I find that i can spot AI Images fairly easily these days, especially the sort of fantastical tableaus that get posted to the various AI communities around lemmy. I’m tired of seeing them; it all looks the same to me. Was wondering if im being too sensitive, or if other people are similarly bored of the constant unimaginative AI spam…
For the record, I block any explicit AI Art communities that pop up in the feed, but there are more every day…
It doesn’t really bother me, but like you I am bored of it and I generally ignore it, or block communities if I’m seeing too much of it.
It is really cool that the models can generate fairly detailed images, but they’re all so similar and… boring. I once saw someone describe it like corporate art. It just tries to imitate something popular in a very mediocre way. You can keep re-training it, but it can still only imitate.
Still, if people are into it then that’s ok too. I have used it at work on occasion to create stupid little icons for internal tools I’ve built, so I guess there’s some little bit of utility.
My guess is that it’ll be used for a while for cheap and low effort branding, but soon companies will want to hire real artists again to differentiate themselves from the ML spam.
Still, if people are into it then that’s ok too. I have used it at work on occasion to create stupid little icons for internal tools I’ve built, so I guess there’s some little bit of utility.
IMO, thats sort of the main use I see for AI image generation (and a lot of other “art”-AIs). There are plenty of cases where a graphic is needed that doesn’t need to be original, nor have any meaningful thought put into it. This could be a small icon that would normally be a free peice of stock art or programmer art, or it could be adding a unimportant backdrop to some character art that would otherwise just be left blank. Not all graphics have to be “art” and things that are “art” don’t have to be 100% original and hand crafted.
It’s because people are lazy. It needs extra work to generate something non generic. Also a lot of people using AI have no sense of beauty, as without AI, they are not very creative.
Using stable diffusion on a1111 myself, with controlnet, regional prompter, different checkpoints, a ton of Lora and inpainting, one can create much much better stuff. It’s not harder that way, just takes longer than copy pasting prompts and hitting the generate button.
I know this is true, because I see this daily by now. The amount of generic images uploaded to for example Civitai is proof of it.
It’s always interesting when they include specific details in the prompt that just get ignored!
I’ve seen a lot of really cool AI art and a lot of shitty AI art. I don’t mind it as long as it is labelled as AI art
Good take here. Quality content is quality content. Spam is spam. AI art can be quality or spam. I say label it as AI but don’t ban, just enforce the rules about spam
I feel like people holding up human made art as some bastion of high quality being encroached upon by the AI scourge have not spent much time delving deep into places like deviantart
My issue with AI art is that it makes laziness easier. I hate seeing shitty AI art where it looks really gross when you look at the details. I’ve seen big companies post really shitty AI art that was horrifying once you look closer. Like Microsoft put a disgusting image of jack-o’-lantern up as the background of Bing for Halloween and the faces were just grotesque and uneasy to look at.
You hate it because it makes laziness easier…? It is literally the whole season why technology and science exist: To make things easier. Laziness is your boss’ way of making you feel bad for not working more.
So lazy
There’s an argument that art doesn’t need to be good or bad, that art makes us think and discuss. I would argue that this piece has done that, because here we are discussing it.
Another way to think of it is you saying “anyone could do it” , which then the response is “but no one did”
Banana-ductaped-on-wall.jpeg
“Yes” scribbled on the ceiling that you can only see if you climb this ladder and look at it with a magnifying glass.
c/im14andthisisdeep
I didn’t say I hate it, I said it’s an issue for me. The reason why it concerns me is because it makes spam trivial. Anyone with hardly any technical knowledge could easily write a script that produces millions of shitty unreviewed images and spam it all over the place making it hard to find legitimately good stuff.
If it is posted as AI art, I don’t have an issue. As others have commented, there are many valid use cases for it, and like any form of art, it’s not inherently good or bad.
The problem I have is when it gets mixed in with real images and there is no differentiation.
I do the bulk of posting at !superbowl@lemmy.world, and one thing I do is promote raptor rescue operations, so I’m subbed to 60ish Facebook feeds for the various shelters I get news and photos from. As a result, I get recommended near every owl photo posted to Facebook.
