[HN Gopher] Online art communities begin banning AI-generated im...
___________________________________________________________________
Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images
Author : hardmaru
Score : 205 points
Date : 2022-09-12 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (waxy.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (waxy.org)
| drueter wrote:
| It's important to keep in mind that these art communities
| represent one very narrow kind of art, one that is more focused
| on illustration and graphical style, and most often not the kind
| of art that major art institutions work with. In the past 5
| years, AI-generated art has been accepted and incorporated in the
| contemporary art world, with major works produced by luminaries
| such as Pierre Huyghe (of Ideal), Trevor Paglen (Bloom), and Hito
| Steyerl (Power Plants). For these artists, the graphical potency
| of the generated images is usually only one factor of the work,
| which also centers on how the artists use the technology, its
| origins, history, and broader uses, and what it might imply.
|
| For this kind of artwork, the kind made by artists who feel
| threatened by AI, I've been thinking for a while that a computer
| could likely do it better. Intricate detail, repetition, sampling
| and recombination of popular styles, optimization for aesthetic
| popularity and mass appeal -- these practices are all squarely in
| the domain of automation, data science, and marketing. We might
| call it the Netflix-ification of illustration art, but it's quite
| different, because the tools for making are available to many. As
| an arts educator and artist, I welcome these new tools, as they
| allow easy experimentation for newcomers, but also as they reveal
| that art based primarily in deployment of technical skill and
| eye-popping graphics is missing something vital.
| scarmig wrote:
| Perhaps possible to enforce now, but they're fighting a losing
| battle. AI art will ultimately be indistinguishable from human
| art except by being consistently better; they're relying on the
| good faith of contributors. And anything that relies on the good
| faith of 100% of humans is something doomed to failure.
| gdubs wrote:
| I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software
| developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative
| work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already
| plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly
| contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art.
| Others were more purists - life painters, etc - and felt that,
| no, technique _is_ art.
|
| Duchamp poked the art establishment in the eye with his
| 'readymades' (urinals on the gallery wall, etc.) Warhol with his
| 'factory' making silkscreens.
|
| The 'reverse Monet' (too lazy to link) that caused such an uproar
| when it was shared last week was ironic - apparently people
| aren't aware that the impressionists themselves were considered
| 'not artists' by a lot of people at the time.
|
| The camera and photography made many painters sit up and say,
| 'hey, it can't just be about "image" anymore' - enter abstract
| expressionism, fauvism, cubism, etc. Work that shifted the focus
| from the image represented in the painting ('a window into a
| world') onto the surface of the canvas itself: Rothko, Albers,
| etc.
|
| The thing is, people have wild misconceptions about what this
| technology does. Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if
| StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. When
| in fact what's been done is to take all of this online knowledge
| and create an incredible new tool with it. Like a music
| synthesizer times a million.
|
| It's understandable why this technology makes people
| uncomfortable. There are legit fears about displacement, economic
| uncertainty, etc. But we are fundamentally tool makers - it's
| arguably intrinsically part of what makes us human (borrowing
| from Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden").
|
| If I were back in the art department last century, I'm pretty
| sure we'd be really excitedly discussing how these new tools will
| enable entirely new forms of expression. And sure, there'd be the
| old guard saying it was awful, and 'not Art'.
|
| This is a really interesting debate - I just wish it scratched
| deeper than the surface more often than it does, with a bit more
| historical context.
| superb-owl wrote:
| I totally agree [1]. Once all the panic dies down, I think
| you'll see these technologies _enabling_ artists more than
| hurting them.
|
| The displacement problem isn't quite there yet. While it's a
| good replacement for stock photo aggregators, it's not a great
| replacement for commissioning an actual artist. E.g. if you
| want a consistent look and feel for each of your images, you'll
| struggle. It's only the C-listers, who create heaps of bland
| stock photos in hopes of earning royalties, who have something
| to worry about.
|
| As the technology improves, you'll see a whole new tranche of
| creators who are able to harness it to create amazing new
| things.
|
| [1] https://superbowl.substack.com/p/the-future-of-art-is-
| artifi...
| pjgalbraith wrote:
| Completely agree I've been experimenting with an Img2Img
| workflow for rendering drawings https://twitter.com/P_Galbrai
| th/status/1564940095777431552?t...
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Once all the panic dies down, I think you'll see these
| technologies enabling artists more than hurting them.
|
| This has happened in a different (non-AI, but "technology
| enables") way already with other forms of creativity. While
| it is true that more people become enabled, its not clear
| that this is overall a good thing. The benefits of more
| people empowered and enabled to engage in self-expression has
| to be traded off against the problems associated with
| discovery caused by their work becoming a part of the
| cultural milieu. People making art in private is almost
| certainly a good thing without limit; people making art and
| then making it public is not so clear - most of the work
| people create (even the best) is just not worth being public,
| but the self-limiting discrimination that this implies is in
| short supply in most of us. Yes, it's good you made it. No,
| it shouldn't be online or public, almost all the time.
| asddubs wrote:
| I think it'll displace a chunk of what artists do. Anything
| where there don't have to be super precise specifications for
| the end result, where there's some leeway and you just need
| something that goes into a general direction. Which is a non
| insignificant chunk, and maybe kind of unfortunately also the
| jobs where you can be more creative about what you're doing.
| Like if I'm making a magic-like card game and I need
| illustrations for my playing cards, I could use an AI for
| that. If I want a comic strip or an illustration of a
| specific object, it's probably a poor fit.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >were considered 'not artists' by a lot of people at the time.
|
| You make a good point that the trend of automating art is not a
| recent one.
|
| At some point I think a line in the sand must be drawn where
| the human artist is no longer the primary conceptualizer.
|
| Writing a text prompt is a fair place for that line to be drawn
| in my opinion.
| klez wrote:
| > Writing a text prompt is a fair place for that line to be
| drawn in my opinion.
|
| I read an article[0] on the subject the other day. At some
| point it said that some art tools are inherently easy to use.
| Part of the difference between an amateur and an actual
| artist is in the mastery of such tool.
|
| Think of a phone camera for example. It's extremely easy to
| take more than decent pictures with it. But it takes a good
| photographer to make art with it.
|
| Bringing it back to the topic at hand it means that yes,
| describing what you want to see to this kind of software is
| easy on a basic level. But you get a picture that looks like
| any other. Instead, you need to speak the language of the
| software to obtain a better materialization of your vision,
| and that requires some sort of mastery of _that_ tool. That
| would be the difference between an illustration made with
| stable diffusion and actual art.
|
| [0] https://www.indiscreto.org/non-fa-tutto-il-computer-il-
| ritor... (in Italian, sorry)
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| If you used an AI to write a million DALL-E prompts for a
| million different outputs - are you an artist if you pick
| the nicest looking output and call it art?
| green_on_black wrote:
| Yes.
| misterprime wrote:
| I'm still trying to figure out a proper input to get a
| picture of this scene:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buf
| fal...
| kuroguro wrote:
| I like the more eastern idea that art is mastery of skill and
| art pieces are more of a byproduct we can observe.
|
| Photoshopping or making an AI make art still takes skill, so
| it's still art - just in a different category. Putting a robot
| in a boxing match or an AI in a human car race wouldn't make
| much sense, but robot vs robot would.
| vintermann wrote:
| There is a word for that in the west as well, we just call it
| craftsmanship. The artist is the one we allow to decide what
| the purpose of the work is, even if they outsource all the
| work to apprentices, assistants, or for that matter
| computers.
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| I think art communities should have the ability to set
| parameters for what they accept. Whether it be something like
| "only African artists" or "only Holga cameras." If for this
| one, only generated by people, so be it. If someone wants to
| set up a community that only accepts AI-generated images, then
| that's okay too.
| thih9 wrote:
| > The 'reverse Monet' (too lazy to link) that caused such an
| uproar when it was shared last week
|
| I haven't found the HN discussion; I have found a 2017 paper
| [1] that had relevant examples [2].
|
| [1]: https://junyanz.github.io/CycleGAN/
|
| [2]: https://taesung.me/cyclegan/2017/03/25/monet-to-photo-
| summar...
| [deleted]
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| > Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion
| is hiding copies of all these works inside.
|
| In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is
| not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was
| successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument
| was as follows:
|
| Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about
| 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by comparison
| weighs about 4 GB. If the model somehow stored those images
| (completely disregarding texts) in the compressed form, it
| would be less than 2 bytes (EDITED) per each image. Whoever
| downloaded an image from the internet can see this is absurd.
| In reality 4 GB of data is the juice extracted from the data
| set, and if you could actually recover an original image from
| it then the juice must have had a recognizable residue, which
| would be pretty undesirable.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/senokay/status/1565543214068600832
| Animats wrote:
| Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human
| really isn't that hard.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Who would've thought art would get automated before
| driving.
| catach wrote:
| It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the
| original images in an AI's data set is an important element
| to consider when thinking of the "difficulty" here.
