer it. I Said its fine.
Not more not less.
So I dont understand why you open a whole slew of can of worms about how plagiarism is bad etc. When I never denied any of that and just say its not the worst ai Image???
I think you absolutely sidetracked this discussion into a territory this should not have delved into in the First place. Sorry to say this, but your arguments and views although valid are absolutely misplaced…
If you actually wanted a proper discussion you could have just addressed my points instead of pushing your own personal agenda (that far into this discussion) and without painting me as a fool who does Not appreciate art and is not worth saying anything to.
Edit: I can see how it Looks Like I ignored your First arguments but I clearly did not as i mentioned them immediately after saying „you did not explain“. Still sorry about that Part of the sentence tho. You clearly did explain some but the Rest of what I Said still holds up
As an artist myself, I agree.
I think I prefer the AI one just because I don’t understand what they are going for with Trump’s face in the original. I assume he’s supposed to look like something specific that I’m not understanding.
I think he’s supposed to be making vroom noises
Ahhhh, I think I thought the lips were a nose or something.
Looks like his face was run over by a truck. I can’t make out a face at all in the original.
Duck lips.
They keep getting better. Eventually, they’ll be more appealing than the original. We just think we’re fucked now :)
“Full-self driving next year”
There are taxis out there doing it relatively successfully (not without some issues)
I hope it waits until I’m so old I need it. I won’t mind using it, but I don’t want to live with it right now.
Imo (unless we Are Talking about costs (which again is also very nuanced)) ai will Never be more appealing than the original. Just maybe stand alongside them :)