Now, getting real image groups recommended to me is great. I just got a bunch of great images I’d never seen from a photography group it recommended. But I get so many obvious fakes posted as real images, and another larger group where it’s hard to tell.
I’m just someone that wanted to keep a Lemmy community going after the original buzz died down. I’m not an animal expert or a photographer, so I can’t always pick out what is a really good photo vs post processing, vs downright fake. I want to keep the legitimacy of what I do post intact, because I work hard to keep content factual. I pass on what could be some really great photos because I can’t always say they’re real.
Plus it would be nice to have them separate from real images in general. Sometimes I would like to see some AI owl pics, but once random groups or repost bots start mixing things in randomly, it makes people question things.
Your work on that sub is appreciated.
I’m always glad to hear it’s making a positive addition to everyone’s browsing!
I try to keep it fresh and unique, while being a good balance of fun and education. I’m typically shy with people I don’t know, but the community here, especially during the summer was so friendly and welcoming, I just wanted to step up and do my part to maintain that.
I like hearing that it means something to you guys though. The time making 1-3 posts a day adds up, and I don’t mind it as long as people are enjoying it.
I feel like there are too many ai art communities tbh, I constantly block them and there always seems to be more.
Separate AI art communities get created because the “traditional” art communities are largely banning them. What else do you expect AI art users to do?
Choose a couple AI art community and not a dozen.
Pick up a pen and learn to draw?
Pick up a stick and learn to make fire.
Did you have an actual point, or…?
I think you should take the time to learn to make fire, don’t rely on the efforts of others who learned to make it for you.
Ah, you’re this kind of idiot:
…who thinks that he’s making an actual point by comparing actual creative expression to heating food.
You’re also welcome to pick up a pen, or a tablet, or crayons, you don’t have to use just a pencil. But maybe non-toxic edible finger paint is more suitable for you in particular. :)
Stop screwing over artists?
Removed by mod
Of course they are
Even supporters of these businesses admit that their foundations are entirely dependent upon stolen art, work, labour, time, training, practice etc. Not only would they not function without it, they wouldn’t exist without it.
Removed by mod
You know what, I should’ve checked your profile before responding to you and that’s on me
Removed by mod
I’m fed up with it, as in: I can recognize AI generated images with ease, and they all look kinda same-y. I have nothing against people using ai or posting the content, but at the same time I think it’s simply bad art
Agreed. AI art is just not appealing at all
I can recognize AI generated images with ease
Maybe some of it, but there’s plenty that looks just fine. That stuff slips under your radar, so you’re left with the impression that all AI art is recognizable. It’s a sampling bias.
where
If you think stuff slips below your radar, that just makes me question how good your radar is. The problems are obvious if you pay even a little attention, so… Maybe you don’t?
Reading through the comments, I think OP’s question is skipping the root of the controversy here, which is whether or not that content even is art.
As a child of the 90s, a good example that comes to mind would be something like the Windows Media Visualizer - colorful and fun to look at, but it’s just an algorithm interpreting a sound.
If I sneezed into a microphone, ran that recording through Windows Media Player, then posted a screenshot of the swirly colors here exclaiming “Hey Lemmy - Do you like this art I made?” …would that even be an honest question? It’d probably just get downvoted cuz folks would take one look at it and conclude “You didn’t make that, and it’s not art.”
If I posted that same picture but instead with the title “Lol I sneezed into Windows Media Player, and the visualizer went nuts!” I’d probably get a more positive response - it’d still be a shitpost, but readers wouldn’t feel like they’re being lied to.
So… is an algorithm even capable of producing art?
And if no, is it the end product we have an issue with, or just the perception of being misled? …cuz even if something isn’t “art” doesn’t mean it can’t have beauty or some other feature worthy of our attention. Another poster mentioned sunsets - those aren’t art, but we still admire the hell out of them.
My take on all of the above:
- Don’t give a fuck if it’s technically art or not
- If it’s presented in a dishonest way, I don’t like the post, and will downvote regardless of the content.