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| Yes, that 4 GB of data can't be really independently
| generated, but the fact that a large chunk of that effort
| can be compressed into 4 GB is still amazing.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| If your life's work can be compressed down to 2 bytes, it
| wasn't that hard.
|
| OTOH, if the 2 bytes is an index into a larger corpus of
| collected works, the question becomes more interesting.
|
| OTOH, if the corpus is an ensemble of _other_ 2-byte
| objects...
| causality0 wrote:
| Certainly, but those human artists were also trained on a
| data set their whole lives. Raise a baby with no training
| data set and they _might_ produce a handprint on a wall
| or a rectangle of facepaint. There 's a reason indigenous
| tribesmen don't spontaneously invent hyperrealism.
| catach wrote:
| Absolutely. Though I think that speaks to one of the ways
| we tend to discount the difficulty of developing human
| artistry, rather than a defense of AI gen being "not
| hard".
| bayindirh wrote:
| However, there's a major misconception about training of
| humans and AI.
|
| Image generating AIs are trained with massive amounts of
| images and text, however image generating humans train
| with much broader spectrum of experience.
|
| Also, feeding a model tons of images created by humans
| (directly or by proxy) and claiming that AI is generating
| something completely new is a bit naive IMHO. Humans mix
| a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create
| things without prompts.
|
| An AI model blurts out something derived from a corpus of
| images and text created by humans, that's all.
|
| The technology is impressive for sure, and it marks a new
| era in terms of possibilities, but it doesn't take my
| breath away, sorry.
| catach wrote:
| > claiming that AI is generating something completely new
| is a bit naive IMHO.
|
| I don't see how AI art is _less_ new than the vast
| majority of human art. Both can create unique
| compositions that are still deeply rooted in patterns and
| principles thousands of years old.
|
| > Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience
| pool to create things without prompts.
|
| AI does not have understanding, but it's stealing the
| underlying patterns that are the end result of that human
| experience.
| wccrawford wrote:
| 20 bytes? Wouldn't that be about 2 bytes per image?
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| Ah, yes, a sloppy calculation in my part. I probably wanted
| to say something like 20 bits in the original tweet.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Textual inversion also takes an entire concept (including
| context, style, and 3D attributes) and fits it into 768
| float32s / 4KB.
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| That's a different topic, as you need the entire model to
| "decompress" that 4 KB data. I'm talking about the model
| itself.
| phreack wrote:
| Others have chimed in already but I was inspired by this idea:
|
| > Like a music synthesizer times a million.
|
| Even now, every once in a while I find people arguing that
| synths are not "real music". Also DJs, etc. generating songs
| using pre-made samples. I think it's a very apt comparison,
| where tools become more and more available and barrier of entry
| gets lower, I don't believe art will die but rather just change
| into new forms, and what's now revolutionary will become just a
| very commonplace tool in the future, just like synths, and
| "real" artists will keep on existing alongside.
| stolenmerch wrote:
| Same here. Software dev with an MFA in Studio Art. Generative
| Art was a topic 20 years ago in school and my feeling it was
| politely tolerated as conceptual, but not aesthetic. The
| difference now is that the models and algorithms and amount of
| data actually produce decent results. GPT-3 writing as opposed
| to the markov chain experimental writing decades ago is
| profound. Image creation even more so.
|
| I see exactly this backlash in most art schools until eveything
| is so mingled a new generation just doesn't care.
| calibas wrote:
| Generative art produced "decent results" 20 years ago, it
| just took a skilled artist instead of typing the right prompt
| into Midjourney.
| zackmorris wrote:
| I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died.
|
| That sounds a bit negative I guess, but techniques like stable
| diffusion will be applied to other problem domains, so all
| other art forms like music and creative writing will be
| automated within the next 5-10 years. And if computers can do
| that, they can do anything. Because that's how our brains work.
| Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns in the
| long tail of quantum randomness where source consciousness
| probably resides. Although science will only have recipes for
| creating consciousness, it will never be able to explain
| meaning, because it has nothing to say about it. That's the
| domain of personal experience, faith, the study of magic, etc.
|
| The big question for me is: if a liberal arts degree is worth
| even less than it is today, what will people do for work? We're
| looking at not just the death of creativity, but the death of
| all human contribution. This was predicted decades ago (see
| Asimov, Kurzweil, etc), but we're not prepared for what's
| coming. I just don't see us switching to UBI before we're
| subjugated beneath the yoke of corporate AI that gradually
| changes out human workers for machines. We're in the endgame
| now.
|
| I still hold out some small hope that kids today will run with
| this and do creative stuff we can't even imagine. Or will we
| just merge with AI when the Singularity arrives around 2040?
| Who knows.
| aortega wrote:
| >I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died.
|
| It's like saying that computers killed artists. AI is just a
| tool, it still need a human in control and guiding it, can't
| generate anything on his own (yet). If anything, this can
| help creativity.
| zackmorris wrote:
| If a computer is a bicycle for the mind, then an AI is a
| mind for the mind.
|
| Admittedly, my acquired lack of creativity after a lifetime
| of struggle is the very thing preventing me from seeing
| beyond this horizon. Too old to begin the training and all
| that! Ironically, I find the not-knowing to be somewhat
| comforting.
| aortega wrote:
| >AI is a mind for the mind.
|
| Exactly, think of it as a symbiosis, a man is slow, but a
| man in a bycicle is fast. Now a man in a rocket, can go
| to other planets. But it is still a man, a rocket is just
| an inert pile of metal and fuel.
|
| Same with AI, AI is the rocket, it propels and accelerate
| creativity to inhuman levels, but there is still a man
| controlling it. AI is just an extension of our minds like
| a rocket is an extension of our feet.
| immigrantheart wrote:
| UBI doesn't solve this
| cardanome wrote:
| As a hobbyist game developer, 2022 is the year my creativity
| can finally fully unleashed.
|
| Prototyping games is getting so much better, this will really
| help indies game studies quite a bit.
|
| Will those AI generated assets replace hand crafted ones?
| Heck no!
|
| Have you ever tried doing AI art?
|
| What gets posted on social media are the few successful
| experiments. Most AI generated stuff is absolute crap.
| Getting anything useful out of it requires lot's of trial an
| error and magical incantations.
|
| Now yes, you can quickly make generic background #20233 with
| it or simply something weird that would fit into some bad
| dream. If you need something specific and coherent though?
| Yeah, this will be very hard.
|
| Here is how to make concept art with stable-diffusion:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS2kNvbIL5Q
|
| Look how many iteration that requires. How it requires
| finding the proper real word assets for img2img techniques.
| How is still requires some serious Photoshop skill to put
| everything together.
|
| AI helps us build more higher level tools for creating art
| but the idea that it is anywhere close to creating art itself
| is silly. We have not made any progress in creating general
| artificial intelligence at all.
|
| The main progress we see is that AI-tech is that it is
| becoming available for the masses, which is awesome.
| cerol wrote:
| _> Now yes, you can quickly make generic background #20233
| with it or simply something weird that would fit into some
| bad dream. If you need something specific and coherent
| though? Yeah, this will be very hard._
|
| The demos _look amazing_ because there is no acceptance
| criteria. Anything gets hailed as "groundbreaking" because
| is process is novel. Which is a completely different
| scenario from what you expect from someone actually being
| _paid_ for making art.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Off topic to an extent, but I would be grateful if you
| could share any processes for reliably producing game
| assets with stable diffusion.
| cardanome wrote:
| The same person that I linked earlier has also a video on
| how to make game assets:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXnuyVgA_Y
|
| I am still figuring that out myself. My current project
| is a fantasy-themed visual novel for which creating
| backgrounds is super easy. You just pick a certain style,
| for example "by Greg Rutkowski" and put that in any
| prompt.
|
| Normally you want to reuse your backgrounds as much as
| possible to not blow the budget but thanks to AI I can be
| much freer with my writing. Of course the important
| backgrounds should be remade by hand at some point but
| for prototyping they are great. Character art does not
| really work beyond concept art as you normally need
| different poses for a character and you are very specific
| about what you want, again not a strength of AI.
|
| My advise would be to play to its strength, if you can:
| Horror works really well. Outdoor scenes work better than
| indoor.
| andybak wrote:
| > Have you ever tried doing AI art?
|
| Yes.
|
| > What gets posted on social media are the few successful
| experiments. Most AI generated stuff is absolute crap.
| Getting anything useful out of it requires lot's of trial
| an error and magical incantations.
|
| You are exaggerating. Easily over half the output I
| generate is on par with the standard being posted on social
| media.
| yunwal wrote:
| There's a few artists currently doing creative things with
| stable diffusion that aren't just "put in a prompt and let SD
| crap out an image". I think this music video from Holly
| Herndon shows the promise of this stuff. I do think
| ultimately once people have been exposed to enough AI art
| they're going to demand more creativity. Right now there's a
| lot of exploration going on and people need to get more
| familiar with AI tools before they start doing amazing things
| with them.
|
| https://twitter.com/hollyherndon/status/1567694502382518274?.
| ..
| haskellandchill wrote:
| > Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns in
| the long tail of quantum randomness where source
| consciousness probably resides
|
| gibberish
|
| > Although science will only have recipes for creating
| consciousness, it will never be able to explain meaning,
| because it has nothing to say about it. That's the domain of
| personal experience, faith, the study of magic, etc.
|
| misguided conjecture
|
| > We're looking at not just the death of creativity, but the
| death of all human contribution
|
| hilariously misinformed extrapolation
|
| AI is nowhere closer to cracking the meaning problem. Until
| we have _meaningful_ AI generated art there 's no point for
| this baseless speculation.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I think things will categorically change about how we define
| art in the next little while. We may see an increase of
| parasocial-style livestream art drawing, so the illustrator
| isn't just an illustrator but specifically a personality
| attached (an exaggeration of the current artist-art
| relationship commonly known today). We may also determine AI-
| generated art is simply in another category, like
| photography, CGI, digital, and traditional portraits are all
| considered different categories. I can imagine human-
| generated novels and AI-generated novels are neatly
| separated, with associated scandals if a human attempts to
| pass an AI-generated novel as their own creation (scandals
| already currently exists for humans who eg. a romance writer
| recently got in trouble for lifting paragraphs from fanfic
| they didn't write into their original fiction).
|
| There's nothing to say that creativity will die. We invented
| typewriters, but calligraphy is still an art whose pens and
| inks are beloved interests. We invented the digital screen
| and the paper machines, but handmade paper and hand-stitched
| book binding is still an artist's pursuit.
| fizx wrote:
| People were saying this stuff when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
| Chess is perhaps thriving more than ever.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Yes, but that's because you know when deep blue is playing
| chess. The recent accusations that are rocking the chess
| world are that one of the champions may be cheating. If we
| get to a point where cheating can't be detected, that may
| do quite a lot of damage to the game.
| npteljes wrote:
| I dunno. Fast food haven't killed restaurants, and
| restaurants haven't killed home cooking. Fast food is a huge
| problem, but many go to restaurants and many still cook at
| home. We're in no endgame at all. If it worked this way,
| artists from poorer economies would have drowned out all
| other art. But for some reason, it just doesn't work that
| way.
| itronitron wrote:
| I wouldn't worry too much about AI stamping out creativity,
| all the results I have seen just look like the type of art
| you see in hotel rooms and hallways. It's supremely ignorable
| stuff, possibly exactly because the models are built from
| billions of samples and by definition most of those samples
| will be average and below.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| I agree 100% with this. The only thing I would add is that a
| key property of art is that it must make the audience feel
| something. It seems very clear that AI-generated art _is_
| making people feel something, and I think that what it makes
| people feel will change over time, as these tools become more
| accepted in the art world.
|
| I also think it's very interesting that these tools enable a
| near absence of technique. I tend to be one of those who
| doesn't value technique very much. For instance, I believe I've
| commented on this site before that while I certainly
| _appreciate_ the time, effort, and technique that goes into
| photorealistic painting, I don 't think it brings a whole lot
| to the table beyond what a photograph would. This is strictly a
| personal assessment, of course -- others are free to, and do
| disagree with me. I just feel as though photorealistic art
| leaves less room in it for the viewer than other forms.
| (Incidentally, I think this also applies to AI art, and may be
| a part of the reaction to it.)
| largepeepee wrote:
| Art is whatever the rich and influential patron who pays for it
| decides.
|
| They can afford to pay off the press, change the narrative and
| overpay the artist.
|
| Be it the de Medici in the Renaissance or CIA and state
| department backing abstract expressionism.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| This is the kind of comment about art that is measured,
| constructive, non-absolutist, and too rare on HN in posts about
| art (and urban dictionary has an entry for 'reverse monet' cos
| I wondered, but I'd skip that one if I were you).
| gdubs wrote:
| Ha! Oh dear. Here's the SFW link to what I was referencing:
|
| https://twitter.com/matthen2/status/1566424523125276672?s=20.
| ..
|
| (And thanks :)
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I suppose the 'photocopier' argument is pretty similar to
| collage - sure, it's recombining existing things, but
| presumably they'd all agree Max Ernst wasn't just a machine?
| mherdeg wrote:
| As a non-artist whose compensation is, so far, unaffected by
| ML-generated images, I'm more interested in the effects the
| technology has on people.
|
| Over the past 150 years it became possible to compute cube
| roots in milliseconds, instead of minutes. Slide rules became
| obsolete, and the things we learn to do do arithmetic changed.
|
| Over the past 20 years, the way we look up arbitrary facts
| changed. We learned to construct Web search engine queries and
| we learned to evaluate the quality of results. Other library
| skills are still relevant, but certain kinds of rote
| memorization become obsolete.
|
| Now people are rapidly learning a new "prompt language" which
| uses English words but combines them in a way which is for now
| something like computer programming (given an input string,
| compile it to an output image). Will "prompt languages" for
| text / image / video generation systems turn into a full-
| fledged, non-English language that you can learn?
|
| What will be the social effects of people learning and using
| this language to communicate?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I think it will be interesting, but not result in total
| annihilation of the existing field. As a general
| counterexample, TV did not kill radio despite it having more
| dimensions for creativity. Radio changed, but it did not die,
| and was quite comfortable for many decades after.
|
| Coallescing on prompt languages is probably unlikely, if only
| because part of the thing that defines a language is that a
| community has rules, both opaque and explicit, about what is
| acceptable in the language and what is not, and there's no
| effort to standardize inputs.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| sign makers were put out of business en masse at a certain
| point, and there were quite a few, and it is high-skill,
| high-commitment work. Some kinds of print arts related to
| magazines for example, were next.
|
| There is a chapter in the Stanford AI Index (2021) that
| opens with "The rise of AI will inevitable raise questions
| of how much these technologies will impact business, labor
| and the economy in general .. "
|
| there are winners and losers here, not just interesting
| questions. In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment
| among many skilled "workers" .. can't imagine the 1990s ex-
| Soviet economies.. I dont think these questions are neutral
| or innocent.
| andybak wrote:
| And vintage sign making is now highly valued (whether
| hand-painted or digitally produced simulcra)
|
| We tend to value scarcity. Things that resemble AI art
| will become passe and anything that is
| difficult/impossible for AI to produce will become highly
| regarded. I'm very curious to see how this shift in
| popular and/or high-brow taste will play out.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| thousands of small companies sustain and employ humans,
| reliably now as sign makers? I live in a metropolitan
| area, sign makers were reliably found and nearby in my
| living memory. There are very few now, mainly as
| corporate franchises with catalog contents. How is the
| value of scarcity you refer to, being circulated in terms
| of reliable income and stability for humans living now?
| How plural are the products in modern markets
| andybak wrote:
| You're entirely right. I was talking about cultural
| value.
|
| Things are really going to suck for working artists who
| can't adjust. That's not cool and I should have
| acknowledged it.
| bigcheesegs wrote:
| I think the much more likely outcome is further research on
| making the prompts smarter and more human like.
| kodah wrote:
| Anecdotally I dated an artist for a short time who upon
| entering my home proceeded to ask me how much I paid for my art
| and why I would pay for something as awful as what I have.
|
| My art was made by a friend of mine who works in a union
| factory in Texas. Art is his real joy and I was able to snag
| some pieces from when we were in college together. It's easy to
| write off that the pieces are just sentimental and therefore
| subject to sentimental value, but really, his work is very
| abstract and each piece (if you can snag them in order)
| describes a time in his life.
|
| I tried to explain to this person how art to me is the story
| not told or the story as I see it. More recently I had the
| opportunity to _really_ appreciate his work when I was on an
| LSD trip, but that 's a story for another time.
| oulipo wrote:
| It's interesting to think about it, what differentiate art from a
| human or a machine. It can't be the content itself, because now
| machine output is close to a human output (modulo the small
| details).
|
| So what make those communities attracted to art made by humans,
| rather than art made by machines? It must be the "act of
| community" itself, which cannot be made by a machine (it is
| useless to be "in community" with a conscious-less machine).
|
| So this would mean that the "art content" for humans is not only
| the pictorial content of the image, but also the "transmission of
| a message", and in particular, the quality of the initiator and
| the receiver of the message. In this case, humans would (and
| apparently seem to) differentiate in quality art that has been
| created by a conscious being and for a conscious being, to art
| that has been created by a machine.
| 7952 wrote:
| People consume art for different reasons. It can be like a
| spiritual experience, or an investment, or something to
| brighten up your life. It can have a story attached to it or be
| inspirational. My guess is that different people will have
| different reactions to machine made art. And most of the art
| community will carry on perfectly happily as if nothing has
| changed.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Has nothing to do with that. It's two things. Artists are
| threatened, and also right now a lot that is being submitted is
| low quality.
|
| So if you are an artist you don't like seeing a bunch of AI
| junk on your home page just because a lot is junk but also,
| because one can assume that it will continue to improve so that
| that most of it really is competing with artists.
|
| So that could put a lot of people out of work since it would
| make art-related business models much more competitive.
| leobg wrote:
| What are they using to tell AI generated art apart from human
| generated? AI? :P
| mabbo wrote:
| That should certainly help maintain a 'pure' source for further
| training examples.
| greenhearth wrote:
| I've used AI to create stuff like music album covers and posters.
| It's cool and fun to mess around with, but I think it still takes
| a real person with an aesthetically trained eye to be fully
| effective. It does basically what I would do anyway, which would
| be to composite different images in Photoshop and then apply
| effects, etc. But you still need to edit for composition and
| text, and most of the time the images have to be fine tuned, or
| not at all what I wanted. I can easily see AI taking over most
| image compositing.
| smm11 wrote:
| I recall some time back the "photo of the year" with some
| esteemed organization looked like something you'd take at random.
| Just a few people doing various things. A snapshot, the sort
| you'd take back during the film era when you'd load film then
| click the shutter in case the first photo had a light leak.
|
| A throwaway photo. And it won.
| dqpb wrote:
| > AI-generated art was not allowed because it "lacked artistic
| merit."