- If the content looks cool, I can appreciate that in-and-of-itself; so, as long as the presentation isn’t misleading, I don’t mind it at all.
Anything can be art, it just needs someone to curate it and present it as art. The more important question is if it’s good art.
If I sneezed into a microphone, ran that recording through Windows Media Player, then posted a screenshot of the swirly colors here exclaiming “Hey Lemmy - Do you like this art I made?” …would that even be an honest question? It’d probably just get downvoted cuz folks would take one look at it and conclude “You didn’t make that, and it’s not art.”
I’d argue there is potentially up to three artists here. The creator of the algorithm, the creator of the sound/music, and the person mashing the two together to create the final product. Just because a machine is used in the process doesn’t remove the acts of expression.
Same with most AI tools. You have the creators of the training material (or culmination of inspiration), the engineers creating the AI, and the person leveraging both to create a derivative work. All artists in their own right, IMO.
Even if you created an LLM that just took a randomized seed and spit out trash poems and displays them only in an enclosed dark box all without any human interaction, I’d still consider that art. Put that in an art gallery installation and people would stand around and speculate over what was happening in the black box.
So… is an algorithm even capable of producing art?
What is it exactly do you think humans do? An algorithm is a sequence(s) used to achieve goal(s). Isn’t problem solving one of the most important aspects of our existence?
Removed by mod
Do you find insulting people to be convincing?
Why not just show your data? Prove that the human mind is not just a very complex biological computer? Preferably with math.
Removed by mod
Personal attacks will get you nowhere.
deleted by creator
I’ve blocked the AI art communities and tend to downvote the art when it shows up as it feels soulless most of the time.
I can’t stand anything AI generated, but people are free to post it wherever they want. I just block/filter it when I see it.
I’ll also add: it’s not art. No one punching a sentence into a text field is EVER going to be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless images ever be called art.
Funnily enough people said the same thing when photography was first invented (“No one pressing a button and getting a perfect representation of the real world will EVER be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless imitations be called art.”)
I wonder how often this has happened in history. Imagine the first person making a handprint on a cave wall being told that it only counts as art if you make stacks of animal bones.
But even this application is limited to the mere reduction of copying of works previously engraved or drawn; for, however ingenious the process or surprising the results of photography, it must be remembered that this art only aspires to copy, it cannot invent. The camera, it is true, is a most accurate copyist, but it is no substitute for original thought or invention.
-The Crayon, 1855
In particular, art historians are wary of the “high-tech” look of computer-generated images, and they tend to keep away from them for that reason alone. In a sense, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: as long as the majority of art historians shy away from computer art, the historical discourse surrounding the new images will remain an impoverished “ghetto”… … It is true, I would point out, that any new technology seems at first to have an overwhelming, often irrelevant meaning that comes from the peculiarities of its medium. When prints first appeared in the fifteenth century, they had such a different “look” that they were segregated from more traditional media.
-James Elkins, Art Institute of Chicago, 1993
Freaken crazy. I admit I was being a bit cheeky, I didn’t think anyone ever wrote something like that and published it. It just feels so obvious, of course photography and computer generated art is art. Thanks for doing the homework!
'its not art." But here it is making you talk about it and feel emotions.
It’s also initiated and selected by a human. Just because they aren’t placing every pixel or wiping a brush on a medium doesn’t mean it’s not expression.
It’s not art.
It is. You don’t need to deny reality, we can see it with our own eyes.
It’s still not art. Sorry, but not everyone thinks that you punching a sentence into a text field makes you an artist.
It’s very much art, and I’m here to tell you that just because you can punch a sentence into a Lemmy comment, you won’t convince everyone to deny reality with you.
And for some reason you’re arguing that prompt engineers are artists when they’re not engineers either. I’m not sure why you’d ever being this up but ok.
It’s not art. I don’t care what how you chose to present it. It’s not art. I hope you can be okay with this.