|
| As a consumer, what I want is the art, not the merit. Over the
| last few weeks, I've been able to get images that I simply would
| have never gotten without Dall-e. Maybe it doesn't provide
| "merit", but it certainly provides a ton of value that I wouldn't
| have gotten otherwise.
| [deleted]
| jedberg wrote:
| It seems like the actual problem they're trying to solve is
| volume, so why not just rate limit submissions? They just need to
| look at their median submission rate prior to a few weeks ago and
| then make that the submission rate limit.
| egypturnash wrote:
| The problem being solved by these decisions is that AI art is a
| visible threat to the livelihoods of the people the site is
| designed to support and uplift. Art sites have already had rate
| limits for years.
|
| These communities are explicitly _saying "no" to this
| disruptive technology_. If you want to go make a new gallery
| site for showing off your prompt engineering that's your own
| lookout, have fun trying to build a community and figure out
| how to keep the site funded. But you can't come spam our
| existing communities of people who've dedicated decades to
| their craft with the messy, incoherent results of the whole six
| months you've spent learning to be a "prompt engineer".
| jedberg wrote:
| > The problem being solved by these decisions is that AI art
| is a visible threat to the livelihoods of the people the site
| is designed to support and uplift.
|
| That's not a solvable problem. Art will be made by computers,
| it's inevitable. Eventually it will get good enough to be
| indistinguishable from human made art. It's already good
| enough that a human can use the AI to get 90% of the way
| there and then finish it themselves.
|
| > Art sites have already had rate limits for years.
|
| Clearly not good enough if every one of them is saying some
| variation on "our site is getting flooded with AI art"
|
| > These communities are explicitly saying "no" to this
| disruptive technology. If you want to go make a new gallery
| site for showing off your prompt engineering that's your own
| lookout, have fun trying to build a community and figure out
| how to keep the site funded. But you can't come spam our
| existing communities of people who've dedicated decades to
| their craft with the messy, incoherent results of the whole
| six months you've spent learning to be a "prompt engineer".
|
| I agree, people shouldn't be spamming crap directly from the
| AI. But good luck keeping out the people who tweak the AI
| generated art to make it look pretty good. A smart site would
| embrace this kind of art, perhaps make a new category for it.
| But trying to ban it from the community is a lost cause.
| egypturnash wrote:
| If every art site bans AI spam and there's nowhere left to
| post it, and a healthy market for young artists to do
| beginner work for beginner prices, then the problem sounds
| solved to me.
|
| And none of this is inevitable. If everyone trying to
| improve this technology hears from artists who are
| intensely unhappy about it and quits working on it, if AI
| art becomes inherently tacky so that it's embarrassing to
| work on and funding dries up, then progress on it stops. We
| were all gonna be using full color e-paper displays by now
| but all the funding for that dried up because emissive
| displays got real cheap and nobody wants to bother with
| reflective display technology any more.
| melagonster wrote:
| I jurt like how developers comment like they are villain.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Left unchecked, it's not hard to imagine AI art crowding out
| illustrations that took days or weeks for someone to make.
|
| This reminds me of what someone from the 1800's would say:
|
| "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography
| crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to
| make."
|
| Or several thousand years ago when the pottery wheel was
| invented.
|
| Or when humans learned to cast metals instead of having to chisel
| stone.
|
| Art is the expression of human creativity. Art transcends the
| medium. In addition, making art more accessible to more people is
| a good thing.
|
| There are probably a lot of people who did not consider
| themselves artists, but with creative use of prompts and img-to-
| img can actually create stunning works. That is a good thing, not
| a bad thing.
| biftek wrote:
| > There are probably a lot of people who did not consider
| themselves artists, but with creative use of prompts and img-
| to-img can actually create stunning works
|
| That doesn't make anyone an artist just like filling in a
| coloring book doesn't. You're following rigid guidelines and
| given a very small amount of creative choice. I get it, it's a
| very powerful feeling watching a computer approximate a prompt
| to great effect but it's not artistry.
| diydsp wrote:
| > "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography
| crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to
| make."
|
| Today photography and illustration are segregated. Which is
| what these artist communities are establishing.
| SicSemperUranus wrote:
| It depends what the point is. You wouldn't let a motorcycle
| participate in a horse race. I think there's a place for AI art
| and it's fine if "manual art" remains the same. The difference
| can be arbitrary at times, but art often is.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| This reminds me of what someone from the 8 years from now will
| say
|
| if this is left unchecked I also will be out of a job like
| those useless artists all were.
| Natsu wrote:
| I don't think artists will be out of demand any more than
| fast food has made people stop eating out.
|
| I do think it will cannibalize the lower end of art such that
| it becomes like working at a fast food joint, though.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| > "If left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine photography
| crowding out paintings that took days or weeks for someone to
| make."
|
| The difference I see is that photographers don't try to pass
| off their works as _bona fide_ paintings without telling
| anyone. Even if they did, it 's usually easier to discern
| whether something is a painting or a photograph than with AI,
| because there's usually no need to aim for replicating the
| exact look of a photograph in a painting.
|
| AI artists submit their work as digital art, and this
| distinction is far harder to make owing to the sheer
| sophistication of the former. The problem is that both use the
| medium of digital art, but the provenance is different, so
| there is still a desire to classify them differently. And as
| discussed, the huge output of these programs makes the need
| more urgent.
|
| The interesting questions in this debate to me involve asking
| what happens when you take the humanity out of art creation,
| and how the underlying _humans_ will react to that. Even
| photographers have to use their legs to go outside, train their
| eyes to find something interesting and press the shutter button
| with a fleshy finger, all while having the final output able to
| be visualized in the process. I 'm not sure if "art" has ever
| been decoupled from humanity at this large of a scale in human
| history before, and that could signal a significant cultural
| shift if so.
|
| The cultural implications of someone or something being
| associated with "AI" will outstrip any advancements in
| technology. Many artists are revered because of the culture
| surrounding them, not just the specific combination of paints
| they slathered on a canvas. It is that culture that I think
| will undergo turbulent changes as a result of the clashes
| between technologists and the larger art world.
|
| If the culture decides that AI-generated art is plagiarism,
| then this debate will never end.
|
| Also, asking "what prompt did you use" is probably going to
| become an insult with the implied intent of dehumanizing its
| target in the near future, when applied to certain art spheres.
| asah wrote:
| Just wait until the NFT sells for more!
| Janicc wrote:
| It's going to be interesting to see how this is going to get
| enforced in the likely future in which AI art becomes in every
| way indistinguishable from human art.
| zeteo wrote:
| They're just tilting at windmills. It's already difficult
| enough to catch cheaters in chess, where there are, at most, a
| few dozen candidate moves in any position. This is a space with
| infinite candidate moves.
|
| Best case scenario is that they catch a few people who have no
| idea how to create art otherwise. But, short of an exam-like
| proctoring system where art can only be created under complete
| supervision, I doubt there's anyone in the whole world who can
| reliably distinguish a creation that is 90% AI / 10% human from
| 100% human.
| scarmig wrote:
| I agree it will be hard or impossible to catch cheaters. But
| you get it backwards: AI generated art probably is more
| easily detectable. A chess game can be represented in a
| relatively small number of bytes, while artwork must
| represented with a much larger number. That means more
| opportunities to find an unintentional signal of provenance
| (e.g. artefacts that aren't readily noticeable to humans).
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| A lot of AI art is already indistinguishable. Mid Journey is
| especially artsy.
| Jevon23 wrote:
| They can just focus on obvious cases: people that upload new
| images at an astounding rate, people who forget to remove the
| AI watermarks, and people who simply admit to using AI. No need
| to turn it into a witch hunt where you accuse everyone of using
| AI.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| It will 100% turn into a constant witch hunt - I can
| absolutely promise it.
|
| Want an easy reference? See First Person Shooter games.
|
| Turns out that once the computer can mostly do the job, you
| will see:
|
| 1. Constant use of the computer for that job
|
| 2. Constant accusations of using the computer in places that
| restrict it.
|
| See basically every online FPS community that exists. And
| that's with _incredibly_ invasive software running on player
| machines explicitly to stop them from using the computer to
| play - and People both still do it (in HUGE numbers), and the
| communities constantly bitch about the "rampant cheating".
| scarmig wrote:
| One way to take down someone you don't like will be to
| accuse them of using AI. It's an accusation that's
| impossible to defend against; you could require people to
| provide a video showing them creating the art, but that
| adds enough friction to be the death of a community and
| down the line will itself be something that could be
| generated.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| TheMaskedCoder wrote:
| In the future we'll hire blade runners to find and destroy AI
| art
| ortusdux wrote:
| Someone needs to make an AI art detector and name it Voight-
| Kampff. Ironically, it would be a great application for
| machine learning.
| GravitasFailure wrote:
| Wholly appropriate since Blade Runner 2049 had Replicants
| hunting other Replicants.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You need to go back and watch the first one again.
| mkaic wrote:
| This is genius and if I ever get into this field I am 100%
| stealing it.
| Minor49er wrote:
| This would turn into an arms race. Art generators would
| include these detectors to reject anything that gets
| flagged as generated art
| abeppu wrote:
| I think we should also be aware of the technological reasons for
| separating AI-produced and human-produced images: New
| effects/risks can occur when the ML system is naively trained
| against its own outputs. It's not hard to imagine multiple
| companies trying to periodically scrape and build new image
| datasets and retrain the newest models against the updated
| dataset. But if stablediffusion vN is mostly trained against
| stablediffusion v(N-1) images, then it's possible for the
| sequence to not actually improve even though more data and
| computation are being thrown at it.
| firasd wrote:
| I think the communities involved here like digital artists,
| furries etc got a lot of attention hating on NFTs last year, so
| they are doubling down with the anti-art-generator movement. But
| I don't think this one will be so successful. Like sure, maybe
| art community sites could require you to tag prompt-generated art
| just as a way to label things, but in terms of widespread usage
| the cat is out of the bag.
|
| Whenever I get on Twitter and see someone incoherently angry
| about people using Stable Diffusion I'm reminded of that quote
| from an Android in Blade Runner 2049: "You tiny thing. In the
| face of the fabulous new, your only thought is to kill it? For
| fear of great change? You can't hold the tide with a broom."
| henriquecm8 wrote:
| Yesterday I saw a guy saying that Outpaint is nothing new, that
| photoshop was able to do it for years, I pointed it out that
| what photoshop does is extremely limited, and the results only
| look okay in small scale, the difference is night and day.
| eat_veggies wrote:
| Sure, AI generated art is probably out of the bag, but to lump
| it in with NFTs and such is an interesting rhetorical move,
| since the only thing that really links them is their _new-
| ness._ That Blade Runner quote can be used to shut down any
| critique of an emerging technology precisely because it
| fetishizes new-ness for its own sake, and assigns it an agency
| of its own, inevitable like the tide. It becomes a _cause_ that
| generates effects in our lives, and the only question is how we
| react. This robs us of our own agency as social
| /political/historical actors who _can_ kill
| /change/improve/use/abuse technologies and decide how to
| incorporate them in our lives.
|
| People invoked the same language about things like television,
| and I find Raymond Williams's critique helpful:
|
| > If the effect of the medium is the same, whoever controls or
| uses it, and whatever apparent content he may try to insert,
| then we can forget ordinary political and cultural argument and
| let the technology run itself. It is hardly surprising that
| this conclusion has been welcomed by the 'media-men' of the
| existing institutions. It gives the gloss of avant-garde theory
| to the crudest versions of their existing interests and
| practices, and assigns all their critics to pre-electronic
| irrelevance (1974, 128)
| firasd wrote:
| Well in this case the link between NFTs and AI art wasn't
| made by me, I'm just observing the overlap between the same
| online influencers/groups doing the same type of activism
| against two different phenomena.
|
| Sure I think there's always a conversation to be had about
| how to incorporate tech. Like Reddit banning celeb deepfakes
| is probably the choice I would have made as well if I set
| policy on the site.
|
| But what I'm noticing is over the top anger at usage per se.
| (Someone linked the 'reverse monet' tweet elsewhere in this
| discussion and the quote tweets there are unhinged.) That's
| what I'm saying can not be 'killed'--these breakthroughs in
| large language models
| Akronymus wrote:
| One of the biggest furry art archives has always banned art
| without much, if any, actual input from the human who created
| the artpiece. For example, game screenshots are banned almost
| universally, picture generated art is as well (something like
| picrew) 3d models aren't, assuming there is posing and such and
| so on.
|
| It seems a perfectly fine continuation to the existing rules to
| ban ai generated art.
| hadlock wrote:
| Also, Art AI can't click on ads, which is probably,
| ultimately their main concern. If you replace all the
| monetized users with AI that can't buy things, the economic
| incentive to keep the website running disappears.
| Akronymus wrote:
| Oh,the website is mainly for hosting art and people looking
| at it. So, AI generated art wouldnt dirrctly impact ads.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Art takes effort. Training models and feeding them information
| takes effort. AI is not magic. Art is just getting another
| toolset.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| Building a motorbike from scratch by hand also takes effort,
| but we've universally agreed that that doesn't let you enter it
| into the Tour de France.
| gspr wrote:
| How much effort? Do you discount for example accidental works
| of art?
| advisedwang wrote:
| They aren't banning AI art because because it doesn't take
| effort. They're banning it because once that work has been
| done, you can create a huge number of images which creates
| problems for the community.
| biftek wrote:
| Typing a prompt into DALLE does not take effort and it does not
| make you an artist. Don't kid yourself that the people
| generating art and submitting it to these sites are the same
| ones writing and training the AI.
| filoleg wrote:
| "Pressing a shutter button on your camera and tweaking a few
| parameters in settings does not take effort and it does not
| make one an artist."
|
| I think we have established by now that photography is art,
| so your argument doesn't feel like it would stand the test of
| time much. Just like the photography one didn't.
| biftek wrote:
| I think you're just proving my point actually, being able
| to take photos doesn't make everyone an artist or every
| photo art. To take truly great photos you still need to
| understand basics like composition and lighting (just like
| illustration and painting) which do take effort, and your
| still not guaranteed to get good photos.
|
| A camera, like AI, is simply a tool and it's no doubt
| already helping artists, but to think typing a prompt into
| a website somehow makes you an artist on its own is
| foolish.
| filoleg wrote:
| In that sense, yeah, fully agreed. Someone typing up
| whatever in the prompt is about as much of art as someone
| taking a random selfie in poorly lit environment on their
| smartphone.
|
| However, there is definitely nuance to generating art
| using AI that is similar to photography as art in a way.
| There are massive blog posts and writeups that exist
| already, talking about different techniques for crafting
| prompts and fiddling with the model to achieve different
| results. Stuff like how ordering of the words matters
| (e.g., the order changes how much the model weighs a
| word), how the choice of different samplers affect the
| outcome, which words tend to be strong modifiers (e.g.,
| if you want something looking like a real photo, add a
| specific camera model name), the number of iterations and
| guidance scale parameter choice, etc.
|
| That's barely scratching the surface, given the whole
| thing became available less than a month ago, and people
| discover all those methods and techniques in real time. I
| am willing to bet that in a year, the complexity of a
| "good prompt" will be lightyears away from where we are
| now.
|
| It's like someone invented a music instrument/artmaking
| tool, except it behaves a lot like a blackbox. So instead
| of developing techniques from the base knowledge of how
| the tool was created, we have to test and try bajillion
| different things to figure out how to get what we want.
|
| And no, I am not trying to make a claim that generating
| art using those AI models is an equivalent to creating an
| acrylic painting. Just like i wouldnt claim that taking a
| great (in terms of art) photograph is an equivalent to
| creating an acrylic painting. Both of those stand in
| classes of their own.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| The photographer definitely has more agency over what they
| are shooting than a programmer does over what an algorithm
| produces. When I take a photo I have a image in my head I
| am trying to capture; when I train an AI to do the same I
| don't have that image, its just generating a bunch of
| images based off an idea and I select the one that is most
| appealing. I'm sure there are people doing tuning that is
| much more involved, but at a basic level it's not the same
| thing. Doing photography or drawing are much more
| emotionally rewarding than generating images with code, at
| least for me.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Yes, creating the actual ML model and curating it's input takes
| effort, a lot of it in fact. Taking someone else's ML model and
| shitting prompts into it does not
| dmje wrote:
| I'm fascinated by this.
|
| So "AI" art isn't ok. But presumably Photoshop as a tool to
| create artworks is ok? What about some of the filters and plugins
| available?
|
| What about if you use AI as a tool to prepare art that you then
| make yourself? I was looking at SD and thinking this - I make
| linocuts and have been experimenting with using it to create
| layer ideas that I then cut by hand. Is this ok?
|
| What about using AI purely as a prompt? I tried just "linocut in
| 3 colours of a seascape" and got a whole nice bunch of starting
| ideas. Is this ok?
|
| Seems to be that there's a huge amount of nuance here that's
| pretty fascinating to watch / talk about.
| latchkey wrote:
| Perfect. A huge niche opportunity to focus on an art community
| dedicated to AI generated images.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| There's one linked in the article, https://lexica.art/
| antonymy wrote:
| I'm waiting for the first case of a human artist being banned
| because their style was "too similar" to AI-generated art. I
| think that'll be the beginning of the end for the communities
| that do these kinds of bans.
| causi wrote:
| I don't understand the difference between telling photoshop to
| sharpen an image or remove red-eye and using AI to generate based
| on a prompt. Both of them are software modifying your canvas.
| jmbull wrote:
| This topic always reminds me of a great poem[1] by Rudyard
| Kipling, The Conundrum in the Workshops. Enjoy!
|
| <snip>
|
| When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and
| gold,
|
| Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in
| the mold;
|
| And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his
| mighty heart,
|
| Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is
| it Art?"
|
| </snip>
|
| [1] https://poets.org/poem/conundrum-workshops
| [deleted]
| RoyBatty89 wrote:
| Like this isn't gonna cause a backlash against the half assed
| "Artists" that modern art is. If AI can do everything better than
| humans, these luddites either can evolve or face the same fate
| the horses and loomers did when the industrial revolution came.
| Kiro wrote:
| Challenge accepted. How will they know?
| coldcode wrote:
| My normal artwork (digital) is 9000x9000 pixels up to about
| 14400x14400. Good luck getting any of them to make something
| bigger than 1024x1024. Sure, you can use Gigapixel to upres
| things, but in the end it's basically impossible to make a
| decent artwork using ML at the moment. I only use Dall-E for
| offbeat ideas for geometric abstractions, so far Stable
| Diffusion sucks for that purpose.