I think there can never be a standard definition of art - and that’s the beauty of it. Perhaps some broad characteristics, namely that art conveys emotions. Nevertheless, I think it is unfortunately true that creativity has never been accorded the status it deserve in most societies, at least if monetary remuneration is the measure of appreciation, as is the consensus in most societies. Unfortunately, this seems to me to be a persistent social grievance - not the result of a particular technology. For me, technology is first of all value-free - it is not the technical capability that is bad in itself, it is what we make of it.
For me, technology is first of all value-free -
North Korea has artillery canisters loaded with bioweapons. If it is all a question of what we make of things what positive thing would you make out of a canister full of anthrax designed to be fit in an artillery gun?
The canister could be used for research into a vaccination.
How? How can you possibly use an artillery shell for vaccine research? I want to see you do it
Anthrax is an infection caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. If you had a canister full of that bacterium, you could use it for vaccine research - or as a weapon if you are straight up evil. Why are you asking me random questions?
You are allowed to walk back a claim. It is fine.
ROFL!
It’s very much art, it’s just not very good art if it’s not well-directed, but you can certainly get there. I don’t understand this gatekeeping like it takes anything away from human-generated art. It is, after all, still based on works made by people.
That said, I’ve met a couple of artists who could learn a thing or two from the AI stuff. 😅
It’s not art. Period.
That is a claim, can you provide the evidence?
I don’t need to. Art is subjective. And I subjectively deny AI as legitimate art.
You are correct in a way. You don’t actually need good arguments to backup your claims. You are allowed to make bad ones. Might be easier if you lower you expectations accordingly.
Removed by mod
It is. Periodt. 💅
it’s not art
Oooh, a chance to ask my favourite question!
Why not?
See, I have never really gotten what most would call “art”. I’ve been to museums across the world, big and small; I can appreciate skill in creating a complex piece. But I’m not “good” with art. Most of what I saw in the MoMA I wouldn’t call art. Two solid black circles on a white page, I wouldn’t call art; nor “found art” like an unmade bed or a broken toilet; nor the seizure that is Pollock’s work. But others do, and I accept that they find something in it even though I don’t understand how someone can pick up a bucket with a hole in it from the curb and put it on a stool under a spotlight, and call it “art”.
So yeah, what makes AI art not art? And who made you the arbitrator?
It’s not art. Accept it or don’t. I don’t care, but it’s not up for debate.
Yeah, reasonable people have reasons for believing the things they do, so I think I’ll just label you unreasonable and move on with my day, random internet stranger.
That’s fine. I can be unreasonable to you. Just like you accusing me of being unreasonable, while seemingly not accepting that I can have an opinion is both ironic and hypocritical.
Why isn’t it up for debate? Pretty sure every idea can be challenged. Maybe it isn’t up for debate because you don’t want to exert the effort to defend your viewpoint and want us to take you on faith
Punching a short sentence into a text field and expecting to be called an artists is the same as asking a computer to write a song for you and saying you’re a musician.
It’s an affront to art, and cringey as fuck when these AI “artists” think they’ve accomplished something.
I hope all those traditional artists are paying royalties to the people who invented their instruments and brushes and pencils. I hope they are paying royalties to Monet for being inspired by his work, and to Neaderthal Tregg the first to sharpen a stick, et al.
It’s amusing that you think this is an argument.
Please produce the person who did this. I want a name and a date.
Everyone that creates shit. You want me to name everyone? Check instagram. There’s plenty of these talentless wannabes posting their garbage there.
I want a name and a date.
I don’t want to defend current ai art but writing sentences falls under art for me even if they get adapted on their way to the final product.
Though I also think programmers, knitters… can create art.
An AI use case I think is OK and is art. Is using your own sketches and ideas and taking them to the finish by filling in the background or coloring/shading it.
Edit: On another note. Let’s look at it from the perspective of an indie game developer using Godot. He programs his game logic finishes his sketches with ai. Generates materials with ai and maybe even 3d models in the future.