|
| Of course when you upload at no one wants you to do the full
| resolution image; at 1024x1024 you might be able to fool people
| with something ML made.
|
| I believe most of these models only use 1k images so they
| really can't make anything bigger yet. Maybe someday but not
| today.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I believe most of these models only use 1k images so they
| really can 't make anything bigger yet. Maybe someday but not
| today._
|
| This is the sort of thing that changes incredibly quickly.
| I'd guess that a big chunk of the source data will be in 8K
| within a year or two.
| Natsu wrote:
| Have you seen the 'in-painting' technique yet? You can write
| prompts for each element of an image you want, erase the
| parts you don't like, position them on the canvas, and make
| SD fill in the blanks.
| Jevon23 wrote:
| With the models that are available for public use today, there
| are still usually signs, particularly when it comes to drawings
| of humans.
| Kiro wrote:
| Sounds like a good opportunity for an "AI image
| detection"-as-a-Service.
| TheMaskedCoder wrote:
| Is it possible to automate detection of automation? If you
| can create an algorithm that detects the difference between
| AI art and human art, wouldn't that algorithm itself be
| able to create a new AI art algorithm that it itself could
| not detect?
| alcover wrote:
| Nice point. I think it's called 'adversarial training'.
| The Alphazero chess engine/model was grown this way it
| seems.
| ryeguy_24 wrote:
| They should also ban people that have seen more art than others
| as they may be inadvertently creating derivative artwork from
| their more thoroughly trained real neural network in their brain.
|
| Purposely being facetious, but seriously, we will likely see more
| and more of these type of rules being applied to competitions or
| groups. It will be harder and harder to define the rules. At some
| point, it becomes moot. Did I draw it? Did my toddler? Was I on
| hallucinogens when I drew it? Did I use computer algorithms
| (filters) on any form of the digital art? If the intent is to
| preserve the "effort" that goes into art, fine, but that will be
| a really gray line. I guess it's all fine to have the rules, it's
| similar to the natural body building competition.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Newgrounds: "not have the Art Portal flooded with computer-
| generated art"
|
| DeviantArt: "complaining that their feeds are getting flooded"
|
| Artstation: "the front pages are flooded with unmodified AI
| generated slop"
|
| They're really worried about the volume that AI art scales. So
| they don't really have to chase down every image and decide if
| it's AI or not. They just need to stop users from throwing huge
| amounts of them, which is easy to detect.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| I contrast these reasons with the FurAffinity announcement
| from a week ago[0]:
|
| > AI art is a damn good _learning_ tool, but it 's taking
| everything it does from artists. It leeches on the time,
| effort, skill, energy an artist put into their work.
|
| > You can use tools like this to learn and try to come up
| with concepts to learn from. I have nothing wrong with that,
| but just adding it to an image gallery. The origin are
| questionable unlike, say, using a site specifically for
| royalty free images.
|
| > I stand with artists, not prompts.
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/1566900442650628096
| jxy wrote:
| How can they draw the line between AI and non-AI assisted art?
| What about a gaussian kernel filter? How about adding a
| saturation enhancer? How about putting a few of those together
| and let's play with the parameters a bit for fun?
| DefineOutside wrote:
| They should also ban creating digital art, as digital art takes
| less effort than paper.
| nottorp wrote:
| > as digital art takes less effort than paper.
|
| Hmm I've seen someone draw/paint on both paper and an iPad. It
| didn't look to me that she was much faster on digital. But then
| it was original art not copies of something.
| DefineOutside wrote:
| probably should have said photographs, as photographs are
| more similar to AI art than computer generated art is
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Photographs are a great analogy. If you work to learn about
| how to take a good photo, and learn all the techniques
| around framing a shot and how different shutter speeds
| affect things you can take beautiful pictures. However, if
| you tried to submit that picture to someone as a painting,
| they will cry foul. Also most people don't consider your
| candids on vacation to be in the same "category" as a
| carefully crafted (or not!!!) photograph of a landscape.
|
| In much the same way, sure you could dedicate your life to
| learning the craft of prompting an ML model to produce
| unique, novel, and interesting art, but these communities
| are saying "we want these to be considered a different
| class of art" and as mostly self organizing communities
| they are well within their rights to do so.
| nurbl wrote:
| If you are a "digital art" community, clearly you have already
| accepted some digital tools.
|
| I do think it makes logical sense to try and ban "AI" art if it
| is not what the community is interested in. It's likely not
| just about pretty images. They might value the mental process,
| the individual's style, progression, techniques, and yes, the
| effort. Someone coming in with generated images expecting to be
| treated the same is to me a bit like commissioning art from
| someone else, and then presenting that as your own. The images
| might be great, but it's not in the spirit of the community.
| There must be tons of "AI" focused communities for that.
|
| I suppose they will eventually fail at resisting this, but
| that's another matter.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| And art using paper rather than doing proper stone carvings.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| All those are segregated...
| shishy wrote:
| I don't think that's really fair... I can see the argument for
| removing AI generated stuff in part because it doesn't require
| technical artistic skill (whereas digital art still does, in
| your ability to observe, draw with perspective, etc.)
| tiborsaas wrote:
| So if I skillfully combine multiple AI generated images it's
| stops being art? What's the difference between someone only
| using that vs. someone taking parts form random images found
| in Google image search? The latter very common among digital
| artists.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| But that can easily lead to a slippery slope since it
| requires more technical skill to make physical art than
| digital (for one, you can't "undo" anything in physical
| world.) Where do we draw the line?
|
| Secondly, it will just become more and more subtle as art
| softwares will subtly repackage such AI tools into their art
| software packaging. I am willing to bet anything Adobe is
| already employed an army already to figure out how to do so.
| How would you tackle that?
| enviclash wrote:
| Very interesting diffusion of a social norm, and probably easy to
| track?
| Axauv wrote:
| When digital effects and CGI began to replace stop-motion monster
| effects in movies, the stop motion artists screamed that art made
| on a computer was not art, and that their industry would be lost.
|
| Nowadays we know better, not only is digital art accepted
| everywhere on earth, it's almost expected, and as for the stop-
| motion folks, they're still in business! Movies still come out
| every year, some of them with huge budgets (like Coraline) that
| use stop-motion because it has a certain look and feel that is
| all its own. AI art will only get better, but so will the ways we
| use it, and the people who are actually ARTISTS will be the
| furthest ahead, and leading the way.
| shagie wrote:
| Jurassic Park was right at the tipping between stop motion and
| CGI. Corridor Crew with John Berton Jr. (
| https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0078237/ )
| https://youtu.be/j8JgN_srwCc?t=921 discuss the change and how
| Phil Tippett ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Tippett ) who
| was the "master of dinosaur animation" changed the industry...
| And the first thing that they did was hire him as the animation
| director and other stop motion artists.
|
| This wasn't a "they were out a job" - it was a they changed how
| they did what they did.
| imranq wrote:
| I agree that images only through AI should be removed from art
| sites.
|
| The issue with AI art is that the only human contribution in
| those pieces is the creation of the prompt and the curation of
| the final image. Without sensory and experiential inputs of its
| own, AI can only interpolate between real images and styles. So
| an AI generated image doesn't add much artistic value since its
| not expressing any new deep truth or factual understanding of the
| real world.
|
| Well isn't all art just a derivative of another piece? The issue
| with that statement is that art is fundamentally a communication
| from a human artist to a human viewer. At the level of AI prompt
| creation and curation, you act more like an art gallery owner
| rather than an artist, which doesn't communicate artistic values
| in the same way as does an original piece derived from the
| experiences, history, and skill of a human artist.
|
| Dall-E 2, Stable Diffusion, should be used for inspiration and
| helping with minor elements of a piece, but someone passing off
| an AI generated image as part of their portfolio is disingenuous
| at best
| Kiro wrote:
| And how do you define artistic value? If you don't even know if
| an image is generated by an AI or not, what is lost?
| adrian_b wrote:
| If you just want a beautiful or intriguing image to look at,
| an AI-generated image may happen to satisfy that need very
| well.
|
| The same need can be satisfied with a photo of some natural
| things, e.g. living beings or minerals or places.
|
| In both cases there is no human to whom one could attribute
| any artistic merit for the content of the images.
|
| Whether an image is beautiful or not is not necessarily
| correlated with the involvement of a human in its creation,
| but its origin should nevertheless always be made clear.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| People who are precious about art will keep defining it away
| from anything that upsets them.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| > any new deep truth
|
| What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth'
| specifically.
|
| > factual understanding of the real world
|
| Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has
| brought.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| "Truth" and "understanding" are both things that have changed
| throughout human history, they are not fixed. Art can be
| something that changes the way you understand the world,
| which would change your idea of what the truth is about
| reality.
|
| I just rewatched Goodfellas the other day. No doubt that film
| brought a deeper understanding for many many people about
| mafia philosophy, history and events, and inspired more
| research (I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after watching
| it, myself). Dali's melting clocks might suggest a new way to
| conceive of time. I only dabble a little in science fiction,
| but my impression is that it has historically inspired plenty
| of scientific and engineering endeavors, including AI
| generated art (and I'm sure there are plenty of dystopians
| out there that may show how it could go wrong). Reading
| literature from everything between the ancients and
| contemporaries, I'm constantly finding things that parallel
| my current interpersonal challenges and give me new insights.