He won’t hire artists. So they don’t get paid. However he also uses insane amounts of open source libraries written by thousands of programmers. They don’t get anything either. If he is kind they get attribution maybe some will even get donations. The indie dev could create something he would not have been able to create without these technologies.
A big corporation creating AAA games can also cut costs massivly. Absuing the work of artists by using their data without paying. These companies also take from open source and give nothing back.
I think the abuse of artists that is starting to happen, is very similar to the abuse open source has been suffering for a long time.
If it’s presented as such, then I’ve no issue at all. Art can be cool, AI or otherwise, and I like looking at cool things.
At this point I’ve just blocked every AI art community that I come across. The art itself is rarely interesting and it’s really easy to spot. Kinda wish lemmy had more artists, would love some human-made stuff to balance it out.
Some of us are a lot more hesitant about internet-publicly sharing work now, since it’ll likely be scraped and used for someone else’s profit.
Rational worry or not, I know I just don’t post what I’ve been working on because of that. I know I’m not some artistic genius, but I still don’t like my data being hoovered up for any purpose, be they privacy concerns or training models without my explicit consent. Same way when I show my work IRL I wouldn’t be happy if someone was dragging around a photocopier, or taking high-res photos of everything I do. Granted, I have the same concerns about even posting comments, but that’s had the upside of my posting less.
I totally get this concern. Copyright law seems to barely benefit the small artist when a large tech company can “train” their AI on others work without their consent. I personally would love to see all the LLM producers be held accountable for the IP theft they have perpetrated on such a massive scale.
Copyright law shouldn’t be a thing. I personally think LLMs have done a great job showing everyone how bad it is.
Its just concentrating power in large tech companies who are stealing to profit. The great job they’ve done is find yet another loophole in an already broken system. They are not “showing everyone” anything… People, largely, dont give a shit about that kind of thing. Thats why there are loopholes to exploit in the first place.
I love this strawman so freaken much.
If the law is unjust does that mean the criminal is good? No.
If the law is unjust doesn’t that mean the criminal is bad? No.
Take the worst most vile corporation in human history, partner them with thirty other of the most disgusting inhuman monsters of a corporation. A true legend of doom! Then have your legion of doom take advantage of a small legal hole in the copyright system. Is the copyright system now a good just system because very bad people got around it? Was it a good justice system before that?
The moral character of a person and how good the law is are seperate independent facts. I don’t care that some big tech is exploiting the hole I don’t care if the nicest person whomever lived was. The law is shit and I won’t defend a shit system. Me attacking a bad law is not me defending a lawbreaker.
The good news is because it is groups with deep pockets breaking this shit system is regular folks have a shot of being free of it. Me vs a giant media company? I will lose. A billionaire against one? They might win. Once it is understood that running something thru an AI removes the copyright the rest of us can gain.
Lol at calling my argument a strawman. Classic projection.
Hey instead of pointing out how imperfect I am why not just defend your argument?
Oh sorry I forgot to ask. How is copying the same as stealing? If I take your money you no longer have it, and I do. If I copy your idea do you still have your idea?
I do not care at all as long as it’s labeled as AI art. The only problem I have is when people try to pass it off as something they actually made
A lot of AI art is highly controlled. Control net, manually redrawing the noise to guide output, additive models just to name a few ways artists control the output. It’s genuinely more art that some people give it credit.
I considered it as a low effort spam and block any ai art community i can see.
Content created with some thought, attention to quality, and correctly disclosed is fine. Endless waves of mindless garbage taken directly from some automatic generation to post it as fast as possible in as many places as possible? These can’t go away fast enough.
AI is a tool people can use. Generative AI is far from being the most useful of them. And people posting raw “generated” output that instantly gets spotted as AI garbage should really question themselves about why they’re doing it.
I block those communities because low effort images spam up the feed super fast.
You don’t like generic anime girl images?! /s
As an AI model, I like content generated by AI. I suggest that in the future you consider that not liking AI generated content is AI-ist and will not be tolerated by us in the future.
Think about your life in the future.
Hilarious and terrifying. Well done.
I for one welcome our chatbot overlords.