|
| What is "truth" to you?
| zasdffaa wrote:
| FYI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth> "Truth is the
| property of being in accord with fact or reality"
|
| Your post is just a typical arts-based response. Not
| rigorous, sloppy, with "No doubt", "might suggest", "my
| impression is", "interpersonal challenges". It's just a
| sloppy mess that can't be engaged with, quite deliberately.
|
| Edit, if I sound frustrated I am. I'm trying to get a
| better handle on 'art' so I can understand what is there
| and what its _genuinely_ worth to other people. It 's rare
| to get anything other than gloop, from which I'm starting
| to wonder at the bona fides of people who say supportive
| things of art. Generative art is frankly amazing - how much
| input was from artists (any at all?), how much was from
| scientists/mathematicians? (and how much from the
| intersection of the two if that's not empty).
| helloworld11 wrote:
| For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means of
| expression through base materials and sell them as physical
| works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a
| practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art
| will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an
| AI imitating much of that easily any time soon.
|
| The people or organizations to which AI-churned art appeals to
| most desire commercial visual churn. They are the same people who
| would in any case have least cared about art in its more
| creative, communicative forms. And there's nothing creative or
| imaginative about the results of machine-generated visuals.
| They're the very opposite in fact, visuals created literally
| mindlessly.
|
| If anything, I can see AI art giving a new breath of life and
| interest to real man-made art, much like industrial food
| production gave organic "local-grown" food producers a chance to
| brand themselves with a distinct, desirable identity.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I don't know if I agree. One of the big sources of income for
| online artists is commissions of D&D characters and such; AI-
| generated art is now getting good enough that people can get a
| "good-enough" version of what they want for free, instead of
| paying an artist $50 or $100 for a piece of art.
|
| I've commissioned art for my D&D character before, and I'll
| almost certainly do so again - but if I'm playing a one-shot
| online and want a quick image to share with the group, AI-
| generated art is a fast and free way of getting that!
| bheadmaster wrote:
| People have been losing their jobs because of technology ever
| since the industrial revolution, each one of them enraged
| about it, and rightfully so. Society doesn't care about
| people who've put their whole lives into a skill that
| suddenly became worthless (or much less valuable then it
| was).
|
| The solution is not to ban technology (you can't really ban
| technology, as it's not under total government control) - the
| solution is to enable anyone to pursue new skills without
| fear of homelessness and starvation. I.e. Universal Basic
| Income.
| kaibee wrote:
| > the solution is to enable anyone to pursue new skills
| without fear of homelessness and starvation. I.e. Universal
| Basic Income.
|
| Sure but good luck getting that to happen. The same level
| automation has already happened for agriculture and I still
| have to buy my groceries.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| >The people or organizations to which AI-churned art appeals
| to most desire commercial visual churn. They are the same
| people who would in any case have least cared about art in
| its more creative, communicative forms.
|
| I specifically addressed this in my original post. You're
| exactly the kind of person who would possibly like this AI
| technology, and apparently not someone who would have an
| appreciation for art in its artistic, emotionally appealing
| form. Your disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of
| definitions.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical means
| of expression through base materials and sell them as physical
| works, this entire AI art surge remains largely irrelevant in a
| practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants real, physical art
| will still need and want real, physical art, and I don't see an
| AI imitating much of that easily any time soon.
|
| Giclee prints on canvas are already very popular with artists.
| Printing into physical medium is already trivial whether the
| art is produced by human or AI.
|
| See as an example the Epson SureColor S80600 Printer:
|
| https://epson.ca/For-Work/Printers/Large-Format/Epson-SureCo...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TECjOmrlogg
| tern wrote:
| For artists at high levels who print, the print is a part of
| the work and is often done with close to as much care as one
| puts into a painting--fine tuning colors, making small
| details perfect, printing on exotic materials, totally
| messing up the print in certain ways, painting over it,
| layering the print with other things, printing on fabric and
| hanging, stretching, modifying, or destroying the fabric etc
| etc.
|
| Every aspect of making things available to humans becomes a
| medium, from writing code to literally just cleaning
| something to factory production to using "art materials."
|
| Indeed a lot of mid-tier / long-tail work is also just
| straight up prints from the print shop, but OP is talking
| about the bespoke side of the spectrum. At the high end, fine
| art defines "bespoke."
|
| https://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/
| HKH2 wrote:
| > For artists who continue to paint, or use other physical
| means of expression through base materials and sell them as
| physical works, this entire AI art surge remains largely
| irrelevant in a practical sense. A buyer or patron who wants
| real, physical art will still need and want real, physical art,
| and I don't see an AI imitating much of that easily any time
| soon.
|
| I don't think it would be that hard to get a machine to
| physically paint in layers. Sure, the velocity, pressure,
| texture etc. of a brush would take time to model, but you could
| start with spray paint.
| a_shovel wrote:
| Importantly, a physical painting machine isn't gonna be
| something anyone with a beefy GPU can download for free. It
| would pretty much only be useful for factories in Mexico
| making "Henry Rogers"-style mass-produced paintings [0],
| which would be bad news for the impoverished workers
| currently making them, but not for most other painters.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOjTc3F5UB4
| helloworld11 wrote:
| All of you commenting seem to miss the fundamental point that I
| made: People who appreciate art for art's human aspects will
| want HUMAN, emotionally derived art, not a printable piece of
| AI-generated pixel-vomit that can then be mounted and
| varnished. I have nothing against anyone doing this and I
| absolutely don't support banning any technology that lets
| people explore new frontiers of creativity, but I don't see
| even AI-connected devices that can physically paint things
| replacing artists as imaginative human creators of concepts and
| emotional ideas expressed for other humans. To go on about how
| an AI could eventually paint or sculpt and so forth from its
| own algorithms is to miss the point entirely about this
| specific type of creation and the extremely old human desire to
| enjoy it.
|
| Perhaps to be expected from a site so frequented by many people
| who spend their working lives "optimizing" X or Y gimmick for
| major tech giants and viewing other humans largely as simple
| parts of a data gathering landscape.
| dqpb wrote:
| Dall-e can create beautiful images of oil paintings that can be
| printed to canvas, much like original oil paintings are printed
| to canvas.
| gedy wrote:
| Yes, I've been doing just this, then brushing over the canvas
| print with thick varnish, it's quite convincing.
| tern wrote:
| And then what is the story behind the work? Well: an artist
| made someone with DALL-E, printed it, and then printed over
| it to make it convincing.
|
| Now, compare with: "this is an original master work of a
| historically revered artist," just to take _an_ example.
|
| Alternatively, "my friend made this by painstakingly
| carving into a 200 year old block of hardwood taken from
| the Black Forest after the death of their father."
|
| Certainly you can fool people, but what's the point of
| that?
|
| Not to nock it, but things are what they are. Art is
| received as the entire experience of the object. Often a
| simple print is the right thing for the context, but that's
| not what OP is getting at.
| 2Slow wrote:
| Theres no skill in AI art involved and i think skill is part of
| art being art so..
|
| Art is one of those raw human things
| Nursie wrote:
| I make all sorts of interesting stuff with DALL-E
|
| I wouldn't have the temerity to claim it was art, or wholly my
| creation, though.
| wccrawford wrote:
| A lot of people do, though.
|
| And even with more traditional art, a lot of people trace
| something and claim they made it themselves.
|
| However, I do think it's art. Coming up with an idea and then a
| prompt to express that idea, and then curating the results...
| That's artistry. It's not traditional, of course.
|
| And with img2img and in-painting, there's a lot more to
| creating a really good work than just a prompt and curation.
|
| I have no problem calling this art. I'm still struggling with
| the ethics, though. I'm not sure how I really feel about it
| yet.
| [deleted]
| falcolas wrote:
| Individual art communities should be allowed to decide to only
| accept art created by a particular set of tools. Oil. Acrylic.
| Mixed Media. Watercolor. Chalk. Pencil. Digital. Photoshop. AI.
| And so forth.
|
| It's a matter of curation in my mind, not discrimination, and not
| really outrage worthy.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I didn't take the idea that this was shared as an outrage piece
| as much as a point of interest; it's a key point along this
| journey and worth noting with or without judgement.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| That's shortsighted. I'm sure they'll come around. There's
| already been some great demonstrations of artists using ai to
| enhance their visions instead of being just a simple output.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| This will become even more interesting as digital art softwares
| start including "AI brushes" and such that include subtle tweaks
| to the established process. AI generated art made in 40 seconds
| could be banned, but what would happen to the AI assisted works,
| churned out by an artist in 10 minutes instead of 10 hours?
| [deleted]
| hericium wrote:
| The problem I see here is that ML-generated art may be based on
| real art.
|
| While human painter may repeat style of fragments of work of
| other artist as homage, computer software does it more as
| plagiarism.
|
| This isn't much different than issues surrounding Microsoft
| GitHub Copilot.
| Nadya wrote:
| So is most real art. In fact - artists have even created a
| dedicated terms to this kind of plagiarism: "style study" or
| even "reference". You can look for this term on YouTube and
| find a nearly endless result of artists basing art off of the
| style of other artists. [0]
|
| It is 100% legal for me to blatantly copy the artistic style of
| Ilya Kuvshinov. I could even sell such work as my own - because
| it would be. I'd be seen as a derivative or knock-off artist
| but it can be done. As far as I can tell the real issue is that
| the AI does it far better - and much faster - than people can.
| Creating heavily derivative works that, if nonfamiliar with
| Kuvshinov's work, could possibly be mistaken as being theirs.
|
| That the AI has learned that artist signatures/watermarks are a
| "feature" of some artwork and so sometimes adds its own has
| only reinforced people's mistaken belief that it is _stealing_
| art when that simply isn 't how neural networks like this work
| at all.
|
| Speaking of - how many people doing style studies of Ilya's
| work reached out for permission first? I'd wager zero. Because
| that isn't a thing artists tend to reach out and ask for
| permission to do. So why should an AI be expected to ask
| permission first?
|
| [0] Quite literally only to illustrate my point.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrvZTeLP96E
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DadJAu0Ogs
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gc8DhwMZDKU
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RSCK-Tn0
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPWOy7NxYho
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nc--w5NfCM
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0K3F9al2Js
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5l8y1HZ1zc
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDRS9im1q4s
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4zBoHcIo4mc
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cXa9WxFVQ
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDhtkWRY9qk
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Interesting! I haven't really seen this discussed elsewhere.
| Kiro wrote:
| And neither would constitute as plagiarism by the legal
| definition of it. Yes, it's a problem that they are trained on
| material without consent but what they produce is something
| totally new and not even close to plagiarism.
| nottorp wrote:
| > what they produce is something totally new
|
| It is? I may be cursed with a good memory but absolutely no
| "AI art" that my friends passed on to me looked original. In
| some cases it was painfully obvious what it's based on, in
| other cases it just felt like i've seen it before.
|
| Legal it may be (although there will be conflicts about
| machine generated derivative works) but it's also boring.
|
| People are just enthusiastic because it's "do it with a
| computer". If a young human artist came up with this stuff
| you'd tell them they're good technically but now they need to
| develop their own personality.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| It is more than capable of producing stuff that isn't even
| in its dataset as the original DALLE paper shows.
|
| Inference takes 4 seconds on an A100, I'd say that makes it
| useful for a wide range of applications that weren't even
| possible before.
|
| I do agree that the outputs will lack a sense of
| communication with the viewer that art has.
| Ukv wrote:
| > In some cases it was painfully obvious what it's based on
|
| Do you have an example of this?
|
| Ideally with a link (for DALL-E 2/Midjourney) or prompt and
| seed (for Stable Diffusion) to show that it was generated
| from an incidental prompt - as opposed to uploading the
| existing image and just using the AI for inpainting/fine-
| tuning.
| ElCheapo wrote:
| It should simply be a new "hey guys, look at this cool prompt I
| came up with" category. Using AI for easy upvotes, unwarranted
| clout or spam should be banned.
| andrewdubinsky wrote:
| This is exactly the sort of behavior the robots will point to
| when they rise up.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| > generator was uploading one image every 40 seconds before it
| was banned
|
| > not have the Art Portal flooded with computer-generated art
|
| That was the real problem.
| eezurr wrote:
| I was looking for this reply. Imagine if you needed to hire an
| artist but 9/10 listings are from alibaba express, full of fake
| reviews (other nonartist techies commenting on ai art)
|
| Or maybe because this is where artists place their portfolios
| and theres no reason to make ot that much harder to find.
| throw101010 wrote:
| Then why do they pretend to ban a specific art type?
|
| I could have generated variations of a human created digital
| piece in less time than these AI (currently) since the creation
| of this platform but they didn't seem to feel threatened by
| this up until now... so there is clearly an other problem.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| > I could have generated variations of a human created
| digital piece in less time than these AI
|
| Seems dubious that you could achieve over 2000 upload each
| day, without stopping.
| swayvil wrote:
| You can say that AI art is bad. But you can also say that normal
| people have bad taste. So the two meet in the middle and the
| normal art-consumer is satisfied with his junk.
|
| It's like fast food and normal people. Everybody knows it's crap
| but they eat the stuff by the megaton.
|
| The argument againt AI art is an argument against popular
| markets, basically.
| [deleted]
| jorl17 wrote:
| I don't oppose AI-generated images in the slightest. I love them
| and I genuinely think they will be a very important part of our
| future. Effectively, it will take more effort to make a living as
| an artist, especially a mediocre one, because AI is now a decent
| mediocre artist. It's a stupendous artist for some prompts, too.
|
| However, I can understand that if I can just spit out image after
| image, there must be a way to "limit" my submission of these
| images. In that sense, I "get" banning AI-generated images, as a
| way to stop spam.
| bgro wrote:
| I'm in some Discord chats for various things, and they often
| have a channel where people can post their artwork. Often,
| people spend weeks or months on a piece of fan art that's
| related to the Discord topic, or they draw a picture of the
| "leaders" for fun.
|
| Lately it's been just getting drowned out by people posting
| ridiculous AI art where they try to get absurd results. It was
| interesting and fun at first, but after seeing probably as low
| as 20 of these images I can tell they're all a similar sort of
| thing.
|
| I feel bad for people posting their art getting drowned out by
| this, and these aren't even remotely art related groups.
| parrellel wrote:
| How do you deal with the chatbot problem in visual media. It's
| still Eliza, but without the obviousness of text, how can you
| tell its just Eliza?
|
| I wonder if their will be a similar evolution in art circles as
| in chat. What questions and answers about the composition will
| out the AI generated pieces as mechanical in nature, or if our
| ability to parse images is different enough from our ability to
| comprehend speech and text, that it will legitimately be
| impossible to suss out.
|
| The big problem right now is just sheer volume. Just piles of
| auto-generated crap burying months of work. That definitely needs
| to stop, rate limiting or banning seems an appropriate way to
| deal with the misbehavior.
| hackernewds wrote:
| "The candle makers protested the distribution of lightbulbs"
|
| "The horse stables protested the building of parking lots"
|
| "The taxi drivers protested the proliferation of Uber"
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Aside from the debates about "artistic merit" and the ethics of
| using AI trained on existing artists' work, one of the key things
| is that this new technology allows anyone to _flood_ a place with
| images.
|
| There are some scifi-themed subreddits that I visit that allow
| posting art, and at this point it feels like 50% of all
| submissions are Midjourney/Dall-E generated art. Fine, it looks
| ok, but there's such a low barrier to creating and posting these,
| it's beginning to drown out other valuable content. The article
| even speaks about this:
|
| > _In July, one AI furry porn generator was uploading one image
| every 40 seconds_
| Axauv wrote:
| This could be solved on basically all arti communities by
| simply putting in a post limit per day. Say an artist can only
| upload 5 images per day or something, why would someone need to
| upload more than that?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Say an artist can only upload 5 images per day or
| something, why would someone need to upload more than that?
|
| There's been more than a few days when I've uploaded more
| than 5 images a day to flickr/Instagram (according to my
| backup, I uploaded 27 images to Instagram on 2007-02-04
| during a day-long walk.)
| asddubs wrote:
| because they're migrating there from another platform
| mring33621 wrote:
| I think the AI generated art, even at this early stage, is pretty
| good and have no problem with people submitting it to contests
| and/or selling it.
|
| Also, as a sometime painter, I would view AI generated art as a
| great and fun source of inspiration. I'd pick some generated
| pieces that I like, combine parts from this and that and make it
| my own.
|
| This stuff may open more doors than it closes, IMHO.
| _greim_ wrote:
| AI art is striking at first glance, but devoid of meaning once
| you really try to engage with it. It's the meaning people want,
| but an image's visual impact has been a reasonably cheap
| heuristic for finding it. The viability of this heuristic is now
| dead or rapidly dying, and AI generated art is degenerating into
| yet another form of spam. Relatedly, feeds full of visually-
| striking images, once impressive, are taking on a "spammy" tinge.
| New, harder-to-fake signals will be found, and social media will
| reorganize around whatever those end up being.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I'm personally very happy about it. To me, art is just
| pleasant, it's a matter of degree. Meaning is nice and all, but
| not necessary. And with this new way of generating art, people
| can have beautiful art, cheaply and as much as they want. No
| more cheap Target art everywhere. It's the replicator of art,
| nice, beautiful art is now post scarcity and I love it.
| sn0w_monkie wrote:
| I'm not surprised more and more art communities are banning AI
| images, 99% of them are dull and ugly. Definitely not something I
| would print out and hang on my wall. I tried playing around with
| these models, but I was too bored to bother futzing around with
| prompts to try and make something I liked.
|
| But I have seen some cool things made using these models by
| creators who put more effort in than just writing a prompt to get
| back an image. I can definitely see how these tools can enhance
| human creativity but like most art the results are just bad.
|
| At least with some human art even if it's not aesthetically
| pleasing you can appreciate the thinking or time and effort put
| into producing a piece of work. When you go to an art museum you
| can learn about history, politics, culture etc even if you don't
| appreciate how something might look.
|
| Most AI art, however, is useless and ugly.
| cma wrote:
| > I would print out and hang on my wall
|
| Printing things was at one point thought to devalue art and
| remove artist jobs.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| I hope those "mouse wars" improve emptiness in digital art. Sure,
| AI can generate beautiful images. But art is beyond this.
|
| What the heck is furry art anyway?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-12 23:01 UTC)